The Problem of "Labor" in the Post-Reconstruction Louisiana Sugar Industry

Agricultural History

Volumn 72, Issue 2, 1998, Pages 140-158

  Ferleger, Louis ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS BOSTON   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AGRICULTURAL HISTORY; AGRICULTURAL WORKERS; LABOUR MARKET; RURAL HISTORY; SUGAR PRODUCTION;

USA, LOUISIANA;

EID: 0031734454     PISSN: 00021482     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (61)

1. Stanley Engerman, "Slavery, Emancipation, and Coerced Labor," (Department of Economics, University of Rochester); Stanley Engerman, "The Land and Labour Problem at the Time of the Legal Emancipation of the British West Indian Slaves," in Western Indies Account: Essays on the British Caribbean and the Atlantic Economy in Honor of Richard Sheridan, ed. Roderick McDonald (Kingston, Jamaica: The Press, University of the West Indies, 1996); Stanley Engerman, "Slavery, Serfdom, and other Forms of Coerced Labor: Similarities and Differences" in Serfdom and Slavery: Studies in Legal Bondage, ed. Michael C. Bush (New York: Longman, 1996); Stanley Engerman, "Emancipations in Comparative Perspective: A Long and Wide View," in Fifty Years Later: Capitalism and Antislavery in the Dutch Orbit, ed. Gert Oostindie (Leiden: KITLV Press, 1995); Stanley Engerman, "Coerced and Free Labor: Property Rights and the Development of the Labor Force," Explorations in Economic History 29 (January 1992): 1-29.
2. Stanley Engerman, "Slavery, Emancipation, and Coerced Labor," (Department of Economics, University of Rochester); Stanley Engerman, "The Land and Labour Problem at the Time of the Legal Emancipation of the British West Indian Slaves," in Western Indies Account: Essays on the British Caribbean and the Atlantic Economy in Honor of Richard Sheridan, ed. Roderick McDonald (Kingston, Jamaica: The Press, University of the West Indies, 1996); Stanley Engerman, "Slavery, Serfdom, and other Forms of Coerced Labor: Similarities and Differences" in Serfdom and Slavery: Studies in Legal Bondage, ed. Michael C. Bush (New York: Longman, 1996); Stanley Engerman, "Emancipations in Comparative Perspective: A Long and Wide View," in Fifty Years Later: Capitalism and Antislavery in the Dutch Orbit, ed. Gert Oostindie (Leiden: KITLV Press, 1995); Stanley Engerman, "Coerced and Free Labor: Property Rights and the Development of the Labor Force," Explorations in Economic History 29 (January 1992): 1-29.
3. Stanley Engerman, "Slavery, Emancipation, and Coerced Labor," (Department of Economics, University of Rochester); Stanley Engerman, "The Land and Labour Problem at the Time of the Legal Emancipation of the British West Indian Slaves," in Western Indies Account: Essays on the British Caribbean and the Atlantic Economy in Honor of Richard Sheridan, ed. Roderick McDonald (Kingston, Jamaica: The Press, University of the West Indies, 1996); Stanley Engerman, "Slavery, Serfdom, and other Forms of Coerced Labor: Similarities and Differences" in Serfdom and Slavery: Studies in Legal Bondage, ed. Michael C. Bush (New York: Longman, 1996); Stanley Engerman, "Emancipations in Comparative Perspective: A Long and Wide View," in Fifty Years Later: Capitalism and Antislavery in the Dutch Orbit, ed. Gert Oostindie (Leiden: KITLV Press, 1995); Stanley Engerman, "Coerced and Free Labor: Property Rights and the Development of the Labor Force," Explorations in Economic History 29 (January 1992): 1-29.
4. Stanley Engerman, "Slavery, Emancipation, and Coerced Labor," (Department of Economics, University of Rochester); Stanley Engerman, "The Land and Labour Problem at the Time of the Legal Emancipation of the British West Indian Slaves," in Western Indies Account: Essays on the British Caribbean and the Atlantic Economy in Honor of Richard Sheridan, ed. Roderick McDonald (Kingston, Jamaica: The Press, University of the West Indies, 1996); Stanley Engerman, "Slavery, Serfdom, and other Forms of Coerced Labor: Similarities and Differences" in Serfdom and Slavery: Studies in Legal Bondage, ed. Michael C. Bush (New York: Longman, 1996); Stanley Engerman, "Emancipations in Comparative Perspective: A Long and Wide View," in Fifty Years Later: Capitalism and Antislavery in the Dutch Orbit, ed. Gert Oostindie (Leiden: KITLV Press, 1995); Stanley Engerman, "Coerced and Free Labor: Property Rights and the Development of the Labor Force," Explorations in Economic History 29 (January 1992): 1-29.
