Negro Farm Ownership in the South
Author(s): James S. Fisher
Reviewed work(s):
Source: Annals of the Association of American Geographers, Vol. 63, No. 4 (Dec., 1973), pp.
478-489
Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. on behalf of the Association of American Geographers
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2562054 .
Accessed: 15/02/2012 12:38
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
Taylor & Francis, Ltd. and Association of American Geographers are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to Annals of the Association of American Geographers.
http://www.jstor.org
NEGRO FARM OWNERSHIP IN THE SOUTH
JAMES S. FISHER
T
ABSTRACT. Rural Negroes achieved farm ownershipin the southernUnited
StatesaftertheCivil War. The numberof Negro farmownershas declinedsubstantiallyfroma peak of morethan200,000 aroundWorldWar I, yettheyremainsigin some areas. The smallsize of Negrofarms,and thelimitedcapitalof their
nificant
Many of these landholdingsnow have
owners,will make theirsurvivaldifficult.
KEY WORDS: Agriculture,
Negroes,
greatersocial value than economicsignificance.
Ownershipof land,SouthernUnitedStates.
HE Negrohas participatedin Americanag- gap between rural whites and nonwhitesis
The persistenceof a largeruralblack
ricultureas slave, as tenant,and more re- widening.2
a population,and thefailureto improveits sociocently,as cash wage hand.He has contributed
wealthof labor,mostoftenas a landlesspeasant, economic conditionduringthe past two decbut as farmownerhe has also been a partof the ades, suggesta high probabilityof increasing
ofproblemsformanyruralareas. These
rural South for many decades. Nearly twenty- severity
hopelessforthe Negro,will only confarm
if
nonwhite
of
all
areas,
five percent (218,467)
as "seedbeds" for the cities.
operatorswere classifiedas ownersin 1910 by tinue functioning
forblacks in
theBureau of Census. The numberof nonwhite Serious attentionto opportunities
owners has decreased greatlysince that peak ruralareas is essential.
A residual rural black populationwith low
year,but not nearlyas rapidlyas thenumberof.
tenants,and in 1969 more than eightypercent education levels and limitedskills will inherit
of all nonwhitefarmoperatorswere classed as the low payingand low statusfarmlabor jobs,
related.In our
or thosewhichare agriculturally
owners(Table 1).
Negro farm land ownershiphas been con- societythese jobs have not meant stabilityor
finedmainlyto theSouth,and withintheSouth, security.Meaningful opportunitiesfor rural
to those areas where Negroes have accounted blacks can onlyexistforthosewithsome direct
fora largeproportionof the totalruralpopula- control of the basic rural resource-land. In
tion. Negroesbegan acquiringland almostim- the South traditionaltenancyis dead, or little
in a fewplaces, and
mediatelyafterthe Civil War. The numberof morethana relicinstitution
for the tenant.
land
of
control
meant
1910
it
never
ownersand theiracreage increaseduntil
or 1920, and subsequentlydeclined. The de- Meaningfulparticipationin agriculturein the
velopmentof a black landowningclass was Southwill onlybe forlandownersand/orthose
originallyrestrainedby economic and social withcapitaland organizationalability.Few Nethose
forces,and laterdisruptedby new forceswhich groeshave theseadvantages.Nevertheless,
to
studied
be
should
land
do
own
who
likeThe
Negroes
in
the
South.
have encouragedchange
lihood of a large black landowningclass in the determinethesocial and economicsignificances
rural South was never great,and its very ex- of such land, and whetheror not thatland may
istenceis becomingeven moreunlikely.Despite providesome hope of satisfactionand stability
thatfact,those ruralblack landownerswho do forthe owners.The factthatNegro landowners
remaindeserveconsideration.
have resistedmigrationmore than tenantsand
Beale predictedthatthe ruralNegro popula- cash wage hands does not ensuretheirsurvival.
tion will not drop below 4,500,000, and may
WilltheNegrofarmownerbe able to participate
beginto increaseby 1975.1 The socioeconomic
way?
in a meaningful
in Americanagriculture
Accepted for publication 14 June 1973.
Dr. Fisher is Assistant Professor of Geography at the
Universityof Georgia in Athens, GA 30601.
I C. L. Beale, "The Negro in American Agriculture," in J. P. Davis, ed., The American Negro Refer-
ence Book (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall,Inc.,
1966), pp. 203-04.
2J. D. Cowhig and C. L. Beale, "Socioeconomic
BetweenWhiteand NonwhiteFarm PopDifferences
ulationsin theSouth,"Social Forces,Vol. 42 (1964),
pp. 354-62.
ANNALS OF THE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN GEOGRAPHERS Vol. 63, No. 4, December 1973
C 1973 by the Associationof AmericanGeographers. Printedin U.S.A.
