Historical Context
Free and enslaved blacks have farmed the American soil for almost four centuries. One of the earliest black farm owners in the USA is believed to be Anthony (Antonio) Johnson, an Angolan, who was brought to Jamestown in colonial Virginia in 1619 as an indentured servant. After gaining his freedom around 1835, Johnson and his wife, Mary, grew corn and tobacco on their 250-acre farm. The wealthy couple later moved to Somerset County, Maryland, where they cultivated 300 acres of land (Berlin
1998; Hinson and Robinson
2008, p. 284; Foner
1980; Breen and Innis
1980, pp. 10–17).
The Johnson’s success is unusual because it was difficult for blacks to own land and operate farms of their own. There were legislative attempts to prohibit black landownership as early as 1818, and the barriers erected to prevent blacks from acquiring land in the South were very effective. In only one state, Virginia, was there substantial black landowners. In 1860, blacks owned 13,000 tracts of land in the state’s Tidewater counties (Gray
1949, p. 528; Fisher
1973, p. 481). Up until the early 1860s, black landownership was realized in a haphazard fashion. As the Civil War waned, attempts to sell land to blacks became more structured. The first attempt at organized land distribution involving blacks occurred in 1862 when William Tecumseh Sherman ordered confiscated Confederate plantations to be sold (Reynolds
2002, p. 20; Pease and Pease
1963, pp. 139–141; Hinson and Robison
2008, p. 286).
Farming by free blacks accelerated during reconstruction as increased numbers of blacks acquired their own land. The Freedmen’s Bureau Act of 1865 called for 40-acre parcels to be carved out of abandoned plantations and unsettled lands and sold to former slaves. That year, about 40,000 blacks were settled on tracts on the Carolina Sea Islands and cultivated thousands of acres of environmentally vulnerable lands in swamps, tidal flats, river bottomlands, and flood zones. The opposition to black landownership was strong and some blacks were forced off the land they had acquired. Consequently, by late 1865, Andrew Johnson’s administration halted the Union Army’s efforts to distribute land to blacks. A second Freedmen’s Bureau Act was passed in 1866 but it had no specifications for distributing tracts of land to blacks
1(Bennett
1993, pp. 186–191; Reynolds
2002, p. 2–3; Shannon
1968, p. 84). Eventually, most of the land confiscated from former plantation owners were restored to the former owners and the impact of the Freedmen’s Bureau was quite limited (Fisher
1973, p. 482). The government’s reluctance to subdivide plantations hindered widespread distribution of land to blacks (Reynolds
2002, p. 3).
Some blacks did manage to obtain land through the Southern Homestead Act of 1866. Patterned after the 1862 Homestead Act, the Southern Homestead Act was in effect from 1866 to 1876 and was intended to help freed slaves and whites who took an oath of loyalty to gain access to 80-acre parcels of farmland. The Act opened up and sold off about 46.4 million acres of land in the public domain in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, and Mississippi; however, much of this land was pine woods and swamplands that were unfit for cultivation. Blacks seeking homesteads were threatened, intimidated, or barriers erected to make it difficult for them to participate in the program. This was the case because white plantation owners saw independent black land owners and farmers as a threat to the plantation system that was heavily dependent on cheap and servile labor. Consequently, only 4000 of the 67,600 applicants to the program were black. Notwithstanding, blacks secured homesteads in Florida, Arkansas, and Georgia (Franklin and Moss Jr.
1994, p. 234; Meinig
2000, pp. 195–198; Oliver and Shapiro
1996, pp. 14–15; Oubre
1978; Ferguson
1998, pp. 37–38).
A system of forced labor based on tenancy and peonage laws bound most blacks to the plantations as effectively as slavery. Thus, in 1890, seven out of every eight blacks worked on a plantation or as a domestic servant. However, the Second Morrill Act which enabled the establishment of state agricultural colleges for black students was passed in 1890. The agricultural program at Tuskegee Institute was one of these programs (Reynolds
2002, p. 5). Despite this development, peonage in the form of share cropping and tenant farming remained common. Though peonage laws were found unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court in 1911, a year later roughly 250,000 blacks were still being held to service on southern plantations against their will (Bennett
1993, pp. 218, 245–249; 252–255; Drake and Cayton
1993, p. 53; Tolnay and Beck
1991, p. 25).
Notwithstanding, black landownership grew during the second half of the nineteenth century. W. E. B. Du Bois estimates that collectively blacks owned 3 million acres of land in 1875, 8 million in 1890, and 12 million in 1900 (Du Bois
1935, p. 4). By 1910, blacks owned roughly 16 million acres of farmland (Schweninger
1989, pp. 41–69; Daniel
2007, p. 3). However, the practice of selling or placing blacks on marginal, degraded, hazard prone, or agriculturally unproductive lands was so commonplace that Du Bois referred to these as waste lands (Du Bois
1901, p. 665; Fisher
1973, p. 483).