5. Stanley Engerman, "Slavery, Emancipation, and Coerced Labor," (Department of Economics, University of Rochester); Stanley Engerman, "The Land and Labour Problem at the Time of the Legal Emancipation of the British West Indian Slaves," in Western Indies Account: Essays on the British Caribbean and the Atlantic Economy in Honor of Richard Sheridan, ed. Roderick McDonald (Kingston, Jamaica: The Press, University of the West Indies, 1996); Stanley Engerman, "Slavery, Serfdom, and other Forms of Coerced Labor: Similarities and Differences" in Serfdom and Slavery: Studies in Legal Bondage, ed. Michael C. Bush (New York: Longman, 1996); Stanley Engerman, "Emancipations in Comparative Perspective: A Long and Wide View," in Fifty Years Later: Capitalism and Antislavery in the Dutch Orbit, ed. Gert Oostindie (Leiden: KITLV Press, 1995); Stanley Engerman, "Coerced and Free Labor: Property Rights and the Development of the Labor Force," Explorations in Economic History 29 (January 1992): 1-29.
6. Rebecca J. Scott, "Defining the Boundaries of Freedom in the World of Cane: Cuba, Brazil, and Louisiana After Emancipation," American Historical Review 99 (February 1994): 76, 80. Scott contradicts her argument later in the article when she states that "repeated strikes raised wages above their immediate postwar levels" [102]. See also Rebecca J. Scott, "Exploring the Meaning of Freedom: Postemancipation Societies in Comparative Perspective," Hispanic American Historical Review 68 (August 1988): 407-28; Jeffrey Gould, "The Strike of 1887: Louisiana Sugar War," Southern Exposure 12 (November/December 1984): 45-55; and Thomas Becnel, Labor, Church, and the Sugar Establishment (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1980), 4-9. For an example of the tendency to overlook the development of labor market institutions, see Jacqueline Jones, The Dispossessed: America's Underclasses From the Civil War to the Present (New York: BasicBooks, 1992).
7. Rebecca J. Scott, "Defining the Boundaries of Freedom in the World of Cane: Cuba, Brazil, and Louisiana After Emancipation," American Historical Review 99 (February 1994): 76, 80. Scott contradicts her argument later in the article when she states that "repeated strikes raised wages above their immediate postwar levels" [102]. See also Rebecca J. Scott, "Exploring the Meaning of Freedom: Postemancipation Societies in Comparative Perspective," Hispanic American Historical Review 68 (August 1988): 407-28; Jeffrey Gould, "The Strike of 1887: Louisiana Sugar War," Southern Exposure 12 (November/December 1984): 45-55; and Thomas Becnel, Labor, Church, and the Sugar Establishment (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1980), 4-9. For an example of the tendency to overlook the development of labor market institutions, see Jacqueline Jones, The Dispossessed: America's Underclasses From the Civil War to the Present (New York: BasicBooks, 1992).
8. Rebecca J. Scott, "Defining the Boundaries of Freedom in the World of Cane: Cuba, Brazil, and Louisiana After Emancipation," American Historical Review 99 (February 1994): 76, 80. Scott contradicts her argument later in the article when she states that "repeated strikes raised wages above their immediate postwar levels" [102]. See also Rebecca J. Scott, "Exploring the Meaning of Freedom: Postemancipation Societies in Comparative Perspective," Hispanic American Historical Review 68 (August 1988): 407-28; Jeffrey Gould, "The Strike of 1887: Louisiana Sugar War," Southern Exposure 12 (November/December 1984): 45-55; and Thomas Becnel, Labor, Church, and the Sugar Establishment (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1980), 4-9. For an example of the tendency to overlook the development of labor market institutions, see Jacqueline Jones, The Dispossessed: America's Underclasses From the Civil War to the Present (New York: BasicBooks, 1992).
9. Rebecca J. Scott, "Defining the Boundaries of Freedom in the World of Cane: Cuba, Brazil, and Louisiana After Emancipation," American Historical Review 99 (February 1994): 76, 80. Scott contradicts her argument later in the article when she states that "repeated strikes raised wages above their immediate postwar levels" [102]. See also Rebecca J. Scott, "Exploring the Meaning of Freedom: Postemancipation Societies in Comparative Perspective," Hispanic American Historical Review 68 (August 1988): 407-28; Jeffrey Gould, "The Strike of 1887: Louisiana Sugar War," Southern Exposure 12 (November/December 1984): 45-55; and Thomas Becnel, Labor, Church, and the Sugar Establishment (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1980), 4-9. For an example of the tendency to overlook the development of labor market institutions, see Jacqueline Jones, The Dispossessed: America's Underclasses From the Civil War to the Present (New York: BasicBooks, 1992).
