1. United States
Department of
Agriculture Black Farmers in
America, 1865-2000
Rural Business–
Cooperative
Service
RBS Research
Report 194
The Pursuit of Independent
Farming and the Role of
Cooperatives
2. Abstract Black farmers in America have had a long and arduous struggle to own land and to
operate independently. For more than a century after the Civil War, deficient civil rights
and various economic and social barriers were applied to maintaining a system where
many blacks worked as farm operators with a limited and often total lack of opportunity
to achieve ownership and operating independence. Diminished civil rights also limited
collective action strategies, such as cooperatives and unions. Even so, various types
of cooperatives, including farmer associations, were organized in black farming com-
munities prior to the 1960s. During the 1960s, the civil rights movement brought a new
emphasis on cooperatives. Leaders and organizations adopted an explicit purpose
and role of black cooperatives in pursuing independent farming. Increasingly, new
technology and integrated contracting systems are diminishing independent decision-
making in the management of farms. As this trend expands, more cooperatives may
be motivated, with a determination similar to those serving black farmers, to pursue
proactive strategies for maintaining independent farming.
Acknowledgments
The idea of conducting this research was developed from reading an unpublished
manuscript by a co-worker, Beverly Rotan, which was based on several case studies
of black farmer cooperatives. Her research indicated that historical background was
essential to understanding many of the current conditions for black farmers and their
cooperatives. Discussions with Beverly and another co-worker, Edgar Lewis, were
indispensable in the effort to adequately understand the goals and practices of black
farmers and cooperatives. John Zippert of the Federation of Southern
Cooperatives/Land Assistance Fund provided background on some of the major devel-
opments of black farmer cooperatives during the 1960s and 1970s, as well as provid-
ing a substantial set of key documents. The historical component of this report relied to
a large extent on three excellent books by the Smithsonian Institution scholar, Pete
Daniel (see the References section). Furthermore, he reviewed an earlier version. His
suggestions were helpful for making several improvements in this report. A second
version was reviewed by Professor Robert Zabawa of Tuskegee University and
Spencer Wood, a doctoral candidate in sociology at the University of Wisconsin. They
offered several excellent critical observations and suggestions.
October 2002
Reprinted October 2003
4. Black Farmers in America, 1865-2000
The Pursuit of Independent Farming and the Role of
Cooperatives
Bruce J. Reynolds
Economist
Rural Business-Cooperative Service
Farming as a family-owned and independent
business has been an important part of the social and
economic development of the United States. But for
many black farmers it was more often than not a losing
struggle.1 The end of slavery was followed by about
100 years of racial discrimination in the South that lim-
ited, although it did not entirely prevent, opportunities
for black farmers to acquire land.
Enforcement of civil rights in the 1950s-60s
removed many overt discriminatory barriers, although
by that time increased technology had significantly
reduced the demand for farmers in agricultural pro-
duction. Nevertheless, cooperatives, while having
some limited application in earlier decades, emerged About 25 years ago, an independent farmer was
as a significant force for black farmers during the civil generally defined as having freedom to make decisions
rights movement. They assumed a major role in mar- with risk and reward consequences while functioning
keting and purchasing and in improving opportunities in an interdependent market system (Breimyer, 116-17;
for black farmers to retain their ownership of land. Lee, 40-43). While this definition is still valid, interde-
They essentially helped keep alive a traditional aspira- pendencies in the farm economy are increasing and
tion for independent farming. This report reviews the farm decision-making has become more coordinated
history of black farmers to explore the role of coopera- and restricted during the last 25 years (Wolf).
tives in their pursuit of independent farming. Definitional boundaries of farming independence
The term "independent farmer" is often used for are left to farmers and agribusiness to negotiate with-
different purposes, ranging from description of a per- out major interference by government in determining
sonality-type to justifications for farm policy. A gener- how risk and reward are shared. In general, public pol-
al definition is an individual who makes farm-operat- icy and agricultural research are focused on how to
ing decisions that have variable risk and reward increase aggregate income and to provide a farm safe-
outcomes. For independent farming to be successful, ty net, but for the most part are neutral about the
risk/reward combinations must be competitive with extent of a farmer’s entrepreneurial independence.2
what is offered by alternative production systems that
diminish operating independence of farmers.
2 U.S. agricultural policy in general has adhered slightly more to a
philosophy of "consumer sovereignty" in regard to not directly
promoting the operating independence of farmers, than for
example, French agricultural policy. For a comparison between
1 The abolition of slavery did not end domineering systems of French and U.S. policies on the role of cooperatives with respect to
command and control by some white planters over most black independent farming of grapes for wine production, see Knox. For
farm operators. The undermining of opportunity for blacks to an institutional and policy comparison between the U.S. and
develop independent farming, in many cases by the use of France regarding the relative importance of consumer sovereignty
peonage, existed well into the post-World War II era. (Daniel and of human factors of production, i.e., independent farmers, see
1972). Chen.
1
5. That leaves cooperatives, with their democratic period of 1880 to 1932 for establishing independent
control of value-added businesses, as the major institu- farmers: cooperatives, farm settlement projects, and
tional mechanism for sustaining independent farmers. farming self-sufficiency. The third section describes the
However, as applied in predominantly white farming impact and legacy of the New Deal period, 1933-41, on
regions of the U.S., members’ operating independence the prospects for black farmers. The fourth section
is assumed and the primary objective of cooperatives examines the influence of the civil rights movement on
is to maximize member earnings. By itself, indepen- the rise of black farmer cooperatives during the 1950-
dent farming traditionally has been regarded as only 60s and the role of the Federation of Southern
an implicit objective in these cooperatives.3 Cooperatives/Land Assistance Fund (FSC/LAF). The
For many white farmers, independent farming last section discusses some of the challenges in using
has been an economically challenging vocation, but cooperatives to sustain independent black farmers,
unlike black farmers, they have not experienced social and how they are being met in rural black communi-
and institutional barriers to owning and operating ties to accomplish value-added initiatives.
farms. For many black farmers, there is a special incen-
tive to operate independently: to avoid both farming
under the controlling systems that many white Black Farmers in the South, 1865-1932
planters applied in the past, and the trade credit prac-
tices that led to foreclosure on land they owned Abolitionists worked to end slavery for several
(Litwack, 137). decades before the Civil War, but most were uncon-
Since the civil rights movement, cooperatives cerned about how former slaves would transition to
have played an important part in helping black farm- freedom in a capitalist society (Pease, 19 and 162).
ers to sustain or develop as independent operators. As When victory by the North was imminent, this issue
a public issue, the objectives have been civil rights and was immediately in the forefront. Its resolution
fighting poverty, and not independent farming. In fact, required answering a basic question: to what extent
during President Lyndon Johnson’s "war on poverty," should government provide for a transition to "free"
many of today’s black farmer cooperatives got their labor rather than support the desire of many freedmen
start with financial assistance from the Federal to be independent farmers?
Government. But to black farmers and community There were isolated opportunities for former
leaders, building and sustaining operating indepen- slaves to acquire land. As early as 1862, Union gener-
dence is a concomitant objective and cooperatives have als subdivided some plantations of Confederate lead-
a major role in achieving that end.4 ers for small farm settlements by former slaves. The
The experience of black farmers is directly con- government sold confiscated land on St. Helena Island
nected with major events in Afro-American and gener- and Port Royal, SC, in 1863 to a philanthropist-entre-
al U.S. history. For a quick reference on pertinent his- preneur who produced cotton by hiring freedmen and
torical developments, see a chronology of periods and arranged mortgage payment plans for those farmers to
events for 1865-1965 in Appendix Table 1. The first sec- gradually purchase the land (Pease, 139-41).
tion of this report discusses farm-operating arrange- The first Freedmen’s Bureau Act in 1865 included
ments that developed during Reconstruction and the plans for 40-acre tracts to be sold on easy terms from
subsequent decades of progress for some, but worsen- either abandoned plantations or to be developed on
ing conditions for most black farmers with the rise of unsettled lands. But by late 1865, President Andrew
the Jim Crow era in the 1890s. The second section Johnson terminated further initiatives by the Union
examines development of three strategies during the Army for small farm settlements. In 1866, a second
3 Joseph Knapp’s two-volume history of American agricultural 4 Even black political and government leaders emphasize economic
cooperatives, the most comprehensive to-date, describes how development and not operating independence. This emphasis,
farmers formed associations to improve their income. He attached which misses the desire of many black farmers, is described by
a different meaning to the term "independent farming" from the Jerry Pennick in the Federation of Southern Cooperatives/Land
way it is defined in this report. He viewed the late 19th century Assistance Fund 25th Anniversary Report of 1992: "Of all the black
commercialization of agriculture as eliminating farmer leaders, both locally and nationally, how many have provided us
independence. In his view, the decline of independent farming with a real and viable plan for economic independence? Invariably
created the need for cooperatives (Knapp 1969, 46). The stated they say that in order for us to achieve economic independence,
purposes of most cooperatives are synonymous with sustaining we must have jobs. By jobs, they mean working for the established
the independence of farmers, but in following Knapp’s conception, employment producing industries, which are over 95 percent
they are rarely ever described in such terms. white owned and controlled."
