American Farm Life [Reprint 2014 ed.] 9780674429369, 9780674499560

Citation preview

American Farm Life

The Library of Congress Series in American Civilization Edited by Ralph Henry Gabriel

American Farm Life LO WRY NELSON

HARVARD UNIVERSITY PRESS · CAMBRIDGE · 1954

Copyright, 1954, by the President and Fellows of Harvard College Distributed in Great Britain by Geoffrey Cumberlege, Oxford University Press, London

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 54-9332 Printed in the United States of America

To Florence, my wife

Preface THIS BOOK ATTEMPTS to describe some of the salient features of farm life in the United States at mid-century. It is intended for the reader more or less unfamiliar with rural life in the United States, whether he be a native or a foreigner. One expects that a citizen of a foreign country will be comparatively uninformed regarding farm life in the United States, but it must also be taken for granted that most American city-dwellers know very little about how the farm people live, and what their problems are. The author has long maintained that such an understanding by urbanités of their rural neighbors is a desirable if not a necessary prerequisite to the resolving of agricultural problems. The converse is also true, that rural people need to understand more than they do of the Itfe of people who dwell in cities. The reason this mutual understanding is more important today than it was in the past is that American society — rural and urban — today functions as a unit. What happens in one part affects the welfare of all. No longer can individual segments carry on independent of the rest. Interdependence is everywhere a fact. If this little book can add at all to the better understanding of farm life it will have served well its purpose. The emphasis throughout the essay on the diversities of American farm life, and upon the rapidity of change in recent years, may leave the reader uncertain as to just what our rural life is really like. If such should be the result, then one can only say

vili

PREFACE

that to attempt to picture farm life as anything but dynamic would convey a false impression. Changes are taking place so rapidly that one almost despairs of trying to capture an adequate "still picture" of it. The direction of rural social change has been emphasized. The conclusion seems inescapable that rural and urban segments of American society are drawing closer together, becoming more alike. This is quite likely due more to the "urbanization" of the countryside than to "ruralization" of the city, although the influence of one upon the other is reciprocal. Because the book is intended for a wider readership than the academic world, the author has tried to avoid burdening the reader with too much detail or with elaborate documentation. Certain chapters, however, are unavoidably weighted with statistical data. Much greater detail and fuller documentation will be found in the many excellent treatises on agricultural economics and rural sociology, in the numerous bulletins published by the forty-eight State Experiment Stations and the United States Department of Agriculture, and in the professional journals. The author is under special obligation for help given him in the preparation of this work. Thanks are due Professor Joe Bohlen, Iowa State College, for assembling data in Chapters Nine and Ten; John D. Kelley, University of Minnesota, for gathering information for Chapter Eight; Bert Johnson, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, for reading and checking material in Chapters Two and Three, and the editors of American Quarterly for permission to reprint material which constitutes part of Chapter One. Lastly, special gratitude to my wife for typing part of the manuscript. Naturally, the author assumes final responsibility for the shortcomings of the book. LOWRY

Minneapolis, Minnesota August 23, 1954

NELSON

Contents 1 THE RURAL HERITAGE

1

2 A GENERAL SURVEY OF AMERICAN

FARMS AND FARMERS 13

3 THE TECHNOLOGICAL

31

FRONTIER

4 THE FARM LABOR FORCE 5 THE FARMER'S

COMMUNITY

6 THE FARM FAMILY 7 THE FARMER'S 8 THE RURAL

59

68

SCHOOLS

CHURCH

84

100

9 FARM ORGANIZATIONS 1 0 FARMERS'

45

117

COOPERATIVE

ASSOCIATIONS

130

1 1 THE FARMER

AND HIS LOCAL GOVERNMENT

1 2 THE FARMER

AND THE FEDERAL

1 3 THE NEW FARMER NOTES

179

INDEX

187

170

GOVERNMENT

137 152

TABLES 1. The balance sheet of Agriculture, United States, 1940 and 1952

16

2. Changes in number of United States farms by size groups, 1920-1950

18

3. The distribution by percentages of farms and farm land and the relative change in size, 1940-1950

19

4. Farms by economic class, United States, 1950

23

5. Farm operators by percentages in various occupation groups, 1950

25

6. Changes in land tenure and average acreage per farm, 19301950

26

7. Percentage of United States farms reporting motor vehicles, 1920-1950

33

8. Average county index of farm-operator family level of living for the United States, major regions and geographic divisions, 1930, 1940, 1945, and 1950

75

9. Distribution and rating on structural level of farmbouses in the United States in 1950 10. Rural farm families by income level, 1950 11. Rural-urban comparisons on church attendance by size of place and age group, 1952

79 80 109

12. Per cent church attendance, Sunday or Sabbath, persons 18 years of age and over, by denominations, 1952

110

13. Church attendance differentials by sex and income groups

111

14. Church attendance by education level and occupation

112

15. Farmers' cooperatives: types, number, and membership 16. Number and types of governmental units in the United States, 1942 and 1951

131 139

ILLUSTRATIONS 1. Changes in farm size, by regions, 1920 to 1950

20

2. Major types of fanning in the United States

29

3. Total cropland, and crop production per acre. United States, 1910-49

57

4. Farm-operator family levels of living

76

5. Spending trends in family living

81

6. Farm population, 1910-52

87

7. The number of different religious denominations in rural areas, by states, 1936

107

8. The number of governmental units per 10,000 population, 1951

141

9. Farm products needed to pay $1,000 of debt for selected years

154

American Farm Life

CHAPTER ОКЕ

The Rural Heritage ONE OF THE MOST FAMILIAR IDEAS which the anthropologists have given us is that man is a culture-building animal. Our beliefs, behaviour patterns, language, art, literature, social institutions, and material objects have developed step by step; we invent or borrow new culture traits; we combine the new with the old, or discard old traits altogether. The two processes of addition and substitution of social traits set man completely apart from the rest of the animal kingdom. Man is not the only animal who buüds cultures, but he alone experiences social change. Robins, after untold generations of nest-building, still make their nests exactly as their ancestors did, but all around us we see continual variation in human culture. Yet the fact of social change should not lead us to think that our culture undergoes either complete transformation or sharp breaks. In the physical realm, the closest analogy to culture is that of a river. Rivulets and creeks feed the stream as it flows seaward within its broad banks. The water in the river looks little diÉFerent at various points hundreds of miles apart. Yet the chemical content has changed, as side streams which rise in different rock formations have added their substance to its flow. Storms and floods also change the water, and they sometimes deflect the stream from its habitual course; but such changes alter very little the general appearance of the river. American culture, like the river, has been fed by the innumer-

AMERICAN FARM LIFE

2

able streamlets that flowed from the "drainage basin" of the Old and New Worlds. Farm life, like the other aspects of the culture of which it is an organic part, is a complex of elements derived from many sources. Its cultural roots are imbedded in the civilizations which arose in the Mediterranean Basin and spread over Western Europe. With the passage of time, old patterns of agriculture and rural life have been modified and new ones introduced. Finally, the environment — physical and social — of the Western Hemisphere has brought its own modifications. The processes of social change continue their glacial-like action upon the contemporary rural world. In order to understand American farm life today, we must first glance briefly at our rural heritage from the past. For the sake of convenience, we shall consider the major influences on agriculture under two headings, material and nonmaterial. This is not to say that one can make a sharp difiFerentiation between material and nonmaterial aspects; it is far from the writer's intention to convey the idea that they exist in separate compartments. On the contrary, culture is an organic entity of dependent and interdependent elements. But our purpose here can best be served by studying our rural heritage under these two divisions, MATERIAL ASPECTS OF AGMCULTURE

The basic components of American agriculture have been derived almost entirely from other lands. Practically none of our major crops and livestock breeds are native to the continental United States. The cereal crops — rice, wheat, oats, barley, rye; clover, alfalfa, and other legumes; grapes, sugar cane, various citrus fruits, sugar beets, and many other root crops are the agricultural legacy from the Old World.^ The origin of the cotton plant, so important in American agriculture, is not known for certain, but it was indigenous apparently to Asia and the Caribbean Islands. Wherever it originated, the plant first appeared in the continental United States during colonial times. Other countries in this hemisphere contributed to the United

THE RURAL HERITAGE

3

States a wide variety of plants and their methods of culture, including maize, sweet potatoes, Irish potatoes, tobacco, peanuts, the edible beans (except horse beans and soy beans), all varieties of squash, tomatoes, garden peppers, pineapples, cassava, bananas, and numerous small fruits and nuts. All these plants are indigenous to the Western Hemisphere. Lyman Carrier estimates that, in terms of acreage and value today, "our agriculture is at least one third native American." ^ At the time of white settlement in the New World the aborigines had made remarkable strides in the development of these plants. The Indians had learned how to adapt different varieties of plants to climatic conditions, and how to produce and utilize them. These techniques were taken over by the early white settlers and, as Clark Wissler points out, "it is one of the few cases of culture transmission from the lower to a higher form of civilization concerning which we have much in the way of historical data." ® The most important, of course, of these agricultural systems inherited from the Indians were those of maize and tobacco, as we see by the fact that at present almost a fourth of the crop acreage of the United States is planted to maize. American agriculture is also deeply indebted to other lands, particularly Britain, for livestock breeds. The overwhelming proportion of our breeds of draft horses, beef cattle, dairy cattle, hogs, and sheep originated in Great Britain; and almost all the other major types of domestic animals came from France, Spain, and the Low Countries. The American farmer has adapted these basic elements of agriculture and has developed new kinds of crops to meet the varied climatic and biological environments of the United States. He has made improvements through artificial selection, inbreeding, and crossbreeding. Steady progress continues in developing plants which yield better and withstand drouth and frost; and those ancient enemies of crops — disease and insects — no longer ravage the fields unchallenged. A most dramatic example of recent crop improvement is hybrid com. By use of it, farmers now

4

АМЕЫСШ

FARM LIFE

harvest over 25 per cent more corn than they formerly did, without any increase in labor or capital. Similarly, in the case o£ the livestock breeds, selection and breeding have brought about much greater efficiency in the production of meat, wool, and other products. Here again, the adaptation of various breeds to different environmental conditions has been one of the guiding principles in the application of scientific techniques. Moreover, farmers have markedly improved the care and feeding of livestock; they have learned to prevent animal diseases and eradicate pests. The campaign against tuberculosis and Bang's disease in cattle is a conspicuous example. It is clear that the debt of the American farmer to other lands for the foundation crops and livestock breeds is very heavy, despite the remarkable improvements in their qualities and management that he has been able to achieve. However, in other ways, conspicuously in the field of farm implements, he has been more of an innovator than a borrower. In this case the heritage from Europe was meager. The early colonists brought with them only hoes, spades, shovels, picks for digging and loosening the soil, sickles for harvesting grain, scythes for cutting grass, and wooden plows. In 1793, Thomas Jefferson, with his characteristic ingenuity, worked out the mathematics of least resistance for a metal moldboard plow; and soon afterwards, Charles Newbold of New Jersey took out a patent for a plow made of cast-iron. In 1808 a steel plow was patented, and by the 1830's it had gained universal acceptance. John Lane in 1833 and John Deere in 1837 began to manufacture them commercially.^ These gradual improvements on the plow proved to be extremely important in the conquest of the new continent. The internal combustion engine has also been of central importance in revolutionizing American agriculture, and its impact is currently of major significance. The relatively large average size of American farms made a particularly good environment for the use of the tractor and tractor-drawn implements. Of course, American contributions to the field of mechanization are far too

THE RURAL HERITAGE

5

numerous to discuss in detail, but the McCormick reaper and its successor, the combine harvester, were certainly achievements of basic importance. The multi-row cultivator, the com picker, the cotton picker, and other types of planting, tillage, and harvesting machines have developed at an accelerated pace in recent years. Perhaps the American farmer's inventiveness and readiness to adopt new labor-saving machines sprang from a shortage of labor in the new country. There was far more land than there were people to till it. Production per man has been more important up to now than production per unit of land. This relative shortage of manpower has been steadily supplemented by technological improvements. By contrast, in most countries of the Old World, production per acre has long been the goal, rather than production per unit of labor, since there is a chronic surplus of workers. NONMATEBIAL ASPECTS O F AGmCtJLTUBE

In the nonmaterial aspects of rural culture three influences stand out: the system of land division, the experience of the American people on the frontier, and the agrarian ideal. These factors are not entirely distinct from one another, nor are they the only ones that have conditioned American rural life; but they have been basic influences on the nation's history. The first important factor was the system of land division. In colonial times, surveyors divided the land by boundary lines which were identified by natural objects, like rivers, rock outcroppings, and springs. This system, of course, was a heritage from the Old World. After the War of Independence, seven of the thirteen original states ceded to the federal government those portions of their land claims that lay west of the Appalachians. To these cessions were speedily added the various other cessions and purchases which in the short space of little more than half a century brought the boundaries of the new nation to its present continental limits. It therefore became the responsibility of the

6

AMERICAN FARM

LIFE

federal government, as custodian of the public domain, to determine the manner in which the land was to be divided and distributed. Among many decisions which the Congress of the Confederation had to make was how the land should be surveyed. In the spring of 1784 a committee of the Congress, consisting of Thomas Jefferson and four others, prepared an ordinance governing the disposition of land in the western territory.® This ordinance provided that the land should be divided into "hundreds" and the hundreds into lots of one mile square, with the survey lines running due north-south and east-west. Subsequently, Congress decided that the size of townships would be six miles square, divided into sections of one square mile. This, then, was the basis on which the vast domain was divided. The social significance of these decisions by the Congress of 1784 and 1785 lies chiefly in the pattern of distribution of farmsteads which resulted. Much later. Congress enacted laws (notably the Pre-emption Act of 1841 and the Homestead Act of 1862) which required settlers to live on the land for a period of time in order to acquire title to it. This requirement meant a dramatic departure from the New England township system where farmers lived in the village and farmed the outlying arable lands. Henceforth, scattered farmsteads would cover the countryside, each family living on its separate farm. This arrangement retarded the establishment of effective community institutions in rural areas. During the early period of settlement, when roads were poor and transportation difficult, the physical isolation of farm families was very great. Only the coming of the automobile and the development of good roads, particularly in the past quarter century, have helped to mitigate this social and physical isolation. Settlement on scattered farmsteads meant that the institutions that did develop in rural areas were usually small and unspecialized. The one-room school and the church in the open country are part of the legacy of this system of land division and settlement. For many years now the open-country church has been

THE RURAL HERITAGE

7

fighting a losing battle to maintain itself in sparsely settled areas. Abandoned churches are numerous throughout the countryside, and many of those that still survive operate at a low level of efiFectiveness, usually without a resident pastor and nearly always with a small congregation. These little churches have now outlived their usefulness. However, it is only since the advent of the automobile that farmers have been able conveniently to combine them with town churches, or with other open-country churches. The rural school system throughout the nation is another consequence of scattered settlement; and the one-room country schools, like the country churches, are rapidly disappearing. Good roads and buses make it possible for rural children from a wide area to attend one consolidated school. THE FRONTIER EXPERIENCE

The late Frederick Jackson Turner has developed a tenable hypothesis about the impact of the frontier experience upon American institutions.® His thesis is that the frontier experience modified and reshaped the cultural values and social institutions which the immigrants from Europe brought with them. On the frontier, a new type of community life developed, one which harmonized with the needs of people in the new environment and which freed them from the shackles of Old World tradition. The frontier experience gave a tremendous stimulus toward general participation in government and in other social institutions, the obliteration of class lines, and the sense of local selfdetermination. The submergence of class distinctions, with greater attention given to the individual's personal qualities as a basis for status, was a precursor of the demand — finally satisfied — for unqualified universal suffrage. The difficulty of surviving in the midst of a hostile environment made mutual aid and cooperation inevitable. Neighborhood life of an informal character thus grew up, with a strong sense of locality identification and with little or no consciousness of social stratification.

8

AMERICAN FARM

LIFE

It was, to a large extent, around such neighborhood life that the early schools and churches developed, and the persisting loyalties of neighborhoods to these institutions make changes difficult. "What are you trying to do? Take our schools away from us?" farmers ask anxiously when it is proposed that a consolidated school be established and their local school abandoned. "Taking the schools away from them" means removing the little one-room structure which they can see from their farm yards and transporting their children to a town several miles distant. The latter seems remote indeed to farmers, and they fear the loss of any jurisdiction over their schools. They feel a real sense of ownership of social institutions which are geographically close to them. The initial frontier groups established those institutions; traditions have grown up about them; loyalties of many generations have centered on them. Small wonder that rural people are reluctant to accept social reorganization! Paradoxically, this strong demand for local autonomy in some respects has not inhibited the American farmer from calling upon the state and central government for economic aid and special consideration in other respects, as recent farm legislation and continuing proposals for additional laws clearly show. It is possible that the paradox, if such it may be called, arises from the fact that farmers on the frontier as a rule had no assistance from the state or central government in the establishment of schools and churches; whereas in economic affairs, including the survey and distribution of land, they were tied directly to the federal government. From that government they received their official titles to land, and to that government they appealed for redress against the railroads and the bank when the products of their land could find no outlet in the market place at a price they considered just. A further bit of frontier history which may have influenced farmers' attitudes toward the federal government needs to be mentioned. West of the Appalachians (excluding Texas) the frontier phase coincided with the phase in which the controlling

THE RURAL HERITAGE

9

political organization was the territorial government. The territorial government vi'as the creation of the national government at Washington. Even after locally elected territorial legislatures appeared, the ultimate center of power — say of the Dakota territory—was Washington. The territorial governor was appointed at Washington and was very frequently a man who came to the territory for the first time when he assumed office. When it is remembered that the territorial period was often two or more decades in length from the beginning of efiFective settlement, it is easy to see how the habit of looking to Washington for political decisions became fixed in the new communities of the frontier, and how that tendency became part of the tradition of these communities when they became part of sovereign states. In any case, the heritage of the frontier, in producing a sense of localism vis-à-vis the larger society in some aspects of Ше, has set the stage for the present dilemma about how much of the farmers' lives can be locally self-determined, and how much must be determined by the central government. The issue of centralism versus localism is undoubtedly one of the most painful problems with which the American farmer has to deal. On the one hand he wants to be free of government regimentation, but on the other he is asking for government protection and control. Other features of American rural life derived from the settlement of a new continent are often suggested by students of frontier history. It is presumed, for example, that by geographic isolation the frontier fostered the "trait of individualism." The farmer had no particular interest in conserving the soil and other natural resources, because he lived in the midst of abundance. He was mobile, with none of the strong emotional attachment to the land that is so much a feature of peasants in older lands. To him land was a commodity to be bought, sold, or traded as conditions warranted. He believed in the unlimited possibilities of growth; he saw towns rise where a few years before there was wilderness, and he saw the towns grow into cities, and the cities into metropolises. Such flexible conditions made it possible for

10

AMERICAN

FARM

LIFE

any industrious person to prosper, and the philosophy of individualism flourished. THE AGRARIAN IDEAL

The agrarian ideal has been left to the last in this discussion partly because of its major importance and partly because it provides, to some extent, a summary of what has gone before. By the agrarian ideal is meant that philosophy of farm life which Thomas Jefferson espoused and which includes the following tenets: (a) that agriculture is the fundamental employment of mankind and all other economic activities are secondary to it; ( b ) that agricultural life is the natural life for man and is per se good, while city life is artificial and essentially bad; and ( с ) that the American nation ought therefore to become and remain a nation of small husbandmen, each family owning the farm it operates. Jefferson eschewed the large estate and favored the family farm. Under such conditions, he thought, the farmer and his family could achieve a maximum degree of independence both economically and politically. A community of such independent fanners could well handle governmental affairs at the local level; and beyond the obvious necessities of carrying on foreign relations, regulating imports and exports, and providing for the common defense, a strong central government was superfluous. In this context Jefferson's statement, "that government is best which governs least," has its philosophical setting. The idea that farmers are the primary producers and that other economic groups are dependent upon them is widely held in America today, and provides considerable wind in the sails of pressure groups working for special farm legislation. Farmers usually speak of themselves as the producers; their so-called "agrarian crusade" has been directed at people they term, at best, middlemen, and at worst, parasites. Undoubtedly many enlightened farmers today realize that production is a process that goes far beyond the growing of foodstuffs to include all the

THE RURAL HERITAGE

11

marketing, distributing, and processing functions; but it would be too much to assume that all the 5.4 million fanners in the United States appreciate this definition. Agricultural fundamentalism is still a potent ideal in rural America. Also persisting today, with only moderate attenuation of vitality, is the ideal of the family farm. It is quite true that concentration of farm land into large holdings is a conspicuous feature of American agriculture in some sections of the country. These areas include the Pacific and Atlantic seaboards, the cotton-producing areas where the plantations persist, and the large ranching sections of the plains and mountain states. It is also true that, with very few exceptions, the American people have never set any limits on the amount of land one person could own. (A notable exception was the Reclamation Act of 1902, which specified that no person on a reclamation project should have more than 160 acres of land.) But in spite of the progressive concentration of land ownership and the right of the individual to possess as much land as he can get, the family farm concept is held officially and unofficially as a central ideal. Examples of this attitude are legion. When Congress enacted farm legislation granting benefit payments to farm operators, it set an upper limit on the amount of money any one individual could receive. The proposal to exempt the Central Valley Reclamation project in California from the 160-acre limitation imposed by the Reclamation Act met with powerful opposition from church groups, veterans' organizations, labor unions, and associations of small farmers. Although the ideal of the family farm survives, one of Jefferson's other notions has practically disappeared. Very few people now believe that living on a farm automatically makes one more virtuous than living in a city. No doubt some people in the more isolated farm sections still preserve the early nineteenth-century rural stereotype of the city as a "den of iniquity." But the increasing communication between town and country has helped to destroy this particular prejudice. It is easy to draw up hypotheses about the roles of land divi-

12

АМЕЫСШ

FARM LIFE

Sion, the frontier, and agrarianism in molding contemporary so-

ciety, but it is difficult to verify them. There are many conflicting elements to confuse the social scientist, and the best he can do is to select certain characteristics which stand out on the configuration of present-day society and attempt to trace the historical influences that have shaped them. It is clear, for example, that the family farm is still the ideal that governs American farm policy, and that the genealogy of the ideal can be traced to the founding fathers. It is clear that the land system which predestined scattered homesteads set serious limitations on rural social institutions, limitations which persist today. It is equally clear that the conquest of a wilderness continent necessitated the creation of the mechanical devices that have given the American farmer his "seven-league boots" —the power of one to do the work of many.

