The AAA and the Cropper

Abstract

PrTHE application of the AAA program has been tremendously complicated in the case of the cotton cropper due to his peculiar social and economic status. Since the cropper comprises roughly onethird of all farm operators in the Old South, the necessity of his consideration under the crop adjustment provisions of the AAA is obvious. The cotton share cropper may be defined as person engaged in the production of cotton whose labor is paid for by (i) a share of the cotton produced by him, or (z) a share of the proceeds of the cotton produced by him, in either case whether such share is subject to deductions or not. A 'share cropper' usually furnishes only the labor incident to the production and harvesting of cotton and usually receives one-half of the crop or one-half of the proceeds of the crop.' The above statement that the cropper furnishes only the labor is literally true. He is regarded as a class of labor and not as a tenant farmer. The land, mule, plow, and other equipment are supplied by the landlord, who, in addition, usually maintains the cropper family during the growing season by the so-called furnish. From the standpoint of the landlord the cropper is a distinct liability during this period. He may become a considerable burden. If, for example, the head of the cropper household or members of his family are overtaken by sickness or if for other reasons of either inability or disinclination he does not carry through the farming arrangement as planned, the responsibility falls largely upon the landlord. When the crop is harvested it is, according to the above definition to be divided equally, the landlord getting half for the use of his land and equipment and the cropper getting half in return for his labor. Conventionally, however, the landlord handles the sale of the entire crop and returns to the cropper only what may be due him after deductions for advances in the form of furnish, interest and any other indebtedness of the cropper to the landlord has been taken out. It is customary in some sections also for the share cropper to pay one-half of the fertilizer bill. After all deductions are made, the cropper is indeed fortunate if his half of the crop is sufficient to square his ac count with the landlord. In an Alabama study, covering i,ozz rural relief households in ten counties of the State, it was found that of the approximately 700 cropper families in the sample, the economic outcome was broke even for almost one-half of the total years of their lives spent at share cropping. Approximately 30 per cent of the total years were reported as having resulted in loss and only z5 per cent to have resulted in profit. It appears from this and supporting data that the average share cropper cannot reasonably expect more than a bare living and that his characteristic situation is that of indebtedness to his landlord. It should be pointed out that the data from which these conclusions are drawn cover a period of high cotton prices as well as the period of low prices which obtained before the advent of the cotton adjustment program. It is of course obvious that if the cropper I Instructions and Regulations Pertaining to the Cotton Act of April 2.i, 1934, p. 6, U. S. D. A., Agricultural Adjustment Administration, Washington, D. C.