2
6. Freedmen’s Bureau Act was passed that lacked specific vest or of sales. In contrast to sharecroppers, tenants
terms and actions for implementing 40-acre settle- supplied more farm production inputs in addition to
ments (Shannon, 84). their labor. The distinction had originally meant that
Social scientists and economic historians have tenants paid landowners for use of the land, including
considered the government’s reluctance to implement debt payments, while sharecroppers received their
a major land settlement program for the freedmen as a share, less debt payments, from landowners. Several
lost opportunity for independent farming (Marshall southern states passed laws during the late 19th centu-
57; Higgs, 78-79). The extent to which land reform ry that established the status of payment terms and
would have required seizure and breakup of planta- working relationships as subject to determination by
tions may have worked against adoption of such a pol- private negotiations between the landowner and ten-
icy. There were opportunities to provide small farms ant worker, which resulted in negligible differences
on government-owned or unsettled lands. But a relat- between tenant and sharecropper (Edwards). Hence,
ed issue was what to do with large plantations and the alternative forms of contracting that are reported
how they would be farmed? By leaving the plantations in the Census of Agriculture for the South were in
intact, a demand for farm-operating labor was created. many cases of actual practice equivalent to sharecrop-
Despite early announcements of plans for land ping in providing slight incentives to increase efforts
settlement programs, the work of the Freedmen’s for more productivity and earnings, as observed in
Bureau focused instead on facilitating a transition from later studies (Woofter, 10-11).
slave to various types of farm operation or labor rela- The Freedmen’s Bureau was not in a position to
tionships. During a 4-year period, the Bureau mediat- uniformly establish fairness in farm contracting. Its
ed agricultural production contract negotiations termination by 1869 may have been premature, but it
between planters and freedmen (Woodman 1984, 534- did help establish terms under which some planters
35). In other words, national leaders decided that its and black farm operators would develop effective
appropriate role was to help former slaves become working relationships. The Bureau, in concert with pri-
"free" in being able to offer labor and farm operating vate organizations, also helped establish schools that
services, while independent farming was left to indi- remained in operation throughout the Reconstruction
viduals to pursue.5 The demise of land distribution period (Vaughn, 9-23).
plans did not eliminate opportunities for ownership The presence of Federal troops also facilitated the
and independent farming, but its future depended on exercise of new freedoms by former slaves, especially
the extent of economic mobility, or what was called the establishment of their own churches. The churches
moving up the agricultural ladder. The Freedmen’s became a focal point of community development.
Bureau sought to establish potential for mobility by Some even assumed coordinating roles in education
requiring fairness in the terms negotiated for farm pro- and commerce.
duction. Newspaper stories from Alabama in the 1870s
The freedmen eschewed operating as wage-work- describe corn production and price agreement strate-
ers out of concern that planters would establish a gies used by black farmers to withstand pressures to
"free" labor variant of the factories-in-the-field system sell cheaply. This coordination was accomplished
of slavery. They also wanted more connection to the through the informal channels of church membership.
land with responsibility for raising crops such as cot- In fact, the value of church membership created suffi-
ton on individually designated tracts. Furthermore, the cient incentive and social cohesion to prevent free-rid-
freedmen wanted separate family residences, in con- ing behavior from unraveling group commitments.
trast to the centralized living quarters under slavery These assertions of coordinated market power by black
(Ochiltree 357, 377). Each tenant or sharecropper fami- farmers in the Reconstruction years, however, fueled
ly had its own cabin and designated section of land. resentment among some elements of white society
The two general alternatives to wage labor were (Curtin, 26 and 34).
tenancy arrangements under rental contracts and The withdrawal of all Federal troops in 1877 sig-
sharecropping. The tenant contracts were often not a naled a turn for the worse in making progress for inde-
fixed-rent type, but a specific share of either the har- pendent farming. The availability and quality of public
and private schools declined. In many rural areas,
there was no access to high school education for black
children (Litwack, 56-113). Concurrently, institutions
5 As noted in footnote 2, independent farming has seldom been a
direct concern of policy in U.S. history.
and arrangements for agricultural production in the
3
7. South evolved further away from incentive-based rela- The increased land ownership and prosperity of
tionships to increasingly rely on more command and the first two decades of the 20th century, however,
control over farm laborers (Ochiltree, 367-68; Curtin, were not shared by a large majority of black farm oper-
35). ators. Enactment of Jim Crow laws in the late 1890s
The extent of progress of black independent empowered landlords and planters to try to extract
farming does not admit easy generalizations for the more output from tenants and sharecroppers with less
period of 1880-1920. Census data and other evidence is compensation, rather than using incentives for self-
mixed between progress in land ownership for some motivated work (Ochiltree, 367; Litwack, 127-29;
and economic stagnation for most black farmers. Alston, 267). Oppressive farm operating contracts were
W.E.B. Du Bois estimated 19th century progress easier to impose because the voting rights of blacks
in land ownership by black farmers: 3 million acres in were limited. Without the franchise, black tenants and
1875, 8 million in 1890, and 12 million in 1900 sharecroppers had no legal or political recourse. These
(Aptheker, 105). The Census of Agriculture shows a laws also facilitated tacit coordination by white land-
steady increase in the number of farm operators own- lords in applying stricter terms in agricultural con-
ing land in the South from 1880 to 1890 and again in tracts.
1900, but does not distinguish between white and non- The purchase of farm and household supplies
white owners until 1900. Census figures show 1920 as was financed by loans secured with crop liens from
the peak year in the number of nonwhite owners of merchants, which put many farm operators into a per-
farmland in the South (Appendix Table 2). In terms of sistent state of debt (Litwack, 136). In some southern
acreage owned, the census shows 1910 as the peak states, a peonage system developed from laws on
year for the South. More than 12.8 million acres were indebtedness that enabled planters to force some ten-
fully and partly owned, respectively, by 175,290 and ants to remain as operators on their plantations
43,177 nonwhite farmers.6 (Daniel 1972, 20). Cotton grown by tenants and share-
Increases in land ownership after 1900 were part- croppers was usually sold for them or credited to their
ly due to a significant rise in cotton prices that lasted furnishing accounts. So, even when these growers
until the outbreak of World War I in 1914. The growth avoided peonage, they likely received lower returns
in farmland acquisition by blacks during the late 19th because they lacked the power to monitor marketing
and early 20th centuries demonstrates a period of eco- transactions (Woodman 1982, 228; Litwack, 133).
nomic mobility for about 25 percent of farm operators The misery brought on by cotton crop liens was
(Appendix Table 2). In the early 20th century, there not limited to blacks. During the antebellum period,
were instances of black farmers having achieved the many southern whites had been small subsistence
status of landlords and becoming philanthropic com- farmers who did not grow cotton. They shifted to cot-
munity leaders (Grim, 412-14). ton after the war, but many lost their farms because of
During the 19th century there were some oppor- dependence on crop liens (Woofter, xxi; Woodman
tunities to establish farms on unsettled lands, but over 1982, 229). Increasingly, landless whites became a large
the long run, most black farmers gained land through part of the tenant and sharecropper workforce
their working relationships with white planters (Appendix Table 2).