CHAPTER

TWO

A General Survey of American Farms and Farmers CONSIDERED AS A WHOLE, American agriculture is a prodigious enterprise, comprising about 14 per cent of the cultivated land of the world; and while no figures are available for comparison, it undoubtedly comprises a much higher percentage of the world's capital utilized in crop and animal production. Its immense productivity during and following World War II saved millions of people in Europe and Asia from starvation. But American agriculture is an exceedingly complex enterprise; it incorporates diverse types of farming and varied forms of organization, and is composed of nearly 5.4 million individual units of operation. Farmers, too, are a diverse lot. To speak of the American farmer in the singular is to imply that there is a hypothetical, composite, typical individual, who, if carefully described, would give the reader an accurate picture of aU farmers. This would be patently fallacious. While it is necessary to resort to the use of averages and other summarizing devices in dealing with the available facts about our subject, it is important to recognize that averages often conceal more than they reveal. There are, in fact, a multitude of widely varying types of farmers. There are big farmers, small farmers, and farmers in between; dairy, com, wheat, cotton, livestock, vegetable and fruit farmers; farmers who own their land free of mortgage, and others

14

AMERICAN FARM LIFE

who are in debt. There are renters of various kinds — share, cash, and sharecroppers; part owners (owing some land and renting additional); and part-time farmers who supplement their income by working o£F the farm some of the year. There are white and "non-white," wealthy and poor, big-family and small-family, mechanized and non-mechanized farmers. American farmers stem from one or another of most of the ethnic stocks that more than 3 centuries of immigration have brought to the New World. Our purpose in this chapter is to provide a general view of American farms and farmers with particular emphasis upon the diversities which characterize both. Such a general picture is necessary for background for succeeding chapters and is important in itself if we are to get an adequate concept of farming and farm life in contemporary America, THE FARM PLANT

Let us consider then, for a moment, the aggregate summary of the farm plant of Uncle Sam. In area, the land in farms includes 1.2 billion acres out of a total land surface of 1.9 billion. Of the remaining 700 million acres of land, a large part is public property used for grazing by farm operators, which constitutes a supplement to the privately owned farm land. There are 186 million acres of non-forested public grazing lands, mainly the grazing districts administered by the Department of the Interior, which provide winter pasture for livestock. Another hundred million acres of public forest lands (state and federal forest land) are used for grazing, as are 114 miUion acres of privately owned forest land. All told, 400 million acres of land not in farms are used for grazing. (Some 20 to 25 million acres or more of additional land, not used during 1950, are believed to contain good forage for grazing. ) Almost all of this grazing land is located in the western half of the United States. While this land varies greatly in quality, from the sparse plant life in the desert areas of the Mountain and Pacific states to the lush grass of the high mountain summer pasture, it supports many millions of sheep

A GENERAL SURVEY

15

and cattle, and in the aggregate constitutes an important part of the agriculture of the country. Of the total land in farms (1.2 billion acres), only 409 million acres are devoted to crop production. The balance is pasture and woodland, except for 45 million acres taken up by roads, farmsteads, and waste land. In 1949 only 344 million acres of crop land were actually harvested; the balance consisted of crop failure acres, fallow land, or idle land. The estimated value of this total fenced real estate was 94.6 billion dollars in 1952, representing an increase in value of 181 per cent from 1940. However, this increase in land value does not tell the whole story. The greatest change has come in the ratio of real estate values to the total assets of American agriculture. In 1940, the value of land represented 62.5 per cent of the total farm assets, whereas by 1952 the value of land had dropped to 56 per cent of the total. This important development deserves further analysis. Where the changes have occurred is shown in Table 1. The story is told in the final column of the table, which shows the percentage increase in value of various items. Although land prices have increased sharply during recent years, the percentage of increase was less than that of other kinds of property, except for house furnishings. Livestock, machinery, motor vehicles, and crops stored on and oflF farms, all rose to two to four times the 1940 values. These figures reflect the profound change in the organization of agriculture during recent years, with land declining and capital increasing in relative importance. There has also been a vast increase of the "financial assets." Deposits and currency almost trebled in value; while the investment in Savings Bonds by farmers rose more than 2,000 per cent! Against the assets shown in the table are liabilities of over $14 billion. It is suggestive of the comparatively healthy economic position of agriculture that the real estate debt is less than it was in 1940, and less than two-thirds of the 1930 figure. Nevertheless, the 1952 figure is higher than it has been at any time since 1942.

Table 1 The balance sheet of agriculture. United States, 1940 and 1952 uncorrected for changes in purchasing power of the dollar)

Item

Assets Physical assets: Real estate Non-real-estate: Livestock Machinery and motor vehicles Crops stored on and o£F farms Household furnishings and equipment Financial assets: Deposits and currency United States Savings Bonds Investments in cooperatives Total Claims Liabilities: Real estate debt Non-real-estate débt: To principal institutions: Excluding loans held or guaranteed by Commodity Credit Corporation Loans held or guaranteed by Commodity Credit Corporation To others Total liabilities

(figures

1940 MilUon Per dollars cent

1952 Per Million dollars cent

Net change 1940-52 Per cent

33,642

62.5

94,586

56.0

-1-181

5,133

9.6

19,600

11.6

-1-282

3,118

5.8

15,308

9.1

-f391

2,645

4.9

8,884

5.3

4-236

4,275

7.9

7,668

4.5

+79

3,900

7.3

15,200

9.0

+290

2.49

0.5

5,300

3.1

+2,029

826

1.5

2,418

1.4

+193

53,788

100.0

169,964

100.0

+214

6,586

6,300

-4

1,504

4,071

+171

445 1,500

578 3,200

+30 +113

10,035

14,149

+41

Proprietors' equities

43,753

154,815

+254

Total

53,788

168,964

+214

Source: "The Balance Sheet of Agriculture, 1952," Agriculture No. 90 (United States Department of Agriculture, July 1 9 5 2 ) .

Information

Bulletin

A GENERAL SURVEY

17

On the basis of the gross value of $169 billion for the 5.4 mülion farms of the country, the average value per farm would be around $31,000, with a net value of $28,500. If we take only the physical assets, the average value per farm amounts to $27,000. These values vary widely with regions and within regions, just as the type of farming and the size of farms vary. But the figure gives a general notion of the problems confronting the young man entering the occupation of farmer, HOW THE lAND IS DISTRIBUTED

The distribution of the 1.2 billion acres of farm land among the nearly 5.4 million operators, and the changes in the distribution since 1920 are shown in Table 2. It is well to bear in mind the definition of "farm" used by the Bureau of the Census. The definition was changed somewhat in the 1950 census, to exclude from the classification as farms many small holdings which were merely residential plots and not really farms in fact. For the 1950 census a plot was classified as a farm if it contained three acres or more and produced in 1949, exclusive of a home garden, agricultural products with a value of $150 or more. Also, places of less than three acres were considered "farms" if the value of products sold in 1949 amounted to $150 or more. The Census Bureau estimates that the change in definition accounts for 200,000 of the decrease of 717,000 farms from 1940 to 1950. A farm, by the census definition, also consists of all the tracts of land operated by one person. In other words, a farm may consist of several non-contiguous tracts of land. Land operated by a partnership is also considered as a farm. If a landowner rents tracts of land to tenants or sharecroppers, then land operated by each one is considered a farm. Thus a farm may vary in size from the small acreage occupied by a suburban poultryman or truck gardener to a million-acre Texas ranch. With this concept of a farm in mind, let us tum to a brief consideration of the facts revealed in Table 2. There has been a persistent dechne in the number of farms since 1920; in fact,

18

AMERICAN

FARM

LIFE

the decrease is more than a million. The decline was accompanied by an increase in the average size of farm from 148 to 215 acres. Changes in the size of farms by regions can be seen in Figure 1. The average enlargement has been the result of the increase by 40 per cent in number of farms of 500 acres and more, and especially in those of 1,000 or more acres. Table 2 Changes in number of United States farms by size groups,

ACREAGE S I Z E GROUP

Under 10 1(M9 50-99 100-179 180-259 260499 500-999 1,000 and over Total number Average size acres

1920

1930

1940

1920-1950

1950'

Change 1920 to 1950

Thousands Thousands Thousands Thousands Per cent 506 485 4-68 289 359 1,780 2,011 2,000 1,478 -27 1,475 1,374 1,291 1,048 -29 1,490" 1,388" 1,279 1,103 -26 491" 476" 517 487 -1 476 451 459 478 150 164 +21 160 182 67 81 101 121 +80 6,448 6,289 6,097 5,382 -17 174 148 155 215 +45

• 1950 Census of Agriculture, Farms, Farm Characteristics, Farm Products, Preliminary. Ь Corrected for comparability with more recent census data by estimating the number of farms in the 174-179 acreage size group.

It is interesting to notice how rapidly very small farms have increased in the past thirty years. Farms of less than 10 acres increased by 68 per cent, a phenomenon associated with the growth of suburbs and of part-time farming. Many of these farms serve primarily as residential plots, but produce enough agricultural products to qualify as "farms" under the census definition. Some, of course, occupy the full time of the operator even though the acreage is small. Such farms may be devoted to small fruits, truck crops, or poultry. The table makes it plain that both small and large farms are increasing at the expense of the middle groups. The "typical" farm of 160 acres — the original homestead

A GENERAL

19

SURVEY

— is giving way. The typical farm of the future is going to be increasingly larger. The percentage distribution by size groups of all farms and of the land in farms, as well as the change from 1940 to 1950, is shown in Table 3. Table 3 The distribution by percentages of farms and farm land and the change in size. 1940-1950

Size (acres) Total Under 10 10-29 30-49 50-99 100-179 180-259 260^99 500-999 1000 or over

No. of farms 1950 1940 100.0 8.3 16.6 12.6 21.2 21.5 8.0 7.5 2.7 1.6

100.0 9.0 15.9 11.6 19.5 20.5 9.1 8.9 3.4 2.3

Per cent increase or decrease (—) 1940-1950 -11.7 -4.2 -15.7 -18.6 -18.8 -15.8 0.2 4.2 11.3 20.7

Source: United States Census of Agriculture 1930, II:

relative

Per cent Land in increase or farms decrease (—) 1940 1950 1940-1950 100.0 0.3 1.7 2.8 8.8 16.7 9.8 15.0 10.6 34.3

100.0 0.2 1.3 2.1 6.5 12.9 9.1 14.4 10.9 42.6

9.3 -8.9 -15.0 -18.5 -19.0 -15.5 1.1 4.4 12.5 35.8

774-75.

The following inferences may be drawn from the data in the table: (1) the percentage of all farms under 10 acres in size rose from 8.3 per cent in 1940 to 9 per cent in 1950, which percentage, however, due to a decline in the total number of farms, represented an actual decrease in the number of farms of this size. In other words, although the total number of farms declined by 11.7 per cent, those of under 10 acres declined by only 4.2 per cent. In terms of acreage, farms in this class represented in 1950 a smaller proportion of all land in farms. (2) Farms from 10 to 179 acres in size declined both in number and in total acreage. In 1940 they made up 72 per cent of all farms and 30 per cent of all acreage, but in 1950 only 67.5 per cent of the farms and 22.8 per cent of the acreage. (3) Increases in number

CHANGES IN FARM SIZE, BY REGIONS, 1920 TO 1950

• 1920

Ч 1950

U. S. A V E R A G E U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

NEC. 4 8 9 9 1 - X X

1

B U R E A U OF A S R I C U L T U R A L E C O N O M I C S

A GENERAL SURVEY

21

of farms and in acreage begin with the farms of 180 acres and up, with percentage increases becoming greater with advance in the size. Thus, in the 180-259-acre group increases were so small as to be ahnost negligible, while the farms of 1,000 acres and over rose in number by one fifth and in acreage by over one third. Farms of 500 acres and over make up 5.7 per cent of the total, but contain 53 per cent of all land in farms; those of 1,000 acres and over make up 2.3 per cent of the farms, but contain 42.6 per cent of the farm land. Does the growth of large farms constitute a threat to the stability of the family farm, our basic form of land tenure? Two points need to be brought out in considering this question. First, 82 per cent of our large farms ( over 500 acres ) are in the West, especially in the Great Plains and Mountain states. Farms in these areas have to be large in order to be economical. The Great Plains farms have low and fluctuating rainfall; they specialize in wheat-growing, and consequently operate most efficiently using large acreage and power machinery. The Mountain states consist of desert range country with a few irrigated oases in the valleys, and the farms there produce very little forage per acre. Consequently, large acreages in those areas are necessary to equal what in humid areas could be produced on much smaller farms. A thousand-acre farm in an arid climate is a family farm. During the recent war (1940-45), the number of farms larger than 1,000 acres increased in every state in the nation. The increase was most noticeable in the Great Plains states; the Mountain arid Pacific states also experienced much growth in the number of large farms. However, thére is another point that needs emphasis because it counterbalances the general trend: since 1945, several states have experienced a drop in the number of farms over 1,000 acres. In 1950, four New England states (with negligible numbers of large farms), New Jersey, Wyoming, and New Mexico all showed a decline in farms of that size. The fact remains, however, that farms of 1,000 acres or more

22

AMERICAN FARM LIFE

have increased in number in 40 of the 48 states since 1945; and there may be cause for concern by those who view the trend with alarm. In California and some of the Atlantic Coast states the large-scale farm is already a problem, and has been one for many years. This "problem" of small versus large farms is one which has not been resolved. It constitutes a dilemma: shall we allow the large to gobble up the small ones, or shall we set a ceiling on free enterprise in agriculture? The controversy is latent except for occasional eruptions. During the depression years, there was much discussion of the "factories in the field," as Carey McWilliams called them, and especially of the attendant problem of migratory workers. Then the war came, and the issue dropped from sight because migrant field laborers were sucked into the war plants and armed services, and because the government needed the efficiency of the large farms for maximum food and fiber production. But in 1946 the controversy commenced again. Senator Downey of California introduced a bill in Congress which asked that the Central Valley Project be exempted from the 160-acre legal limit on farms built on reclaimed land. That bill never reached the floor for a vote. It died after many committee hearings, owing to the strenuous opposition of small-farm advocates. Veterans' organizations, church and farm societies, and individual California farmers joined in the general protest against lifting the ceiling on the size of farms. The issue is still far from dead. It was revived in the 1954 Congress. Meanwhile, as long as full employment continues, there wül bé little pressure for restricting the size of the farm enterprise. Another depression such as that of the 1930's most certainly would bring about a return migration to the land and competition for a piece large enough to farm. Then envious eyes of the unemployed would be fixed upon the larger farms. It is of more than passing interest to note that land reform — meaning redistribution in most cases — has been the battle cry of peasants in Asia, the Middle East, Latin America and parts of Europe

A GENERAL

SURVEY

23

for a long time, and has taken on special urgency since World War II. Political stability in large sections of the globe is geared to the prospect of satisfying the land-hunger of the landless. FABMS BY ECONOMIC CLASS

Another way of visualizing the diversity of American farming is to classify farms on the basis of economic criteria instead of acreage. Such a classification, based upon data from the 1950 Census of Agriculture, is shown in Table 4. The interesting thing about these figures in Table 4 is that Table 4

Farms by economic class, United States, 1950 Economic class

Per cent of all farms

Per cent of all land in farms

Average size acres

Total Commercial farms Class I Class II Class III Class IV Class V Class VI Other Part-time Residential Abnormal

100.0 68.9 1.9 7.1 13.4 16.4 16.8 13.3 31.1 11.9 19.1 0.1

100.0 88.1 21.6 18.6 18.5 14.5 9.5 5.2 11.9 4.2 4.4 3.3

215.6 275.6 2,421.7 566.8 298.2 191.2 122.8 84.9 82.8 75.6 50.0 9,178.9

Value of all products sold 100.0 97.5 26.0 24.8 22.7 14.4 7.3 2.3 2.5 1.8 0.4 0,4

Source: 1950 Census of Agriculture, volume II, chapter 12, table 1. Basis of classification: Class I, products sold in 1949 valued at $25,000 or more; Class II, $10,000 to $24,999; Class III, $5,000 to $9,999; Class IV, $2,500 to $4,999; Class V, $1,200 to $2,499; Class VI, $250 to $1,199 and less than value of all farm products sold; parttime farms, value of products sold from $250 to $1,199 and 100 days or more of offfarm work or income from non-farm sources greater than value of products sold; residential farms, value of products under $250. Abnormal farms are institutional, experimental community-project farms.

most salable goods are produced by a fairly small number of farms. The farms in classes I, II, and III ( the largest farms ) make up less than a quarter of all farms but produce nearly three fourths of the value of all products sold. The smaller "commer-

24

АМЕЫСШ

FARM LIFE

cial" farms, classes IV, V, and VI, constitute nearly half of all farms but account for only about one fourth of the value of all products sold. The small farms designated by the census as "part-time" and "residential" add but an infinitesimal proportion to the total value of marketed products. Still, they classify as "farms"! Clearly, there is a tremendous variation in the economic value of products raised and sold by American farmers. OCCOTATIONS OF FABM OPERATOHS

It is interesting to notice what a variety of full-time jobs are held by the people who operate small farms as a hobby. A person is automatically classified as a farm operator if the plot on which he resides is of such size and productivity to classify as a farm. However, in thousands of cases such a designation does not mean that the operator regards his farm as his main occupation. The extraordinary distribution among occupational groupings of those men classified as farm operators is shown in Table 5. The figures here represent the percentage of those men who actually reported another occupation — 437,000 people did not answer the question, or else said "no occupation." The table is concerned with three types of farmers, commercial, part-time, and residential. Even among commercial farmers, one in ten reported a main occupation other than "farmer." Less than half of the part-time and residential farmers give farming as their occupation. Altogther, nearly a fourth of all American farm operators in 1950 regarded themselves occupationally as nonfarmers. This is further striking evidence of the mixing of town and country mentioned later in this volume. It is one of the most significant developments of the times. DIFFERENCES IN LAND TENURE

Another major differentiating factor in American farm life is tenure. Whether land is owned or rented has long been recognized as a major influence in rural social and economic life. Ownership of land by the people who work it has been accepted as

A GENERAL

SURVEY

25

the ideal goal. It makes for social and political stability and constitutes a more satisfactory base for development of community institutions. Some important changes have been taking place in tenure during recent years. The collapse of agricultural markets in 1929 Table 5 Farm

operators

by percentages

in various

occupation Types

OCCUPATION OF OPERATORS

Total

Professional 1.2 Faraiers and farm managers 77.9 Managers, officials, etc. 2.5 Clerical and kindred workers 0.9 Sales workers 0.8 Craftsmen, foremen, etc. 4.8 Operatives and kindred workers 6.0 Private household and service workers 0.9 Farm laborers and foremen 2.5 Laborers, except farm and mine 2.4 Number reporting " Occupation not reported All farm operators ''

4,904 437 5,341

groups of farm

1950 operators

Parttime

Residential '

0.8 91.0 1.3 0.3 0.3 1.5 1.4 0.3 2.2 0.8

2.7 48.4 5.6 2.9 2.2 13.3 14.0 1.9 2.7 6.3

2.0 38.9 5.8 1.9 2.3 14.2 21.1 3.1 3.6 7.2

3,572 197 3,769

563 55 618

769 184 953

Commercial '

Source: "Farms and Farm People," Bureau of the Census Special Coöperative Report, p. 61. Data were not available for 39,000 operators. • Sales of $1,200 and over, plus those with sales from $250-1,199 which are not parttime farms. ' Sales of $250-1,199 plus 100 days or more work off the farm, or non-farm income exceeding value of sales. « Sales less than $250. ^ In thousands.

and the persistence of low prices well into the 1930's brought widespread distress to the rural population. Heavily mortgaged owners were unable to meet their payments. Bankruptcies were widespread and would have been catastrophic had it not been for government action. Meanwhile, there was general concern over the steady rise in tenancy, from 25 per cent in 1880 to over 42.4 per cent in 1930.

26

AMEmCAN FARM LIFE

Government action to promote farm ownership was instituted in the early 1930's. Credit was hberalized and a special agency, the Farm Security Administration ( later changed to Farmers' Home Administration), was created in 1937 to help farm tenants finance the purchase of farms. Since 1930 farm tenancy has steadily declined; it was down to 26.8 per cent in 1950. This is only slightly higher than that for 1880 when the first figures on tenancy were gathered. In sixty-five years, therefore, the rate of tenancy has completed a cycle. It is instructive to take a look at what has happened in the distribution of farmers by tenure groups from 1930 to 1950, and at the change in the average size of farms operated by each class. The figures are shown in Table 6. Table б

Changes in land tenure and average acreage per farm, 1930-1950 1930

T E N U R E GROUP TOTAL

Full owners Part owners Managers All tenants SHABECHOPPERS

(South only)

% in each group

1940

% in Acres each per farm group

100.0 46.3 10.4 0.9 42.4 (12.3)

Source: C7.S. Census of Agriculture,

158.9 127.9 374.5 1,109.1 115.0 40.7

100.0 50.6 10.1 0.6 38.7 (8.9)

1950

% in Acres each per farm group 174 123.9 488.3 1,830.2 132.1 43.1

100.0 57.4 15.3 0.4 26.9 (6.4)

Acres per farm 215.3 135.6 512.0 4,473.2 146.8 40.9

1950, I I : 922.

Full-owner farms, it should be pointed out, may be either mortgaged or free of mortgage. Their percentage in the total has steadily increased due in part to special government action, but perhaps more to the increased prosperity of agriculture since 1940. Part owners are those who own some land and rent additional acreage. The proportion of operators who are part owners has increased by nearly one-half, and the average acreage of partowned farms has increased from 374 in 1930 to 512 in 1950, an

A GENERAL SURVEY

27

increase of nearly 40 per cent. Meanwhile, the acreage of the full owners increased but little during the same period. The percentage of managed farms declined but their average acreage increased four-fold. The average size of tenant-operated farms increased by 30 acres on the average, while their proportion in the total declined. Much of this decline in tenancy, as defined by the census, can be attributed to the reduction in the number of sharecropper farmers from 776,000 in 1930 to 347,000 in 1950. The percentage of all farmers who are sharecroppers dropped from 12.3 to 6.4. Most sharecroppers of the nation are found in the southern states, where they are associated with cotton and tobacco plantations. Although classified as farm operators and included in the category of tenants, they are in reality farm laborers who are paid a share of the crop. Their decline in numbers is largely the result of a tendency on the part of southern landlords to place them on a wage basis rather than to pay them in kind. This tendency was encouraged by the Agricultural Adjustment Act, which specified that subsidy payments were to be shared by landlord and tenant on the same basis as the crop itself was shared between them. By changing the sharecropper to a wage laborer, the landlord could legally receive all of the benefit payments for himself. Another reason for the decline in sharecropping is mechanization, which makes it more efficient to run the plantation as a single unit. Many sharecroppers were forced out of agriculture entirely and have found their way into the towns and cities. BEGIONAL DIFFERENCES IN TENUBE

The tenure situation differs greatly throughout the country. More farmers own their own land in areas where land is cheap. The more productive agricultural regions have a high percentage of tenants, particularly in the cotton, wheat, and corn belts. Part-owner farms, which have increased lately, are distributed widely over the country but are notably concentrated in the Northern Great Plains, where wheat farming predominates. In

28

AMERICAN FARM LIFE

North Dakota, for example, nearly 40 per cent of all farms are operated by part owners. Managed farms occur in greatest relative numbers on the Pacific Coast, followed by New England, the Middle Atlantic states, and the Mountain states. In the last region such farms are mainly livestock ranches, but in the other areas they are usually fruit and vegetable farms. Full-owner farms are most important in the New England, Middle Atlantic, and Pacific Coast regions, and least common in the Great Plains and the western part of the Com Belt. Tenancy reaches its highest proportions in the southern regions and the Corn Belt "non-white" fabmehs In 1950, 10.8 per cent of American farm operators were classified as "non-white." This category includes Negroes, Indians, and Orientals, but Negroes are over 96 per cent of the total. Practically all Negro farmers are in the South, while other nonwhites are located mainly in the North and West. Negroes frequently rise to the status of owners in the North, where only 36.5 per cent are tenants; but altogether there are few of them. While some achieve ownership in the South, two-thirds of the Negro farmers there are tenants and sharecroppers. Although the discussion here concerns only farm operators, it is a well-known fact that Negroes also make up a large segment of the farm labor force in the South. THE ACmCULTURAL BEGIONS Finally, in this over-view of American agriculture, let us consider the generalized types of farming and the regions where they are dominant. A brief glance at Figure 2 will show at once the distribution of major crops in the United States. However, each region indicated on the map represents a major concentration on one type of farming. That does not mean that fanners in the area raise nothing else. For example, the Corn

MAJOR TYPES OF FARMING IN THE UNITED STATES

Range livestock Tobacco a n d genera! farming Ο Nonfarming

• Fruit, truck, and special crops ^ Feed grains and livestock (Corn Belt) Ё Э G e n e r a l farming I Cotton U s DEPARTMENT 0Г

MEG. 4 7 4 2 4 . *

AGRICULTURE

FIGURE

2

BUREAU OF AGRICULTURAL

ECONOMICS

30

AMERICAN FARM

LIFE

Belt represents the greatest concentration in the production of corn, but this crop is grown in every state of the union. The same can be said of wheat and of dairying. Even the production of cotton is by no means limited to the area commonly referred to as the Cotton Belt. It is grown also in Arizona and California. Nevertheless, this rough delineation of areas which specialize in certain combinations of crop and livestock production serves to demonstrate the variegated character of American agriculture. Throughout the nation there is a great deal of difference in the intensity of utilization of land. For example, in 1949 we harvested 344 million acres of crop land. Over half of these acres were located in one-fifth of our total land area. This area of intensive farming includes the Com Belt and the winter and spring wheatgrowing sections, approximately that great north central area which stretches west from Ohio into the northern and southern Great Plains. The natural factors of soil, topography, and climate constitute basic resources for the use of mankind, and set certain limits on what man can do; but the kind of agriculture in use is partly determined by the level of cultural development which society has reached. Thus the European immigrants to the New World brought with them their "cultural baggage," which resulted in a way of utilizing the natural resources very different from that of the aborigines. As we pointed out in Chapter One, the Europeans adopted the elementary agricultural arts of the Indians but added their own remarkable improvements. lu the course of experience in the New World, various types of agriculture have been gradually developed and fairly definite regional patterns have emerged. These regional patterns exercise great influence on the social and economic life of farm people, as we shall presently see.

