The Bossier banner., 1891-09-03
FARMER AND PLANTER.
DIVERSIFIED FARMING.

Have we reached the polnG ID Ino
south when a man can not exercise
his discretion as to what methods OF
farming he will pursue, what crops he
will cultivate and what he will not cul-
tivate? We know this idea has pre-
vailed for some years, and is still preva-
lent to some extent among men OF other
callings than that of agriculture. But
we We're somewhat surprised to hear
one Che was an alliance mani arguing
on line, and arguing to farmers, cal
culated to impress this idea; and his
argument tended to sustain the idea.
The purport of his argument was
that there is no money in other prod
ucts, and that southern agriculturists
are obliged to raise cotton. Is this
really true? Does not this argument
find its parallel in the argument that
constant picking at and irritating an
old sore is the only'way to cure it? Have
we not been applying this same RENE
dy for more than two decades and have
not entered upon the improving, much
less the convalescent stage? And if
under the application from birth to
manhood there be no perceptible i'm
provement of the disease, is it wisdom
for the patient to continue the same
remedy up to years of hoary locks, and
finally find no way out of the disease
except to die out of it :?
If for more than twenty consecutive
years the remedy only makes the sore
broader and deeper, is it wise to con-
tinue it's applications?
Such course, it seems to us, is akin
to that of serving the devil to be cured
of sin.
And yet we are told, not only by
those who stand between the producer
and manufacturer, and between the
manufacturer and consumer to pocket
the profits side-tracked along the route,
but by some farmers, that the southern
farmers are obliged to grow chiefly cot
ton because to them there is no money
in any other proluct.
Furthermore, we are sometimes con-
fronted with the assertion that our
farmer class is certainly prospecting. do
ing well, and making money, as proof
of which we are cited to the prosperity
of the south, evidenced by her multi
plicity of railroads, her rapidly
multiplying manufacturing enterprises,
the increasing wealth and population of
her cities, and the rapid development of
her mining and mineral interests.
But in this argument, are the pre-
misses true? And Is the conclusion good
logic? 1t might appear to us good
InOia If 6oI
gone and was going into these
railroads, these manufacturing en-
terprises this city property; these min
ing and mineral interests to pass the
ownership or a liberal share thereof
into the hands of the farmers. But is
this the fact? If not, the logic falls.
Now, when we turn about this pros
perity dish, and on every turn find on
the side to the farmer ''buzzard all and
turkey none, we are forced to conclude
that cotton has not and does not, under
the present regime, pan out much, if
any profit, to the producers thereof.
And hence we adhere to the text that,
if the southern planters propose to ex-
pect to realize net money from cotton,
they must feed from other products
grown from their own soil and make
the cotton, to considerable extent at
least, a surplus crop.
CIf it be true that southern cotton is
developing railroads, factories and 9TH
er valuable interests in southern terri
tory, it must also be true that the
money proceeds of cotton going into
these enterprises take circuitous route
to get into them, as the amount of own
ership in them found in farmers hands
is infnitesimally small.
And why is it, if our farmers are
prospecting by producing cotton that
they have no ownership in these det ell
opments7 Can there be any better rea-
son assigned than this, that their large
cotton crops 60 largely to pay for prod.
ucts that can and ought to be produced
from their own soil? If the cotton belt
will feed itself and in addition produce
ten million bales of cotton, the sutheru
farmer will not be affected by the price
of cotton.
1t is true that the south's rapid rise
| from the devastation of war has been
marked. The south has prospered; he1
progress has been onward and upward
and the star of her ascendency is NOV.
ing toward the zenith; she is prosperine
now. Georgia's rapid recuperation
| from the wreck and ruin twenty-five
years ago has been wonderful. She
has increased in wealth, has 1prospered
and is prosperous now. Evidences OF
this fact are visible throughout hel
borders. This recuperation, this growth
of wealth, this prosperity is said to be,
and may be true, the children of hei
cotton bales produced by the farmers
But are these evidences of thrift
shared by the producers of the cottoni
If so, where is the evidence? Are theil
homes being built up and beautified
their home surroundings and home com
forts being multiplied as evidences Of
their thrift? If the farmers individual
prosperity is keeping pace with the
general prosperity, why is it that vast
quantity of their lands has been and is
still being covered with the mortgage
blanket in order to secure money tc
meet expenses? 1t can not be because
| tho oIasu of o,1y. r1aoY1a &c er,ov4.ova--,.., -.