10. Rebecca J. Scott, "Defining the Boundaries of Freedom in the World of Cane: Cuba, Brazil, and Louisiana After Emancipation," American Historical Review 99 (February 1994): 76, 80. Scott contradicts her argument later in the article when she states that "repeated strikes raised wages above their immediate postwar levels" [102]. See also Rebecca J. Scott, "Exploring the Meaning of Freedom: Postemancipation Societies in Comparative Perspective," Hispanic American Historical Review 68 (August 1988): 407-28; Jeffrey Gould, "The Strike of 1887: Louisiana Sugar War," Southern Exposure 12 (November/December 1984): 45-55; and Thomas Becnel, Labor, Church, and the Sugar Establishment (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1980), 4-9. For an example of the tendency to overlook the development of labor market institutions, see Jacqueline Jones, The Dispossessed: America's Underclasses From the Civil War to the Present (New York: BasicBooks, 1992).
11. Gerald David Jaynes, Branches Without Roots: Genesis of the Black Working Class in the American South, 1862-1882 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986); Louis Ferleger, "Tools and Time: Southern Farmers after Reconstruction," unpublished mss.; John C. Rodrigue, "Raising Cane: From Slavery to Free Labor in Louisiana's Sugar Parishes, 1862-1880" (Ph.D. diss., Emory University, 1993).
12. Gerald David Jaynes, Branches Without Roots: Genesis of the Black Working Class in the American South, 1862-1882 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986); Louis Ferleger, "Tools and Time: Southern Farmers after Reconstruction," unpublished mss.; John C. Rodrigue, "Raising Cane: From Slavery to Free Labor in Louisiana's Sugar Parishes, 1862-1880" (Ph.D. diss., Emory University, 1993).
13. Gerald David Jaynes, Branches Without Roots: Genesis of the Black Working Class in the American South, 1862-1882 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986); Louis Ferleger, "Tools and Time: Southern Farmers after Reconstruction," unpublished mss.; John C. Rodrigue, "Raising Cane: From Slavery to Free Labor in Louisiana's Sugar Parishes, 1862-1880" (Ph.D. diss., Emory University, 1993).
14. John Heitmann, The Modernization of the Louisiana Sugar Industry, 1830-1910 (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1987). For a discussion of the various reasons sugar planters and southern landlords did not adopt alternatives to existing production techiques, see Louis Ferleger, "Sharecropping Contracts in the Late Nineteenth Century South," Agricultural History 67 (Summer 1993): 31-46; Louis Ferleger, "Self-Sufficiency and Rural Life on Southern Farms," Agricultural History 58 (July 1984): 314-29; Louis Fereleger, "Cutting the Cane: Harvesting in the Louisiana Sugar Industry," Southern Studies 23 (Spring 1984): 42-59; Louis Ferleger, "Farm Mechanization in the Southern Sugar Sector After the Civil War," Louisiana History 23 (Winter 1983): 21-34; and Louis Ferleger, "Productivity Change in the Post-Bellum Louisiana Sugar Industry," in Time Series Analysis, ed. O. D. Anderson and M. R. Perryman (New York: North-Holland Press, 1981): 147-71.
15. John Heitmann, The Modernization of the Louisiana Sugar Industry, 1830-1910 (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1987). For a discussion of the various reasons sugar planters and southern landlords did not adopt alternatives to existing production techiques, see Louis Ferleger, "Sharecropping Contracts in the Late Nineteenth Century South," Agricultural History 67 (Summer 1993): 31-46; Louis Ferleger, "Self-Sufficiency and Rural Life on Southern Farms," Agricultural History 58 (July 1984): 314-29; Louis Fereleger, "Cutting the Cane: Harvesting in the Louisiana Sugar Industry," Southern Studies 23 (Spring 1984): 42-59; Louis Ferleger, "Farm Mechanization in the Southern Sugar Sector After the Civil War," Louisiana History 23 (Winter 1983): 21-34; and Louis Ferleger, "Productivity Change in the Post-Bellum Louisiana Sugar Industry," in Time Series Analysis, ed. O. D. Anderson and M. R. Perryman (New York: North-Holland Press, 1981): 147-71.