CHAPTER

THREE

The Technological Frontier THERE IS NO LONGER a population frontier in North America, except for Alaska and Northern Canada. In the United States, practically all the good farm land was occupied by the tum of the last century. But although the physical frontier has vanished, the imaginary frontier of technological progress has remained to challenge scientists and farmers. Technology is gradually penetrating the wilderness of the unknown, blazing new trails, solving some problems, raising new ones, and opening vistas on the future. Problem-solving is not a new development in agriculture. It has been going on since Neolithic man or woman first began the cultivation of plants. But until the apphcation of the scientific method to plant and animal production, the process moved slowly by trial and error. As scientific research in the chemistry, genetics, and physiology of life processes has probed ever further into the unknown, the application of the new principles to agriculture has moved at an accelerated rate. The past quarter of a century has witnessed achievements which cannot but excite wonder and admiration. In his foreword to the Yearbook of Agriculture, 1943-1947, the then Secretary of Agriculture, Clinton P. Anderson, summarizes some of the recent developments in agriculture thus: On my farm in New Mexico and on farms the country over I have watched, marveling, the onward surge of science in farming. We now

32

AMEmCAN FARM LIFE

have tractors and attachments that pull our heavy equipment and can dig holes, grade roads, clean barnyards, lift loads and grind feed. We have hens that lay twice as many eggs as chickens did a few years ago. We have alfalfa, wheat, flax and oats that are wonderfully resistant to plant diseases. We can buy a kind of chemical that kills weeds and, used in another way, stimulates the growth of fruits and vegetables. We have new kinds of sheep and cattle and hogs that give us more wool or meat or bacon; and we have surer ways to keep them healthy and free from pests. Insecticides make our houses and bams more sanitary and comfortable. We have hybrid trees, hybrid corn, and hybrid onions of almost unbelievably higher yields. Many of the mysteries of the good earth have been disclosed to us, and we use the knowledge to till the soil for its welfare and ours. Airplanes take some of our produce to market; new kinds of packages and processes keep it fresh and wholesome. The corncobs we used to burn or throw away have been given good use in industry. These are the results of a few years of agricultural research. More are coming. . . Some of these developments and their significance to the American farmer are worthy of further elaboration. MECHANIZATION OF FARMS

Many implements in common use today were patented before the Civil War. Steel and chilled-iron plows, grain drills, mechanical harvesters, including the grain binder, threshing machines, and the sulky plow were among the early inventions. However, they were not refined, manufactured, or distributed among farmers in general until the end of the nineteenth century. Oxen remained the chief source of animal power on the farm until after the Civil War, when horses replaced them.^ Although these early developments were very important, the real revolution in farm equipment came in the twentieth century. The invention which is of central importance in contemporary life is the internal combustion engine. Its numerous appUcations — the automobile, truck, and tractor — have wrought marvelous changes in American agriculture and rural life. The increase in tractors on farms has been nothing short of phenomenal. In 1920, less than four farms out of a hundred

THE TECHNOLOGICAL FRONTIER

33

reported tractors; the number had risen to nearly half of all (5,382,000) farms by 1950. (See Table 7.) Even during the war years when tractors were in short supply, over a million farmers were able to add them to their equipment. The number manufactured for sale in the United States amounted to 670,651 in 1951.3 Table 7 Percentage of United States farms reporting motor vehicles, Year 1920 1930 1940 1945 1950

1920-1950

Tractor

Type of vehicle Automobile

Motor truck

3.6 13.5 23.1 34.2 46.9

30.7 58.0 68.0 62.0 63.0

2.0 13.4 15.5 22.2 34.2

Source: U.S. Censuses for years specified.

Regions of the country vary widely in the extent to which tractors have been acquired. North Dakota, for instance, in 1950 reported that 89.3 per cent of its farms had tractors, compared with only 13.3 per cent in Mississippi. Tractor farming is a phenomenon mainly of the North and West, while the horse and mule still reign in the South. For the major divisions of the country, the percentages of farms with tractors in 1950 were as follows: New England 44.9 Middle Atlantic 63.5 East North Central 69.4 West North Central 71.8 South Atlantic 23.2 East South Central 18.8 West South Central 38.3 Mountain 64.7 Pacific 56.8 Many other implements have added immensely to the time and effort saved in tractor farming. The gang plow, the combine

34

AMERICAN

FARM LIFE

harvester, the four-row cultivator, the tv/o-row corn picker, hayloading and pick-up baling machinery, the sugar-beet harvester, the cotton picker, the sugar cane harvester, and the potato harvester, to mention only a few, are either in wide use or rapidly spreading. Tractors work most economically where ground is level or rolling, and where farms are large. However, models have been developed for smaller farms and irregular terrain. The horse and mule are losing out to the tractor, even in the South. The use of motor trucks has also increased at a spectacular rate. In 1920, only 2 per cent of farms reported having motor trucks, but in 1950 over a third of all farms had them. According to estimates of the Department of Agriculture, there were 920,000 more trucks on farms in 1952 than in 1945.^ The Census of Agriculture for 1950 reveals that the total number of farms reporting motor trucks increased from 944,000 in 1940 to 1,840,000 in 1950. The regional pattern of increase, however, differed somewhat from that for the tractor. Percentagewise, the greatest increase took place in the South, where there were more than two and one-half times as many farms with motor trucks in 1950 as there were in 1940. However, the South still has a smaller proportion of farms thus equipped than do other regions of the country. In 1950 the Mountain States had the highest proportion of farms with trucks of any section in the country. The following list shows what per cent of farms had trucks in each region in 1950.« Mountain States Pacific States New England States Middle Atlantic States West North Central East North Central West South Central South Atlantic East South Central

62 51 49 43 39 35 35 25 22

per per per per per per per per per

cent cent cent cent cent cent cent cent cent

THE TECHNOLOGICAL FRONTIER

35

The significance of the motor truck to the farmer lies in the ready contact it gives him to the initial market. From 20 to 70 per cent of farm commodities (depending on the type of product) are hauled to the initial market by the farmer in his own truck.® In addition to the economic advantages, this system provides opportunities for attending social gatherings in the trade center, visiting, shopping, calling at the office of the doctor and dentist, and so on. This development in the use of motor trucks has been accompanied by a vast extension of all-weather roads throughout rural areas. In 1940, 51 per cent of all farms were located on dirt or unimproved roads, compared with 33 per cent in 1950. While the tractor and truck are of major importance in the farm business, the automobile plays a vital role in helping the farm family enlarge the range of its social contacts. The car came into wide use among farm people somewhat earlier than the truck or tractor. As long ago as 1920, nearly a third of all farms had cars, and by 1930 nearly three-fifths (58 per cent) had them. The percentage climbed to 63 in 1950. The automobile, of course, is often used also in connection with the farm business. The impact of the automobile on rural life in the United States can scarcely be over-stated. Suffice it to say at this juncture that it has modified practically all phases of family and community life. It has promoted the reorganization of many social institutions, and made possible the development of numerous new ones, thereby contributing to the complexity and segmentation of society. It has in general brought town and country into closer contact, resulting in the spectacular growth of new industries which drain off surplus labor from the farms; and it has expanded the social horizons of both farm and non-farm people. Rural electrification is another significant phase of the mechanization of American farms. It is conspicuously recent. In 1920 only 7 per cent of farm dwellings were lighted by "gas or electricity"; the kerosene lamp was the mainstay. The phenomenal

36

AMERICAN FARM LIFE

growth of rural electrification is shown by the following list, which gives percentages of farms reporting electricity between 1930 and 1952. 1930 1940 1945 1950 1952

13.4 33.3 48.0 78.3 88.0

per per per per per

cent cent cent cent cent

In 1952 there were 9 states which had over 95 per cent of their farms electrified, and 16 other states had 90 to 95 per cent. This dramatic achievement is due to the promotion work carried on by the Rural Electrification Administration, which was established in 1935 by the federal government. It provides loans to cooperative organizations of potential farm users, loans used to buy equipment, construct power lines, and install services. The farmers' cooperatives take care of servicing the systems. However, 641,300 farms are not yet served by electric power lines. These are chiefly in areas of relatively high rates of tenancy (South and Great Plains). Farm owners in those regions are apt to provide electricity in their own homes but neglect the homes of their tenants. Consequently, the higher the proportion of tenants in a state the fewer the farm homes thus equipped. There are also many farms too small and poor to afford electricity. To make a bad situation worse, according to the 1940 census about a third of all farm dwellings are in such poor shape that they were classified as "non-repairable." Obviously, many new houses must be built before electrification can be extended, especially in certain areas. Besides lighting buildings, electric power is used in many ways on the farm, such as operating milking machines, feed grinders, and choppers, as well as home appliances. Not the least of the conveniences which electricity makes possible is a pressure water system for the home, along with modern plumbing facilities. Truly, farm life in mid-century is made vastly more convenient and comfortable as a result of this technological innovation.

THE TECHNOLOGICAL

FRONTIER

37

OTHER DEVELOPMENTS

While improvement in farm implements has gone on at an accelerated pace, numerous other achievements of scientific research no less remarkable have been recorded. By means of the techniques of inbreeding, crossbreeding and selection, research workers have developed improved varieties of crops and farm animals. The geneticists are having a field day. The most widely known of their achievements is undoubtedly hybrid com, first developed at the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station at New Haven. The use of hybrid seed corn began about 1933, a year in which only one tenth of one per cent of all corn acreage was planted with hybrids. By 1952, 84 per cent of all corn acreage was hybrid seed, while in the Corn Belt the percentage ranged from 95 to 100 per cent. The largest com crop in the history of the country was grown in 1948, when 3.6 billion bushels were produced on 84,778,000 acres. By contrast it required 95,644,000 acres in 1906 to produce a 3 billion-bushel crop, the first in our history. The only other years in which three billions or more bushels were produced were 1920, 1942, 1944, 1946, 1949, 1950 and 1952; but in the years before 1948 the acreage was larger and the total production less than in 1948. The weather helps to account for differences in production, but climatic conditions were favorable in the years cited before 1948; consequently the increased productivity in 1948 was undoubtedly caused in very large measure by the use of hybrids, mechanization, and other technological advances. The 1952 corn production was 3.3 billion bushels and the harvested acreage was 81,359,000 acres. Incidentally, it is in the states where corn is a minor crop that the use of hybrids is most retarded. In 1950, less than 20 per cent of the acreage was planted to hybrids in the states of Arizona, New Mexico, Alabama and Georgia. The effect of hybrids is obviously to intensify the concentration of corn production in the regions most favorably adapted to it, particularly

38

AMERICAN FARM LIFE

the Corn Belt. In 1952, Arizona was the only state with less than 10 per cent of its corn acreage in hybrids. Many kinds of fruits and vegetables have also been recently improved through breeding and selection. New varieties of oats, wheat, and barley are being developed and utilized by farmers every year, through the combined efforts of the United States Department of Agriculture, the Agricultural Experiment Stations of the forty-eight states, and the Federal-State Cooperative Extension Service. The new varieties are bred to resist such diseases as rust and smut, as well as drought and insect damage. Geneticists constantly seek higher yields, better milling quality (of wheat), and other desirable characteristics. Other crops which have been improved are sugar-cane, sugar-beets, cotton, flax, potatoes, onions, alfalfa and other hay crops, various vegetables, fruits, and nuts. In total, they make it clear that we are constantly on the "technological frontier" — discovering things which greatly increase the productivity of American acres. Since new diseases and insect pests are always arising within our borders or being introduced from abroad, the battle of the plant breeders is never-ending. In the 1948 Yearbook of Agriculture, for example, it was reported that twenty-six plant diseases had been found which were either previously unknown, or were found in the United States for the first time, or were found attacking a particular crop for the first time. Sixteen different crops were affected. It was mentioned earlier that the major breeds of livestock are importations from abroad, and that Americans had improved them by selection, by adapting them to diverse environmental conditions, and by developing more efficient methods of care. In addition, some new breeds of livestock have been recently introduced. The Columbia sheep developed by the Department of Agriculture at its Dubois, Idaho, Experiment Station is a case in point, as are the two new breeds of hogs developed at the Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station. In all cases, the breeders aim to secure the best features of the basic stock and

THE TECHNOLOGICAL FRONTIER

39

improve upon them, while at the same time eliminating some of the undesirable qualities. Artificial insemination has done a lot to improve the breeds of dairy cattle. Its use is very recent. In 1939 there were only seven artificial breeding units in the United States, involving 7,500 cows; by January 1, 1953, there were 1623 such associations; and in 1952, 4,295,243 cows were bred by this method. The results of this technique combined with better methods of caring for cattle are highly rewarding. In 1952, the average cow produced 18 per cent more milk than in 1930, and the butterfat content was also 18 per cent higher. Soil technology has not lagged. American farmers, for one thing, have become much more soil-conscious in recent years. Perhaps the great drought of the 1930's, and the insistent warnings of soil scientists that Americans were wasting their most important resource through misuse, brought soil into the public consciousness. In any case, farmers are manifesting an interest in soil technology which they did not show in earlier days, when they seemed to be intoxicated with the notion of land abundance. The government has taken a hand here; for a number of years until 1953 it annually distributed large amounts of lime and other fertilizers, and helped farmers to terrace their land, install check dams, and take other measures for preventing erosion. IMPROVED FAKM MANAGEMENT

Agricultural research has certainly not been limited to the development of more efficient machines and better varieties of crops and livestock. Better methods of managing the farm enterprise have also received attention. Fundamentally, the operation of a farm as a business enterprise is not different from that of other economic undertakings. Theoretically, at least, the farmer seeks to combine the factors of production — land, labor, machinery and livestock — in such a way as to give him maximum returns. However, it is possible for a farmer to have the latest types of farm machinery, the best varieties of crops, and the best breeds

40

AMEmCAN FARM LIFE

of livestock, and still be an inefficient producer because he lacks managerial ability. Farm management studies are made to improve methods of utilizing productive resources. In spite of the well-known variation in managerial capacity among American farmers, over the past quarter of a century they have been able to reduce the average labor requirements for the production of such crops as corn, wheat, oats, and soybeans by 20 to 50 per cent. For example, an acre of com is now produced with about half the hours of labor formerly required. The grain and other crops to which improved farm machinery is most readily adaptable have made the greatest gains, in terms of man-hours required per unit of production. However, some advances can be noted even in cotton, tobacco, truck, and fruit crop production. Livestock production, on the other hand, still requires about the same amount of human labor, although productivity per unit of labor has risen. A most revealing study was made during the years 1943 to 1945, called the Farm Work Simplification Research Project. Twelve Agricultural Experiment Stations cooperated in making it. The study shows both the variations in managerial capacity of our farmers and also the great untouched potentialities of the farm plant. Some of the findings can be briefly summarized. A study of hay jobs on 82 Vermont farms showed that it took one man only 62 minutes to move a ton of hay from the windrow to the mow, whereas on another farm it required 313 man-minutes. And equipment was not the whole story. This was shown by the fact that some fanners using out-of-date equipment were able to beat the average operating timé of those using much more modern devices. Studies in tobacco production in Kentucky revealed that some methods saved from one-fourth to two-thirds of the labor previously required. In Florida a study of celery production showed that 40 per cent of labor requirements could be saved by the introduction of improved methods. Chores necessary to maintain livestock take from one-third to one-half of the average farmer's yearly labor. For example, it

THE TECHNOLOGICAL

FRONTIER

41

takes from 140 to 150 hours per year to care for a milk cow, 5 to 7 hours to raise a hog, and 2 hours a year to care for a hen. However, a study of five efficient farmers in Indiana over a year's time showed that they had been able to reduce the labor expenditure to 1.7 hours to produce a 225 lb. market hog, a sharp contrast to the Indiana average of 5.7 hours. A Minnesota dairyman keeping 13 cows and 14 other cattle was able to reduce his winter dairy chores from 3 hoiu-s and 39 minutes a day to 2 hours and 45 minutes, a saving of 27 per cent. By changing his methods of milking, feeding, and watering the stock; by rearranging chore routes; and by introducing small equipment like carts and drinking cups, he managed to save 138 miles of walking a year.·^ If such improved practices, along with numerous others being developed out of research work in farm management, ever become more widely difiFused among farmers, productivity per unit of labor, already at least 60 per cent above what it was during World War I, will rise to further unprecedented levels. SOME SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES

What does all this add up to in terms of its impact upon the social and economic organization of American rural life? What is the machine — and for that matter efficiency in general — doing for us and to us? As this is being written, one fact appears to be very clear: the wind has gone out of the sails of the neo-Malthusians. Prophecies that the human race would outrun its food supply have little force when our own government is harassed by mounting surpluses. India, China, and the millions of people throughout the whole world who are hungry and ill-nourished may be fed better as the advanced technology of agriculture becomes gradually diffused. As for the United States, our increased efficiency has placed us in something of a quandary. The plain truth is that we have no idea how to live with abundance. As soon as an article becomes plentiful its value in exchange declines. We have tried to circumvent such devaluation

42

AMERICAN FARM LIFE

by pmchasing the surplus with government funds, storing it, giving it away, or destroying it. And we are frantically searching for new markets and new outlets for our surplus. The new industrial revolution in agriculture is affecting all aspects of rural life: political, economic, and social. It has contributed to the development of an increasing number of large farms. It has made possible the production of a larger volume of commodities with fewer workers. There were 11,161,000 workers on farms in 1930 compared with 9,780,000 in 1952, but in the latter year the productivity per man was almost 75 per cent higher. This has meant a thinning out of the farm population, with migration to towns and cities greatly accelerated. More will be said about this in later chapters. Schools, churches, local government, farm organizations — in short, all rural social mechanisms — have been affected. The new technology has had the effect also of increasing the amount of capital required in farming. This fact was noted in Chapter Two (See Table 1). For example, consider a hog-beeffattening farm in eastern Nebraska, which is a corn-livestock area. The Bureau of Agricultural Economics estimates that a farm of this type large enough to give a satisfactory income for a farm family in 1951 would require investments of $46,000 in real estate and around $21,000 in machinery, livestock, feed and equipment. Young men looking forward to becoming farm owner-operators will need far more initial capital than did their fathers. A price of $50 to $75 thousand for a farm is a barrier few young men can surmount without aid from relatives. The "new agriculture" at the level of medium or large "family farms" places a premium on managerial ability. An enterprise with a capitalization equal to that of a country bank is not likely to be successfully operated by the mediocre and unskilled. Indeed, an operator on this scale must know a corisiderable amount about a wide range of subjects, including the latest information on crop varieties, soil technology, cultural methods, livestock

THE TECHNOLOGICAL FRONTIER

43

breeds and best methods of care, control of plant and animal diseases and pests, and efficient methods of marketing and handling his produce. It is apparent that renewed emphasis on vocational training is called for, not only at the high school and college level, but as a continuing process throughout the farmer's active life. A new hazard is added to the many natural hazards with which a farmer has to contend. This is the increasing dependence of the farmer upon the city. Time was, for instance, when he grew his own horse-power and his own "fuel," but today he depends upon the worker in the tractor plant; the operators of the oil rig, refinery, and service station; and a host of non-farm intermediaries working to supply his needs. Let labor fail to make the machine or to produce the gas and oil to power it, and the farmer is a very helpless person. The growing interdependence of farm and city may be hailed as an advantage of the machine age. There can be no doubt that the farmer and urbanité are now closer together. However, the possibilities of friction between them are also increased. Above all, it is clear that the nature of rural — and urban — life has been much modified in the past quarter of a century, and mainly by the machine. The new technology also brings to the farmer the possibility of more leisure. While farmers are inclined to say their working day is longer now than it was twenty-five years ago — the tractor doesn't tire as did a team of horses — the fact remains that the work of planting and harvesting requires fewer days, and there are times of the year when there are many free hours which can be classified as "leisure." Since most farmers are unaccustomed to this situation, a new adjustment becomes necessary. Farmers are spending their leisure in many ways. Apparently the country taverns receive much patronage, but it is also true that large numbers of farmers and their families are doing more travelling, both within the country and abroad. We must recognize that the utilization of leisure is an art which must be learned. Certainly,

44

AMERICAN

FARM

LIFE

not all farmers are now capable of taking full advantage of the new benefits within their reach. It is well to emphasize here the fact that some farmers are not in a position to reap the benefits of technology. The numerous small farmers, those on land which is inferior or of rough topography, and perhaps others can share these benefits only in a minor degree. Indeed, many farmers are crowded off the land as a result of these changes, losing what opportunity they had in agriculture, meagre though it may have been. There are victims as well as beneficiaries. Sherman Johnson, economist with the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, has well said: The effect of technology on farm people may be both good and bad. Those who can take advantage of the new techniques are likely to increase their net incomes a great deal. On the other hand, those who cannot adjust their operations to the new conditions may find themselves at a relative disadvantage. And workers who are displaced may suffer hardships unless other employment is readily available. Those growing pains of technological progress can be softened. Special educational and other programs can be provided for those who are disadvantaged by technological changes. Progress in farm technology can result in net social gain, but this is a potentiality and not an inevitable consequence. Farm people will need to learn how to live with the new techniques, and to use them to their advantage. To attempt to stop, or even to slow down, the tide of progress would be too costly to farmers over a period of years. If farming, as well as other sectors of our economy, is rapidly adjusted to the technical improvements that become available it will be possible to produce more with less effort. More time will be available for other things including education, recreation, and increased leisure. And the real incomes for farm and for family will be larger." Some of the social and economic problems facing rural people in the United States will be discussed further in subsequent chapters.

CHAPTER

FOUR

The Farm Labor Force IMPORTANT CHANGES have taken place in the agricultural labor force in the past two decades, and more are yet to come. In the first place, there has been a marked decline in the number of persons engaged in farm work, as a result of mechanization and other technological advances in agriculture. In 1930, there was an average of 11,161,000 persons employed on farms. By 1952, the estimated number was 9,780,000, a decline of 12.4 per cent. The decline in family labor, in this case composed of operators and their families, was only 9 per cent, while that of the hired workers was 23 per cent. The farm labor force in 1952 constituted an estimated 15.5 per cent of the United States total labor force, compared with 25 per cent in 1930. This is an annual average figure based upon monthly estimates of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics. The employment fluctuation from season to season is naturally very great in farming, with peak employment coming during the planting and harvesting periods. For example, the Bureau of Agricultural Economics estimated that the number of farm workers in September 1949 was 14,694,000 and in December, 7,150,000. The number of hired workers fell from 4,156,000 in September to 953,000 in December. The census taken in April 1950 shows that 2,736,723 hired workers were employed then.