Blacks farmed significant acreage, but by the early part of the twentieth century, black landownership and farming began to plummet. Nationwide, blacks constituted 13% of the farmers in 1900 (see Table
1); however, they operated 29.4% of the least valuable farms and only 1% of the most valuable ones. The most common crops grown by black farmers were cotton and rice. That is, 49.1% of the farmers growing cotton were black, so were 37.3% of those growing rice, 18.3% of those growing tobacco, 14.8% of those growing sugar, and 10% of those growing vegetables. Black farm operators were so dependent on cotton that 70.5% derived their primary income from cotton. Another 6.9% obtained their primary income from hay and grain, 4.1% from livestock, and 2.6% from tobacco (U.S. Census Bureau
1902, pp. 48–112).
Table 1
Number and race of farm operators in the USA; 1900–2012
1900 | 5,739,657 | 4,970,129 | 746,717 | 22,811 | 13.0 |
1910 | 6,365,822 | 5,440,619 | 893,370 | 31,833 | 14.0 |
1920 | 6,453,991 | 5,498,454 | 925,708 | 29,829 | 14.3 |
1930 | 6,295,103 | 5,372,578 | 882,850 | 39,675 | 14.0 |
1940 | 6,102,417 | 5,377,728 | 681,790 | 42,899 | 11.1 |
1950 | 5,388,437 | 4,801,243 | 559,980 | 27,214 | 10.4 |
1959 | 3,707,973 | 3,423,361 | 272,541 | 12,071 | 7.3 |
1964 | 3,157,857 | 2,957,905 | 184,004 | 15,948 | 5.8 |
1969 | 2,730,250 | 2,262,403 | 87,393 | 16,454 | 3.2 |
1974 | 2,314,013 | 2,254,642 | 45,594 | 13,777 | 2.0 |
1978 | 2,257,775 | 2,199,787 | 37,351 | 20,637 | 1.7 |
1982 | 2,240,976 | 2,186,609 | 33,250 | 21,117 | 1.5 |
1987 | 2,087,759 | 2,043,119 | 22,954 | 21,686 | 1.1 |
1992 | 1,925,300 | 1,881,813 | 18,816 | 24,671 | 1.0 |
1997 | 1,911,859 | 1,864,201 | 18,451 | 29,207 | 1.0 |
2002a | 3,053,801 | 2,966,230 | 36,370 | 51,201 | 1.2 |
2007a | 3,281,534 | 3,164,285 | 41,024 | 76,225 | 1.3 |
2012a | 3,180,074 | 3,051,472 | 46,582 | 82,020 | 1.5 |
At the turn of the twentieth century, most of the black farmers did not own the land on which they farmed. Hence in 1900, around 75% of the black farm operators were tenant farmers and sharecroppers. In comparison, about 30% of white farm operators were tenant farmers and share croppers. Most of the black farmers also lived in the South. Blacks farmed about 38.2 million acres and the total value of their farm property was roughly $450 million. The farms blacks operated tended to be small—87.3% of the farms were less than 100 acres in size. At the time, 58% of white-operated farms were less than a hundred acres (U.S. Census Bureau
1902, pp. 48–112).
As Table
1 shows, the number of black farmers in the USA had declined dramatically since peaking in 1920. At their peak, black farm operators comprised 14.3% of the total farmers in the USA. They farmed approximately 41.4 million acres and their operations were worth an estimated $2.3 billion (U.S. Census Bureau
1922, pp. 293–313).
The USDA’s Farm Service Agency
2 responded to the nationwide loss of farmland by helping to create farming settlements during the 1930s. Roughly 13 of the more than 100 farming settlements that the agency created were all-black. This was a short-lived project as the Farm Service Agency phased out its resettlement and coop-building programs after 1941 (Zabawa and Warren
1998, pp. 480–483; Wood and Ragar
2012, p. 18; Reynolds
2002, p. 10). Early on, environmental inequalities were evident in the spatial configuration of the resettlement projects. Though some of the resettlement communities had white and black farmers, the two groups were segregated such that one section of the community had only white farmers and the other only black farmers. This was the case with Tillery/Roanoke Farms. The all-white portion of the settlement was called Roanoke Farms, while blacks occupied the Tillery Farms portion. When the settlement was being constructed, the section that became Tillery was originally intended for white homesteaders. The farms were partitioned and construction began on two-story homes. However, whites complained that the Roanoke River tended to flood and they did not want to live in the flood zone. White farmers suggested that blacks be settled in the floodplain instead. They requested that the higher grounds be allocated to whites. Once it was decided that whites would be settled away from the river, no more two-story homes were constructed in the area designated for black occupancy. The Roanoake River flooded in 1940, destroying about half of the Tillery project (Wood and Ragar
2012, pp. 18–20). Hence in the case of Roanoke and Tillery, residential space, location of farms, exposure to hazards, risk, and size and quality of housing were racialized in a way that placed blacks at a disadvantage. That is, the different levels of risk that blacks and whites in the settlement faced impacted the profitability of their farms and their ability to keep the farms solvent.