(Higgs, 69, 130-31). Landowners profited by offering Census reports from 1900 to 1920 show an
tenant farm operators the incentive of having an increasing number of black tenant and sharecropper
opportunity to buy certain tracts of land in exchange families in the South. By 1920, there were 369,842 ten-
for increased farming efficiency. Much of the land ants and 333,713 sharecroppers. Natural disasters and
black farmers own today is adjacent or relatively near agricultural price declines during the 1920s created
to farms owned by whites. much economic distress. By the 1925 census, share-
croppers had become more numerous in the South
than rental tenants. By 1930, the number of southern
black sharecroppers peaked at 392,897. Between the
6 The census only reported sharecroppers for classifications of white 1920 and 1930 censuses, the number of white share-
and nonwhite farm operators. However, by confining the data to
southern states during this period, the count in the nonwhite
croppers also increased; many of them may have fallen
category is either identical or only slightly larger than the actual from the ladder rungs of tenants and owner-operators
enumeration of black farm operators. Although Texas and (Appendix Table 2).
Oklahoma were included as southern states in these census While not all individuals succeed in farming in
reports, their sizable populations of Mexican-Americans were
included in the white category.
any setting, the repressiveness of Jim Crow society sti-
4
8. fled market incentives that enable economic mobility.
Economist Robert Higgs observed that many planters
were willing to trade off some potential earnings in
return for the social solidarity achieved by pursuing
white supremacist values (130). Many planters may
have also believed that it was advantageous to main-
tain a supply of low-paid farm workers by limiting
economic mobility for sharecroppers.7
The erosion of opportunities for decision respon-
sibility and for education worked against black farm-
ers’ pursuit of independent farming. USDA studies
during the 1930s revealed that the production contract-
ing and furnishing system of previous decades created
dependency and ignorance about economic alterna-
tives (Woofter 142-43; Daniel 1985, 85-87). But sufficiency. The first two directions proved to be
although opportunities and capabilities for operating unsustainable, but they reemerged in later years as key
independence were systematically undermined, the strategies for supporting the independence of black
desire of tenants and sharecroppers to achieve the life farmers. The third initiative helped many farmers
of an independent farmer was not extinguished. avoid the continuous indebtedness and peonage that
often resulted from cotton sharecropping and crop lien
finance.
Independent Farming The Farmers Alliance of the 1880s and early 1890s
was a significant cooperative organizational move-
Initiatives, 1886-1932
ment. The Alliance spread throughout the Plains states
and the South by regionally organizing into northern
Between 1886 and 1932, there were several types and southern branches. Alliance cooperatives were
of initiatives to promote more independent farming by established in many communities. The movement also
black tenants and sharecroppers. The most famous and attempted a centralized cooperative marketing
durable achievements were in agricultural education. approach that had not existed with the earlier Grange
The Second Morrill Act of 1890 established state agri- cooperatives. Opposition to the crop lien system was a
cultural colleges for black students. Booker T. primary motivation for the Farmers’ Alliance, and its
Washington (1856-1915) emerged as a leading public leadership developed several innovative financial and
figure in promoting education and farm improvement. cooperative strategies (Knapp 1969, 57-67).
But three other initiatives of this period applied direct- A faction within the Alliance tried to build a
ly to development of independent farming: (1) organi- cooperative society without segregation and racism,
zation of cooperatives for farmers and other communi- but Alliance leaders were conflicted on the issue of
ty services, (2) projects for land purchase and resale to participation by black farmers. Black participation was
small farmers, and (3) farm diversification and self- accomplished by establishing an organizationally seg-
regated branch of the movement, the Colored Farmers’
National Alliance and Cooperative Union (CFNACU)
in 1886 (Goodwyn, 278-85). A history of the association
7 B. T. Washington, who preached that hard work would be claims that the CFNACU cooperative exchanges that
rewarded, observed how this was not always valid in practice. In
operated in several southern cities provided supplies
an article in the Country Gentleman magazine, he tried to point
out to planters the advantages from using incentives for gaining and loans to help members pay land mortgages.8 But
more efficiency: "In one case I happen to remember a family that the resources, size, and operations of these coopera-
had three or four strong persons at work every day that was tives have not been documented.
allowed to rent only about ten acres of land. When I asked the
owner of the plantation why he did not let this family have more
land he replied that the soil was so productive that if he allowed
them to rent more they would soon be making such a profit that 8 The general superintendent of CFNACU was a white Baptist
they would be able to buy land of their own and he would lose minister, R.M. Humphrey, who had also served in the Confederate
them as renters. This is one way to make the Negro inefficient as a Army. An historian, who is currently researching the CFNACU,
laborer—attempting to discourage him instead of encouraging has studied the Alliance publications and a history written by
him." (BTW, V12, 392). Humphrey (Ali).
5
9. However, the Alliance’s political activism may also
have influenced many southern whites to move in the
direction of segregation and disenfranchisement with
the passage of Jim Crow laws in several states
throughout the 1890s (Goodwyn, 304-06).
A movement for black cooperatives, separate
from the Alliance, developed in East Texas. Robert
Lloyd Smith (1861-1942), a local school principal and
community leader, initiated it. His first step in the
direction of cooperatives was to establish a branch of
the Village Improvement Societies, a movement from
the northeastern United States. This movement was
dedicated to home and community improvement
efforts, but as Smith learned about the perpetual cycle
of debt caused by crop liens, he reorganized it as the
Farmers’ Improvement Society of Texas (FIST) in 1890
(Zabawa, 463-64).
FIST helped farm families develop more self-suf-
ficiency and strategies for operating on a cash basis. It
The Alliance also tried to build organizational established local purchasing cooperatives that, while
bridges between farmers and laborers, with the latter separate from the Alliance, may have been influenced
being represented by the Knights of Labor. The by that movement’s promotion of cooperatives. Smith
Alliance was renamed the Farmers and Laborers was politically competitive with the Alliance support
Union of America in 1890. Steps toward amalgamation of the Populist Party, which he defeated in the 1894
ended as farmer participation declined and attention and 1896 elections to the Texas House of
turned toward political actions in the formation of the Representatives by running on the Republican ticket.
Populist Party. Ultimately, as one historian has pointed FIST was a successful regional cooperative for
out, unions were more relevant for sharecroppers than several years. Its membership grew from 1,800 in 1898
cooperatives (Woodman 1982, 229-30). Nevertheless, to 2,340 members by 1900, with 86 branches in Texas,
sharecropper and tenant unions can be regarded as a Oklahoma, and Arkansas. Its members owned 46,000
stage in the pursuit of independent farming and, like acres of farmland. FIST was also adaptive in its strate-
cooperatives, are forms of democratically governed gy. While many members needed to operate on a cash
collective action. basis, others had credit needs for acquiring land or
CFNACU ordered a general cotton harvest strike developing their farms. To meet the needs of such
in 1891, although several of its local suballiances members, it established the Farmers’ Improvement
opposed it. Black sharecroppers struck in a region of Bank in Waco, TX, in 1906. Even though it served
Arkansas, and violent altercations ensued. This form many low-resource farmers, FIST’s annual supply pur-
of activism increased divisiveness between CFNACU chasing volume was estimated at $50,000 in 1909.
and the Southern Alliance, which included some Other projects and services included agricultural edu-
planters who operated with sharecropping (Goodwyn, cation and facilities for applying best practices in pro-
292-94). The Alliance movement began to further ducing eggs, poultry, and swine (Texas State HA).
unravel when it effectively amalgamated with the The success of FIST was partly due to achieving
Populist Party. It dissolved after losses in the elections critical mass by meeting a range of member needs.
of 1892 and 1896. But the Knights of Labor continued Smith coupled the agricultural side of cooperation
to recruit sharecroppers and accomplished substantial with the Village Societies’ home and community
interracial organization (McMath, 126). Their work improvement work. The letterhead on FIST stationery
may have influenced the specific unions of tenant stated its purpose: "What We Are Fighting For: The
farmers that organized in the early 20th century. Abolition of the Credit System. Better Methods of
In summary, the Alliance introduced the idea of Farming. Cooperation. Proper Care of the Sick and
cooperatives to some black farmers in the South, and Dead. Improvement and Beautifying of our Homes"
may have contributed experience that was applied to
other types of associations in rural communities.