46

АМЕЫСШ

FARM

LIFE

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE LABOR FORCE

W e need not spend further time discussing the characteristics of the farm operators themselves (whether owners, tenants, or sharecroppers ), since they were described in an earlier chapter. It is important, however, to keep in mind that they are part of the "farm labor force." The hired workers in American agriculture make up a heterogeneous group differing widely in income, conditions of work, and level of living. Many attempts at classifying them have been made and the following is only one of several possible ways: 1. Full-time, year-round workers paid in cash (with or without perquisites ). a. On farms or ranches primarily devoted to livestock production. b. On farms devoted to mixed livestock and crop production. c. On farms devoted primarily to crop production. 2. Full-time, year-round workers paid in kind (sharecroppers). 3. Part-time, casual workers. ( Mainly young persons and housewives, either urban, town or farm, who work in crops during peak demand for labor in cultivating, planting, or harvesting, in areas accessible to their permanent residences.) 4. Migratory farm workers. a. Gangs. ( Those who make up the more or less regular "streams" of workers engaged in harvesting and other work connected with specialty crops.) b. Single workers. (The 'Ъired man" type who may spend several months, but less than a year, on one place, then move to another, and who may be married or single. )

THE FARM LABOR FORCE

47

Current information about the hired labor force in agriculture comes from the annual surveys made by the Bureau of the Census for the Bureau of Agricultural Economics. The survey made in December 1951 estimated that there were 2,156,000 persons "who worked for farm wages 25 days or more" during the year.^ The study found that 80 per cent of the workers were men. Forty-three per cent worked from 25 to 74 days; 18 per cent, from 75 to 149 days; 14 per cent, from 150 to 249 days; and 25 per cent, 250 days or over. In other words, nearly half of the group worked about three months or less, while about a fourth could report a full year of work at farm wages. The average number of days worked on farms by men during 1951 amounted to 165; and by women, 70. The men earned an average of $797, and the women, $238. The men averaged 32 days in non-farm wage work, at which they earned an additional $238, thus bringing their total average earnings to $1,035; while the women added $20, on the average, to their income from non-farm work. The average wages per day for farm work for all workers was $4.70; when they were engaged in non-farm employment the wages averaged $7.00. It is well to note in this connection that the hourly wages in agriculture have risen from 17.1 cents in 1940 to an estimated 66.5 cents in 1952.2 Yet on the basis of annual earnings the farm laborers come oflE rather poorly. This is largely a consequence of the intermittent unemployment which most of them suffer. However, it is important to note that less than half the total of over 2 million workers regarded farm wage work as their main activity. Some 287,000 students, 267,000 housewives, and 65,000 people whose main occupation was in non-gainful activity worked on farms for "25 days or more," but during most of the year were not really in the farm labor force. Over 3 million of the total were farm operators or members of their families who worked part-time on other farms but whose main work was operating their own farms. Then there were 250,000 people

48

AMERICAN FARM LIFE

whose major activity during the year was in non-farm work, but who managed to work 25 days or more on farms for wages. Three-fourths of the workers had only one employer during the year, but a few had as many as seven or more. Migratory workers, of course, had more employers on the average than the nonmigratory. Only 35 per cent of the migrants worked for one employer; 37 per cent worked for two; 5 per cent for three; and 22 per cent for from four to six employers.^ In the same source from which the foregoing data was taken, there is a report on characteristics of the "regular" hired farm labor force in 1950. This report deals with 774,000 workers who were employed six months or more continuously on one farm during 1950. Of this group, only 5 per cent were women. Of the 713,000 males, 19,000 were from 14 to 17 years of age; 216,000, or 30 per cent, were 45 years of age or over, with the balance rather evenly distributed in the intervening age groups. Eightythree per cent of these workers were white; 16 per cent, Negro; and 1 per cent, "other." About 27 per cent of the males were single, while 63 per cent were married and 10 per cent widowed, divorced or separated. This last figure is probably higher than the average for the population as a whole. Of the males who were married or had been married, 40 per cent had no children under 18 years of age, although 15 per cent had four or more. The "regular" workers earned an average of $1,163 in 1950; about half of them earned under $1,000, while 5 per cent reported earning $2,400 or more. This recital of bare statistics is necessary to convey some impression of the varied character of the hired workers in midcentury United States. The group of "regular" workers represents the nearest thing to the semi-mythical personage known as the 'Ъired man." Even so, the available information does not tell us how many of these men are able to enjoy the security of a permanent job; all we know is that they were on the same farm for at least six months. We can see from these data that many of the workers hired by

THE FARM LABOR FORCE

49

farmers in the peak season are students, housewives and others who are but temporarily in the labor force, and that another large segment are farm operators or members of their families. What is not shown in this survey is the number of migratory workers. They constitute a special economic and social problem. Clearly, some of the 2,156,000 workers covered in the survey could be classified as migratory workers, but no precise estimates are given. MIGRATORY WORKERS

Louis J. Ducoff estimated that there were approximately one million migratory farm workers "in the United States at some time during the year (1949) . . The number of domestic migratory workers 14 years old and over was estimated at 520,000. In addition, legally contracted workers were imported: 100,000 from Mexico, 4,400 from Puerto Rico, 8,000 from the British West Indies, and 6,600 from Canada. The remaining 400,000 workers (roughly estimated) were "wetbacks" — Mexicans illegally in this country.® Migratory laborers constitute less than one-tenth of the farm labor force, and perform less than 5 per cent of the nation's farm work; but their contribution comes at the extremely crucial periods which determine the success or failure of the year's operations. No more than 2 per cent of the nation's farms employ migrant labor. These farms are highly specialized producers of fruits, vegetables, and a few other specialty crops, notably sugar beets and cotton. Obviously, then, for the vast majority of American farmers and rural communities, migratory labor is not a problem. But for the areas dependent upon their labor, the migratories are a problem of very serious magnitude, so serious, in fact, that they have been the object of investigation of two Congressional committees, one in the House and one in the Senate,® and of a Presidential commission. It can be said with assurance that there is no problem in American agriculture about which so much has been said and written in relation to the extent of

50

AMERICAN

FARM

LIFE

the action taken. Their situation has been described by the President's Commission on Migratory Labor as follows: Migrants generally are easily identified as outsiders. Their faces are those of strangers and, for many of them, differences of color and other physical characteristics serve as badges of identiQcation. Their heavily laden cars or trucks, packed with beds, cooking utensils, and furniture are easily distinguished from those campers on vacation. Even their work clothes by material, style, or cut seem to indicate an outside origin. All along the way are those who take advantage of the migratory worker's helplessness. Professional gamblers, prostitutes, and peddlers of dope follow the work routes to obtain, each in his own way, a share of the migrant's money. Residents tend to separate migrants from themselves in domicile and law, in thought and feeling. They assign special places to migrants seeking shelter, or leave them to go where their poverty and condition force them. Here they encamp in tents or simply under canvass supported by a rope strung between two trees or from the side of the car to the ground. They sleep on pallets, or on bedsprings or folding cots which some of them carry. Where rains are frequent during work season they find shelter in crude shacks. On farms they use what shelter their employers may provide. The lines of segregation are further sharpened, particularly for Negroes, Mexicans, and Puerto Ricans by differences of skin color, stature, and language. For several years the Mexican Government declined to allow its citizens to go to Texas under the Mexican-United States International Agreement because of the flagrant social discriminations under which they had to live. Customs, codes, and laws, like plants, take root, grow and endure best in soils that stay in place. The customs of migratory farm laborers rarely find their way into codes and laws; at the close of the season when the people scatter, their ways vanish with them. Established residence is the primary qualification for exercising the right to vote. By the very nature of their occupation, migratory workers find it difficult to qualify. In some States an additional obstacle is the poll tax. It is not surprising under these circumstances that the interests of migrants are easily slighted in the laws. Take, for example, the laws governing education, relief, health, and other social benefits. Migrants work in communities where they do not live. Since it is not working in a community but living in it that confers a legal right to such benefits, the migratory worker is usually excluded. During the great distress migration of the 1930's, some State legislatures

THE FARM LABOR FORCE

51

increased these residence qualifications. The migratory worker was adversely affected by this in two ways: (1) It became more difficult for him to acquire legal residence in the State into which he moved, and (2) the State from which he migrated took steps to bar claims based on former residence. These barriers remain generally on the statute books today. State barriers are compounded and reenforced by those set up in the county. "Willful absence from the county" for more than six months is one device used to deprive returning migrants of their rights. Administrators find residence requirements a convenient reason for denying basic rights to migrants. Thus State by State, county by county, township by township, nearly every unit of government seeks to evade responsibility for these migratory workers. These characteristics have been discussed as relating primarily to domestic migratory farm workers, i.e., to those who are United States citizens in name, but who, because they migrate, fail to share the rights, privileges, and full benefits of our citizenship. Many of the same characteristics apply equally to migrant workers who come from abroad. All migratory farm workers, citizen and alien alike, perform similar work, serve the same employers, and are segregated in some degree from the communities in which they work. Yet in some important respects, their situations are different. Domestic migratory farm workers not only have no protection through collective bargaining but employers as a rule refuse to give to them the guarantees they extend to alien contract workers whom they import. These include guarantees of employment, workmen's compensation, medical care, standards of sanitation, and payment of the cost of transportation.' BEMEDIES PROPOSED FOR THE MIGRATORY LABOR PROBLEM

All students of migratory labor problems agree that a combination of voluntary effort and government legislation is needed. Voluntary effort at the community level can do much to aid in the social adjustment of the migrants and their children. All too often, local antagonism toward the migrants has prevented them from participating in normal community activities, such as using recreation facilities. Local authorities never make any effort to get the children of migrants into schools; and what is much worse, there are all-too-frequent reports of cases where schools have actually refused to admit migrant children.

52

AMERICAN

FARM

LIFE

State legislatures could render an important service by adopting minimum standards of housing and sanitation for migratory labor camps, with adequate provision for personnel to inspect the camps and see that the laws are enforced. States which have codes or regulations on their books governing migrant camps include Washington, Oregon, California, Arizona, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, and Florida. All of them are rather heavy users of migratory labor. Other states which have similar codes or regulations but which have smaller numbers of migratory laborers include Montana, Utah, W y o ming, N e w Mexico, Iowa, West Virginia, and Connecticut. Conspicuously missing from this Hst are the following states, all of which use considerable numbers of migratory labor: Colorado, Texas, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, North Carolina, Arkansas, and all of the other southern states. North Carolina is working on a draft code and perhaps others of the states mentioned are also.® Federal legislation is necessary to extend the provisions of the Social Security Act to the migratory labor force. Also needed at the federal level is legislation to regulate labor contractors and to provide some mechanism for wage determination in agriculture. The report of the President's Commission on Migratory Labor recommends that Congress and state legislatures enact minimum wage legislation, and that both nation and state extend unemployment compensation to cover agricultural labor. The Commission also recommends federal legislation to provide for the licensing of labor contractors who operate across state lines, and the appointment of a federal committee on migratory labor, which would not only set standards for regulating and licensing the private contracting agencies, but would also have a great many additional functions in connection with the whole problem of migratory labor. Indeed, the proposal for a federal committee on migratory labor was the central recommendation of the Commission.

THE FARM LABOR FORCE

53

Senator H. H. Humphrey introduced into the 82nd Congress several bills designed to implement most of the important recommendations of the Commission, but none of the bills were passed. The immediate outlook for such legislation is not favorable. Should conditions approximating those of the 1930's unhappily return to plague the country, and the scandalous plight of migratory workers of those years be repeated, the national conscience would probably be aroused again as it was earlier. Then, perhaps, some action would be forthcoming. It would, however, seem to be the part of wisdom not to wait for such times to come upon us before doing something about this problem. WOMEN IN THE FARM LABOR FORCE

The role of women in American agriculture is primarily that of '%ousewife." In general, women are not expected to work in the fields, although at certain seasons wives work alongside their husbands, and sisters with their brothers. Women constitute a small percentage of the total farm labor force. Earlier in this discussion, reference was made to a national sample survey which showed that about 20 per cent of the hired laborers were women. For the entire farm labor force — all those aged 14 years or older engaged in agriculture — the percentage of women in 1950 was only 8.7. Even so, this was higher than the 5.6 per cent in 1940, probably because there were several times as many men in the armed services in 1950 as in 1940. It is also no surprise that the number of women employed varies by regions. For instance, women have traditionally constituted an important part of the farm labor force in cotton, fruit, and vegetable production. In areas of diversified livestock and crops, however, there are relatively few women. This area variation is revealed by the fact that in 1940, the percentages of women in agriculture in the various states ranged from 1.4 in Utah to 25.4 in South Carolina. But the statistics by no means reveal the extent of the contri-

54

АМЕЫСАЫ FARM LIFE

bution which farm women make to the farm enterprise, aside from caring for the house itself. Looking after the family flock of poultry, feeding the hogs (where only two or tliree are kept for home consumption), and growing the family garden are typically considered "women's work" in most areas of the United States. With American farms mechanized to a high degree, it is conceivable that women could perform most of the operations as well as men and with a minimum of fatigue. In harvesting wheat, for example, where skill in driving a truck or tractor is the main essential, it would be an easy matter for women to accomplish the entire harvesting operation. However, there is little reason to expect that there will be any increase in the proportion of women in the farm labor force. More likely, the trend will be in the other direction. This estimate of the future is based on the fact that women make up a large proportion of the workers engaged in cotton, fruit, and vegetable production, where mechanization is progressing and will probably displace large numbers of the women. С Ш Ы ) LABOR IN AGRICULTUHE

Child labor, defined as the employment of children under 16 years of age, is much more common in agriculture than in other major industries. The Fair Labor Standards Act prohibits such employment during school hours in industries whose products enter inter-state commerce. The act was amended to apply to agriculture beginning in 1950. In addition to the federal statute, there are laws in the various states which regulate the employment of minors. Moreover, every state has compulsory school attendance laws at least until children are 16 years old or graduate from the eighth grade; in four states attendance is compulsory up to age 17; and in four others, up to 18 years or graduation from high school. Enforcement is another matter. The Department of Labor, in its efforts to enforce the law during 1951, found 2,973 establish-

THE FARM LABOR FORCF

55

ments employing 7,310 minors illegally. Of the total illegally employed minors, 2,592 were under 14 years of age. Of those minors employed in agriculture, 89 per cent were employed illegally.9 The Bureau of the Census makes an enumerativa sample survey of school attendance and employment status in October of each year. The report for 1951 estimated that there were 226,000 young people 14 and 15 years of age "not enrolled in school," of whom 104,000 were working, 90 per cent of them in agriculture. October is a busy harvest month throughout most of the country, and the demand for the labor of children then is very great. The employment of children in agriculture has long been a subject of controversy in the United States, with rural sentiment predominantly opposed to government regulation. The arguments for child labor are based upon several grounds. First of all, there is the moral argument that it is a wholesome thing for children to be taught the value of work and given an opportunity to earn money. Secondly, there are many tasks which the nimble fingers of children can accomplish even faster and better than those of adults, such as picking small fruits, thinning beets, etc. ( at least, so the argument runs). Finally, much of the hired labor is employed on a piece-work basis, thinning and harvesting sugar beets, picking vegetable crops, and the like. Entire families, men, women, and children, thus employed may realize a fairly large daily income while the job lasts. Many migrant families complain that the enforcement of child labor laws would make it practically impossible for them to survive; their income would be so drastically reduced. This argument, that the head of a laboring family cannot financially support his wife and children unless they work in the fields with him, is tantamount to saying that American agriculture cannot maintain standards of work comparable to those already established in non-agricultural industry. If this is the case, non-farm consumers may have to reconcile themselves to

56

AMEBIC AN FARM

LIFE

paying higher prices for their sugar and carrots, since they persist in agitating for restrictions on child labor in agriculture. The need to protect farm-employed children has become even more urgent because the rate of accidents caused by machines is apparently rising. Few states have kept records of farm accidents, but their reports are disquieting. A commentary on farm safety — or unsafety — had this to say in the fall of 1952: The popular conception of farm work as healthful outdoor activity persists despite the year-after-year statistics which rank it high as a hazardous occupation. According to the records of the National Safety Council, only construction, mining and manufacturing industries exceed agriculture in injury rate. California's latest report on work injuries finds that agriculture ranks third, instead of fourth, in injury rate and that vehicles are the leading cause of death in farm accidents ( 55% ). We now have laws to protect children in most occupations, with higher age limits for employment which is particularly hazardous. Agriculture is another matter since exceptions for agricultural employment in child labor laws are the rule rather than the exception. Only six states set a minimum age of 12 or 14 years for agricultural employment outside of school hours and during vacations and the child labor provisions of the Wage-Hour Act do not apply to agriculture when schools are not in session. The fact that the majority of farm accidents to children this summer involved those in the 10 to 13 year age range clearly points to the need for more legislation to protect children employed in farm work." "More legislation" might help, but what is most needed is a modification in the attitudes of farm people. As pointed out earlier, violations of the existing laws are so widespread as to make one despair of the efficacy of legal measures alone. Farm people need to become safety-conscious, as workers in industry have. A number of states have moved in the right direction by adding to the extension services specialists whose sole job is to create awareness among farmers of the hazards of their occupation, and teach them ways of avoiding accidents. In summary, the American agricultural labor force has shown a steady decline in numbers since 1916. At the same time the

THE FARM

LABOR

57

FORCE

crop acreage has remained about the same, while the productivity per acre has greatly increased. (See Figure 3.) The average size of farms has also increased, but largely because of a reduction in the number of farms rather than an increasing amount TOTAL C R O P L A N D , A N D C R O P P R O D U C T I O N PER ACRE. U N I T E D STATES, 1910-4Э INDEX NUMBERS ( 1 9 3 5 - 3 9 ° 1 0 0 ) PERCENT

120

100

·

80

60

1910 *TOTM

1915 WERE

DATA

1920

CROPLAND FOR

1949

IS

THE

HARVESTED ARE

SUM PLUS

1925 OF

1930

THE ACREABl

ACREAGES

1935

OF LAND

OF CROP

FROM

FAILURE

1940

WHICH AND

ONS

SUMMER

1945

OK MOSI

1950

CROPS

FALLOV

PRELIMINARI

и. s . DEPARTMENT OF A G « T C U l T U « t

NEG. 4554>A

FIGURE

BUREAU OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS

3

of land in farms. By contrast, the non-farm labor force in the United States has grown steadily, as has the population. The explanation for the large increase in farm production in spite of its decreasing labor force lies in the three factors we have examined: progress in farm mechanization, development of more productive crops and animals, and improved managerial practices. It is apparent that the end of this trend is not in sight. It is not at all beyond the realm of possibility that 10 per cent of the nation's total labor force could operate the farms, instead of the

58

AMERICAN FARM LIFE

present 15 per cent, and could even increase agricultural production. It is clear that the importance of land and labor is declining, as that of management and capital is relatively increasing. Nevertheless, it must be kept in mind that the total population is growing by upwards of 25,000,000 per decade and that by 1960 there will probably be 175,000,000 people in this country. This extraordinary population growth leads to the speculation that the decline in numbers of farm workers may not continue much longer. Whether the trend continues downward will depend upon ( 1 ) the rate of technological and managerial improvement, and (2) the trend in non-agricultural employment. Conceivably, improvement in the art of agriculture may continue to permit reductions in the farm labor force, although the possibility exists that the same number of laborers may continue in agriculture with a lessening of working hours. Should non-agricultural employment decline, migration away from farms will also decline. Under such conditions the farm population would actually increase, as it did during the depression years of the 1930's.

CHAPTER

FIVE

The Farmer^s Community DOES THE AMERICAN FARMER have a community? If he does, how may it be defined and delimited? These may seem to be strange questions to raise, because it is commonly assumed that everyone "belongs" to a community. The questions would in all probability never be raised in India, or China, or Bavaria, or any other country where farmers live in villages rather than on their separate farms. However, in the United States, Canada, and many other countries, farmers have built their homes on their separate farms, often at considerable distances from one another; hence questioning the existence or nonexistence of farmer communities is certainly relevant. This is true because we tend to think of communities as being more or less compact aggregates of family residences. The late Dr. C. J. Galpin, pioneer rural sociologist, raised the questions stated above as early as 1912, while he was a member of the faculty at the University of Wisconsin. "Can you," he asked, "cut out of the open country any piece, large or small, square, triangular, or irregular in shape, and treat the farm families in this section as a community and plan institutions for them?" "Or," he asked further, as he looked across the Wisconsin countryside and noted here and there a cluster of houses, stores, churches and dwellings, "are these villages communities by themselves? Can you safely treat them socially as complete units?"

60

AMEmCAN

FARM

LIFE

To seek the answers to his queries, Galpin decided to go into the field and see what he could find. He chose Walworth County, Wisconsin as the place to try out his study of the rural community, and his approach proved very fruitful. The idea was simple. A strong believer in the value of using maps, he located on a map of the county each farm residence and gave it a number. Then he constructed a card index of the names of the farmers for the entire county. Thus equipped with his map and the names of the farmers, he visited the principal merchants of the business centers and, considering each fanner's card separately, he would ask whether this fanner's family traded there regularly. Then he approached the banker, the newspaper editor, the high school superintendent, the ministers, and so on at each business center. When he had completed this process, he was able to transfer the data to a map and locate the trade and service boundaries of every town and village in the county. He decided that the real rural community was the trade area, consisting of the center and the farm hinterland "tributary" to it. Not the village alone, not the farm people on their scattered farms alone, but the two of them were the interacting human elements which made up the community. He coined the word "rurban" to designate this composite entity. This conception was in crude form phrased some years earlier by Warren H. Wilson, who wrote: The country community is defined by the team haul. People in the country think of the community as that territory, with its people, which lies within the team haul of a given center. . . . Intimate knowledge of personalities is confined to the community and does not pass beyond the team haul radius. . . . The team haul which defines the community is the radius within which men buy and sell. . . . It is the radius of social intercourse. . . The great contribution of Galpin was his invention of a technique, more refined than the "team haul," by which the rural community could be delimited. The essential idea of both writers is that farm and trade-center people are inevitably tied together

THE FARMER'S COMMUNITY

61

in an interactional process, each group dependent upon the other. A rural community, when delineated and mapped by the Galpin technique, resembles a biologist's drawing of an amoeba, with its nucleus and enveloping protoplasm. If all of rural America were to be mapped in this manner, the total picture might resemble a photograph of magnified amoebas in juxtaposition. However, this analogy would more accurately describe the situation as it was half a century ago. In present-day America it is difficult and often impossible to mark off trade areas as discrete entities, without doing violence to the real situation. Trade areas today overlap and encircle each other; that is, the large ones encircle the smaller. And while it is quite possible that the vast majority of farm families will, if asked, say that they 'Ъеlong" to one center or another, in day-to-day travel they are no longer restricted to one center. Locality no longer exercises the potent influence upon rural social organization which it did in 1912. For example, forty years after publishing his little volume, The Evolution of the Rural Community, Warren H. Wilson could not say, as he did then, that "the influence of leading rural personalities does not extend indefinitely in the country, but disappears at the boundary of the next community." This statement was appropriate to a time when a trip to town by team and wagon with a load of produce, even though the distance was but a few miles, required the better part of a day. When roads were poor during a spring thaw or prolonged rains, the trip might consume even more time, or, as usually happened, would be postponed. Under such conditions, it was inevitable that farmers would gravitate to trade at the nearest center, depending largely, if not wholly, upon that center for their services; and that the influence of person on person would be limited to a small area. The present-day multi-centered interest is obviously a consequence of the recent developments in communication and trans-

62

AMEmCAN FARM LIFE

portation. The social horizons of the farm population are vastly expanded in both a social-psychological and a geographic sense. No longer limited to a country weekly and the neighbors for news, the farmer gets the metropolitan daily paper delivered the day of publication, while his radio places him in momentary contact with the whole world. From tlie standpoint of geographic space, he operates in a much larger area. He is familiar with several different trading centers, purchasing his groceries in one, his clothing in another, sending his children to a high school in a third, and marketing his produce in a fourth, and even going to a metropolis for certain highly specialized goods or services. An idea of the farmer's mobility is revealed in a study made in Goodhue County, Minnesota, by the Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station's department of rural sociology. Of 112 famihes residing in the trade area of Cannon Falls, 104 had made an average of 12 visits to Red Wing (10,000 population) during the previous year; 102, an average of 10 trips to the Twin Cities; while from 6 to 48 of the total had visited 10 other centers during the year. No record was made of the purposes of these visits, whether for buying and selling, medical care, attendance at special celebrations, or other forms of recreation; but it is clear that farm families get around to many places nowadays. It should be said, however, that most of the contacts of these families were not with Red Wing but with the trade and service center of Cannon Falls, and with those smaller villages and hamlets which lay within the •area. Galpin also observed that farm people carried on many social activities among themselves in open-country neighborhoods. These neighborhoods often centered on a one-room school or an open-country church. Sometimes, however, there was no institution as a center; there were simply areas within which farm families "neighbored" with each other, borrowing and lending, exchanging work in the busy seasons, and meeting at the homes for informal social events. Usually these neighborhoods bore

THE FARMER'S COMMUNITY

63

names by which persons living in them identified themselves, although such names would not appear on any maps. DECLINING SIGNIFICANCE OF LOCALITY GROUPINGS

Although the significance of locality in determining the sphere of the farmers' activities has dwindled, it is still a factor of importance. Throughout the Midwest there is unquestionably a tendency for farmers to identify themselves with the nearest center, even though they trade at several. In the South, the county seat town has been historically the most important trading center. Plantations were more or less self-sufficient, while churches, schools, and stores in the open country served the farm population largely on a neighborhood basis. In New England, the earlier clustering of homes about the "green" has given way almost completely to scattered dwellings, with the town (in the township sense) the only important social grouping. Henry W. Riecken, Jr. and Nathan L. Whetten observed in a recent study of a Connecticut county: Local groupings other than towns are socially unimportant. . . . In the first place the absence of geographic features which might promote isolation and consequent self-sufficiency, the availability of transportation, and the proximity of large centers have facilitated mobility and eliminated social and economic dependence on the neighborhood. Secondly, the infiltration of seasonal dwellers and suburbanites into open country areas has greatly weakened the solidarity of farm neighborhoods and so lowered any territorial communality of interest that, in most of the county, the neighborhood has no functional significance."