Other actions of the Farm Service Agency were also detrimental to blacks. For example, decisions related the agency’s operations—such as the granting of loans—are vested in a local committee structure and blacks have had little say in Farm Service Agency’s committees. For instance, there are nearly 3000 county agricultural offices nationwide and less than 2% of county committee members are black. As a result, separate procedures, loan packages, and levels of oversight are applied to black and white farmers routinely (Wood and Ragar
2012, p. 24). In 2015, only 10.5% of the employees of the Farm Service Agency were African Americans (Partnership for Public Service
2016).
Understanding Land Loss Among Black Farmers
The number of black farmers hit an all-time low in 1997 when the census recorded 18,541 of them. That year, black farmers comprised only 1% of the total number of farmers in the country (U. S. Department of Agriculture
1999, pp. 25–26). Heirs’ property is one contributing factor to farmland loss among blacks. Heirs’ property exist when a landowner dies without leaving a will and the property is passed on to multiple inheritors. Property of this nature is frequently divided up. Once the land is partitioned and sold off or distributed to various heirs, the remaining parcels might be too small to maintain viable farms (Southern Coalition for Social Justice
2009; Dyer
2006; Mitchell
2001, pp. 505–511,
2005, pp. 557–615).
There are several other factors that help to account for the decline in black farmland ownership.
Social, economic, and environmental push factors propelled blacks to move from the rural South to the urban South and points West, and from the South to the North. Escalating racial violence (executions, lynchings,
3 imprisonment, convict leasing, assault, threats, and intimidation); Jim Crow laws; economic and labor market structure (low wages, share cropping and debt peonage, confinement to the secondary labor market, and constrained job opportunities); and environmental disasters (the boll weevil,
4 as well as devastating rains and floods that ravaged cotton crops in 1915 and 1916 in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and Florida) motivated blacks to move. The flood of 1927 and the drought of 1930–1931 were also contributing factors as these events put sharecroppers and tenant farmers in desperate straits. In addition, the stock market crash of 1929 and the ensuing Great Depression decimated farmers’ income. In the North, pull factors such as a less hostile racial climate and expanding economic opportunities prompted blacks to migrate. The Great Migration—the movement of blacks from the South to the North and West—marks one of the greatest redistribution of population in American history. At its peak, blacks left the South at the rate of about 16,000 per month (Bennett
1993, p. 269; Drake and Cayton [
1945]
1993, pp. 58, 62; Tolnay and Beck
1991, pp. 20–21, 25; Marks
1991, p. 36; Auerbach
1966, pp. 3–74; Grubbs
1971; U.S. Census Bureau
1922,
1975; Merem
2006, pp. 88–92; Hinson and Robinson
2008, p. 287).
Another major factor contributing to the decline in the number of black farmers was systemic discrimination by federal agencies administering agricultural services. The Jim-Crow-era segregation and environmental injustices evident in access to housing, public transportation, schools, and other facilities was also evident in the delivery of agricultural services. Black and white farmers received separate and unequal services from units like the Cooperative Farm Demonstration Service (Ferguson
1998, pp. 35–36).
New Deal programs ushered in an era of increased government services to farmers that was distributed and controlled through politically connected groups in rural areas. However, these programs exacerbated the inequities that arose from earlier programs. Because blacks had little or no access to the networks that controlled the programs, they were easily marginalized or ignored. Even today, blacks still have limited access to the committees and groups that make important decisions related to farming (Reynolds
2002, p. 9; Merem
2006, pp. 88–92).
Institutional racism was so apparent that in 1965, the US Commission on Civil Rights issued a scathing report that found that widespread discrimination against black farmers by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA). The report also found that the discrimination resulted in loss of farmland. In 1997, a civil rights action team outlined strategies the USDA could take to eliminate discrimination (Daniel
2013, p. 1; Merem
2006, pp. 88–92; Whayne
1998, p. 523; U.S. Commission on Civil Rights
1965; Freeman
1965; Daniel
2013, p. 1).