6
10. (Washington, henceforth, BTW, V.5, 4). In other words, B. T. Washington promoted land purchasing pro-
its activities covered services from better living to dig- grams that influenced future rural development strate-
nity in death. gists. He was a major public figure and widely
In the early 20th century, many associations were respected by political and business leaders such as
organized by black church leaders and provided a President Theodore Roosevelt and Andrew Carnegie.
range of community services for education, health He used his many connections to raise startup capital
benefits, funerals, and credit services for buying land for several settlement projects. His first project focused
and establishing homes. They often had religious on improvement for tenant housing. In the 1890s, the
names, such as "Good Samaritans" or the "Order of Tuskegee Institute received a grant from a Boston phil-
Moses." They operated with member dues and control anthropist to establish a revolving loan fund for home
as in mutual insurance associations or shared-service improvements. This grant contributed to tenant well-
cooperatives (Ellison, 9-15). being, but the program always required new funding
Prior to the Depression, the largest type of self- because the economics of most tenant production con-
help association in terms of membership and financial tracts did not generate sufficient earnings to capitalize
assets was often cooperatives for providing funeral the program (Harlan, 213).
and burial services for predominantly black rural and In future projects, Washington sought a kind of
some urban residents. Members paid monthly assess- hybrid plan for satisfying investor interests with a tar-
ments and accumulated benefit certificates over time. get rate of return and philanthropic interests by help-
Many of these cooperatives were federated into orga- ing black farmers establish independent farm enter-
nizations that covered fairly large geographic areas. prises. In the late 1890s, he and supporters debated
One of them had members in seven states. Some had various alternatives for financing and managing a pro-
accumulated several million dollars in assets by 1931 ject for land acquisition by small black farmers. The
(Ellison, 13). experience of FIST in applying cooperative organiza-
The growth and formal structure of the funeral tion prompted consideration of the idea of organizing
cooperatives did not carry over to farmer coopera- a "co-operative land association" with stock subscrip-
tives. Outside the Alliance experience and FIST, farmer tions and application of a cooperative system for pro-
cooperatives were mostly of an informal and ad hoc duction (Zabawa, 465-69). Yet, when this project was
variety. Their informality reflected the limited com- implemented in 1901 as the Southern Improvement
mercial opportunities and unequal market access Company (SIC), the cooperative dimension was left
available to black farmers during the first half of the out. Nevertheless, SIC intended to be a practical way
20th century. A formal and countervailing-power type for black farmers to obtain ownership of land.
of marketing cooperative of black farmers was not tol- SIC was capitalized by a group of northern phil-
erated in the pre-civil rights era. Vocational agriculture anthropist entrepreneurs and managed by a Tuskegee
teachers and county agents often provided leadership graduate. A 4,000-acre tract of land was purchased
and management of informal cooperatives (Pitts, 21). and subdivided. The business plan included housing
Their purposes were limited to making seasonal bulk and small-acreage farms for purchase with relatively
purchases of farm supplies, organizing street markets, low mortgage interest rates. Project revenue was gen-
or handling occasional surpluses that farmers could erated primarily by cotton and cottonseed sales that
not sell or consume on their own. were exclusively handled by agents for SIC
The most direct strategies for the pursuit of inde- (Anderson, 114). Historical research on SIC offers con-
pendent farming in the early 20th century were pro- flicting views about its success.9 The project worked
jects for coordinated land purchase and contiguous well when cotton prices were high, but after condi-
settlements of small farmers. tions worsened, individual farm holdings foreclosed
By the late 19th century, a few prosperous black by 1919 (Zabawa, 467).
communities emerged in the South and in other parts
of America (Grim). Booker T. Washington studied and
wrote about some of the most successful rural commu- 9 See Harlan; Zabawa and Warren for an appraisal of the SIC’s
nities, pointing to them as examples of economic positive impact, while Anderson, who used different archival
uplift. Mound Bayou, MS, founded in 1887, became sources, argues that it became exploitative of the farmers.
famous for establishing black-owned businesses and Washington wrote in glowing words about the accomplishments
independent farms, and governance entirely by its of the SIC in a magazine article in 1911, but died before farm
earnings plummeted and undermined the project (BTW, V10, 605-
black residents (BTW, V9, 307-20). 06).
7
11. Washington initiated another land project in 1914 than cooperatives or coordinated land purchase initia-
that was earmarked for Tuskegee graduates who tives. Increased self-sufficiency would help to reduce
lacked family farm ownership. An 1,800-acre tract was dependency on cotton, but with the exception of
purchased by a group of investors, led by a Tuskegee tobacco-growing regions, there were insufficient alter-
trustee. The Tuskegee Farm and Improvement natives for involvement in and experience with a more
Company, also called Baldwin Farms, basically fol- commercial type of farming. In any case, crop diversi-
lowed the same operating procedures as SIC (BTW, fication away from cotton was gradual and not uni-
309-10). Unfortunately this project was started as the formly adopted. As late as 1964, the Census of
cotton market entered a period of low prices and boll Agriculture reported that about half of the black
weevil problems. A community of independent black farmer population produced cotton.
farmers sustained operations until 1949 (Zabawa, 467- The period of the 1920s and 1930s was a water-
69). shed for many tenant farmers and sharecroppers. A
The most successful strategy for independent combination of steadily increasing mechanization and
farming in the early 20th century was crop diversifica- economic depression forced a major reduction in the
tion to build self-sufficiency. Washington regarded this demand for farm labor in the South (Appendix Table
as a way for black farmers to avoid the problems of 2). Natural disasters in the late 1920s and major com-
dependence on cotton and indebtedness from crop modity price declines increased the role of govern-
liens. He influenced the development of the black ment in the farm economy. In 1929, the Federal Farm
extension agent system and the content of what was Board was established to sanction and direct market
promoted to farmers. Much of this influence was car- intervention by farmer membership associations, pri-
ried forward by Thomas M. Campbell, a student and marily nationwide or regional cooperatives.
assistant to Washington at Tuskegee. Campbell was The onset of the Depression in 1933 triggered an
the first farm extension agent to be appointed by expansion of the interventionist role of government in
USDA, and over his career from 1906-53 he was the agriculture through the administering of commodity
predominant leader of the black extension agent ser- payment subsidies directly to individual farmers.
vice (Jones). USDA policies abated a market process of land
In addition to crop diversification, information turnover to would-be independent farmers by restrict-
on preserving farm-grown foods was disseminated by ing the entry of new producers and reducing incen-
agents as a way to develop self-sufficiency and insula- tives for many landowners to quit farming. In retro-
tion from white commercial society. Black extension spect, the apolitical approach advocated by Booker T.
agents initially focused their efforts on farmers who Washington was to prove especially disadvantageous
owned enough land for independent operating, but to black farm operators with the increased politiciza-
depending on the receptiveness of planters, they tion of agriculture that the New Deal inaugurated.10
increasingly promoted gardening by sharecroppers
(Zellar, 432- 438).
Washington knew about cooperatives but did not New Deal Agriculture
embrace them as an appropriate strategy for black
farmers, at least under the prevailing economic condi- The New Deal was for the most part a bad deal
tions and political power structure. Extension agents for black farmers. Under the Agricultural Adjustment
coordinated occasional group purchasing or joint-sell- Act (AAA) of 1933, cotton was supported by restrict-
ing efforts but did not systematically disseminate ing acreage and guaranteeing minimum prices. The
knowledge for formal cooperative development. immediate impact of reduced cotton acreage was dis-
During the years of the New Deal, Campbell placement for many black and white tenants and
seized the opportunity to establish a cooperative at the sharecroppers. There were also cases of landlords who
Tuskegee Institute to serve as a model of this method
of self-help (Jones, 53). Prior to the 1960s and apart
from a few New Deal programs, the Federal
10 Washington tolerated a temporary acceptance of
Government offered negligible assistance and encour-
disfranchisement that he believed would change in step with
agement of cooperatives for black farmers. economic progress of blacks (Harlan, viii ; Lutwack, 146-47).