Both neighborhoods and communities (in Galpin's terms) are less definable today because of the greater mobility of the population and also because of its greater heterogeneity. In the observations just quoted regarding Connecticut, reference was made to the increasing numbers of suburbanites in the open country and the influx of seasonal visitors. The latter are mainly from New York and come into rural Connecticut for summer vacations.

64

AMERICAN FARM LIFE

Although occupational heterogeneity of the population living on farms has reached its most advanced stages in the Northeastern part of the nation, it is by no means limited to that area. In a study in Henry County, Indiana, a comparatively rich farming area on the fringe of the Com Belt, a classification of the open-country households revealed the following occupations.® full-time farmers part-time farmers farm hands non-farm workers semi-retired or retired

46 10 4 30 10

At best, only three-fifths of the open-country inhabitants are engaged directly in fanning and less than half of them spend their full time at it. In all probability most of the non-farm workers are either sons or sons-in-law of farmers, or people who formerly worked in agriculture but since the outbreak of World War II have found more profitable employment in nearby industries. Frequently both husbands and wives work in industry, and some of them drive as much as forty or fifty miles daily to their jobs. At the same time, it is likely that some of these rural dwellers are city and town natives who have found a solution to the present acute housing problem by renting vacant farm houses or building new ones. The occupational heterogeneity of the country is being enhanced not only by the fact that farm people are choosing nonfarm occupations, but also by large numbers of former urbanités who have interpenetrated the open spaces adjacent to cities. The build-up of the "fringe" during and since the war has been phenomenal. These open spaces surrounding our cities have become the new frontier of land settlement, and in them farm and non-farm meet and mix. New homes by hundreds of thousands have been erected; schools, churches and marketing centers have been built. It is impossible to say how large the area really is in terms of square miles, but the combined fringes of cities, large and small, would constitute a space of great magnitude, and one

THE FARMER'S COMMUNITY

65

that is rapidly expanding. The mention of "small" cities is deliberate. It is a mistake to think of the fringe or suburban areas as limited to the metropolises. For example, note some of the data reported by Noel P. Gist from a study of families employed in the city of Columbia, Missouri, which had a population of 38,000. There were 460 families living on farms of from 3 to 160 acres in size, located throughout the county up to 16 miles from the city. (Families within one-half mile of the city were excluded from the study. ) The origins of the families under consideration were diverse. About half of them had moved out from the city itself; the rest had moved from villages, other farms, or cities other than Columbia. In all cases, one or more members of the families were employed in the city of Columbia. At least a fourth of the families would classify as "rural residents," who raise little more than a family garden on their plots.^ Neighborhoods are being weakened not only by the growing heterogeneity of the open-country inhabitants, but also by the removal to the trade centers of institutions which formerly constituted bonds for neighborhood life. The open-country schools, churches, and stores are being swept off the countryside. Thus in his observations regarding trends in Texas, Oscar Lewis has this to say: Bell County has become increasingly town-centered. . . . The towns, in addition to being trading and servicing centers, are now also educational, recreational, and political centers. . . . As the local communities (neighborhoods) have lost their schools, churches, and stores, the towns have become more important socially and economically. The breakdown of rural community organization has not meant the disintegration of social life, but rather a new integration between townspeople and country people. . .

It is becoming increasingly evident that city workers no longer need to be city residents. The automobile has been so effective in mitigating the effect of distance between home and work, that most fanners may with justification be classed as suburbanites.

66

AMERICAN FARM LIFE

Increasing numbers of those who once rehed exclusively upon fanning are now taking full-time jobs in urban industries. On the other hand, the urbanités are pushing into the open country to establish their families, while they commute daily to and from jobs in the city. Many of the latter have tracts of land of sufficient size, and raise and sell enough produce, that the census designates them as "farm operators." Yet when asked their occupation they will give the census-taker some other occupation than "farmer." THE EXPANDING AREA OF CONTACT

As town and country boundaries become blurred, as farmer and non-farmer meet and mix in community life, as rapid transportation and communication make distance less and less an impediment to social contact, the historic provincialism associated with locality isolation tends to disappear. The expanding horizon of space is accompanied by an expanding social horizon. And it is not alone the Flying Farmers of America who go places. The growth of the national farm organizations — Farm Bureau, Grange, Farmers' Union, National Association of Soil Conservation District Officials, the National Association of REA Cooperatives, and so on through a much longer list —has provided increased opportunity for farmer leaders to get about the country. Several times a year in the large cities, one will find national, regional, or state meetings of various farm groups in session. But the much more significant trend is for farm families to get in the family car and travel across country to see places they have never seen before, meet people of other states, and observe life under conditions different from their own. Many more farm families have been able to afford such trips since the rise in farm income began in 1940. To this "native" travel has been added visits to foreign countries, which few farmers before 1940 would have dreamed could ever fall within their means. Foreign travel by farmers has been promoted by the United States government as a means of establishing good international

THE FARMER'S COMMUNITY

67

relations among peoples, and in many cases also as a means of spreading American agricultural know-how to other parts of the world. In addition to the government-sponsored travel, many more farm men and women have gone "on their own." For example, the Farmers Friendship Tours sponsored by the Farm Journal have guided hundreds of farm people to brief visits in other lands. There were 180 who went on the first of these tours in the fall of 1949. Said one of these tourists from Nebraska: "We've truly seen another world, and every minute, hour and day were filled to overflowing." A Colorado woman, like many others (we are assured by the Farm Journal), was busy after her return giving illustrated lectures in her home community. Another influence of importance at the international level is the farm youth exchange program, which sends American farm boys and girls abroad and brings those from foreign lands to spend several months in the United States. Thus, by various means and in various ways, social contact and understanding steadily increase. We return for a moment to the original question: Does the farmer have a community? The answer of course must be in the affirmative. What we have tried to bring out in this discussion is that the farmer's relation to his community has changed. He participates in several communities, going to one center for some of his needs, and to other centers for other requirements, as he chooses. His community life is multi-centered. Also, to an increasing degree, he mixes with other occupational groups, particularly in the fringe areas. The rural institutions to be treated in following chapters are shared to a growing extent by farmers and non-farmers together.

CHAPTER

SIX

The Farm Family THE AMERICAN FARM FAMILY in midcentury is caught up in powerful currents and cross-currents of social change. The impact of the urbanization and secularization of our society has, until recent years, been somewhat mitigated by the relative isolation of the farm family, the nature of the agricultural occupation and the strength of tradition. But the trend toward urban standards of behavior is unmistakable. As regards isolation, the emphasis is on the word "relative," because it is a commonplace that the farm family is in much closer contact with the outside world than it was and the degree of isolation is growing steadily less. Notwithstanding this fact, it is obvious that a family living on a farm in the open country has a distinctly different environment from other families. There are contacts with fewer people outside the family. Farm work itself contributes to the preservation of association within the family, because it is one of the few occupations in which the family works as a unit. How "good" is farm life, anyway? Is it as idyllic and beneficial to man as the people we called "agrarians" in an earlier chapter would have us believe? Or is it as dismal, sordid, and provincial as the authors of the "literature of despair" describe it to be? This controversy over the delights and disadvantages of farm life is very old. It continues today in "letters to the editor" sections of the daily press, in statements of officials of the government, and by the writers of novels and of "columns."

THE FARM FAMILY

69

So strong is agrarianism in America today that it would be politically inexpedient for any political party or national leader to espouse the mechanized "factory in the field" rather than the "family farm." Under former Secretary of Agriculture Charles Brannan, an attempt was made in 1951 to evaluate the entire program of the Department of Agriculture on the basis of its favorable or unfavorable impact upon the family farm. The result was a document describing the work of each of the numerous agencies serving the farmer, a document which many farmers called special meetings to discuss. In his introduction to it, Mr. Brannan eulogized the family farm as follows: The family farm system leads to agricultural progress and good community life. It builds in the family members attitudes of self-reliance, responsibility, individual initiative, tolerance and self-government — the attitudes that make for a sound democracy and the human qualities that have done so much to make our nation great.^

The secretary's statement sums up very well the point of view of farm people themselves, shared by many who dwell in the cities. While Mr. Brannan would find himself hard-pressed for scientific proof of his statement, it probably is nearer the truth than the following statement of an anti-agrarian: No more grasping, selfish and dishonest mammal [than the farmer], indeed, is known to students of the Anthropoidea. When the going is good for him he robs the rest of us up to the extreme limit of our endurance; when the going is bad he comes bawling for help out of the public till. . .

The truth is that farm family life is neither all black nor all white. There are, of course, families who live sordid, pinched and miserable lives on the land, and on the other hand, many who come as close as the earth affords to meeting the ideal of the romantic's dream of rustic beauty. But, by and large, rural family life is comparable to life everywhere, mixing the bad and good, the joy and sorrow, the littleness and greatness that characterize human kind. It is as futile, as it is unwise, to try to perpetuate the image of either extreme, especially where either

70

AMERICAN

FARM LIFE

image may become the basis for public policy. Rather, the aim of such a policy should be to further the ideal well phrased by the Committee on Postwar Agricultural Policy of the Land-Grant College Association in these words: "The crowning social objective of farm life" is 'Ъetter farm family living." Earlier we have pointed out the wide variation in farming and farmers in this country. There can be no such thing, really, as "the American farm family." There are farm families, and farm families. Our purpose in this chapter is not to describe in detail the variations in all their aspects, but to emphasize the theme of social change announced in the opening sentence. To do so it will be necessary to deal with averages for the sake of simplification, but it is hoped that the reader will bear in mind the limitations of this approach. FAMILIES ABE SMALLER

It is common information that the size of the American family, urban and rural, has been declining from the founding of the nation at least up to 1940. The upsurge in the birth rate since 1940 suggests caution in predicting whether the downward trend will continue. On the basis of information in the first census, taken in 1790, it has been estimated that the average family was then composed of six persons. By 1950, it was probably less than four. It is difficult to get comparable data on average family size for each census period. The use of "household" as a substitute for "family" is a common census practice and, obviously, the two are not identical. If the households of 1940 and 1951 are compared, then we have it on the authority of the Bureau of the Census that the average size in 1940 was 3.67 and in 1951, 3.85.® As one might expect the 1951 figure is greater. Whether the increased birth rate will mean a further increase in household size beyond the 1951 mark is a matter of conjecture among students of population. For a time, it was the mode to regard the rise in births as largely the result of a large number of marriages, and consequently due to first births, or at best.

THE FARM FAMILY

71

second and third. On the basis of this assumption, experts confidently expected that the birth rate would fall in the late forties and early fifties. However, the decline has not taken place; in fact, the birth rate for the early months of 1954 is higher than that for the comparable period of 1953, in spite of a decline in the number of marriages. The increased birth rate is therefore due to second and subsequent births, indicating a trend toward larger families. It will require a few years yet to determine whether this trend will persist. The marriage rate will remain comparatively low until those who were bom in the years following 1940 come into the marriage "market." Meanwhile, if the birth rate is maintained at its present level, there can be no doubt that the families of this generation will be larger than those of the preceding one. We know already that the rate of the first, second, third, and fourth births has increased during the latter half of the 1940's; but that the rate of the fifth and subsequent births has remained unchanged or fallen.* Data for farm families are not reported separately as to rates and order of birth. It is well known that the farm family has always been larger than city and town families. There is reason to think, however, that the difference in size between rural and urban families is less today than it has been. The urban birth rate in 1950 for the United States was 24.2 per thousand, compared with 22.7 for the rural population. In this case, "rural" includes both farms and villages under 2,500. Many factors create differentials in family size. Religion is one such factor. Child-spacing by artificial control of conception is strictly forbidden by some, religious groups, while others are either indifferent or positively encourage it. Socio-economic status is another important factor. In American society, including the farm population, the general relation between status and size of family is inverse — the lower the socio-economic status, the larger the family. In rural areas, for example, tenants on the average have larger families than owners, but not as large as farm laborers. Owner families in the low income groups are larger

72

AMEmCAN

FARM

LIFE

than those in the high income groups. If one surveys the counties of the nation in terms of average farm value or income, it will be found that the lowest quarter will average the most children. Again, we remind ourselves that developments since 1940 may change the sharpness of the differences as related to status. An analysis of farm-operator families by economic class of farm in 1950 reveals that there is a regular gradient in the number of children according to economic class. On the farms designated as "commercial" classes I and II (the most profitable farms), the number of children under five years of age per 1,000 women 15 to 49 years of age, was smaller than in the second highest economic class III, and with each progressively poorer class (IV, V, and VI) the number of children was larger.® There is no need to run through all of the various factors associated with differences in family size. Suffice it to say that in addition to those mentioned above, a definite relationship has been found between race, nativity, and amount of education. Some of these factors are obviously interrelated. For example, high social status is likely to be associated with high formal education. FAMILY COMPETITION

Not only has the trend in births been downward — until 1940 — but over the years there has been an increasing tendency for aged people to live by themselves. Grandmother and grandfather prefer to be independent of their children. In a survey of farmers in Connecticut regarding plans for old age, it was found that over four-fifths of the farm operators said that they would prefer to live with their spouse alone rather than with their children or other relatives.® While this is an expression of farmers from but one area, it can safely be regarded as representative of aged people generally. They prefer to be alone. Moreover, the wish to be alone is shared by their children. The latter wish to avoid the frictions which so often occur when three generations live under the same roof. They like to have their parents live by themselves, even though the children are contributing towards parental support.

THE FARM FAMILY

73

The degree to which children are held responsible for the support of dependent parents varies somewhat by states, but the general trend has been for the dependent aged to be provided for out of public funds, or through the social insurance program. However, since farmers are not covered by the Old Age and Survivors' Insurance, their sole reliance in case of dependency is public assistance through the county welfare board. When farmers retire, they either move off the farm, often to the nearest village, or remain on the farm. A study of farm retirement in Minnesota revealed that about half of the group interviewed chose to move to the village, and half remained on the farm. About three-fourths of those who remained on the farm lived in the same house with the present operator of the farm (usually a son or son-in-law). The others had separate houses. A sample group of active farmers were asked where they expected to live after retirement, and they also were about evenly divided in their choice. PARENTS AND CHILDREN

A striking development in farm families is the use of formal contracts between parents and children in connection with farm and home work. Project agreements between father and son are commonly entered into for 4-H Club and Future Farmers of America projects. Wage agreements are also coming into use. Time was when every farm boy worked on the home farm with no expectation of receiving a regular wage. He got his board and room and such spending money as the parents were able or willing to provide. Under a wage agreement, or a wage-share agreement, the boy receives a regular wage, with a stipulation that he may share in the earnings of the family if they should reach a given level. This is regarded as a trial period, during which the son decides whether he wishes to farm as a permanent occupation, and whether father and son wish to continue operating together. Sometimes families omit the wage or project agreements and

74

AMERICAN

FARM

LIFE

enter directly into some type of income-sharing arrangements. In this case, father and son are on a more nearly equal basis, both participating in the work and management, contributing to the expenses, and sharing in the returns. Another possibility is for the son to rent the farm outright under some form of regular lease agreement. However, this is more likely to occur when the father retires. Finally, still another contract has come into use in recent years, whereby arrangements for the transfer of the farm to a son or daughter are made while the parents are living. In the past, the transfer has taken place almost universally after the death of the parents. This may still be the case under the transfer agreement, but the point is that the agreement is arranged by the family — parents and all the heirs — before the death of the parents. These formal contract arrangements are an innovation of recent years as far as the American farm family is concerned. Family decisions about property and income-sharing have always been on an informal basis, and left largely in the hands of the father. Parents usually expected and hoped that one of the children would operate the farm after they were gone. But keeping the farm in the family has been difficult, because often, by the time one of the children is ready to take over the farm, the father is not ready or able to retire. In many cases, the father continues to operate the farm until old age incapacitates him. By that time the sons are probably established in other vocations, which they do not wish to give up for farming. Under such circumstances, the farm may be sold, or it may be rented to someone outside the family. Such contractual devices as described above are expected to make it more likely that the farm will remain in the family. In a sociological sense this change from informal to formal relationships may be regarded as a trend toward secularization. THE LEVEL OF LIVING Ю8Е8

In 1950 the average level of living of farm-operator families in the United States was 22 per cent above the level in 1945, accord-

THE FARM FAMILY

75

ing to Margaret J. Hagood of the Bureau of Agricultural EconomicsJ Using four items available by counties in the United States censuses for various years, Dr. Hagood has constructed a level of living index of the farmers of the nation, for each state and county. The items in the index are the percentage of farms with electricity, telephones, and automobiles, and the average value of products sold or traded in the year preceding the census. These items are by no means the sole measure of the level of living; the author uses them only as an index or indicator. The index is valuable in that it reveals the changes over time and the regional differences. ( See Table 8. ) The gains have been Table 8 Average county index of farm-operator family level of living for the United States, major regions and geographic divisions, 1930,1940, 1945 and 1950 ( U.S. county average for 1945 equals 100)

and division United States Northeast New England Middle Atlantic North Central East North Central West North Central South South Atlantic East South Central West South Central West Mountain Pacific

1930

1940

1945

1950

75 102 107 100 104 100 107 44 41 34 55 93 84 111

79 115 116 114 104 109 100 49 49 35 60 102 92 121

100 138 137 139 128 131 126 65 65 48 79 127 115 150

122 152 152 152 147 148 147 92 90 74 108 145 138 160

fairly steady for the country as a whole since 1930. However, there were actual losses during the decade from 1930 to 1940 for the West North Central, which included the drought area of the northern Great Plains; and there was scarcely any improvement in the South in that period. Since 1940, the gains have been very great for all sections, without exception. The variation by counties in 1950 is shown graphically in Figure 4.

Based on 1950 County

Indexes

FARM-OPERATOR FAMILY LEVELS OF LIVING

RANKING OF COUNTIES Е Э Lowest fifth N e x t lowest fifth M i d d l e fifth Next to high fifth Highest fifth »NO

DATA

U. S. D E P A R T M E N T OF

AGRICULTURE

NEG. 4 8 4 5 5 - X X FIGURE

4

B U R E A U OF A G R I C U L T U R A L

ECONOMICS

THE FARM FAMILY

77

One of the most spectacular achievements in the living level of farm families in the United States is the provision of electricity for the farms of the nation. It is spectacular because lines were built and services installed on some five miUion farms in a 16-year period. In fact, the job of electrifying American farms, which looked so formidable in 1935 when the Rural Electrification Administration was established and when only around 10 per cent of all farms had electricity, was virtually completed by midcentury. It is estimated that only 10 per cent of the farms remain to be electrified. It is a matter of judgment, of course, but it would be difficult to challenge successfully the assertion that no other development in the past decade and a half has meant so much to rural living, socially and economically. For one thing, electrification facilitated the diffusion of radios throughout rural areas and made farm people part of the general listening audience. Not until midcentury were rural people subject simultaneously with urban to the stimuli of mass communication. Many farm homes have also installed television receivers, and in a very few years television will be as common in rural areas as it is now in urban. The labor-saving aspects of electrification are quite obvious. It facilitated the introduction of milking machines, feed grinders and choppers, and numerous other farm machines. Perhaps of even greater significance was its impact upon the working habits of farm homemakers. Electricity made possible running water, indoor plumbing, mechanical refrigeration, electric ranges, and many household gadgets. Much of the drudgery has been removed from housekeeping on the farm. One other aspect of rural electrification bears mention, namely, its effect upon the rural trade center. The selling and servicing of electrical equipment recently acquired by the farm population have provided a number of jobs — how many it is not possible to say, have increased the business of existing establishments, and have made new ones possible. This factor may help account for the surprising population growth of rural trade centers during the

78

AMERICAN FARM

LIFE

1940's, while the adjacent farm population was siiffering a serious decline. As measured by this index, the South still lags behind other sections in the level of living. For one thing electrification has gone more slowly there, probably due to a number of reasons. The high rate of tenancy and sharecropping is an impediment to housing improvement in general. Moreover, a large proportion of farmers fall in the low-income group. Finally, electric service ordinarily requires cash income on a monthly basis; and southern agriculture, based so largely on cotton and tobacco, has one annual payday. There are, no doubt, many southern farmers who engage in off-farm work and get monthly income thereby which can pay the monthly bills. Tenants and croppers dependent for "furnish" will have electricity only if the landlord decides that they may have it OTHER ASPECTS OF HOUSING

The decade of the 1940's saw great improvement in farm housing. Following in the wake of electrification, running water was installed in over one-fourth of the farm homes of the nation, and the installations are continuing at a rapid rate. Over half (54 per cent) of the farm houses standing in 1950 were over 30 years old, 32 per cent were from 11 to 30, 5 per cent from 6 to 10, and 9 per cent under 5 years old. Structurally, many of the older houses leave much to be desired. In an evaluation of the "structural level" of farm houses in 1950, 36 per cent were rated "low," 25 per cent "intermediate," and 39 per cent "high." Again, the South suffers by comparison with the North and West, with around half of southern farm houses rated "low." FARM FAMILY INCOME

The improvement in level of living noted above was made possible by a marked rise in farm income. The farm policies put into operation after 1933 aimed to provide parity income for farmers. Thus, the income position improved somewhat in the

THE

FARM

79

FAMILY

Table 9 Distribution and rating States in J 9 5 0 a

on

structural

level

of farmhouses

in

the

United

Rating Region United States Northeast E a s t North C e n t r a l W e s t North Central South Atlantic E a s t South Central W e s t South Central West

High P e r cent 39 59 60 47 31 23 22 47

Intermediate

Low

P e r cent 25 27 21 24 25 21 33 27

Per cent 36 14 19 29 44 56 45 26

• The data are from a survey made by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics in 1950, and reported in February 1952, in a mimeographed document entitled "Farm Housing and Consüiiction." A house was rated "low" if it had a "serious deficiency," such as lacking weathertightness, containing under 200 square feet of floor space, no foundation, foundation in need of repair, tar paper exterior walls, major faults in walls, serious sag in roof-pole or area, major faults in chimneys. See the report for full description.

later 1930's, through direct government payments, guaranteed minimum prices for crops, the various devices for increased distribution of farm products, and work projects whiçh provided some part-time work for farm or ex-farm families. However, it remained for the outbreak of war and its aftermath to bring farm incomes to a really high level. Even so there were many small farmers who had little gain from either the government programs or the wartime demand. They had little to sell. Fortunately many such families have been able to supplement their income from the sale of farm products with wages from work off the farm, owing to the great expansion in non-agricultural employment during and following the war. Even so, the range in income when all sources are considered was very great, as the census of 1950 shows. (See Table 10.) The families shown in Table 10 included all those hving on farms, whether they were farming as an occupation or not. Many of those in the lower income groups are probably elderly

80

AMERICAN

FARM

LIFE

couples, some of whom are living on pensions. Nevertheless, the fact that two-thirds of the families fall below $2,500 per year from all sources provides a picture of a situation somewhat less than rosy for the nation's farm families. One compensating factor is that no account is taken in these data for the value of products produced and consumed on the farm. In 1949, according to the census, about three-fourths of all farms reported family gardens; about the same proportion used home-produced milk; and twothirds reported slaughter of meat animals. A report based upon data from seven areas in the Midwest and the South from 1944 to 1949 showed that from one-third to two-thirds of the value of all food used by the family came from home production. Some farms also provide a good share of fuel used by the family. Thus the income picture of farm families shown in the table must be regarded in the light of these compensating factors. Table 10 Rural farm families by income level, 1950 (based on a 20 per cent sample) Income All groups less than $500 $ 500-999 $1,000-1,499 $1,500-1,999 $2,000-2,499 $2,500-2,999 $3,000-3,499 $3,500-3,999 $4,000-4,499 $4,500-4,999 $5,000-5,999 $6,000-6,999 $7,000-9,999 $10,000 and over Median income

Nimiber

Per cent

5,178,400 889,460 744,880 693,240 572,300 549,130 374,195 348,825 219,480 185,200 114,585 173,465 98,900 123,435 91,305 1,729

100.0 17.2 14.4 13.4 11.1 106 7.2 6.7 4.2 3.6 2.2 3.3 1.9 2.4 1.8

Source: 1950 Census of Population, series PC-14, no. 12. Income is defined as "money received from wages or salary; net income (or loss) from the operation of a farm, ranch, business, or profession; and other income such as pensions, interest, dividends, rents, veterans' payments, etc. The figures represent the amovmt of income received before deductions for personal income taxes, social security, board purchases, union dues, etc."