478
1973
NEGRO FARM OWNERSHIP
IsolatingtheNegro landownerforstudymay
seem illogical.His problemsand the economic
forcesto whichhe mustreactare essentiallythe
same as for any otherfarmer.Collectivelyhe
contributes
littleto the nationaleconomy.Nevertheless,because he has been located almost
totallyin the South,he is not just a farmer,but
a "Negro farmer."Becoming a farmerin the
for
South has meant distinctivecharacteristics
him as a farmoperatorand forthe landholding
willhave major
as a farm.These characteristics
influenceson attemptsby the Negro farmerto
conditions.
adapt to contemporary
DATA
479
otherthan Negroeswere of some importance.4
Census reportsinclude data for unitsclassified as farms.Rural land which is owned by
nonwhites,but does not meet the Bureau of
Census definition
of farm,is excluded,as is the
landowner.Most such holdingsare small, but
are an omissionwhichresultsfromdependence
upon Census data. The Census data have utility
for identifying
gross distribution
patternsand
for assessing the social and economic significance of land in the farmcategory.Countytax
digestsin Georgia are an excellentdata source
on Negro landownership.5
All rural land privatelyowned is included,but withinformation
only on the numberof ownersand theiracreage. A comparisonof data fromboth sources
indicatesthat Negro landownersare far more
numerousthan Census data suggest.Although
the digestsare excellentfor local studies,data
forlargeareas such as theSouthare neitheruniformlyavailable nor easily retrievable.Tax digest data on Georgia countieshowever,have
allowed comparisons and checking of the
qualityof Census data.
Studies whichdeal withNegro farmowners
are limited.3Tenancywas so extensivethatdisrarelyincluded
cussionsof Southernagriculture
more than passing observationon ownership.
was the
The UnitedStatesCensus ofAgriculture
sourceformostdata used in thisstudy,because
reasonablyuniformcoveragewas available for
large areas and over an extendedperiod."Nonwhite"data weremostcommonlyused. Restriction to the South ensuredthat nonwhitedata
DISTRIBUTION OF NONWHITE OWNERSHIP
primarilyrepresentedNegroes, because other
nonwhiteswere less than threepercentof the
areas of nonwhiteownThe mostsignificant
total. Oklahoma and North Carolina were the ershipin 1969 had values betweentwentyand
only states in which nonwhitefarmoperators thirty-five
percent (Fig. 1). Some areas with
relativelyhighpercentagesof nonwhiteowner3 Sources which provide some focus on this topic
shiphad small absolutenumbers,because these
are: W. E. Du Bois, The Negro Landholder in Georareas had few farmers(Fig. 2) .6 Tidewater
gia, Bulletin of the Department of Labor, No. 35
Virginia,coastal Georgia,and southwestGeor(Washington: Government Printing Office, 1901);
E. M. Banks, The Economics of Land Tenure (New
gia are amongsuch areas. Areas withrelatively
York: Columbia UniversityPress, 1905);R.P.Brooks,
"The Agrarian Revolution in Georgia, 1865-1912,"
Bulletin of the Universityof Wisconsin, No. 639, History Series, Vol. III, No. 3 (1914); L. P. Jackson,
"The Virginia Free Negro Farmer, 1830-1860," Journal of Negro History, Vol. 24 (1939), pp. 390-439;
C. S. Johnson, Shadow of the Plantation (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1934), pp. 103-19; H.
Powdermaker, After Freedom: A Cultural Study in
the Deep South (New York: The Viking Press, 1939),
pp. 94-110; A. F. Raper, Preface to Peasantry: A Tale
of Two Black Belt Counties (Chapel Hill: University
of North Carolina Press, 1936), pp. 110-42; W. E.
Garnett and J. M. Ellison, Negro Life in Rural Virginia, 1865-1934, Bulletin 295 (Blacksburg: Virginia
Agricultural Experiment Station, 1935); L. D. Rice,
"The Negro in Texas, 1874-1900," unpublished doctoral dissertation,Texas Technological College, 1960;
A Study of Negro Farmers in South Carolina (Atlanta: Southern Regional Council, 1962), pp. 1-20;
and J. 0. Wheeler and S. D. Brunn, "Negro Migration
into Rural SouthwesternMichigan," Geographical Review, Vol. 58 (1968), pp. 214-30.
4 In the 1964 Censusof Agriculture
nonwhiteother
percent
thanNegro (Indian) accountedfor thirty-six
farmoperatorsin Oklahoma.In North
of thenonwhite
Carolinaeightpercentof thenonwhitefarmoperators
were otherthanNegro. Most notablewere the Lumbees of RobesonCounty.
5 The practiceof distinguishing
in countytax digests
between"white" and "colored" owners of property
was begunshortlyafterthe Civil War. Concernover
of thispracticein
civil rightsled to the abandonment
the mid-1960s.In coastal Georgia and the Georgia
Piedmont,wherethefarmfunctionof rurallandholdthe numberof farmsreingshas greatlydiminished,
are oftenone third
portedin theCensusof Agriculture
or less of all holdingsactuallyownedbyNegroes.
6 As an example,LibertyCountyin coastalGeorgia
percent
had few farmersin 1964, but twenty-seven
were Negro owners.Most of the 1,700 rural Negro
holdingswere less than fiftyacres, and functioned
mainlyas residentialpropertyand gardenplots. The
ownershad nonfarmjobs.
480
JAMES
NONWHITE
S.
December
FISHER
FARM OPERATORS
FULL AND PART OWNERS
1969
/
o
J
Compiled fromUS.
I,
Census
of Agrculture,
a
percentage
categyas
F2G.