Of the three directions for developing indepen- Though tolerating disfranchisement and segregation, he took a
dent farming, self-sufficiency with crop diversification behind-the-scenes activist role in fighting debt peonage because
of its direct interference with economic opportunity (Daniel 1972,
had a more immediate and lasting impact at the time
67).
8
12. did not distribute the share of payments that belonged
to their tenants or sharecroppers (Woofter, 67; Fite,
141-2; Daniel 1985, 101-4). The New Deal also marked
a significant increase of government services, for
which distribution was controlled by politically con-
nected groups in rural communities. For much of the
South, this system resulted in diminished access to ser-
vices for many blacks which, as alleged in recent law-
suits against USDA, persisted into recent years
(Pigford).
Another unintended consequence of the AAA
was to raise entry barriers to farm ownership.
Numerous studies estimate that commodity price sup-
ports raise the price of farmland by as much as 15 to 20
percent as a national average (Floyd; Ryan). The com-
modity programs are tied to specific lands, which capi-
talizes the future value of the programs into the value near white farms. The AAA programs and continued
of the land. supporting of prices in farm policy raised barriers to
Although farmland prices were depressed during land ownership for black farmers and limited their
the 1930s, ownership was often not feasible for those, opportunities to either stay in farming or achieve the
like many blacks, who had diminished access to AAA status of operating as independent farmers. Yet, farm
programs. Incentives for land purchases and expan- policy is only one of several institutional factors that
sions of farm acreage were increased for those with have worked against ownership of land by black farm-
access to AAA programs. Census figures show that ers, and these have been examined in various studies
between 1930 and 1935, white farm owners and tenant and investigations (see Gilbert; and Associated Press).
operators increased farmland acres in the South by 12 New Deal policymakers did not neglect displaced
percent, or more than 35 million acres. But farmland tenants and croppers. Subsistence relief and resettle-
acreage owned by nonwhite farmers declined by more ment programs were offered for these farm operators
than 2.2 million acres, from 37.8 million to 35.6 million, and their families during the mid-1930s. Such pro-
during the same period. White farmers with full own- grams functioned more as a holding action for the
ership in the South increased by 13 percent or 139,646 unemployed than in addressing the economics of
between 1930 and 1935, and white part-owners excess labor supply in southern farming. But during
increased by 8 percent or 15,299. Nonwhite full-owners 1935-41, the programs of the Resettlement Admin-
of farmland increased by 6 percent or 9,617 between istration, followed by the Farm Security
1930 and 1935, but part-owners decreased by 13 per- Administration (FSA), were a substantial government
cent or 5,571. During the same 5-year span, white ten- effort to help tenants become independent farmers and
ants increased by 145,763, while nonwhite tenants to use cooperatives (Knapp 1973, 299-316; Baldwin,
decreased by 45,049. These divergent changes may 193-211). Lending programs were established to enable
have reflected differences in access to subsidies tenants to purchase farmland and machinery. By ana-
(Appendix Table 2). lyzing creditworthiness, these programs tried to target
The increased entry by whites into farming those with the most capability to farm efficiently.
appears to have been at least partly policy induced Displaced tenants and sharecroppers, who were
because it occurred during a period of acreage reduc- selected for participation in some of the resettlement
tion for cotton and low commodity prices. The gains in programs, were in effect offered an opportunity to
land values from commodity price supports accrued develop as independent farmers. In many cases newly
once it became evident that these programs would per- settled farms were in contiguous areas. Such commu-
sist. For those who added to their land holdings dur- nities provided a basis for establishing cooperatives,
ing the Depression, the benefits were gained once which FSA actively promoted and operated. These
acreage restrictions for cotton and other program crops cooperatives included both traditional farm supply
were eased or lifted. Future inducements to expand purchasing and marketing, but also a range of shared
farming acreage would especially jeopardize much of services. The latter included associations for joint own-
the land owned by black farmers that was adjacent or ership of farm machinery and breeding stock
9
13. (Baldwin, 203). These initiatives represented an aware- business (Baldwin, 203). Many closed during 1950-59,
ness of the needs of new entrants to farming, of oppor- the 10-year span with the largest rural exodus in the
tunities for farm ownership, and of the potential role Nation’s history (Appendix Table 3). This period was
of cooperatives in rural development, which had been also the turning point from increasing to decreasing
put aside during the initial years of launching the numbers of cooperatives in the United States (Mather).
AAA programs. Yet the Mileston Farmers Cooperative that was estab-
Many tenants lacked sufficient farming assets, lished in Tchula, MS, by the FSA programs continues
equipment, and skills to qualify for land purchase to serve its members today.
loans, a problem that the FSA sought to address by The establishment of cooperatives through gov-
implementing two types of cooperatives — farm pro- ernment initiative in FSA programs contributed to
duction and land-lease. The former projects failed due knowledge about how individuals can work together
to insufficient property rights incentives (Knapp 1973, in organizing agricultural purchasing and marketing.
316). But land-lease cooperatives used a more individ- The FSA programs also applied the ideas for land
ual-based incentive system. These cooperatives acquisition and community planning that Washington
received loans for leasing entire plantations that were had promoted. The elapse of these programs in 1941
subdivided into family farms for subleasing to mem- and the post-war exodus from farming (Appendix
bers. They also operated the plantation cotton gin and Table 3) ended a phase of cooperative development,
other facilities on a cooperative basis, in addition to but made room for more enduring and grass roots
farm supply purchasing. By 1940, there were 31 land- approaches in the future.
lease cooperatives, with 949 black and 750 white farm
families (Knapp 1973, 313).
An alternative program involved lending for the The Civil Rights Movement
acquisition of large tracts of land and subdividing and Cooperatives
them into individually owned family farms. It fol-
lowed a plan similar to the projects promoted by
Washington 30 years earlier, but this time with govern- The civil rights movement emboldened many
ment support. FSA implemented 10 or more black set- black farmers to join cooperatives. It may have also
tlements that were designed for family farm owner- provoked more discrimination by white-owned busi-
ship. The Tuskegee Institute assisted the Prairie Farms nesses against black farmers in commercial dealings.
in Macon County, AL, in developing a community But, discrimination in some cases induced cooperative
infrastructure. The Prairie Farms community included formation. In a time of interracial tensions, bulk pur-
a cooperative for purchasing and machinery sharing chasing of farm supplies or assembling member prod-
and a K-12th grade school (Zabawa, 480-3). Prairie ucts for consolidated transactions enabled black farm-
Farms shut down in the 1950s. ers to minimize the frequency of their individual
FSA programs for farm ownership and coopera- interactions with white merchants and product bro-
tive development were phased out after 1941 although kers. Cases of this mechanism are documented, where
shared services, particularly farm machinery sharing farmers’ access to supplies or markets were blocked
cooperatives, were actively supported during World when they were known to be members of the National
War II (Sharing). In fact, 32 farm machinery coopera- Association for the Advancement of Colored People
tives were reported to be active in black communities (NAACP).
of North Carolina throughout the 1940s (Pitts, 35). In 1956, black farmers in Clarendon County, NC,
These programs likely contributed to the increase in organized the Clarendon County Improvement
farm ownership in the South between 1940 and 1945 Association to circumvent discrimination due to their
(Appendix Table 2). Knapp’s general assessment of the NAACP membership. It provided small loans, farm
FSA initiative toward cooperatives was that the gov- supplies, and services. When area gins would not
ernment was too directly involved and idealism often accept cotton from black farmers, the cooperative
crowded out the practical experience needed for long- transported it to distant facilities for ginning (Daniel
term sustainability (Knapp 1973, 316). 2000, 247). Circumventing discrimination was also the
Some of the cooperatives organized by these pro- purpose of forming the Grand Marie Vegetable
grams lasted for several years after 1941. A 1946 sur- Producers Cooperative, Inc., in Louisiana in 1965, after
vey showed that only 16 percent of the 25,543 coopera- brokers boycotted some growers for their civil rights
tives organized under FSA programs had gone out of activities (Marshall, 51).