THE FARM FAMILY

81

FARM FAMILY EXPKNDITÜBE For annual figures on expenditures by farm families for various purposes, we have to rely on reports from Kansas, Illinois, and Minnesota farm families who have been keeping accounts under the general supervision and with the assistance of the State Agricultural Colleges.® The data in any case are limited, in that only certain items are included. However, the trends for the decade are indicated, and compared with the total United States consumers in Figure 5.

SPENDING TRENDS

%OF 1937-40

% OF I937-40

FAMILY LIVING Aecount-kMping farm familiM*

• reft PERSON ^ fxce^T Houtme AW лито • » u c r n ГЛЫ FÂMILIET Ш ILL., KÁMS.. ЛИВ S.C. »ШМ. leiiiice· всгт. огсеншкш ANS ГЛЯЯ^ГАШГ лесвимтSOMMAÑICS suBHirreo то хтлте COLLEGMZ V, s. 0. Α.

NEO. М П - D

•40

·51

ВиНЕЛи OF HUMAN MUTIItTION AND HOME ECONOMICS

FIGURE

5

The following observations regarding the spending trends are indicated: 1. Expenditures per person exceeded those for all United States consumers during the postwar period, but not during the war.

82

AMERICAN

FARM LIFE

2. This excess was due to greater spending for clothing and furnishings, since the amount spent for food for all United States consumers consistently exceeded that of the reporting farm families. 3. The amount per person spent for medical care in 1951 — not shown here — exactly equalled that for all United States consumers. This figure represented a great gain for these farm families, since their 1951 index, based upon 1 9 3 7 ^ 0 as 100, was 327 compared with 277 for all United States consumers.® In the years 1937-1940 farmers spent for medical care considerably less than the amount which represents the average of all consumer groups. Can farmers afford to live better? This question was the title of a pamphlet issued in 1948 by the National Planning Association. The pamphlet was designed to promote the idea among farm people that they should not spend their wartime gains in bidding up the price of land — as they did after World War I — but should rather spend them in improving and better equipping homes, providing more and better schooling for their children, taking a few trips, and in general raising the "non-economic" aspects of farm living. All indications are that more advancement has been made in these aspects of farm life during the 1940's than in any other comparable period in our history.^® Many new farm homes have been built, more of the older ones remodelled and improved, new modern equipment installed and new furnishings bought. At the same time, the educational level of farm people has risen, and the way is open for new gains. There is no need to catalog all the improvements which have been made in the comfort and convenience of farm family life. In its community relations, the family has also had adjustments to make. It increasingly shares with the school, the church, and other community agencies the problem of child rearing. The old isolation is gone. The individual members seek and find associations outside the family circle. There is release from family sur-

THE FARM FAMILY

83

veillance, but there is also greater need for the assumption of individual responsibility for one's behavior. The farm family members are in the process of adaptation to this new freedom from neighborhood and family control. If, as the Federal Bureau of Investigation claims, the rural crime rate is rising faster than that of the city, it may be symptomatic of the maladjustment arising from the transition to a new kind of life, one in which the urban family has long been involved, but which the farm family has only recently entered upon. How much of the "rural crime" is contributed by the small cities under 10,000 (the boundary between rural and urban used by the FBI ) and how much by the farm people is not known. However, there is as yet only a vague realization on the part of farm people and the students of family life that farmers will have adjustments to make to a way of life which is more formally organized, more impersonal, less controlled by tradition, and subject to the impact of urban stimuli through the new media of mass communication.

CHAPTER

SEVEN

The Farmer^s Schools RURAL EDUCATION is undergoing a major reorganization in midcentury United States. Thousands of small local rural school districts are being abolished by the process of "consolidating" several of them into a single district. In the decade from 1942 to 1952, the number of school districts, urban and rural, dropped from 108,579 to 67,346. The closed districts are in rural areas. The State of Illinois, which led the 48 states in the number of school districts in 1942 with 12,000, cut the number to 3,500 by 1952. Other states which had large numbers of school districts a decade ago, mostly in the Middle West, also made significant, if not drastic, reductions. It is safe to say that in nearly all cases where districts are abolished one or more one-room schools are closed. These official figures from the Bureau of the Census do not tell the whole story of change. They represent only the extent to which the voters have taken official action. In addition to the districts officially vdped out, there are many others which are moribund to the degree that they do not operate any schools. Usually, such districts arrange with a neighboring district to take their children on a tuition basis, the district paying the tuition. For example, in 1942 there were 107,692 one-teacher schools in the United States, a number only slightly smaller than that for the total school districts in the same year. Obviously, there were

THE FARMER'S SCHOOLS

85

many rural districts operating two or more one-teacher schools. By September 1950, there were 61,247. Since the trend is definitely downward, it might be expected that in the ten-year period, 1942-1952, the number of one-teacher schools could have fallen to 50,000 or even fewer. Many rural schools have been abandoned despite the fact that the district itself continues to exist officially. It is no new trend that is cited here. One-room schools have been declining for a half century. There were 212,448 of them in 1910; 152,165 disappeared in the next 40 years, an average annual loss of 3,800. What is new is the rather sudden acceleration of the downward trend since 1942. From 1910 to 1942 the average annual loss was 3,275, but since 1942, the figure has mounted to 5,800. What has precipitated this sharp break? The arguments for and against consolidation have been going on for two generations. Farm people were the ones most involved in this argument, for the only schools to be consolidated were their open-country one- or two-teacher schools. From the days of the frontier these small schools were the only ones over which farmers had control and the only possible type to provide education for their children, as long as accessibility was defined by unimproved dirt roads and horse-and-buggy transportation. Actually, children almost invariably walked to school. Even after buses and all-weather roads were available the arguments continued. Professional educators, by and large, have urged the larger unit of administration and of attendance. The operation of schools with from one to ten pupils is generally more costly. Even though the state aids may mean light taxes in the local district, the small school has been declared unsatisfactory from a social point of view. There were not enough children of similar ages to make for desirable group activity. Moreover, the hiring of teachers by local school boards or "trustees" was a constant threat to professional standards and an impediment to obtaining better salaries. There are, of course, many arguments against the small school from the standpoint of the technical

86

АМЕЫСАЫ FARM LIFE

educator; he is inclined to favor the graded school because it permits the teacher to specialize in teaching a particular grade, and perhaps a particular subject. These and other arguments have been tossed back and forth for a long time, and no doubt have been factors in the steady decline of the small schools noted above. But there w^ere other developments which were crucial in the decade of the 1940's. One of these was the fact that the enrollment of children in the elementary grades had been declining throughout the depression years. The large birth-rate years of the early 1920's had brought heavy enrollments in the grades after 1926, but by 1940 these youngsters had pretty well moved on into high school and college. The early grades had begun to feel the decline much earlier. The lowest birth rate in the history of the nation was recorded in 1933 and it rose very slowly until 1940, when it took a sudden upturn and except for 1943 and 1944 has been high ever since. The point here is, however, that the number of children in the population around 1940 was lower than it had been for a long time. As a consequence, many rural school districts either did not have any children of school age, or they had so few as to make it unwise to operate a school. Another factor which was destined to influence matters during these years was the technological progress of agriculture. This resulted in the enlargement of farms, a declining need for human labor, and a consequent thinning out of the farm population. In short, both by virtue of a decline in the birth rate in the 1930's and the technical advances in agriculture, the population base for rural institutions, including the schools, was much reduced. ( See Figure 6. ) On top of these developments came the war. The higher wages available in industry and the call for young women as well as men in the armed services attracted many teachers away from the school room. School boards frantically sought teachers, often in vain. Even though state school boards lowered the standards for certification, and issued "emergency" certificates by the thou-

THE FARMER'S SCHOOLS

87

sands, often to poorly qualified persons, still the supply was far short of the demand. In October 1942, the Ofiice of Education sent inquiries to several thousand school systems to find out what the impact of the war had been up to that time. They reported enrollment was dropping sharply, particularly at the high school level. On the basis of returns from just under 3,000 systems, it was estimated

FARM POPULATION MILLIONS"

I. I I

1910

I

I -"-..L-L-L

1930 1940 1950 1920 IÁSCD on COOHHATIH ISriUÁrCS or ГНС t U D C A U Of AOUCUlTUKÁl E C O N O M I C S A N D THE l U I S f A U O f THE C E N S U S

U. S . D E P A R T M E N T 0 Г

AGRICULTURE

NEO.490S8-XX

FIGUBE

BUREAU OF AGRICULTURAL

ECONOMICS

6

that 7,500 positions were unfilled as of October 15,1942. The very large cities and the rural schools suffered the greatest loss in teachers. New teachers on the job as of October 15, 1942, numbered 140,000, of whom 102,000 were in rural schools. About onefourth of all rural teachers were "new." Methods used most frequently to recruit teachers included —in order of frequency mentioned — increasing salaries, reinstating married teachers, replacing men with women, using inexperienced teachers, and

88

AMEBIC AN FARM

LIFE

hiring teachers from other systems. Probably one out of five of all new teachers were granted "emergency certificates" by the State Boards of Education.^ The proportions would probably vary quite widely from state to state, and locality to locality. The effect of the war on the teaching force of the nation is further indicated by the fact that the number of teachers declined by 50,000 in the four years from 1940 to 1944. During this period the average salary increased from $1,441 to $1,726. The heaviest increases, percentagewise, took place in the Southern states, and interestingly enough, these were the states which suffered the least decline in teacher numbers. Thus, a combination of forces, including above all the war, brought about the precipitate decline in the number of what has always been the "typical rural school" —the one-room school. Will it completely disappear? Most likely it will not. There will always be an irreducible number of small population aggregates where a one-room school is the only practical type. In Wyoming, where the average size of a farm is over 2,500 acres, it is no simple matter to transport children daily to a central school. True, it may be possible with the helicopter, but whether that will be practical for this purpose is an unanswered question at this time. It is not desirable to transport young children over distances that require more than an hour, and it would require that for a large proportion of the pupils in rural Wyoming and some other western states. The Australian adjustment to a similar situation in the "out back" has not been tried in the United States. The Australian plan is to send lessons by radio at fixed hours each school day to the children on the remote stations (ranches), whose work is then supervised by the mother of the family. In the United States the possibilities of television for the purposes of education were only beginning to be explored at the midpoint of the century, the indications were that in sparsely populated grazing country the one-room school would continue for a considerable period if not indefinitely Outside the grazing areas there is strong opposition on the part of parents as well as many professional educators to

THE FARMER'S

SCHOOLS

89

the daily transportation of any pupils in the early elementary grades. Emphasis in school reorganization programs is being placed more largely on the creation of "administrative units large enough both in area and number of pupils served to facilitate the development of comprehensive systems of . . . services," rather than on the consolidation of attendance units.^ Say Gaumnitz and Blose: There has been much confusion in the past concerning the reorganization of schools with a view to providing more complete and vitalized programs of instruction services to boys and girls living in the country. Many people thinking of this problem visualize principally the replacement of the one-teacher and other small schools with larger, centrally placed buildings into which children feed from all directions by bus lines reaching many miles into the country. This type of thinking falls far short of the mark. Too often the enlarged, consolidated schools have succeeded only in producing the city pattern both in physical structure and in type of program offered. Too seldom have the new school buildings, the enlarged staffs employed, or the new programs of instruction instituted reflected the educational needs peculiar to rural communities or utilized the rich educational potentialities of the rural environment. The new emphasis is upon larger administrative units, usually involving more than one attendance area. Such an enlarged administrative unit is planned to provide economically essential aids to the instruction and development of children which are not generally available in the small local school districts. Chief among these aids are a well-rounded staff of professionally educated administrators, supervisors, guidance officers, librarians, nurses, doctors, and dentists, and the facilities essential for effective work both by all teachers employed and by the specialists provided.' Obviously, the enlarged administrative area would permit planning the location of attendance units in such a manner as to serve most economically the pupils of the district. This cannot be done rationally as long as a county contains, say, 150 local school districts, each presided over by a board of trustees and each board w^orking independently of the rest. Some rearrangement of at-

90

AMEmCAN FARM LIFE

tendance areas is clearly taking place and will continue to do so. The degree of rationality which can be injected into the planning is going to depend quite largely on the success attained in first enlarging the administrative areas. COMMUTING CHILDREN

The dismantling of thousands of small rural school districts, and the closing of one-room schools, meant the development of a vast transportation system to bring the children daily to the central school and deliver them to their homes at night. The system is a growth mainly of the second quarter of the 20th century. In 191920, the Office of Education reports that 356,000 pupils were transported. In 1950-51, 7,300,000 were taken to school and back daily in 120,000 vehicles. These pupils made up 28 per cent of the total enrollment in elementary and secondary schools during that year.^ Nine states transport one-third or more of pupils enrolled in elementary and secondary schools; nineteen transport one-fourth or more, and probably no state transports less than ten per cent.® Of course, some of these transported pupils live in cities, but the proportion of farm children who commute daily far exceeds that for the city. The cost of this service makes up a large part of the school budget. For 17,000 rural secondary schools it amounts to about 30 per cent of the total budget.® The rapid expansion of pupil transportation in recent years does not mean that the service is without its critics. As pointed out earlier there are powerful objections, lay and professional, to the transportation of very young children, especially if the distances are great. A quotation from the ΝΕΑ Yearbook, to which reference has already been made, indicates some of the additional complaints and problems associated with the service: Why can't the bus come up our road and pick up my child?' "Why is it that my children never get a seat on the bus?' 'How can we get better qualified people to drive our buses?' . . . 'We just can't keep children after school any more as it would cause

THE FARMER'S

SCHOOLS

91

them to miss their bus.' Ί wish the school would do something about the bus drivers.' Once the school buses brought the children to school in the morning and took them home in the afternoon, but now the buses are on the road all the time.' 'There just doesn't seem to be any control of the behavior of the children on the bus.' ' Commuting children are clearly placed at a disadvantage when it comes to participation in the extra-curricular activities of the school, most of which are scheduled in the afternoons and evenings. The bus must leave shortly after school is out, in order to deliver the children on its route before too late an hour. If the children come back for an evening affair it means that they are transported by the parents in the family car, or, in the case of some high school pupils, the decision has to be made as to whether they are to drive the car themselves. Finally, some question has been raised by a recent study as to whether commuting, or factors associated with it, tends to depress the intellectual performance of the children. In a study of the Blacksburg, Virginia elementary schools, Ruth Chambers Little and Mildred Thurow Tate found an inverse relation between school performance and the distance of commuting. Commuting children, when compared with noncommuters with the same I. Q., did more poorly in their school subjects; and the farther they commuted in miles, the more poorly they did in school. As was to be expected, they also had poorer attendance records. These authors also found the commuting students to be more poorly adjusted socially than the noncommuters.^ This is but one study, and before any conclusions can be drawn for other schools and other areas, many additional tests would need to be made. In fact, other studies, not strictly comparable with that of the Blacksburg school, indicate some possibility that commuting children from rural areas measure up quite well with the children from the city. In a test of social adjustment of over 1800 children in five small city (5,000 to 7,500) systems in Minnesota, no significant differences in social adjustment were found between city and farm children. The third, seventh and eleventh grade classes

92

AMERICAN

FARM LIFE

were used in the comparison. The results were the same at all levels — no significant differences.® No comparison was made of performance in school subjects. SOCIAL IMPORTANCE OF THE RURAL ШСН SCHOOL

The discussion up to now of the reorganization of school districts and the accompanying problem of transportation has concerned chiefly the elementary schools. The rural high school has always been centrally located, almost without exception, and pupils from the open country have been transported to it. For a large part of the country, however, farm people were not included vdthin the school district which supported the high school, even though they sent their children — some of them — to the school. The rural high school was created and maintained primarily by the village, town or city. The farmers purchased high school education from the trade center just as they did their other goods and services. The local (elementary) districts or some system of state aid usually provided the tuition and sometimes transportation costs. Sometimes the parents met these costs themselves. It depended on the state concerned. The point is here that the high school has always been a central school. High school graduation is compulsory in only a few of the states; in 40 states the school-leaving age is 16; in 4, 16 or completion of high school; and in only 4 is it 18 or completion of high school. Consequently, the enrollment in high schools varies over the nation. In 1940, the percentages of farm girls and boys 16 and 17 years of age "attending" school as reported in the census of population varied from 87.5 in Utah to 32.2 in Kentucky. The average for the United States was 56.8. This percentage compares with 67.6 for the rural non-farm population and 75.6 for the urban. The 1950 figures show a considerable increase in school "enrollment" in all residence categories, with a more pronounced rise in the farm group. This means that the rural high school is assuming a position of prime importance in the social organization of the rural community.

THE FARMER'S SCHOOLS

93

In many ways, the high school is the most important of the rural social institutions. In the first place, it cuts across the cleavages based upon differences in religion, national origin, and economic and occupational interests. In the second place, the extracurricular and recreational activities associated with the high school are many and varied. These command the attention of adults of the community without respect to various differences that may otherwise prevail. Children of all groups take part side by side in these affairs. Finally, the high school attendance area is in most cases coterminous with the area of trade and service surrounding a center. When the time comes that all boys and girls from the farms as well as from the village go through four years of schooling together, the basis should be laid over the generations for a real community of town and country. In short, the high school appears to be the most potent instrumentality for eliminating town-country and business-farmer cleavages. It is obvious to point out, however, that in the high school of the future, the administrative area and the legal district should include the open-country dweller along vidth the villager. Both should share in the support by taxes, and in the formulating of policies. This fact, again, should help to bring town and country into closer collaboration. NEW BXJIUDINGS A MAJOR NEED

PubHc schools absorb more of the state and local revenues than any other activity, although in recent years they have had a stiff competitor for first place in the welfare programs. There is a capital investment of over $9 billion in the schools — about $385 for each of the 26 million pupils. Total annual expenditures amount to around billion, or $280 per pupil." In 1951, the American people paid $9 billion for medical care, $8.4 billion for alcoholic beverages, $11.3 billion for recreation, and $4.7 billion for tobacco.^^ But the American people are just heading into a . situation which will call for spectacular increases in total school costs. This

94

АМЕЫСАК

FARM

LIFE

is because of the extraordinary rise in the birth rate since 1940. The ΝΕΑ estimates that there will be 6,000,000 more elementary pupils by 1960 than we had in 1950, and a corresponding rise of 2,000,000 in high school enrollment. This will call for the construction of 600,000 new classrooms by 1957, which will probably cost $18 billion. Another development which is creating building needs is the redistribution of the population. If rural school buildings are being closed for want of pupils because of migration from farms, a countermovement of people into the fringe areas of large cities sets up the demand for new schools in these new locations. As the new frontier of settlement, the fringe areas provide the locations not only for scores of thousands of new homes, but also for new school buildings, new churches, new business houses and the rest. In any case, one of the greatest school-building programs in the history of the country is in prospect. Moreover, with the reorganization of rural school districts and the closing of the one-teacher schools, new buildings have to be constructed to accommodate the combined enrollment from the old districts. Mostly these will be constructed in the villages, towns and small cities to which the farm population is tributary. TEACHERS — QUANTITY AND QUAUTY

As was pointed out earlier, the outbreak of World War II had a shattering effect upon the supply and quality of rural teachers. The prevailingly low salaries for rural teachers made them easy prey to the temptation to take jobs in industry, not only as clerks, stenographers and office workers in general, but even in the plants themselves as welders, painters, and machine operators. Many entered government service in the expanding war service agencies, and some joined the armed services. Many rural teachers "advanced" to city school systems where salaries and working conditions were better. As we have shown, the vacancies thus created were filled in various expedient ways, the most important of which was the employment of former school-teachers who had earlier abandoned the school room for matrimony. The "little red

THE FARMER'S SCHOOLS

95

schoolhouse" has long been a supply center for wives for young farmers. During the depression years many school boards of the country had adopted policies against the employment of married women teachers. Now the tables were turned and many a school board was thankful that there was a married woman in the district who could be persuaded to return to the school room. Even so, such teachers had difficulty qualifying for certificates. Standards had been raised since they left the teaching profession; they had naturally not attended summer schools; and in other ways they had become ineligible for certification. State school boards were in no position to maintain normal standards in the face of the teacher shortage, and proceeded to issue emergency certificates by the thousands. Moreover, many of the new replacements were persons who had not had previous experience or adequate training. The result of this wartime development was a notable transformation in the characteristics of the rural teaching personnel. The young, single female teacher fresh out of normal school, so characteristic of the 1930's, has yielded to the mature, experienced, married woman of the 1950's. A survey of rural teachers conducted by the National Education Association finds that as of 1951-52 the modal age of elementary teachers is the group from 36 to 45 years, vwth a median age of 42.1 years. This is a considerably older group than the secondary teachers whose median age was 34.2.^^ This younger age of the high school teacher may well be the result of the higher salary paid at the secondary level. Teacher-training schools have been turning out more graduates at the secondary level than there are positions, while a shortage chronically exists in elementary schools. The midcentury brand of rural teacher is likely to be married. In an earlier study of rural teachers made by the ΝΕΑ in 193637, only 26.6 per cent of the teachers employed in one-teacher schools were married, contrasted with 63.1 per cent married in 1951-52. Presumably, if the country should go into another de-

96

AMEBIC AN FARM

LIFE

pression, the marital status would change again in favor of the single girl. T h e male teacher has long since all but disappeared from the rural teaching force. For the country as a whole, males in all secondary and elementary schools have declined from 43 per cent in 1880 to 21.3 per cent in 1949-50. T h e low point w a s reached in 1920 at 14 per cent. T h e percentage of men teachers declines during wars and rises afterward. T h e percentage of males is lower in rural than in urban schools, and in elementary than secondary ones. Thus in 1951-52 only 12 per cent of the rural teachers were men. Whether men are attracted to the teaching profession at the elementary or secondary level depends very much on the salary scale. If one ranks the states according to the percentage of male teachers and divides the 48 states into quartiles f r o m high to low, it will b e f o u n d that the high quartile in proportion of male teachers has the highest average salary and so on down to the lowest quarter which has the lowest average salary. Obviously, other factors than salary influence vocational choice, b u t that it is important cannot b e doubted. Salaries have increased markedly since the depression years. As of 1935-36 the average salary of instructional staffs for the United States was only $844,for rural teachers and $1,874 for urban. C o m p a r a b l e figures for 1947-48 are $2,086 for rural a n d $3,174 for urban.^^ Average salaries vary widely for the regions and states. Generally, lowest salaries are f o u n d in the South and the Great Plains. T h e highest are f o u n d in the Northeast and Pacific Coast states. T h e teacher shortage for elementary schools is going to continue. It is estimated that 75,000 new teachers are needed each year, while teacher-training institutions are turning out only 46,000. Total enrollment in teachers' colleges reached a low point in 1944 with only 85,902. B y 1948, the number h a d increased to 190,000, which held for three years. B y 1951, no doubt reflecting the Korean war, the number dropped to 170,000. T h e children of the country will b e fortunate indeed, if out of this number of

THE FARMER'S SCHOOLS

97

students as many as 46,000 will be graduated each year. It is a sad commentary on American life that the teaching profession — so highly rated by orators, and most parents — is unable to attract either the quantity or quality of personnel befitting its responsibility of transmitting the cultural tradition. WHAT SHOULD THE SCHOOLS TEACH?