0
1.
~~~~~~
~~~~15-19.9~
=1
vast majority
~~~~~~~~~The
i
froromU.. S.C
Compled
S.Cenus
pie
nuIfA
o
rclue
Agrcuitre.
~
~
and above
~~~~~~~~~~~~~20
_
i
'.<.>
~~~ ~ ~~
~~~~~~59-9.9
z
~~~~~~~~E
m 10-14.9
C
Co
ofall operators 3
0-4.9
of areas
category have values
~
in the high ownership
~
7
ranging from 20 to 35 percent.
FIG. 1.
high percentagesof nonwhiteownershipand
significant
absolutevalues were:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
The generaldistribution
of farmsowned by
nonwhiteshad been establishedby 1910. Negro
ownershipis associatedwithareas in whichNethe Coastal Plain and Piedmontof Vir- groes had lived before becoming freedmen
ginia and NorthCarolina;
(Figs. 1 and 2). Small numbersof nonwhite
the Coastal Plain of South Carolina and
landholdingshad been createdin areas where
southeastern
NorthCarolina;
theRed Hills southof theAlabama Black largelandholdings(plantations)had been most
Belt and their counterpartin eastern important.
Mississippi;
INITIAL ACQUISITION
thePine Hills of southernMississippiand
The mostimportantphase of acquisitionbeadjacent Louisiana;
the area extendingnorthwardfrom the gan shortlyafterthe Civil War, and for most
Pine Hills of Mississippi throughthe areas ended between 1910 and 1920. Negroes
BluffHills into southwestern
Tennessee; owned a rural acreage in antebellumtimes
whichis littlemore than a historicalcuriosity.
and
the hill lands of northernLouisiana and The mostnotableexceptionwas Virginia,where
thenumberof freeNegro farmownersdoubled
northeastern
Texas.
1973
NEGRo
481
FARM OWNERSHIP
FULL OWNER AND PART OWNER FARMS
--x
1969
-
'Y,
(.
N
.
r'~~~~~~~~
~
- -
---
*
.
*
.
(~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I
-
.:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I
---
~
~~~~~~~~~~~o
,. 4.o
*.*:
*
:.
....
o
..~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Compiledfrom U. S. Census
of Agriculture
FIG.Z
2.
o,
but by
between 1830 and 1860.7 During the postbel- ownerremainedclearlyin the minority,
lum period the majorityof the freedmenre- 1900 slightlymore than twenty-five
percentof
mained landless laborers,and the Negro farm all Negrofarmoperatorswereeitherfullor part
owners.8This group representedseven percent
7 Jackson, op. cit., footnote 3, pp. 406-14. Negroes
of all Southernfarmoperators(Table 1) .9 The
owned more than 1,300 tracts of land in Virginia in
1860, mainly in Tidewater counties. L. C. Gray, His- process by which these owners acquired land
tory of Agriculture in the Southern United States, limitedthe numberof Negroes who would beVol. 1 (New York: Peter Smith, 1949), p. 528, reacreageacquired.The
ferred to legislative attempts to prohibit landowner- come landownersand the
ship by Negroes as early as 1818. One mightinferthat
some viewed Negro landownershipas a potential problem, but this does not seem to have been widespread.
F. L. Olmsted, The Cotton Kingdom: A Travellers'
Observations on Cotton and Slavery in the American
Slave States (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1970),
p. 262, noted plantations and slaves owned by Negroes
along the lower Mississippi River in Louisiana. "Free
Negro Owners of Slaves in the United States in 1830,"
published by the Association for the Study of Negro
Life and History in the Journal of Negro History,
Vol. 9 (1924), noted that most Negro slave owners
social
wereurban;as withthe acquisitionof property,
and economic barrierswere much greaterin rural
areas. An exceptionmay have been Louisiana,where
ruralslave ownershipby freeNegroeswas apparently
morecommon.
8 Part ownersare farmoperatorswho own a farm
and rentor lease additionalland.
9 Departmentof Commerce,Bureau of Census,
of
SeriesE 43-60. Classifications
HistoricalStatistics,
farmoperatorby tenureand colorwerefirstpresented
in the Censusof 1900.
482
JAMES
TABLE
Census
year
1900
1910
1920
1925
1930
1935
1940
1945
1950
1954
1959
1964
1969
1.-SOUTHERN
S.
NONWHITE
Total nonwhite
farm ownersb
Nonwhite
owners as a
percentage
of all operators
186,676
218,467
217,589
194,540
182,019
186,065
173,263
189,232
193,346
180,590
127,283
102,062
67,922
7.1
7.1
6.8
6.2
5.7
5.4
5.8
6.7
7.3
7.8
7.7
7.4
5.8
December
FISHER
FARM
OWNERSHIPa
Nonwhite
operatorsa
Nonwhite
owners as a
percentage of
all nonwhite
operators
Nonwhite part
owners as a
percentage of
all nonwhite
owners
740,670
890,141
922,914
831,455
881,687
815,747
680,266
665,413
559,090
463,476
265,621
184,578
84,397
25.2
24.5
23.6
23.4
20.6
22.8
25.5
28.4
34.6
39.0
47.9
55.3
80.5
15.1
19.8
17.9
17.9
22.8
19.1
18.1
14.9
26.7
28.1
29.5
30.6
22.6
Source: U. S. Census of Agriculture.
a All data are for the South as delimited by the Bureau of Census.
b Includes "full" and "part" owners.
e Includes owners, part owners, managers, and tenants.
