By Manford Eugene Jones Texas A&M University History Professor Dale Baum purchased a copy of this thesis from the university's library and contributed it to this site. It is used with permission of Manford Allen Jones, son of the author Manford Eugene Jones. These electronic pages may not be reproduced in any format by other organizations or individuals. Persons or organizations desiring to use this material must obtain the written consent of Manford Allen Jones or contact William Kent Brunette, Robertson County TXGenWeb coordinator. CHAPTER IV: FARM TENANCY & ITS PROBLEMS One of the most interesting, and at the same time most sordid, conditions of life on the Bottom cotton farms results from the system of farm tenancy. Volumes have been written on this problem, which is considered the dragon that keeps the southern farmer in bondage. The system was started in the Brazos bottom immediately aft the Civil War; and although it eased the period of readjustment for the slaves, its many evils have been very much in evidence. The type of tenancy in most common use is known as the "sharecropper" or "halves" system. In this form of tenancy, the landowner furnished the tenant with as much land as he can cultivate, along with mules, farm tools, stock feed, groceries, and clothes for the tenant's family, and all other necessary items for making a crop. When the cotton is marketed, the landowner takes half of the proceeds and the tenant the other half. The chief drawback to this system is that unless the tenant has a large family for labor and lives very economically, he can never make more than his living expenses. Sickness, low price of cotton, or insect damage will cause the tenant to be so in debt to the landowner that it is difficult to pay out. The average family will cultivate fifty acres of cotton. This will produce about twenty bales, which will bring something like one thousand dollars. Therefore, the tenant will draw five hundred dollars, which is a very low living wage and is possible only under very favorable conditions. Under the "sharecropper" system, there is usually one central barn on a plantation where all of the mules and farm equipment are stored. The tenant houses are built near this barn, and the overseer or owner lives near it. The overseer or owner directs all of the farm operations, and the tenant usually does nothing on his own initiative; the overseer even tells him when to plant and how. In the years immediately following the Civil War, the landowners sometimes kept a store or commissary on the farm to furnish the tenants with food, clothing, and other supplies. Under this plan, the owner made a large profit on the goods sold, and charged from ten to twenty percent interest on what the tenant owed. Lucky was the tenant who had a few dollars left over after his living expenses were paid in the fall. At the present time, the plantation stores have been discontinued, and the landlord writes "orders" to the nearest merchant for his tenants. In practice, these orders have been limited to groceries alone, and the tenant must depend on his extra fall money for clothes or luxuries. The amount of these "orders" varies with the price of cotton and the size of the family involved. They permit only a very meager fare, thus creating bad health problems among the tenants. There have been instances in which landlords have robbed the ignorant tenants with high interest and unfair settlements, but it can be readily seen that even when the landlord is honest, the tenant never has a chance to get much money ahead. Under the recent government crop control program, the "sharecropper" tenant has not been allowed to share in any of the cash benefits. The overseer system is one defect in this method of farming. Often, the overseer does not take the interest in looking after the tenants and property that he should, and thus the farm begins to run down. The equipment is not repaired and is allowed to rust out, and improper cultivation lets grass ruin some of the land. These evils are more apt to appear when Negroes are used as overseers. The "sharecropper" system made money for the owners, even under bad management, until the World War came along and reduced the margin of profit by making cotton cheap and supplies high. Since that time, many of the large farms have had to borrow almost as much money as the land is worth, and some have been broken up and sold in small lots. The attitude of the landlords toward the Negro "sharecropper" is shown by the following quotation:
Although the "sharecropper" system is the most widely used, there are others that require explanation. The first and fourth type of tenancy is used to some extent in the Brazos bottom. Here, the landlord is paid one-third of the corn or grain produced and one-fourth of the value of the cotton produced. In this case, the landlord furnished the land and a home and barn for the tenant. The tenant has his own farm stock and implements, and buys his own groceries and household goods. The tenant under this plan usually borrows money from a bank or merchant to make his crop with. Living expenses and labor must be paid out of this loan. He pays ten percent interest. A prime essential for this type of farmer is to make a good feed crop, as he cannot make much profit with which to buy feed for his stock. The average farmer of this type works at least one hundred acres or more and hires day labor or sub-rents his land on the "sharecropper" basis. If he subrents, his margin of profit is reduced, but his problem of labor is solved, as each "sharecropper" can take care of his own land. All things being equal, the first and fourth renter has a much better chance to make money than the "sharecropper." He frequently buys a farm and counts among his luxuries automobiles and better food and furniture. Then, too, he is more independent and uses his own initiative in the cultivation of the crop, as the landlord seldom visits the property if the renter is keeping it in good shape. A third type of tenancy is that in which the land is leased or money rent is paid. This is seldom used, as the land must be highly productive and a crop failure would leave the tenant hopeless in debt. The price paid an acre is from five dollars up, but this is governed by fertility or soil and convenience of location to market. Under this plan, the tenant operates under the same conditions as the third and fourth renter, with the exception of the method of paying the rent. [24] J. W. Elliott, "Land Tenancy Under the Plantation System: A Study of Some Brazos River Bottom Plantations," (unpublished master's thesis, Agricultural & Mechanical College of Texas, 1921), p. 8. |