10
14. While cooperatives helped reduce members’ the founding of the Southern Consumers Education
exposure to potential racial discrimination in commer- Foundation (SCEF) in 1961. His work drew attention
cial dealings, the formation of associations elicited and support from the Cooperative League of the USA
antagonism and reprisals from racist business owners. (CLUSA), the Credit Union National Association
The Clarendon association lost access to credit from (CUNA), and other national organizations.12 Along
local banks, but it was able to borrow from the with some foundations, they helped establish the
NAACP and also received funds from the United Southern Cooperative Development Program (SCDP)
Automobile Workers for purchasing farm machinery in 1967. It offered cooperative education and technical
(Daniel 2000, 247). One of the largest and most widely assistance to cooperatives and credit unions located
publicized black cooperatives to emerge in the late primarily in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama.
1960s was South West Alabama Farmers Cooperative After two years in operation, SCDP realized a need to
Association (SWAFCA). It encountered numerous boy- focus assistance on a group of 25 associations, rather
cotts from local businesses and discriminatory actions than spreading its resources on new cooperative devel-
from politicians.11 opment (Marshall, 42).
The civil rights movement had a direct influence The Federation of Southern Cooperatives (FSC)
on cooperative formation by introducing the critical was also founded in 1967, organized by representa-
element of leadership. Black farmers were receptive to tives from 22 cooperatives across the South (Federation
Table 1 —Federation of Southern Cooperatives membership, 1969
Agricultural Credit Unions Consumer Othera Total
States co-ops members co-ops members co-ops members co-ops members co-ops members
AL 2 1,825 6 2,784 3 230 3 2,789 14 7,398
MS 5 1,875 1 500 3 1,080 8 1,482 17 4,937
LA 3 290 4 1,833 -- -- 1 2,050 8 4,183
Otherb 14 1,992 5 801 9 1,720 13 578 41 5,091
Total 24 5,982 16 5,918 15 3,030 25 4,303 80 --
a Other cooperatives include handicraft, small industry, and fishing.
b Other states are Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Missouri, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West
Virginia.
cooperatives, but getting organized was often difficult 1992, 7-9). Its director was Charles Prejean, who, like
because many potential members lacked the training Father McKnight, was involved with improving adult
and resources. As in the past, county or university literacy and realized the importance of concrete inter-
extension agents provided the initiative and leadership ests and tasks such as cooperative participation in
for informal or ad hoc cooperation, but many civil helping people develop their economy (Bethell, 4). FSC
rights leaders wanted to help develop cooperatives of had common purposes with SCDP but was more
a formal and more visible type. encompassing in its plan of action. For a brief period
Many initiators of cooperative development were in the early 1970s, SCDP combined with the FSC as a
religious leaders, continuing a tradition of churches
taking an active role in community building. For
example, the Rev. Francis X. Walter founded the
Freedom Quilting Bee cooperative in Alabama in the
early 1960s. Father A. J. McKnight organized the 11 SWAFCA had been approved for an Office of Economic
Southern Consumers Cooperative (SCC) and several Opportunity (OEO) grant, but in June 1967 Alabama Governor
credit unions during the 1960s-1970s (Marshall, 37-40). Lurleen Wallace vetoed it. Sargent Schriver, the director of the
Father McKnight also contributed significant OEO, overrode the veto (Marshall 48; Bethell, 6).
12 Father McKnight was inducted into the Cooperative Hall of Fame
institutional development for black cooperatives with
in 1987.
11
15. lending unit for cooperatives. It was renamed the During the mid-1970s, SWAFCA attempted to
Southern Cooperative Development Fund (SCDF) but shift its focus from marketing vegetables to producing
has operated separately since the mid-1970s. gasohol. The late Albert Turner, who was a civil rights
FSC encompassed a comprehensive range of ser- leader and an experimental engineer, led this endeav-
vices for rural community development, including or.13 In the 1970s he developed a system for using corn,
help for farmers to secure their ownership of land and vegetables, and organic residues supplied by members
operating independence. The scope of FSC programs for producing gasohol. He adapted a pickup truck to
for training, consulting, and research, as well as capital run on gasohol and drove from Alabama to
for land and business project development, has Washington, DC, to promote his plans. His proposals
required financial assistance, including grants from also included feed byproducts and methane from cat-
government and private foundations. tle waste for generating electricity. These projects were
Founded by 22 cooperatives, FSC had 80 mem- appealing to the membership, but were denied fund-
bers after only two years. By the mid-1970s, it had 130 ing from government agencies.14 By the mid-1980s,
cooperative members (Voorhis, 212). Table 1 is a con- SWAFCA terminated its operations. Some of its assets
densed version of FSC membership data in 1969 as were transferred to another farmer association.
published in a study by Marshall and Godwin. The The civil rights movement also reinvigorated
total membership is not reported because some mem- land purchasing for small farms, yet land retention
bers belonged to more than one cooperative. The FSC became a more urgent issue for independent black
draws from 14 states, but over time Alabama and farmers. During the late 1960s, churches and other
Mississippi have consistently accounted for much of groups were independently making purchases of rela-
its membership. tively small tracts of land for self-sufficient farm settle-
The challenges in promoting cooperatives for ments. In other cases, a few cooperatives purchased
black farmers were demonstrated by the experience of small tracts of land for market production by mem-
SWAFCA. It was the largest cooperative in FSC’s ini- bers. Both FSC and SCDP assisted in those projects
tial membership. It was established in 1967 with 1,800 (Marshall 59).
farm families. SWAFCA epitomized the spirit of the In the late 1960s, several Alabama tenant farmers
civil rights movement in asserting freedom from dis- were evicted after they won a lawsuit for their share of
crimination and pursuit of economic uplift for poor USDA price support payments. They formed the
families. Its initial membership grew out of discus- Panola Land Buyers Association to combine their
sions among black cotton farmers who wanted to efforts for finding and acquiring farmland. With finan-
diversify into vegetable crops but needed a marketing cial assistance from several individuals and groups
outlet. A large-scale membership campaign was throughout the U.S., Panola and FSC jointly purchased
included in voter registration drives and in the Selma- a 1,164-acre tract of land near Epes, AL, in the mid-
to-Montgomery "March for Freedom" in 1965 (see 1970s. Panola members built homes on part of it, while
Appendix Table 1). Civil rights workers and organiza- FSC established a training center and demonstration
tions such as the National Sharecroppers Fund and farm on the remaining part (Federation 1992, 25-26;
CLUSA participated in its formation (Marshall, 46). Bethell, 6-8).
SWAFCA achieved some marketing successes, The Emergency Land Fund (ELF) was organized
despite harassment from some white politicians and in 1971 to assist black farmers in Mississippi and
business leaders. Although members were predomi- Alabama with problems they faced in retaining land.
nantly black, SWAFCA’s vegetable marketing pro- By the 1970s, displacement of tenants was abating, but
grams attracted membership from some white farmers land loss by black farmers continued. While assistance
(Voorhis, 96). Nevertheless, it encountered problems in for land purchasing was provided, ELF’s major thrust
establishing durable cooperative programs. Marshall was to provide legal, tax, and estate planning advice.
and Godwin observed that its management was not up
to serving such a relatively large membership. They
noted, "… members had very limited understanding of
13 Albert Turner was the Alabama director of the Southern Christian
cooperative principles" (Marshall, 47-9). FSC worked
Leadership Conference (SCLC). He was a leader of voter
diligently to bolster management and cooperative edu- registration drives and confronted considerable danger in these
cation deficiencies, but market access problems and activities during the 1960s. He was chosen by the SCLC to lead the
sustaining the involvement of SWAFCA’s large mem- mule train that carried Dr. Martin Luther King in the funeral
procession.
bership continually weakened the organization. 14 This information was provided by John Zippert of the FSC/LAF.