Attemptsto use theprovisionsof the Hometo
conditionstherebyestablishedare significant
the adjustmentswhichNegro landownershave stead Act of 1862 and the Land Act of 1866
had to make duringthis century.The postbel- to encouragesettlementof public lands in the
lum nonwhiteownershipof land began almost Gulf states (in particular,in Florida, Missisafteremancipation.Initialacquisi- sippi, Louisiana, and Alabama) by both black
immediately
tions occurredthroughconfiscationand redis- and whitesettlersfailedbecause of lack of capital, social attitudes,and a limitedknowledgeof
or directpurchase.
inheritance,
tribution,
and availabilityof land. No more
procedure
of
acreages
significant
During the Civil War
plantation lands were confiscatedalong the than 4,000 Negroesparticipatedin such settlecoast of the Carolinas and Georgia and the ment programs.Most claim entries were in
MississippiRiver in Louisiana. The administra- Florida.12 Neitherthepublicland programs,the
tionof theselands was placed undertheFreed- Freedmen's Bureau, nor the few cooperative
men's Bureau (1865).10 Initial effortsby the and communalattemptsby Negroesthemselves
Bureau involvedleasingofland; therewerelater at occupyingand settlingland were very sucbut little cessful.13Most Negroescame to controlland as
attemptsto providetitlesto freedmen,
under their
land was ever placed permanently
individuals, occasionally by inheritance,but
control.Nearlyall of theacreagewas eventually
restoredto formerowners.Though some con- S. Gottschalkin South Today, Vol. 3 (September,
Negro-ownedfarmsin coastal South 1971), p. 8, notedproblemsof contemporary
temporary
owners
projects in maintainingownershipof the small farmswhich
Carolina originatedin redistribution
afterthe Civil War, evolvedfromthatera.
of the federalgovernment
12 Du Bois, op. cit.,footnote
3, p. 648; C. F. Pope,
the Bureau's long termimpact was extremely "Southern
Homesteads for Negroes," Agricultural
limited."1
History,Vol. 44 (1970), pp. 201-13; and White,op.
cit., footnote11, pp. 65-71. White discussesthe attempt(and failure)of the Freedmen'sBureau to settle Negroeson publicland in Louisiana.
13 Jackson,op. cit., footnote3, p. 422, mentions
slaves and settledthem
slaveownerswho manumitted
on land in Ohio, Illinois,and Michigan.See Du Bois,
op. cit.,footnote3, p. 666; White,op. cit.,footnote11,
tory,Vol. 30 (1956), pp. 150-56; and H. A. White, p. 63; Rice, op. cit.,footnote3, pp. 291-97; Powder"The Freedmen'sBureau in Louisiana," unpublished maker,op. cit.,footnote3, pp. 95-99; and W. H. Pease
1956,pp. 63- and J. H. Pease, Black Utopia: Negro Communal ExTulane University,
doctoraldissertation,
by Negroesin- periments in America (Madison: State Historical So64. Whitediscussedcooperativeefforts
terestedin land settlementon formerplantations; cietyof Wisconsin,1963), forcommentson attempts
forland appearto have been denied. at land acquisitionby Negroes.
theirapplications
Paul S. Pierce,The Freedmen's Bureau, Bulletin
No. 74, New Series (Iowa City: State Universityof
Iowa, 1904).
11 Pierce, op. cit., footnote10; Du Bois, op. cit.,
footnote3, p. 648; M. Abbott,"Free Land, Free Labor, and the Freedmen'sBureau,"AgriculturalHis10
1973
NEGRO FARM OWNERSHIP
TABLE 2.-NONWHITE
FARM OWNERS IN
SELECTED SOUTHERN STATES
Maryland
Virginia
North Carolina
South Carolina
Georgia
Florida
Kentucky
Tennessee
Alabama
Mississippi
Arkansas
Louisiana
Oklahoma
Texas
All owners as a
percentage of all
nonwhite operators
1910
All owners in
1969 as a
percentage of 1910
61.9
66.9
32.6
21.0
12.7
49.5
50.5
27.9
15.4
15.1
23.0
19.5
53.9
30.3
14.4
14.4
45.2
36.9
28.4
17.0
26.7
36.4
42.3
58.1
20.6
36.2
8.0
22.4
Computed from: U. S. Census of Agriculture.
more commonlythroughdirectpurchase,over
a half centuryfollowingemancipation.14Inheritancefrom formerowners or employers
probablyoccurredduringseveraldecades after
emancipation,but the results are difficultto
ascertain.Direct purchasehas been by far the
mostimportantmeans of obtainingland.