The post World War II years find the social climate of the United States characterized by many fears and anxieties. The great hopes for worldwide peace which welled up in the hearts of mankind at the close of war, along with the establishment of the United Nations, were soon dampened by the intransigence of Russia, erstwhile ally. Exposés of spies, confessions of former Communists, and the disappointment of having to maintain strong defense forces; all the frustrations and annoyances associated with high taxes, the draft, and government controls of various kinds; and finally, the Korean war and stalemate have made people nervous, suspicious, and easy to anger. A scapegoat is needed on whom to vent these pent-up feelings. Various people find various scapegoats. For some, the New Deal or the Fair Deal is to blame. FDR got us into it, say others. Or there were high officials in the State Department who were pro-Communist if not outright traitors. Some zealous patriots point the finger of suspicion at the schools. The "educators," they allege, have violated tradition, abandoning the teaching of the fundamentals ( the three R's) for frills at best, and internationalism, socialism, or communism at worst. The United States at midcentury, in short, finds itself swept by a wave of anti-intellectualism, with teachers singled out by acts of state legislatures for imposition of loyalty oaths, threats being made to censor textbooks, and other freewheeling "attacks" on the schools.^® To what extent, if at all, should teachers discuss controversial issues in the classroom? The debate goes wearily on between those who would cling to teaching the "fundamentals," and those who regard the school as a place where not only the "funda-

98

AMERICAN FARM

LIFE

mentals" are taught, but young citizens are given opportunity to discuss the pro's and con's of current issues. It is of interest to cite here the results of the survey of rural teachers as of 1951-52 in regard to the issues which they considered it "unwise to discuss with laymen in the community." The rank order of the more important issues by percentages of elementary and secondary teachers reporting them was as follows: Elementary Secondary 32.8 Criticism of prominent business leaders 23.3 Separation oiÈ Church and State 16.8 17.4 Sex (or sex education) 34.1 17.2 Criticism of prominent political leaders 21.8 17.1 Socialism 10.1 7.8 Communism 9.8 10.1 9.7 17.3 Teacher welfare (salaries and retirement) Important local school policies 7.8 15.9 Race relations 6.3 6.6 Labor management problems 5.9 2.9 Naturally the percentages vary widely by regions. For example, the teacher in the North and West can discuss race relations somewhat more freely than a teacher in the South. The "separation of church and state" ( obviously a reference to the controversy over parochial schools and released time for religious instruction) is more of a burning issue in some areas than in others. The authors of the report conclude as follows: A large number of rural teachers do not feel free to discuss many of the controversial issues of the day with either children in their classes or with laymen in the commimity. Adverse public opinion and the fear of outside pressure groups are the major reasons. Many teachers, for instance, are likely to sidestep serious questions about communism, sex, separation of church and state, criticism of prominent political (and business) leaders, and policies of local government. Rural teachers are extremely sensitive to public opinion and they will not teach those things which they feel a large segment of the public prefers not to have taught. In the light of these findings, it seems appropriate to ask: How else is the American youth going to form an intelligent opinion about current issues? . . . "

THE FARMER'S SCHOOLS

99

Rural schools are undergoing a very drastic modification. The little one-room school of tender memory is becoming just that — a memory. Not that it is going to become entirely extinct — there are good reasons why a certain number will always be with us. But the species will not increase. The impact of centralization of the attendance units upon the rural community can only be surmised at this time. There may be unexpected consequences upon the commuting child, which may or may not be to his advantage. Time and study will tell this story. The rural teacher is also a changed creature from that of 15 years ago. Then she was usually a single girl, fresh out of normal school, inexperienced and willing to work for low pay; today, she is probably a married woman, much older in years, and receiving a salary two and a half times that of her youthful predecessor. The quality of the teachers as regards years of training and experience has risen during the period, but still falls far short of urban standards. Many rural teachers are poorly prepared by formal training. The demand still exceeds the supply of teachers at the elementary level. The flood of babies born during and after World War II is already engulfing the elementary schools. People are frantically building structures to house them; over 600,000 new rooms will be needed by 1960. The controversy over the curriculum and methods of teaching has reached a new peak of ferocity, and official or self-appointed bodies have put teachers "on the carpet," having to defend their freedom to teach what and how they think best.

CHAPTER

EIGHT

The Rural Church IN THEIR EFFORTS to maintain effective churches for themselves, the farm people of the United States have been plagued with the problem of "fewness." While it is all well and good to find consolation in the Scriptural text, "where two or three are gathered together in My name, there will I be also," modern Christians need much larger congregations to capably maintain and organize their churches. Jesus did his preaching by the seaside or on the "mount," but His followers today require substantial and often elaborate chapels, churches, meeting houses, or cathedrals. Jesus had neither parsonage nor pastoral income nor allowance to feed and clothe His body, but modern Christians provide their clergymen with incomes and frequently with houses also. Houses of worship and salaried pastors are integral aspects of modern churches. To meet these obligations adequately, churches today require a minimum membership far in excess of a trio or quartet. What that minimum should be may well vary with the denomination and local circumstances. One suggestion is that there should be one organized church for each one thousand persons in the population.^ In 1936, for the United States as a whole, there was on the average one church for 643 people, in rural areas 436, and in urban, 1,014. Only in New England and on the Pacific Coast did the numbers reach the 1,000 mark for rural and urban populations

THE RURAL CHURCH

101

combined, 1,048 in New England and 1,061 on the Pacific Coast. The average number of members per church in the United States in 1936 was 280.2 poj. 128,097 rural churches the average membership was 133, and for 71,205 urban churches, 541. Obviously, there are a great many small rural churches in proportion to the nation's population. The urban churches are usually much larger. The struggle with smallness by the rural church results partly from extreme denominational diversity, and partly from the pattern of land settlement. SECTARLAN DIVERSITY

Drawn from all parts of the globe, the settlers in the New World brought with them the religious traditions of their homelands. Anglican, Methodist, Baptist, Congregationalist, Unitarian, and Presbyterian came from the British Isles. Lutherans of all ethnic branches organized their own synods: Swedish, Norwegian, German, Finnish, Slovak, Danish, and English. According to the Yearbook of American Churches for 1951, there were twenty different Lutheran bodies in the United States. The various Orthodox groups (Greek, Russian, Syrian, Romanian, Serbian, Armenian) all sought to preserve in the New World the religious traditions of their national homelands. The Yearbook reports eighteen Eastern Orthodox denominations. This is by no means a complete Hsting, but includes the numerically most important Protestant groups. In addition, of course, the Roman Catholic church adds to the religious diversity, although it has been able to avoid sectarian subdivision based upon ethnic differences. Since Protestant groups are numerically dominant in the rural population, the diversity is great and problems of church organization and maintenance much enhanced. Further division among Protestants has occurred because of racial segregation. Negroes did not follow, in America, the religious traditions of Africa; instead, they have patterned their churches on those of the white population. Since very few white churches have welcomed colored people at their worship services,

102

AMERICAN

FARM LIFE

separate Negro denominations (Methodist, Baptist, etc.) have been organized. The Protestant "revolt" of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries set the stage for an endless succession of new religious sects. The first group of dissenters who fled from the estabhshed English church settled in New England, and tried to suppress the nonconformists there as they themselves had been suppressed. But the ferment of the Reformation was too powerful to be contained within the bounds of Puritan orthodoxy. When Roger Williams was banished from their midst, he set about at once to form a new colony and gave a great impetus to a new denomination. In the late eighteenth and the nineteenth centuries, several new sects arose on American soil. The Latter-day Saints, Disciples of Christ, Adventists, Spiritualists, Christian Scientists, and Jehovah's Witnesses, all of current importance numerically, were indigenous additions to the religious diversity of the country. Many other groups came and disappeared. Nor is the practice of organizing new sects at an end. Since the turn of the century many new ones have come into existence, mainly of the "hohness" type, like the Churches of God, Churches of the Living God, and Pentecostal Assemblies. Moreover, the formation of new churches is fostered by the constitutional guarantee of freedom of worship. With no government interference to say him "nay," an aspiring prophet is free to dissent from the church of his fathers, formulate and preach his new creed and faith, and recruit followers where he will. A corollary fact to that of the freedom of worship, and one which also abets the formation of new bodies, is the prevalence in American Protestantism of the congregational polity. Centralized control is rare in American religious organization, except in the Roman Catholic church and a few other groups. If dissenters wish to break away from one denomination and start a new one, the central denominational headquarters does not have the power to prevent them. The fact that there are 23 varieties of Methodists, 23 Baptists, 15 Mennonites, 9 Friends, 7 Pentecostals, and 6 Latter-

THE RURAL CHURCH

103

day Saints shows that dissatisfied groups have made use of their freedom to form separate sects. Finally, the form of land settlement on individual farms instead of in towns and villages added further complications to the intrinsically difficult situation of maintaining country churches. Families of various ethnic and sectarian backgrounds were widely scattered over the countryside. This scattered pattern of settlement imposed serious difficulties upon the settlers in their efforts to establish any social institutions, whether churches, schools, or local governments. Religious heterogeneity increased the problem of forming churches. Even in those cases where all the settlers in one region belonged to the same church and spoke the same language, the number of families who might participate in the same congregation was limited by large distances, poor roads, and primitive transportation. All these factors have combined to create the problem of "smallness." There are too many sects and denominations with too many local churches, in relation to the population; and this unbalance results in relatively small rural congregations, often with only part-time pastoral service. Rural churches are usually simple in structure and unable to provide the specialized services one finds in most urban churches, such as fine music, thorough programs of rehgious education, and well-trained youth leaders. The problem of the small rural churches has been further aggravated by the heavy migration from farms which occurred during the 1940's. The flight from the land of some four million persons has led in some areas to the abandoning of country churches, consoHdation of several churches of the same denoitìination, or federation of two or more churches of different denominations. The universal increase in the birth rate following the war has meant more children for the Sunday Schools, but as these children grow up they will undoubtedly follow the trend of migration to the cities.

104

AMERICAN FARM LIFE

GBOWTH OF CHUBCH MEMBERSHIP

Although the rural church has to get along with relatively few persons per congregation, it is quite probable that there are fewer unchurched farm people today than at any time in the past. It is not possible to compare rural and urban rates of growth with available data, but estimates of the percentage of the total United States population reported as church members indicate a steady increase during the past century.^ According to the Yearbook of American Churches, only 16 per cent of the population belonged to churches in 1850. In succeeding decades the percentage grew steadily until in 1951 it was 58. The low rates for earlier years may be due partly to inadequate reporting, but there are also grounds for assuming that for large numbers of settlers no formal church organizations existed. That the membership of churches in general, and presumably of rural ones as well, has been increasing more rapidly than the population can be explained in part by changes in the characteristics of the population. Church membership includes the following groups in larger proportions than their numbers in the population in general: a) elderly people, b ) women, c) better educated people, d) upper and middle classes, and e) urban and village populations. AH of these groups have been increasing disproportionately in the American population. In the rural population, sharecroppers, tenants, and farm laborers were never primary elements of strength in the rural church. All of these have declined in numbers, with a corresponding rise in the proportion of farm ovraers. Moreover, the greater prosperity of farmers in recent years has enabled more of them to belong to and support churches. In addition to the demographic factors influencing church membership, it must be recognized that there is a renaissance of interest in religion. When one asks students in college how they explain the fact that church membership is growing faster than the population, one gets such replies as the following: "People are seeking psychological security in a chaotic world"; "religion

THE RURAL CHURCH

105

ofiFers a means of escape from the intolerable conditions of the times"; "people join churches because it is the thing to do — they achieve status and recognition by doing so"; "people have become disillusioned vi'ith science as a means of answering the major questions they ask themselves," and so on. The fact that so many books on religious themes, both fiction and non-fiction, are on the best-seller lists would seem to indicate an extraordinary interest in religion. BEGIONAL DIFFEKENCES IN CHURCH MEMBERSHIP

The proportions of the population belonging to churches in 1936 varied from a low of 22.2 per cent in the state of Washington to a high of 70.7 in the state of Utah. This includes both urban and rural membership and population.^ The next six high ranking states after Utah, all in the northeastern part of the United States, are Rhode Island, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and New York. Besides Washington in the lowest category, there are Montana, Oregon, Oklahoma, West Virginia, Nevada, Wyoming, Arkansas, California, and Colorado. In between these extremes are found most of the Southern states, as well as those of the Midwest and the Great Plains. Thus, it is clear that with few exceptions, the proportion of church members in the population closely follows the proportion of the total population which is urban. Another point needs to be mentioned. The Roman Catholic church is predominantly urban (80 per cent in 1936) and it enumerates as members all who have been baptized, including infants. The facts that they constitute about a third of the total church membership of the country and that they are especially concentrated in the Northeastern part of the nation would help to account for the high membership rate of the states in the Middle Atlantic and New England areas. The high rank of Utah is due to the overwhelming proportion of Latter-day Saints in that state. States of the South and Middle West, where the farm population is relatively large, compare unfavorably with the urban states in chvurch membership.

106

AMERICAN

FARM

LIFE

DENOMINATIONAL COMPLEXITY

Reference was made earlier in this chapter to the denominational diversity of American religion and an attempt was made to explain how it came to be. To document the situation on a regional basis, a count was made of the number of different sects represented in each of the states in 1936, both for the rural and urban population.5 For the rural population, the range in number of different sects represented was from 13 in Nevada to 117 in Pennsylvania. Fourteen states reported 75 or more. In rank order high to low these were Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Kansas, Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, Iowa, California, New York, Texas, Oklahoma, Wisconsin, and Virginia. ( See Figure 7. ) In the case of urban churches, the number of different denominations was somewhat higher, but the ranking of states was similar to that for the rural distribution. Illinois, however, edged out Pennsylvania for first place with 141 denominations, followed by Pennsylvania vvdth 136, Ohio with 134, and New York with 133. Then came Michigan, California, Indiana, Missouri, New Jersey, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Massachusetts, all with 85 or more groups. The extraordinary multiplicity of denominations in the Northeast in both country and city is apparent. It is probably due to the facts that this section has more nationality groups than any other region (with a corresponding multiplicity of sects) and has also a high population density. Where there are larger numbers of people in relation to space, new sects have an easy time getting a foothold. Denominations differ greatly in the rural-urban distribution of their members. Protestant bodies predominate in rural areas. In 1936 there were 36 denominations with 100,000 or more members. Of the 30 churches with 20 per cent or more of their members rural, all were Protestant, The Roman Catholic church reported 19.4 per cent of its members rural, and Jewish congregations only 0.9 per cent. Seventy-seven per cent of all rural church

"Πιβ Number of Different ReRgiout Denominetioiw in Rural Area«, by States. 1936

Is» quartils S 5 5 S 8

2ndqu.r«,1. 3r Seventeenth Census of the United States, 1 9 5 0 ; estimated membership from Sixteenth Census of the United States, 1940. ' Bureau of Dairy Industry, Department of Agriculture. Grazing Service, Department of Interior. • Office of Indian Afiairs, Department of Interior. ' There are 295 other Indian Corporate and Tribal Enterprises. ' Farm Credit Administration, Department of Agriculture. ' W h e n associations marketing farm products but principally engaged in providing some other services are included, the total is 7 , 2 7 6 . ' When associations purchasing farm supplies but principally engaged in providing some other services are included, the total is 7,335. ) Includes general trucking, storage, grinding, cotton ginning, and livestock trucking. • When associations providing miscellaneous services but principally engaged in marketing or purchasing are included, the total is 4,144, > Estimated members of associations borrowing from banks for coöperatives. "" Bureau of Labor Statistics, Department of Labor. ° Farm Credit Administration estimates. « Census of Electrical Industries, 1937, Bureau of the Census. Number of associations includes 2,067 companies vnth switchboards and 30,812 without switchboards. Number of participants estimated from number of telephones, assuming one patron per telephone, ρ Rural Electrification Administration, Department of Agriculture. 4 Public Health Service, Federal Security Agency. ' Membership reports for only twenty-seven associations were available.

132

AMERICAN FARM LIFE

in 1844 of the so-called Rochdale Principles of Cooperative Organization, originally developed at Rochdale, England. These principles are as follows: 1) the cooperatives have open membership; 2) operations are democratic, decisions being based upon one vote per member vvdth no proxy voting; 3 ) goods are sold at prevaiUng market prices; 4) savings are distributed on the basis of patronage; 5) a set, Hmited return is paid upon invested capital; 6) business is done on a cash basis; 7) books and records are open to the membership, and a high level of honesty is maintained. These Rochdale Principles made it impossible for one or two individuals to gain control of the association through the purchase of stock, as was so frequently the case with organizations that based their voting privileges on the number of shares of stock. The other important factor in the background of cooperative development among American farmers was the report of the Country Life Commission appointed by Theodore Roosevelt in 1907. This report, published in 1911, is especially significant because it was the first time in the history of the country that official recognition was given to the social and economic problems of agriculture. The report called attention to a number of problems of farm life, including the unfavorable market conditions for agricultural products and the inadequacy of rural education. The report provided an important impetus to the passage by Congress in 1914 of the Smith-Lever Act, which established the Cooperative Agricultural Extension Service. Extension agents played a very important role in the organization of cooperative marketing associations, especially in the early years of Extension work. With the Rochdale Principles universally accepted as the basis of cooperative organization, and with the professional staff members of the Extension Service available for advice and promotion, the ground was laid for rapid growth and expansion of cooperative associations. The agricultural distress which prevailed through the decade of the 1920's provided a favorable climate for their spread. Farmers were evangelized by organizers, the most noted

FARMERS' COÖPERATIVE ASSOCIATIONS

133

of whom was Aaron Sapiro of San Francisco. Sapiro inspired farmers with the hope that they could control the market for their products by holding back the supply. To this end he advocated contracts with "teeth in them" between the cooperative and its members. He was an effective salesman, even though the hopes he inspired proved false, by and large. With the election of Herbert Hoover to the Presidency in 1928, the Federal Farm Board was created and immediately became very active in the promotion of cooperative marketing and purchasing organizations among farmers. In two years, the number of marketing and purchasing associations increased from 10,803 to 12,000. That was the peak. After 1930 the number of associations steadily declined until in 1949-50 there were only 10,035. The membership, however, has continued to grow. In 1925, the estimated membership in marketing and purchasing associations alone was 2,700,000; by 1950 the number had increased to 6,584,000.^ The gain in both number of associations and membership has been especially striking in the purchasing associations, although the gain in numbers there has been smaller than the loss in number of marketing associations. However, members of marketing groups have increased. Thus it seems clear that consolidation of selling cooperatives is taking place. The gain in buying associations is in part a reflection of the mechanization of agriculture, which has greatly increased the need for purchases of gas, oil, and other supplies for farm machinery. Another fact to be noted is the recent trend toward specialization, which has made individual farms less self-sufficing. Most poultrymen and many dairymen no longer grow their own feed. The increased use of fertilizer has also been a factor in the growth of purchasing associations. COOPERATIVES B Y T Y P E O F PRODUCTION

Nearly half of all marketing and purchasing associations in 1950-51 were accounted for by dairying and production of grain and soybeans. There were 2,072 associations handling dairy

134

AMEmCAN

FARM LIFE

products, and 2,740 handling grain, soybeans and soybean meal and oil. Fruit and vegetable cooperatives ranked next, numbering 951. Poultry products, livestock, and livestock products together account for some 1,500 organizations. The marketing associations combined had a gross business in 1950-51 of nearly eight billion dollars. Purchasing associations are most numerous among those dealing with seed, feed, fertilizer, petroleum products and farm machinery and equipment. Their gross business amounted to $2,319,000,000 in 1951. REGIONAL VABIATtONS IN COOPERATION

From the above figures on commodity associations, anyone familiar with the type-of-farming regions of the United States would be able to predict the areas of high and low cooperative activity. The grain and dairy states, mainly those of the Middle West and Northeast, tend to rank high. The states producing fruits and vegetables also show to advantage. Contrariwise, the states where cotton is produced fall rather low. In short, the cooperatives have had their greatest acceptance in the Northern states and among such commodities as dairy products, grain, livestock and livestock products, and poultry. They have been less popular in the Southeastern states, except for Florida, and iii the production of cotton. THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF FARMER COOPERATIVES

Organized in 1929, the National Council, in the words of its Executive Sècretaiy, seeks to promote effectively the interest of agriculture by: (1) serving as a conference body through which farmers' cooperative associations can solve their mutual problems through the medium of self-help and coordinate their individual principles into an over-all policy; ( 2 ) advising the Congress and administrative agencies of government; (3) maintaining and defending the right of farmers to pool their economic resources by organizing and operating their cooperative associations to engage in Üie marketing of agricultural commodities

FARMERS' COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATIONS

135

or purchasing of essential farm supplies; (4) providing the means through which farmer cooperatives can be advised quickly and accurately of current national and international developments which affect the interests of farmers; and (5) providing a forum through which farmer cooperatives may develop a better understanding and stronger bond of friendship.' The constituent bodies vi'hich form the National Council are 112 state and regional cooperatives, state councils, and associates. The National Council is basically an educational and policymaking body for some 5,000 local cooperatives, in which 2,600,000 families participate. It is the watch-dog of their interests at the seat of national government, where it exercises considerable influence on agricultural legislation. This very brief review of the present status of farmers' cooperatives points to the following trends. 1 ) There is a tendency for marketing associations to consolidate. This is indicated by the steady decline in the total number of associations while at the same time the membership is grovdng. 2 ) There is a trend toward an increase in the number, membership, and volume of business of purchasing cooperatives. This type is expanding more rapidly than that concerned exclusively wdth marketing. This is a reflection of the mechanization and specialization of agriculture and of the trend toward increased production per acre through the use of commercial fertilizer. 3 ) Service cooperatives are coming to play an important role in rural community life. Upwards of 90 per cent of farm homes are now served by electricity and most of these are the beneficiaries of the Rural Electrification Cooperatives. Congress has now provided that rural telephone service may be obtained by farmers in the same manner as electricity. There wiU no doubt be a considerable expansion in the number of telephone users. The cooperative association as a mechanism of self-help for farmers is now V4ädely accepted. In the developmental stages of a generation ago, a great deal of emphasis was placed upon the inherent Tightness or goodness of the cooperative movement.