12
16. ELF established a grass-roots network of citizens, many black farmers and cooperatives. But the cooper-
called the County Contacts System, who were trained ative system established by FSC/LAF has contributed
in identifying farmers in their counties who were in to identifying and eliminating discriminatory prac-
danger of having to sell their land. When owners were tices.15
notified of pending problems, ELF followed up with Recent court decisions and USDA reforms have
legal and other technical assistance (Wood 21). the potential for creating a new chapter of more
Over time, County Contacts personnel developed progress for black farmers (Civil Rights, USDA). Ralph
a system that paralleled the county extension service Paige, the executive secretary of the FSC/LAF,
of land-grant universities. But the information they observed: "Black farmers and all other others who are
provided was more relevant to the economic survival recipients of government services deserve nothing less
of small farmers. During the 1960s, the USDA con- than justice at the hands of government officials.
trolled much of the content that moved through uni- Perhaps now some healing can begin and Black farm-
versity channels of extension, including the black ers can work toward becoming an integral part of
extension service. In one instance, an initiative for American agriculture" (Zippert, 152). One of the
training on cooperatives for black farmers was blocked avenues for progress is to assist black farmers in
(Equal Opportunity, 47). By contrast, County Contacts greater use of formal cooperative methods and proce-
personnel covered not only information directly relat- dures. Some of the challenges for and progress by
ed to managing land ownership and rights, but also on black farmers in applying cooperative business prac-
marketing strategies to generate more economic value tices and establishing value-added businesses are
from the land. ELF generated much of this information reviewed in the next section.
from its demonstration farms and greenhouses (Wood,
22-23).
ELF received Federal funding in 1977 to establish Promoting Independent Farm Enterprise
land cooperative associations. The land cooperatives
operated like credit unions as member savings institu-
Through Cooperatives
tions but were designed to help farmers finance con-
tinued ownership of their lands in times of financial Marketing and purchasing practices of black
pressure. ELF also spawned several other organiza- farmers for most of the 20th century have centered on
tions with a similar mission of land retention. In 1985 local dealings where trusting relationships were sup-
the Federation of Southern Cooperatives and the ELF ported. During this time, black extension agents initi-
combined to form the FSC/LAF (Land Assistance ated informal associations or ad hoc cooperatives for
Fund). seasonal activities such as harvesting, assembling
FSC/LAF’s educational programs and concern products, and bulk purchasing of farm supplies (Pitts,
for land ownership carry on the tradition of Booker T. 21). The acceleration of cooperative development in
Washington. But in its commitment to cooperatives, the 1960s witnessed many associations continuing the
FSC/LAF is more reminiscent of Robert Lloyd Smith informal approach of the pre-civil rights era while
and FIST. In contrast to earlier initiatives, the some of the civil rights-inspired cooperatives emerged
FSC/LAF leadership recognized the indispensability with a more progressive market access and value-
of civil rights to achieving the goals of prosperous and added orientation. The former cooperatives are more
independent farming. FSC/LAF brought farmers tied to historical experience, while the latter have been
together in cooperatives for a unified voice to influ- building new organizational strategies to develop and
ence development of more favorable, equal-access maintain independent farming.
public policies (Marshall, 3-4). FSC/LAF currently has about 75 cooperatives
Melding civil rights with cooperative develop- and credit unions. The majority are predominantly
ment has led to some outside criticism and to periodic black rural cooperatives and credit unions in the
disruptions in funding of FSC/LAF programs (Bethell;
Campbell). Even supporters of civil rights regarded
15 Legislation such as the Minority Rights Act in the 1990 Farm Bill
the multiplicity of objectives in cooperatives like
and the favorable ruling in the recent anti-discrimination case
SWAFCA as impractical for cooperative business effec- against USDA are visible signs of the political and legal gains that
tiveness (News 1969). In retrospect, progress on civil have been made. Several studies by the U.S. Commission on Civil
rights has turned out to be slower than was anticipat- Rights have documented the discrimination and inadequacy of
USDA services to black farmers (Equal Opportunity in Farm
ed in the 1960s. Its incompleteness disadvantaged
Programs; The Decline of Black Farming).
13
17. South. Some nonmember cooperatives and credit Leadership has played a critical role in both
unions work with FSC/LAF State associations or with informal and formal types of black farmer coopera-
universities. Table 2 lists these organizations by type tives. In informal cooperatives, leadership provides the
and location in a few of the major states and for the cohesion and coordination that would otherwise be
South in total. established in part by written membership agree-
Eleven of the 50 agricultural cooperatives report- ments, bylaws, and business plans. Many of the infor-
ed are not members of FSC/LAF. Some have devel- mal cooperatives that depended on leadership from
oped with assistance from the Arkansas Economic black extension agents have disappeared. In recent
Corporation, an organization with similar objectives years, the black extension service has been merged into
and services as the SCDF and FSC/LAF. While these the general agricultural extension system. Changes in
50 cooperatives have a formal organizational structure its program have reduced the extent of past outreach
and status, there are an unreported or undocumented to farmers (Scott).
number of informal or ad hoc cooperatives. Many of today’s extant cooperatives are held
together by strong leadership from one or just a few
members.17 Of the informal type of cooperative, bulk
seed purchasing is the most common service to persist
Table 2—Black cooperatives and credit unions in the
South over time. Member involvement in these associations,
while lacking the equity capital commitment of the
Location Agricultural co-ops Credit Unionsa Other co-opsb Total standard cooperative model, has been an in-kind type,
based on volunteers for carrying out services
AL 6 6 6 18 (Onunkwo,18). But volunteerism cannot sustain most
MS 11 3 3 17 cooperatives that seek improved market access and
GA 7 3 4 14 value-added operations.
SC 11 0 3 14 The experience of FSC/LAF staff and the recent
Otherc 15 7 5 27 survey research have identified weaknesses in cooper-
Total 50 19 21 90 ative education regarding transition to formal coopera-
a Includes only black credit union members of FSC/LAF. tive organization and operations. The pre-civil rights
b Other cooperatives include handicraft, small industry, fishing, ad hoc cooperatives did not provide this type of educa-
housing, and day-care. tion and experience. Thus, many aspects of the human
c Other states are Arkansas, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Missouri, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. and social capital that make farmer cooperatives work
did not have enough opportunity to fully develop in
many rural black communities in the South.
Recent survey-based research in the lower For most of the 20th century, many black farmers
Mississippi Delta region (Scott) and in Southeastern sought to protect their independence and ownership of
States (Onunkwo) have shown that most black farmers land by diversifying away from cotton and relying on
have had experience with cooperatives in the past and local sales of fruits and vegetables to citizens in their
are aware of their potential benefits. Much of this communities. One cooperative operates today with
experience, however, was confined to the informal help from fellow parishioners of a church. Parishioners
type of cooperatives (Scott).16 Although most of these volunteer for harvesting and packing, as well as pro-
associations are defunct, they had lasting influence on viding a large share of consumer purchases (Rotan). A
the preferences black farmers express about what they 1996 farmer survey in south-central Alabama observed
want from cooperatives. a predominance of local selling of fruits, vegetables,
Membership size of most cooperatives in the and livestock where other potential higher-value mar-
southeastern states ranged between 15 to 20 farmers, kets could be developed (Tackie, 50). A concern for
while membership size surveys for the Mississippi protecting independence can sometimes work against
Delta states revealed fewer than 30 members per coop- long-run sustainability of independent farming if a
erative on average. A preference for smaller and local more commercialized and remunerative system of
membership cooperatives was indicated among a sam-
ple of black farmers in South Carolina. They preferred
smaller membership cooperatives because of ease of 16 The research report by Scott and Dagher is in a draft stage, so
communications and in organizing meetings references will just refer to Scott, without page numbers.
17 Edgar Lewis (USDA/RBS), who has worked with some of these
(Onunkwo, 16).
cooperatives over several years, offered this observation.
14
18. marketing does not develop.
Without better prospects, younger
generations of black farmers will
increasingly seek economic opportu-
nities outside farming.
Some cooperatives, particularly
many members of FSC/LAF, have
made progress in commercialization
and value-added operations. The
founders anticipated long-term
needs in both the areas of coopera-
tive education and in coordinating
local production. They have helped
member cooperatives introduce and
coordinate adoption of various veg-
etable crops to replace cotton.