The proportionof nonwhiteoperatorswho
wereownersin 1910 rangedfromsixty-six
percent in Virginiato thirteenpercentin Georgia
(Table 2). Where the plantationsystemand
Negro acquiNegro labor had been significant,
sitionwas easierwhereland of lowervalue was
available, or where the production system
showed signs of deterioration.Such land had
for whites,and less resistance
less significance
was raised to nonwhiteownership.Du Bois
termedsome of these"waste lands or bankrupt
plantations."'15Land which had value for
whites was not readily available for blacks,
whetherlocallynumerousor not. Tax data and
earlyworkin Georgia allowed a morethorough
studyof the process.
The acquisitionof land in coastal Georgia
and South Carolina was more rapid than elsewhere,and ownershipattainedhigh levels. At
the close of the antebellumperiod the coastal
483
regioncontrasteddistinctlywithland immedimilewide coastal
atelyinland.The tento twenty
zone consistingof Sea Islands,thebanks of major rivers,and adjacenttidalswampswas useful
for cottonand rice production.It was the domain of the largeplanterand slaveowner.Rice
plantersfaced ruin afterthe Civil War. The
adaptationto a new labor systemwas one of
severalproblems.The intenseand arduous labor requirementscould not easily be satisfied
withfreelabor. What was sometimesviewedas
on thepartof freedmenwas
a lack of reliability
partiallyencouragedby the availabilityand low
cost of land-both in the coastal zone and in
the adjacent sparsely settled Pine Barrens.16
The freedmanwas able to move into the Barrens, or purchase small plots on declining
agplantations,and practicea quasi-subsistence
riculturesupplementedby irregularlabor elsewhere. The beginningsof this minutelanded
elementwerefavoredby thesale of land at low
cost and the availabilityof undevelopedland.
The limitedcapital of freedmenensured that
theirholdingswould be small even if land was
inexpensive.
SouthwestGeorgiawas anotherarea of early
growthin Negro land ownership.Banks attributedthisearlygrowthto the availabilityof
unused land.17The plantationsystemwas less
well established,and theNegro populationwas
actuallysmallerthanthewhite,but the low demand for land favoredNegro ownership.Less
desirableland, or that which was decliningin
utility,was more readilyavailable forpurchase
by blacks. Areas adjacent to major plantation
fornonwhiteownerregionsbecame significant
ship. The Pine Hills of Mississippiand the Red
16 Earningsaccumulatedover a year, when paid,
allowed Negroes to buy cheap land, adding to the
to reestablish
labor problemsof plantersattempting
aftertheCivilWar; F. B. Leigh,Ten Years
plantations
on a Georgia Plantation Since the War (London:
Richard Bentley& Son, 1883), pp. 79 and 156. A
similaraccount of Negroes who "boughtland at a
very small price in the adjoiningpine woods and
driftedinto settlementsthere,"is in "Inquiries I,
byformerplanters
1912,"a collectionof letterswritten
14 G. B. Tindall, South Carolina Negroes, 1877of Georto R. P. Brooksand placed in theUniversity
of South CarolinaPress, gia Library.
1900 (Columbia: University
17 Banks,op. cit.,footnote
3, pp. 62-68; Raper,op.
1952), p. 103, pointed out that even in Beaufort
County,South Carolina, when federal attemptsto cit., footnote3, pp. 111-42, observedthat quality
provideland forNegroeswereintense,mostwho had and value of land, location relative to prominent
achievedownerstatusby 1876 had done so through whiteowners,and distancefromtownshad significant
of Negro ownerswithin
effectson the distribution
theirown efforts.
15 Du Bois, op. cit.,footnote3, p. 665.
communities.
484
JAMES
S.
FISHER
December
Hills of Alabama and Mississippiwereadjacent the South. Land maintaineda highervalue for
to classicplantationareas.
whitesand was less readilyavailable to blacks.
The significanceof more generousattitudes The total numberof owners remainedlower,
towardnonwhiteownershipfor the rapid de- particularly
duringthelaterdecades of theninevelopmentof Negro ownershipin Virginia is teenthcentury.The plantationsystembegan to
to evaluate. Probablymore important, deterioratein parts of the SouthernPiedmont
difficult
easternVirginiaand Marylandhad experienced afterthe turnof the century,and ratesof nonagriculturalchanges by the time of whiteacquisitionincreased.
significant
of land had
the Civil War.18The productivity
A more involved process determinedland
land values had varied,and thebasic purchasesin areas whereland retainedits value
fluctuated,
productionsystemshad been modified.The and traditional
systemswerestable.Land acquichange involved less dependence upon row sitionin areas such as the southernPiedmont
crops, especially tobacco, and an increase in was as much the functionof a social equation
the use of systemsconsideredless exploitive, as a businesstransaction.
The personalrelationship betweenthe owner,the prospectiveowner,
such as generalfarming.