136

AMERICAN

FARM

LIFE

In short, the motivation among farmers approximated in fervor that of a religious movement. There is no doubt that the early leaders of the cooperative movement looked upon it as something of a panacea for many of the ills of society and as the device by v^'hich mankind could achieve a better life. It is fair to say that this zeal has quite largely disappeared, and the cooperative now is regarded as very much a business proposition. There is little of the doctrinaire about the midcentury coöperator; he looks upon the cooperative as a means by vi^hich he can improve his social and economic conditions and compete more successfully vi'ith other groups in society.

CHAPTER

ELEVEN

The Farmer and His Local Government THE FARM POPULATION of the United States has more governments and less government than any other segment of the nation. A look at the country as a whole reveals a crazy patchwork of school districts, soil conservation districts, townships, bridge and road districts, drainage districts, irrigation districts, cemetery districts, fire protection districts, and last but not least, counties. For example, a single farmer voter in Minnesota may live within a half dozen or more of these units, each of which has a set of officers which he and his fellows elect, and to each of which he pays a tax. Every American farmer is under the jurisdiction of a school district and a county, and in some states a township — not to mention the state and federal governments. These general units of government are supplemented by the special districts and municipalities which cover only local areas. Nevertheless, the farm people have no effective local municipality. This fact is another direct consequence of the initial pattern of land settlement. If they had grouped their residences instead of scattering them over the landscape, it would have been a simple matter for them to organize effective local government very early in the history of the country. Actually, local government, like all their social institutions, was established only as the severe impediments of poor transportation and communication were overcome.

138

AMERICAN

FARM

LIFE

TOWNSHIPS

Influenced no doubt by the New England town system and by the obvious impossibility of grouping farm residences, the settlers in the Middle West decided to adopt the surveyor's tovraship as an arbitrary unit of government. This unit was too small in population and tax base to provide more than the most rudimentary services of government. Usually its functions were limited to road maintenance, care of the poor, law enforcement, assessment of property, and protection of health. Critics have maintained that the township is too small a unit to perform any of these functions properly. The inadequacy of the township has become more apparent with the steady decline of the farm population. In the past, the population base of most townships seldom exceeded one hundred and fifty families; as farms enlarge, this number will correspondingly dwindle. Only in the fringe areas of cities will the farm population be large enough for townships to operate effectively. OTHER LOCAL XJNITS

Besides townships, farm people have special districts as units of control. The most important are the school districts, which we have already discussed. Incorporated villages and cities will not be treated here, inasmuch as our emphasis is on those institutions in which farmers participate directly. Most special districts are created to perform a single function, but there are some exceptions. A report of the Bureau of the Census on governments in the United States as of 1951 has the following to say about special districts: These units make up the most varied and the least known and recorded area of local government. They are to be found in every state and the District of Columbia. There is no consistent pattern from State to State, or even within a State, as to the organization and financing of special districts. . . . The following eight states, each having at least 500 special districts, account for nearly three-fifths of all such local governments:

LOCAL

139

GOVERNMENT

Illinois California Missouri New York

1,341 1,305 937 886

Kansas Washington Texas Nebraska

722 648 571 527

Almost one-half of all special districts are accounted for by three types — soil conservation, drainage, and fire protection districts. Another fourth consists of highway, housing, irrigation, water and sewer districts. Numerous functional classes make up the remaining 25 per cent of the special districts. These include, cemetery, health, hospital, library, mosquito abatement, port, power, weed eradication, and many other types. . .

It will be seen from Table 16 that there has been a marked decline in the number of units of government in the period from 1942 to 1951.2 Table 16 Number and types of governmental units in the United States, 1942 and 1951 Number of units Total U. S. Government States Counties Municipalities Townships School districts Special districts

1951

1942

Per cent change

119,465 1 48 3,049 16,677 17,338 70,452 11,900

155,116 1 48 3,050 16,220 18,919 108,579 8,299

-23.0 0.0 0.0 a 2.8 -8.4 -35.1 43.4

• Less than .05 per cent.

The units of government which are on the decline are school districts and townships. School districts alone decline by 35 per cent and townships by 8.4. The number of counties remained about the same; while municipalities and special districts increased, particularly the latter. There is a wide difference among the 48 states in the number of governments. Nine states, all in the Middle West except one, reported more than 5,000 units each. The leading states in order

140

AMERICAN

FARM LIFE

were: Minnesota (9,309), Illinois (8,594), Nebraska (8,318), Kansas (7,398), Wisconsin (7,299), Missouri (7,117), Michigan (6,752), Iowa (5,810) and Pennsylvania (5,178). The "government load" carried by the people of the various states is indicated by Figure 8, which shows the number of governments per 10,000 population. The northwest central part of the country is conspicuously loaded with government units. The southern and some far western states generally have fewer units, partly because they do not have tovraships; they have relied mainly on county governments. It is this type of local unit which is most important and to which we now turn. T H E COUNTY

"About county government," said the late historian, Charles A. Beard, "the less said the better. In that sphere where Jefferson's independent, upstanding farmers, as distinguished from the 'mobs of the great cities' control affairs, little if any advance is to be recorded, and that little is to be ascribed largely to restraints and obligations imposed upon recalcitrant communities by state authorities. In rural government, aside from what has been accomplished by state and federal intervention, we stand about where we did in the days of McKinley, Hanna and Bryan." ^ Beard undoubtedly meant by "advances" any modifications (including improvements) in structure and function. Almost all authorities today agree with Beard's statement. Thomas Jefferson's hopes for the new nation have not all been realized. H e visualized a society of husbandmen conducting local affairs independently, relying little on central government; but America has taken a far different turn and become primarily an industrial nation. To a limited extent, however, Jefferson's theory that the best government governs least has become practice. The "least governed" portion of the American population is that which resides on farms, and country people evidently regard this as "best," for, as Beard remarks, they have made httle effort to change it.

The Number of Governmental Units per 10,000 Population, 1951

FIGURE

8

142

AMERICAN

FARM

LIFE

In the early days of settlement, as indicated earlier, local government in rural areas was not easy to establish because of the fact that the farmer-settlers built their homes on their separate farms and thus "scattered" themselves to such an extent that the protection of home and property was largely a responsibility of the individual occupant. Distances were too great, roads too poor, transportation too difficult, and communication too slow to allow for the swift application of law enforcement by governmental authorities. Even after the land was all "settled" and a semblance of government established, it was a question just what kind of organization would serve best the interests of a population so isolated from one another and occupying so much territory in relation to their numbers. By contrast, the New England settlers had no serious problem because in the beginning they grouped themselves in tovras. In the helter-skelter occupation of the Western lands, settlement by communities in compact groups was out of the question. In the first place, most of the earliest settlers were occupying land "illegally" — that is, ahead of the survey. This meant that in order to protect their holdings at all, they had to be on the spot. They lived on their holdings day and night. In the second place, after the land was surveyed, the government expected and some of the laws required that applicants for title live on the land they called their farms. Thus, American farm families found themselves a quarter, a half, a full mile, or even farther apart. For many decades these distances were a major obstacle to the development of any form of community life beyond the immediate neighborhood. As areas becamé territories, and territories became states, the most important local unit of government and the most general throughout the United States, the county, came into existence. THE COXJNTY I N N E W ENGLAND

For the farm population, in all but New England, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and possibly New York and Wisconsin, the county is the most important local political authority and practically the

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

143

only one. Counties exist in all of the states, and are organized as government units in every state except Rhode Island. In Louisiana, the term "parish" is used to designate what in the other states are known as counties. In New England and the other states indicated above, the county takes second place to the town or township in importance. In some states of New England the significance of the county is limited to a few functions. For example, Riecken and Whetten in discussing local government in Connecticut say: . . . . [The county] is secondary to the towns, both historically and in the scope of functions. The county [of Litchfield] was not organized until 1751, years after most of the towns had been established and settled. It is chiefly responsible for the administration of certain child welfare laws and for the administration of justice above the town level. It also serves as the administrative unit for such agencies as the State Agricultural Extension Service. Not only does the coimty have few functions, but as a government or territorial unit it has relatively little meaning for its residents. They rarely think of calling on the county for help and there is no county seat. When a man is asked where he lives he generally names his town or village. A farmer will most always identify his residence by town or, if more specific location is necessary, by town and distance and direction from the nearest village . . . On none of the main highways leading into the county are there signs proclaiming the coimty boimdary — instead they read "Town Line — New Hartford," or New Milford, Colebrook, Salisbury and so forth. In almost all ways the county is an unimportant unit of organization, distinctly secondary to the town.* THE COXJNTY OUTSmE NEW ENGLAND

In contrast vdth this shadow existence in New England, the county in many states of the South and West is the only important government unit for farm people, except, of course, those who chance to live in incorporated villages and towns. These would be very few except in Utah and other areas settled by the Mormons.® In the states of the Middle West — Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota, North and South Dakota, Kansas, and to some

144

AMERICAN

FARM LIFE

extent in Missouri, Nebraska, and Washington — governments are organized on the basis of the 36-square mile surveyor's township. These local units perform limited functions including road maintenance, law enforcement, assessment of property, and in some cases, care for the poor. Except in the states of Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Nebraska, there is no organic relationship between the county and township governments. In these states, the county boards are composed of the administrative officers of the townships, thus integrating tovm and county governments. There are in all twenty-two out of the forty-eight states, including New England, that have organized town or township governments. In the remaining states the county is about the only local government which serves farm people. THE COXJNTY FUNCTIONS

The major activities of counties in which there are organized townships but where county government is dominant are: (a) collection of all taxes levied in the county, and distribution of the funds to the various sub-jurisdictions within the county and to the state; ( b ) law enforcement; (c) recording of property titles; ( d ) construction and maintenance of highways, a function shared with township, state and federal governments; (e) administration of pubHc welfare; ( f ) limited supervision of public schools; ( g ) supervision of elections; ( h ) support of agricultural extension services; and (i) provision of limited services in the field of public health. The principal governing authority in the county is its board of commissioners, consisting of five members, each elected from a specific district. The board manages the county's property, oversees its finances, sets the county tax rate, and acts as general director of its business. It lacks the powers ordinarily given a board of directors of a business corporation, however, because several other county officials are also elected by, and therefore are responsible only to, the people. These include the auditor, treasurer, attorney, sheriff, justice of the probate court, clerk of

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

145

the district court, judges of the district court, register of deeds, court commissioner, superintendent of schools, surveyor and coroner. All are practically dependent upon the board of commissioners for appropriations to operate their offices, but otherwise they are quite independent officers responsible to no central authority, only to the electorate.® DUAL CHARACTER OF T H E COUNTY

The county is an agency of the state on the one hand, and on the other, a semi-autonomous local government for meeting needs of the citizens within its borders. In addition to the functions listed above, which are in the main performed by the county as an agency of the state, county governing bodies may do many other things which are permissive in character. For example, under enabling acts passed by the state legislature, county boards may be authorized to levy a tax of a specified rate for the purpose of establishing a county library, either individually or in cooperation vdth other counties. In the same manner, county boards may provide sanatoria, adopt zoning ordinances to govern the use of agricultural land, inaugurate and maintain agricultural extension work, and so on. DIVERSE AREAS AND POPULATIONS

In originally creating counties the states seemingly gave greater attention to area than to population. Undoubtedly, the early legislators had no other expectation than that the area marked off as Blank County on the map would in due course "fill up" with people. Moreover, a major concern in the pre-automobile days, when practically all of the counties were established, was that of accessibility to the county seat. The county boundaries are, therefore, quite arbitrary, and bear little or no relation to the numbers of people within them. Population of counties varies over a wide range, from 52 in Armstrong County, South Dakota, to 4,509,000 in Cook County, Illinois ( 1950 census ). However, Armstrong County is not organ-

146

AMERICAN FARM

LIFE

ized and is attached to another county for governmental purposes. Nevertheless, there are organized counties with less than 500 population. Daggett County, Utah had 364 people in 19501 In the latest census, 18 counties were under 1,000 population, compared with only 10 in this category in 1940. The number of counties and other similar units in various size groups in 1950 was as follows.'^ Population 1,000,000 or more 500,000 to 1,000,000 250,000 to 500,000 100,000 to 250,000 50,000 to 100,000 25,000 to 50,000 10,000 to 25,000 5,000 to 10,000 2,500 to 5,000 1,000 to 2,500 under 1,000 Total

Number of Counties 11 31 48 151 257 647 1,181 516 177 66 18 3,103

This wide diversity in size and population among counties is matched by the inequalities in wealth. The small and poor counties found themselves in serious financial difficulties during the crisis of the 1930's. Many were bankrupt, unable to pay their way. Tax delinquency was widespread. Most local units of government were heavily bonded and were unable to meet payments of interest, let alone anything on the principal. Surveys were made in almost every state, and in a number of them precise proposals were worked out for consolidating counties, in order to provide a tax and population basis which would enable counties to perform the services expected of them. Consolidation looked so rational and conditions were so deplorable that many people were led to consider it as an almost inevitable solution. Still nothing happened. Not because there were not plenty of economic and political arguments for consolidation. It was

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

147

not difficult to show the advantages to be gained in lowered costs of operation and in improved services. The failure to consolidate must be found in other socio-psychological factors, among which are the following. (1) The influence of inertia, and emotional attachment to place name. Even the overwhelming evidence of material gain to be achieved by consolidation, say, of two counties, is not enough to convince the citizens of the desirability of change. Everyone is identified with a place and the name of the place. "Where are you from?" "I come from X county," Or, "My home is in Y county." To propose the consolidation of X and Y raises the question as to what the name of the new entity will be. Obviously, it could not be either X or Y1 Moreover, someone or somemany will ask, "Why do we need to change anyway? We can work out our problems with a little attention to business principles. Just get that courthouse gang out of there and get in some honest officials," etc., etc. (2) The vested interests of officials. The elimination of one county tìuOugh merger or consolidation with another means the elimination of one set of officers. Some may have positions as "deputies" in the new set-up, but in any case there would be some who would lose their jobs. (3) Vested interests of weekly newspapers in the county seat towns. The income from official advertising and printing is often a very important asset to the paper located in the county seat. If one county seat is abolished, one or both papers may sufFer. (4) The vested interests of county seat merchants. Many business enterprises depend to a considerable extent upon the patronage derived from being in a county seat. It would be expecting too much of them if they were wholeheartedly to support the idea of abandoning this privileged position. (5) Differences in tax rates, taxable wealth, and indebtedness. Seldom are conditions exactly the same in two counties with respect to these factors. The wealthier county will not be anxious to join with a poorer one.

148

AMERICAN FARM LIFE

(6) The resistance of political party machines. Every county has a local organization of each of the political parties; and those who control these units, with the patronage they are able to garner as a result, will be reluctant to surrender, or even to share, those privileges. On the basis of these facts, and the even more telHng one that the county boundaries have remained fixed for the past half century, one decade of which found county government in the most precarious condition in its history, it is unrealistic to expect changes in this area of social life. The advocate of county consolidation might well apply his talents to pursuits more likely to yield some returns. IMPROVING INTERNAL STRUCTURE OF COUNTIES

So much for the problem of trying to change the county boundaries. What about the possibility of modifying the internal structures of county government? The prospects of change in this regard are perhaps a shade better. For one thing, no change in the county name or boundaries would be involved. The emotional tensions associated with changing name and place limits would not be present in considering changes in structure. There would exist, however, the latent fear of change in the minds of the voters which is an impediment to any proposed reform. For another thing, the weekly papers and county seat merchants would probably have nothing to lose in such change. There remain the impediments represented by the vested interest of officials in the status quo, and the resistance of political machines who would fear the elimination or limitation of the spoils system. The so-called weaknesses of county organization to which critical attention has pointed include the following: 1. The lack of a centralized administrative authority. 2. Too many elective officials, in jobs which in small counties require only part-time service. 3. Archaic fiscal and accounting policies and systems.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

149

4. Lack of merit systems in personnel selection and administration, along with nepotism and the spoils system. The most serious weakness is the lack of a central executive. This could be corrected by revising the state constitutions to permit alternative methods of organization, such as the county manager or county executive type. Counties would not then be compelled to comply with the standard system of officers and organization. Similar constitutional changes would need to be made to permit the reduction in the number of elective officials, or for the combination in one full-time employee of several functions which under the traditional plan have to be performed by various people on a part-time basis. There is no good reason, in the case of small counties, why one person on the job full time could not perform all the functions prescribed for the Treasurer, Clerk of Court, Auditor, Recorder of official documents, and perhaps some others as weH. Snider suggests that counties should improve their budgeting and accounting practices and be made subject to state auditing control. Also, he would permit counties to make major purchases through the state purchasing agencies, and would make it possible for them to raise revenue by other means than through property taxes. In the matter of personnel. Snider would install the merit system in counties and provide that the state civil service commissions may provide personnel service to counties upon their request.® There can be no doubt that the county is more important today than it has ever been, because of the expansion in the demands for services during the past two decades. Functionally, its importance may continue to increase, particularly if the townships are dismantled, as many students of local government think they will and should be. Their functions would undoubtedly be transferred in large part to the counties. On the other hand, the state may enlarge its use of the county as its subdivision not only for

150

AMERICAN FARM LIFE

the execution of the traditional services, but also for new activities Aat may be added in the future. In any case, the farm population must continue to depend upon the county as the most important local unit for governmental services. COUNTY FUNCTIONS CHANGE

There have been some changes in county government, despite Mr. Beard's doleful observation. These changes are largely those which have come —as he said they would —from "state and federal intervention." As arms of the state government, counties have since 1935 been responsible for the local administration of those forms of welfare which are supported by grants-in-aid from state and federal sources, and for the most part, of the general relief programs as well. In some cases the general welfare problem is still in the hands of townships. Other expanded services include education and health. Standards for the administration of these services are set by federal and state bodies, and a certain amount of supervision and inspection is carried on from the state capitols. The expansion in welfare services in the past two decades is the most remarkable development. For example, a recent survey of Goodhue County, Minnesota, has the following to say in regard to this activity: Poor relief has been a county responsibility since 1858, when it was transferred from the townships. A poor farm and almshouse established in 1863 and 1867 respectively, are still maintained. Even in the early history of the county, poor relief was a major expenditure. Of all county taxes in 1885 amounting to $50,000, $16,000 were spent for assistance to the poor . . , The 1936 receipts for welfare purposes contributed by the county itself were more than double the amount for the pre-depression year of 1929, when the county was bearing all such costs . . . As the county has expanded its own efiForts in the welfare field, it has increasingly become the channel through which state and federal governments have extended their welfare programs. Funds paid the county from state and federal sources increased from 45.1 per cent of all

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

151

welfare receipts in 1936 to 66 per cent in 1945. During this 10 year period, total welfare receipts rose from $145,641 to $249,303.' Oneida County, New York, illustrates how new services have been added in one county over a decade. A recent survey reported the following new activities: civil service, county-wide welfare, soil conservation, fire training, airport, veteran's service, civil defense, child guidance, and animal disease control.^® Counties also are inheriting functions performed previously by township governments, as these are dismantled or abolished. There is unmistakably a growing tendency to shift the township functions to the counties. Thus, the counties are becoming increasingly important, not so much through initiative from within, but through developments from outside. COUNTIES FONCTION MORE AND MOBE AS СОММХШГПЕ8

The importance of the county is growing not alone because of the expansion of government services, but through the growth of non-govemmental activities as well. Voluntary organizations are continually coming into existence; and county units of these new groups will develop as they have developed v\dth the older ones. Political parties, farm organizations, women's clubs, and educational groups all have county organizations. Such groups tend to reinforce the county as a unit of social action, and give to it a community significance. Perhaps it is not too much to expect that with modern, rapid means of communication, the county may become the municipality for the farm people.

CHAPTER

TWELVE

The Farmer and the Federal Government THERE IS SCARCELY A FARMER in the United States at midcentury who is not familiar with the appearance of a federal government check; in 1930 there was scarcely one who was. This fact is symbolic of the change in federal-local relationships which has come about since 1933. Under the agricultural policy of the New Deal, the federal government entered into direct contracts with individual farmers. Local autonomy and local responsibility for dealing with farm problems, whether soil conservation, production control, marketing and storing products, or helping the poor, gave way in large part to direct action of the federal government. In order to reduce acreage of wheat and cotton, the federal government made payments for Ше idled acres. Farmers who planted soil-building and soil-conserving crops, installed check dams in gullies, planted grass in the eroding low places, or applied fertilizers, received payments from the United States Treasury. Farmers in the United States have traditionally looked to the federal government for redress of the disadvantages they felt vis-à-vis other groups in society, such as the bankers, the railroads, and the market middlemen. Through the century and a half of national experience during which a virgin continent was settled and brought into agricultural production, farmers have had periods of painful economic distress. There have been one or more periods of distress in practically every decade since

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

153

1830; the most severe one had its onset in 1929 and extended throughout the 1930's. There have been few periods of prosperity; and these have usually occurred as a result of war. About the only period of peacetime prosperity in American agriculture occurred during the first decade and a half of the present century. The outbreak of World War I in 1914 prolonged the prosperity already established, until the postwar price decline in 1921 brought this "golden age of American agriculture" to an abrupt end. There was no real recovery of agriculture during the industrial-financial boom of the 1920's; farm and factory failed to prosper together, although the politicians were fond of saying that they must do so. In fact, farmers had about two decades — from 1921 to 1940 — of near or actual depression conditions. Reference to the chart (Figure 9) will reveal only slight changes in the commodities needed to pay off a $1,000 debt in 1921, 1929, or 1939. Take hogs, for example; for the three years respectively, 66, 55, and 80 would be required. For cattle, 18, 11, and 14 head. The numbers of either kind of livestock that equaled $1,000 fell abruptly during the 1940's. However, it was during the 1920's that the pressure on the federal government to act was built up, pressure which culminated in the legislation of the New Deal. "Farm Relief" was the battle cry of the Coolidge-Hoover era. Congress was not too eager to hear the cry, but through the influence of the Farm Bloc it passed the McNary-Haugen bill in 1927, which was vetoed by President Coolidge. The bill was designed to bring agricultural prices up to a level of "equality" with the rest of the economy. The drive for equality was carried through the Hoover administration and into that of Franklin D. Roosevelt. President Hoover sought to correct the imbalance between farm and nonfarm prices by helping farmers to market their produce cooperatively and through purchase by Stabilization Corporations of wheat and cotton when the prices of those commodities on the market began to fall. The commodities were to be stored and held off the

F A R M P R O D U C T S N E E D E D TO PAY $1,000 O F DEBT Product

Ш

1 « !

1929

1932

1937

1939

1945

1948*

•

t ?

Feb.* 1949

η!?

2 0 0 lb. H o g i

F T

ν

ъ

q

ь

Л

b

ъ

ъ