Obtaining sufficient volume of a new
crop for a marketing program
involves extensive outreach. FSC/LAF’s training cen- the cooperative to expand its direct marketing by
ter and demonstration farm in Epes, AL, is designed using an array of methods such as e-commerce
for this type of outreach. When a new vegetable or (www.southernalternatives.com).
fruit crop is identified as suitable for local growing A major challenge in retaining land is to increase
conditions, FSC provides training in production and the profitability of farming enough to attract young
marketing to area farmers. This center has also helped farmers. However, the "aging of agriculture" is also
many young farmers, not only with production tech- having an impact. The average age of American farm-
niques, but also with training in cooperative principles ers reached 54.3 years in the last census. In the
and procedures. Mississippi Delta survey of black farmer cooperatives,
Black farmer cooperatives are increasingly mov- members were on average more than 60 years old. In a
ing toward value-added activities and market develop- survey from south-central Alabama, almost 50 percent
ment. Several have vegetable packing facilities to serve of limited-resource farmers were between 40 and 54
supermarket buyers. Others are packing high-value years old, while almost 32 percent were 65 years and
products like pecans; pepper growers are bottling a older (Tackie, 47). Survey results for the southeastern
branded hot sauce. Several livestock projects have also region found that more than 61 percent of farmer
been implemented (FSC/LAF annual report 2000). cooperative members were 50 years or older.
The development of Southern Alternatives, a pecan- Some of the black farmer cooperatives are taking
marketing cooperative in Georgia, reflects the recent a proactive strategy of teaching younger generations
emphasis on commercialization and expanding market about the rewards of farming. The Beat 4 Cooperative
access. The farmers who formed this cooperative in in Mississippi has an innovative youth program.
1991 were seeking a way to get around the "middle- Young people participate in a full range of both farm-
men" who procure pecans for the operators of shelling ing and marketing activities (FSC/LAF annual report
and processing facilities. 1994-95). They are also trained in computer applica-
Progress in this direction was started in the mid- tions for farming and business, which is particularly
1990s from discussions with Ben Cohen from Ben and appealing to many young people.
Jerry’s Ice Cream Company. A project director from An important dimension of profitable farming is
that company worked with Southern Alternatives and low-cost scale of operation. Surveys indicate that black
the FSC/LAF in developing a business plan. Ben and farms are relatively small in relation to the average
Jerry’s established a purchasing agreement with the size of farms. In a survey of 54 black farmers in South
cooperative, while a pecan processor in Georgia pre- Carolina, about 70 percent farmed 100 or fewer acres
pared the quantities needed. This opportunity enabled (Onunkwo, 22). In the south-central Alabama survey,
the mean farm size was 138 acres and the median was
40 acres (Tackie, 47). Although these farms are relative-
15
19. ly small, recent census data suggest some consolida- Cooperative consolidation or establishing a
tion in black land holdings. While farm numbers regional organization is another strategy that may
declined by 365 between 1992 and 1997 (Appendix offer efficiency gains and cost reductions for black
Table 3), during the same period the amount of farm- farmers (Scott). In one survey of black farmers a major-
land owned by blacks increased by 3.2 percent ity preferred small-membership cooperatives to large,
(Pennick, 6). but a large majority also wanted a cooperative to offer
In the recent class action lawsuit against USDA, it a comprehensive set of services (Onunkwo, 27). The
was alleged that in many cases black farmers were feasibility of delivering services is unlikely without
turned away from obtaining loans needed to maintain economies of size. More statewide, multi-state, and
ownership of land. In many instances, these lands had even regional organization of cooperatives would
belonged for many decades to black family farmers achieve various economies in providing services and
(Pigford). Some individuals also experienced delays commercialization strategies. Lack of start-up capital is
when trying to borrow to purchase lands from other likely to be a constraint, but important initial steps
black farmers, while credit for making such purchases include developing more lines of communication
were made available sooner to white farmers. These between growers throughout the South. The FSC/LAF
instances not only frustrated the opportunity of some regularly holds conferences that develop acquain-
black farmers to expand their scale of operation, but tances and communications among black farmers
also increased their concern for the loss to black farm- throughout the South.
ing in general.18 An example of consolidation is provided by the
New North Florida Cooperative (NNFC).
When several black farmers in north Florida wanted to
organize a marketing cooperative in 1995, they
18 Knowledge of these developments was provided by Edgar Lewis.
received technical assistance from USDA’s Natural
Also see the series of investigations by the Associated Press.
16
20. Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and other ser- are increasingly discovering that as many of the old
vice organizations. The NRCS agent in north Florida barriers fade away, the practices that had developed
provides on-going leadership and assistance in making around such past constraints can be set aside for new
NNFC successful. The cooperative receives, washes, business opportunities in using cooperatives.
and packages a variety of fruits and vegetables for
shipment to schools and other institutional markets USDA Rural Development Programs
throughout their region (Karg; Holmes). As its cus- A primary role of USDA’s Rural Development
tomer base grew, NNFC sought out neighboring black today is to work with farmers and rural residents to
farming communities in Alabama for increased build cooperatives and other enterprises to increase
sources of supply. This is an example of a multi-state farmer income. To be successful in this role, USDA
approach to expanding the membership. assistance must be tailored to adapt to the differences
A consolidated structure for black farmer cooper- in both individual and community needs and local
atives could reach more customers beyond their com- conditions. These efforts must be coordinated with
munities. A full-time cooperative manager could find those of a wide range of universities, state and local
valuable markets for member products. Furthermore, a governments, nonprofit organizations and citizen-cen-
manager can provide the communications link tered grassroots organizations. All of these organiza-
between customers and farmers. Customers may want tions can play critical roles in the process of rural
certain attributes in produce or in its packing for development.
which producers can capture value. Black farmers who The history of black cooperative development
operate independently have the flexibility to offer demonstrates the necessity of recognizing how cultural
qualities or features for certain fruits and vegetables and social institutions must be considered in the devel-
that other systems may not supply. In addition, given opment of economic solutions to the challenges facing
targeted promotion, their produce would have special black farmers.
appeal to urban consumers. FSC/LAF periodically The goal of this report was to gain a more com-
coordinates participation in farmers markets for mem- plete understanding of the historic processes and
ber produce in large cities. Start-up costs for an unique challenges that have faced black farmers as
expanded program, including market promotion, are they have tried to gain operating independence and
relatively high for low-income farmers, but are likely viability through use of cooperative tools. This under-
to be remunerative in the long run. standing enables USDA to develop more effective
A major obstacle to applying cooperatives is the strategies and partnerships in addressing those unique
reservations that many black farmers have in regard to needs and providing the assistance strategies and
having some of their earnings retained in an associa- methods most directly meeting the needs of black
tion as compared to immediate dealing with familiar farmers.
individuals, whether they are customers in their com- Many black farmers today have small-scale oper-
munities or a local broker/dealer. Distrust by some ations. Without coordination with other producers to
black farmers for more distant commercial relation- adopt effective strategies for competing in their local
ships and for larger membership cooperatives does not markets and entering new, more remunerative mar-
reflect excessive individualism or a desired indepen- kets, opportunities for these farmers will shrink. The
dence from commercial society. Rather, its source is historical challenge of obtaining and holding onto land
likely the experience (which has gradually changed in is today, more than ever, linked to having marketing
recent decades), of being denied equal access to mar- programs and cooperative organizations in place. For
kets and many government services. A history of dis- black farmers, a key challenge is to build effective mar-
couragement of opportunities for black farmers to keting cooperatives that are adequately capitalized
actively and visibly participate as leaders and directors and operating with sound business practices.
in community cooperatives may have also weakened USDA now offers a number of programs that
the development of adequate trust in more sophisticat- black farmers can access to assist them in the process
ed commercial-type cooperatives. of developing and strengthening cooperative business-
In addition, a century of often having crop liens es to increase returns to their farming operations.
used to undermine their economic independence was USDA’s Rural Business-Cooperative Services (RBS)
not conducive to developing trust in other types of provides research, technical assistance and educational
commercial dealings, including formal methods of services to farmers involved in cooperatives through a
cooperative marketing such as pooling. Black farmers network of national office and state cooperative spe-
17