Whethervalid or not, some of the problems and local societywas veryimportant,whether
or direct
of agriculturein the regionwere attributedto ownershipwas achievedby inheritance
theplantationsystem,slave labor, and tobacco. purchase.The initialstep oftenbegan withthe
percentof the
Negativeattitudeswere evidentbeforethe Civil originalowner. In seventy-five
War, and contributedto easier acceptance of Georgia case studieswhere more than twentynonwhiteownershipof land.19This area was fiveacres was involved,thewhiteman,or origiby suggesting
morecompletelyravagedby theWar, and there nal owner,had takentheinitiative
of ownership.20
More than sixtyperwas less returnto traditionalsystemsof agri- a transfer
culturein Virginiathan in otherparts of the cent of the purchaseswere fromformerlandSouth. An outmigrationof whitesfromsome lords,and morethanhalfof theremainderwere
rural areas actually took place. All of these frommerchants
withwhomthenew ownershad
to measure,contrib- had businessdealings.Tenancycommonlyprefactors,althoughdifficult
utedtowardeasingthebarriersto Negro owner- ceded ownership,as did a numberof yearsdurship by reducing the importance of land. ing which the black tenantexhibitedqualities
Thoughnonwhiteacquisitionof farmsoccurred such as "keeping his place," thrift,honesty,
in Virginiaand and hard work whichmightultimatelyqualify
moreoftenand morefrequently
southernMarylandthanelsewhere,thedecrease him as a landowner.21 Acceptance of the Nealso came earlierand has been almostcontinu- gro as landowner,whethermere toleranceor
ous since 1920.
warmwelcome,came onlyby a highlyselective
The notionthat land of decreasingvalue to process.
The benevolentintentof originalwhiteownwhitesfavoredNegro ownershipdoes not imply
thatacquisitionof land by blacks was impossi- ers was thata reallygood man should own his
ble in areas wheretheplanterwas moresuccess- land and work it for himselfto assure him a
fulafterthe Civil War. The lowerPiedmontof means of supportinghis family,but it did not
Georgiaalso experiencedgrowthin Negroown- mean thathe was being given the opportunity
ershipafterthe Civil War, but at a slowerrate. to change his economic and social position
Manyplantersreturnedto theirtraditionalpro- withinthe largersociety.A parcel of a larger
ductionsystemswithrelativeease. Initiallabor landholdingwas used to establish a farm of
problemswere overcome as the area adapted
the tenancysystemcommonlyassociated with
2( Raper, op. cit., footnote 3, pp. 121-25; Powder18A. 0. Craven, "Soil Exhaustion As a Factor in
the Agricultural History of Virginia and Maryland,
1606-1860," Universityof Illinois Studies in the Social
Sciences, Vol. 13 (1925), pp. 122-79.
19W. H. Yarbrough, Economic Aspects of Slavery
in Relation to Southern and Southeastern Migration
(Nashville: George Peabody College for Teachers,
1932), pp. 14-16; and J. Gottman, Virginia in Our
Century (Charlottesville: The University of Virginia
Press, 1969), pp. 99-141 and 144-87.
maker, op. cit., footnote 3, pp. 94-110; Rice, op. cit.,
footnote 3, pp. 287-89; A. A. Taylor, "The Negro in
the Reconstructionof Virginia," The Journal of Negro
History, Vol. 11 (1926), pp. 372-76; and J. Williamson, After Slavery: The Negro in South Carolina
During Reconistruction,1861-1877 (Chapel Hill: Universityof North Carolina Press, 1965), pp. 155-56.
21 Jackson, op. cit., footnote 3, implied that tenancy
was also the common intermediatestep among those
who achieved ownership during the antebellum period in Virginia.
1973
NEGRO FARM OWNERSHIP
485
minimalacreage. When land was acquired by and the landownersprovided the leadership.
inheritance,a holdingmightbe dividedamong Theyweretheblack community
spokesmen,the
several tenants,or a portionmightbe givento mediatorsbetweenblack and white,the church
one individual. A Negro who acquired land deacons, and the lodge leaders. A certainecowhollyon his own initiativerarelyhad capital nomic securityand independencewas also defor morethan a small farm.The resultwas, in rivedfromowningland. The farmer,
in addition
eithersituation,a small farmon lower quality to cash crops,could producefoodforhis family.
land.22The intentionsof the formerownerhad
PROSPECTS
merit,and the realizationof land ownershipby
the individualmust have been gratifying,
but
Acquisitionof land by blacks increased in
the worthof such a small tractof land would most southernstates until 1910 or 1920, but
not have been greatenoughto assureeconomic
since then the border states (Maryland, Virstabilityand attachmentto the ruralSouth for ginia,Kentucky,Oklahoma,and Florida) have
thenew owneror forhis descendants.
experiencedalmost continuousdecline in the
Available data are inadequatefora reviewof numberof nonwhitefarmowners(Fig. 3). The
the growthof nonwhitefarmownershipbefore other southernstates have had less decrease,
1900, but theysuggestfluctuations.
Economic partlybecause of renewedacquisitionsbetween
depressionloweredthe rate of acquisition,and 1940 and 1950 (Fig. 4). Acquisitionwas eneven decreased ownership,during the early couraged by the favorableprice of cottonbe1880s.23Ku Klux Klan activity
virtually
stopped tween 1910 and 1920, but the boll weevil and
progressin Georgia in 1876.24Violent "white- low prices of the 1920s broughtacquisitionto
capping" was fomentedby small white land- an end even beforethe nationaldepressionof
owners in Mississippi,and directedat Negro the 1930s. Renewed acquisitionin the 1940s
ownersas well as those who promotedNegro correspondedwithmajor black migrationfrom
advancement.25
Despite temporary
setbacks,by the South; favorableprices allowed the frugal
1910 morethan218,000 nonwhitefarmowners to expandand buyfarmswhilethelandlesswere
were reportedby the Bureau of Census.26The movingaway.27The numberof farmsownedby
overwhelming
majority(211,087) were Negro nonwhiteshas declinedsharplysince thesecond
owners,who accountedfortwenty-four
percent ownershippeak in 1954.
of all Negro farmoperators(Table 1).
The acreage controlledby nonwhiteowners
The Negro acquired land duringand after correspondscloselywithvariationsin the numwhensocial and racial attitudes ber of owner operators.The same is not true
Reconstruction,
were major factors affectingopportunityfor forwhiteoperators.Reorganizationof Southern
nonwhites.The weaknesses of the agrarian agricultureduring recent decades extended
evidentdursoutherneconomywere frequently
whitecontrolof land even thoughthe number
ing thisperiod,yetNegroesclearlywantedland of farmersdecreased.Formertenantfarmsare
and saw it as themeans of providingsome eco- now includedin theacreageof whiteowneropnomicsecurityand social position.Owningland erated farms.Nonwhitefarmownershave not
meantthatresidentialstabilityand identificationfaredwell. Whileall land in farmshas changed
with a communitywas possible. Though the verylittle,the acreage of nonwhitefullowners
it decreased
had littleexternalinfluence,
black community
by 1969 to thirtypercentof what it
did have internalorganizationand structure,
had been in 1910. As thenumberof black owners decreases,theiracreage is not accumulated
22 Raper, op. cit., footnote 3, pp. 122-30; Rubin
and theiralreadylimited
by otherblack farmers,
Mortin, Plantation County (Chapel Hill: University
of North Carolina Press, 1951), pp. 61-62; and Rice, controlofland weakens.
op. cit., footnote 3, pp. 289-91.
The Negro landowneris not adaptingin a
23 Banks, op. cit., footnote 3, pp. 69-70.
manner which will ensure his survival as a
24 Du Bois, op. cit., footnote 3, p. 669.
25 W. F. Holmes, "Whitecapping: Agrarian Viofarmer.The greatmajorityhave been small tolence in Mississippi, 1902-1906," The Journal of bacco or cotton farmers,and have been slow
SouthernHistory,Vol. 35 (1969), pp. 165-85.
26 Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census,
Negro Population in the United States: 1790-1915
(Washington: Government PrintingOffice, 1918), pp.
570-75.
27
W. Range, A Century of Georgia Agriculture:
1850-1950 (Athens: Universityof Georgia Press,
1954), p. 282.
486
S.
JAMES
NONWHITE
SELECTED
40
30
I
-
December
FISHER
FARM
SOUTHERN
1900-1970
l
9 0
OWNERS
STATES
I
49
20
z
4-
(I)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0
ID
v
0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1
2
1900
SOURCE:
%
1910
BUREAU
1920
OF
THE
1930
1940
1950
1960
1970
CENSUS
FIG. 3.
to shiftfromtraditionalsystems.The areas in
whichthesetraditionalcropshave declinedhave
also been the areas in which the number of
Negrofarmownersdecreasedearlyand rapidly.
Reluctance to change farmingsystems,plus
proximityto nonfarmemploymentopportuni-
ties, have contributedto the early decline of
thenumberof Negroownedfarmsin theborder
statesand thesouthernPiedmont(Fig. 3). The
areas in whichcottonand tobacco had declined
the least remainedthe major areas of Negro
ownershipin 1969 (Fig. 2), but therate of de-
1973
FARM
NEGRO
NONWHITE
SELECTED
40
91 0
487
OWNERSHIP
FARM
OWNERS
SOUTHERN
1900-1970
STATES
30
z
..-.-..-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.
0
Id
+~~~~~~~~~i
'7
LA.~~~~~~FG
N.
+~~~IG
4.
4
Since 1950, however,size
dine since 1954 has been high even in these whitecounterparts.29
has become critical.The average farmsize in
areas (Fig. 4).
The limitedadaptabilityof theNegro farmer the United States has increased substantially,
may be the resultof his limitedland and re- but thesize of Negro ownedfarmshas changed
sources.28The mostnotableand persistenttrait verylittle,and mostare less than100 acres.The
of theNegrofarmhas been itssmall size, which acreage necessaryfor viable agriculturalprowas not a serioushandicapinitially.Cash crop- ductionhas increasedgreatly,but acreage allotping of tobacco and cottonwas supplemented mentsand marketingquotas have been used to
by productionof crops and livestockforhome control production,and so the allotmentsof
use. This combinationof commercialand home many farmshave fallen into the "too small"
use productionhelpedNegro farmersto survive
29 Raper, op. cit., footnote3, pp. 111-16, docutheboll weeviland the low pricesof the 1920s
mentsthe impactof highpricesfor severalyearsfoland 1930s, and manyfaredno worsethantheir lowed by boll weevildevastationand lowerpriceson
R. D. Bell, An Economic Study of Farms Operated by Negro Farmers in Claiborne County, Mississippi, Mimeographed Report 10 (Oxford: Mississippi
AgriculturalExperimentStation, 1952), pp. 48-49.
28
farmerswho had recentlybecome owners.Farmers
who had been establishedlongerand practicedcash
appearedmorestacroppingand homeuse production
ble than tenantsor largerproducersdependentupon
extensivecredit.
488
JAMES
S.
December
FISHER
category;this has been the fate of most allot- mercial (sixty-three
percentfor whites). Less
mentsheld by Negro farmers.The farmerwith than six percentof the commercialfarmshad
a "too small" allotmentcan expand his opera- gross sales greaterthan $10,000; these were
tion,continuehis traditionalmethodof produc- mainlythe moreprogressivepart owners.Most
tion,or stop farming.Expansion requiresmore Negro ownersproduced at a level whichcould
capital, a larger acreage allotment,and often not providea reasonableincome.Many, nevermore land; the otheralternativesimplyretire- theless,continueto reside on theirland, often
ment fromfarming,the necessityof nonfarm older people who produce some garden crops
employment,or continuationof a production and livestockforhome use. Not all of the limsystemwhich does not provide a satisfactory ited commercialism
can be attributed
to conditions beyond the immediate control of the
income.
The Negro farmer,like othersmall farmers, farmer.He commonlyhas a less advanced attiis unable to expand his operationby renting tudetowardimprovedmethodsand commercial
land with crop allotments,or leasing allot- production,and therefore
does not use his land
ments.30Diversification
as he might.33
The attitudeprobby the inclusion of a as effectively
livestockoperation,or a completeshiftto live- lem may stempartiallyfromlimitededucation
stock farming,requiressubstantialamountsof levelsand thehighage level.
land for a suitable income level. The Negro
A handicapwhichsets theNegrofarmerdisfarmerhas not had, nor will he have, the tinctivelyapart fromhis white counterpartis
amount of land necessaryfor livestockfarm- his limitedinfluencewith federal agencies ining.31Many farmson thePiedmontare operated volved in agriculturalaffairs,especially those
by local comas smalllivestockfarmswhennonfarmemploy- whoseprogramsare administered
mittees
local
social
elected
by
attitudes
farmers;
mentis available,but theNegro,of course,has
his
own
have
and
hesitance
virtually
excluded
had less access to nonfarmjob opportunities
of
than small white farmers,and in some areas him fromparticipationin the administration
the programswhich vitallyaffecthim.34Such
nonfarmjobs simplyhave not been available.32
exclusion means less likelihoodof sharingin
The inabilityof Negro farmownersto adapt redistributed
of receivingfarmloans
allotments,
is reflectedalso in limitedcommercialism.
Only whichmightallow improvements,
or participatfifty
percentof theirfarmsare classed as com- ing in conservationprogramswhich aid in deRenting involves land as well as the needed crop
acreage allotment. Leasing an allotment may involve
no land directly but rather allows a transferof the
rightto produce to another property.Larger operators
with the necessary capital and equipment frequently
rent or lease several units from smaller operators to
form one larger centrallymanaged farm operation.
31 Field studies by P. Ries for a dissertation in
progress in the Department of Geography at the Universityof Georgia found that Negro farmers in Macon County, Georgia, who attemptedto include commercial livestock in their farm operations ultimately
reverted to cash cropping because extensive land use
on small farms simply did not return the necessary
income.
32 The lack of alternatives to small scale farming
probably has contributed to instances where Negro
owners declined less rapidly than white owners. They
were encouraged to remain self-employedfor a longer
time out of necessity,even though their income level
remained low. E. S. Bryant and K. M. Leung, Mississippi Farm Trends, 1950-1964, Bulletin 754 (State
College: Mississippi Agricultural Experiment Station,
1967), p. 5, noted that in areas of Mississippi where
nonwhiteownership was relativelyhigh, Negro ownership decreased much less rapidly than white ownership
from 1950 to 1960. By the early 1960s both were declining at similar rates.
30
velopingotherfarmingsystems.
SUMMARY
A modest but definitebeginningof rural
Negro landowningwas evident early in this
century. Most such holdings functionedas
farmsproducingcash crops and homeuse commodities. Their drastic decline, particularly
since 1954, is indicativeof serious problems
forthoseownerswho mighthope to surviveas
33 Beale, op. cit., footnote 1, pp. 176-78.
See Southern Regional Council, "A Study of the
Negro Farmers in South Carolina," No. 23, December,
1962, pp. 1-25, for an analysis of the meaning of federal agricultural programs to Negroes. The study focused on the Farmers Home Administration,the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, the
Cooperative Farm Credit System,and the Department
of AgricultureExtension Service. See also U. S. Commission on Civil Rights, Equal Opportunityin Farm
Programs, an Appraisal of Services Rendered by
Agencies of the United States Department of Agriculture (Washington: U. S. Government PrintingOffice,
1965), pp. 1-136.
34
1973
NEGRO FARM OWNERSHIP
489
farmers.It is not likelythatthesefarmers,with resources, will make a significanteffortto
smallholdings,littlecapital,beyondmiddleage, modernizetheir farms.A continueddecrease
withoutdescendantsinterestedin agriculture, in the numberof Negro farmownersappears
and with limited accessibilityto institutional inevitable.