16. John Heitmann, The Modernization of the Louisiana Sugar Industry, 1830-1910 (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1987). For a discussion of the various reasons sugar planters and southern landlords did not adopt alternatives to existing production techiques, see Louis Ferleger, "Sharecropping Contracts in the Late Nineteenth Century South," Agricultural History 67 (Summer 1993): 31-46; Louis Ferleger, "Self-Sufficiency and Rural Life on Southern Farms," Agricultural History 58 (July 1984): 314-29; Louis Fereleger, "Cutting the Cane: Harvesting in the Louisiana Sugar Industry," Southern Studies 23 (Spring 1984): 42-59; Louis Ferleger, "Farm Mechanization in the Southern Sugar Sector After the Civil War," Louisiana History 23 (Winter 1983): 21-34; and Louis Ferleger, "Productivity Change in the Post-Bellum Louisiana Sugar Industry," in Time Series Analysis, ed. O. D. Anderson and M. R. Perryman (New York: North-Holland Press, 1981): 147-71.
17. John Heitmann, The Modernization of the Louisiana Sugar Industry, 1830-1910 (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1987). For a discussion of the various reasons sugar planters and southern landlords did not adopt alternatives to existing production techiques, see Louis Ferleger, "Sharecropping Contracts in the Late Nineteenth Century South," Agricultural History 67 (Summer 1993): 31-46; Louis Ferleger, "Self-Sufficiency and Rural Life on Southern Farms," Agricultural History 58 (July 1984): 314-29; Louis Fereleger, "Cutting the Cane: Harvesting in the Louisiana Sugar Industry," Southern Studies 23 (Spring 1984): 42-59; Louis Ferleger, "Farm Mechanization in the Southern Sugar Sector After the Civil War," Louisiana History 23 (Winter 1983): 21-34; and Louis Ferleger, "Productivity Change in the Post-Bellum Louisiana Sugar Industry," in Time Series Analysis, ed. O. D. Anderson and M. R. Perryman (New York: North-Holland Press, 1981): 147-71.
18. John Heitmann, The Modernization of the Louisiana Sugar Industry, 1830-1910 (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1987). For a discussion of the various reasons sugar planters and southern landlords did not adopt alternatives to existing production techiques, see Louis Ferleger, "Sharecropping Contracts in the Late Nineteenth Century South," Agricultural History 67 (Summer 1993): 31-46; Louis Ferleger, "Self-Sufficiency and Rural Life on Southern Farms," Agricultural History 58 (July 1984): 314-29; Louis Fereleger, "Cutting the Cane: Harvesting in the Louisiana Sugar Industry," Southern Studies 23 (Spring 1984): 42-59; Louis Ferleger, "Farm Mechanization in the Southern Sugar Sector After the Civil War," Louisiana History 23 (Winter 1983): 21-34; and Louis Ferleger, "Productivity Change in the Post-Bellum Louisiana Sugar Industry," in Time Series Analysis, ed. O. D. Anderson and M. R. Perryman (New York: North-Holland Press, 1981): 147-71.
19. John Heitmann, The Modernization of the Louisiana Sugar Industry, 1830-1910 (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1987). For a discussion of the various reasons sugar planters and southern landlords did not adopt alternatives to existing production techiques, see Louis Ferleger, "Sharecropping Contracts in the Late Nineteenth Century South," Agricultural History 67 (Summer 1993): 31-46; Louis Ferleger, "Self-Sufficiency and Rural Life on Southern Farms," Agricultural History 58 (July 1984): 314-29; Louis Fereleger, "Cutting the Cane: Harvesting in the Louisiana Sugar Industry," Southern Studies 23 (Spring 1984): 42-59; Louis Ferleger, "Farm Mechanization in the Southern Sugar Sector After the Civil War," Louisiana History 23 (Winter 1983): 21-34; and Louis Ferleger, "Productivity Change in the Post-Bellum Louisiana Sugar Industry," in Time Series Analysis, ed. O. D. Anderson and M. R. Perryman (New York: North-Holland Press, 1981): 147-71.
20. For an insightful discussion of the strengths and limitations of government and Louisiana Sugar Planters Association funding of cane sugar research and training, see Heitmann, Modernization of the Louisiana Sugar Industry, 170-220.
21. For a discussion of tariffs, the sugar trust, and the bounty, see J. Carlyle Sitterson, Sugar Country: The Cane Sugar Industry in the South, 1753-1950 (Lexington: University of Kentucky Press, 1973), 324-42; Mark Schmitz, "The Transformation of the Southern Cane Sugar Sector, 1860-1930," Agricultural History 53 (January 1979): 280-84; and Heitmann, Modernization of the Louisiana Sugar Industry. Production and price data were calculated from Louis and Alcée Bouchereau's annual Statement of the Sugar and Rice Crop Made in Louisiana (New Orleans, 1869-1917). On foreign competition and the beet sugar industry, see United States Department of Commerce, The Sugar Industry (Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1913); and Noel Deerr, The History of Sugar, 2 vols. (London: Chapman and Hall, 1949, 1950).
22. For a discussion of tariffs, the sugar trust, and the bounty, see J. Carlyle Sitterson, Sugar Country: The Cane Sugar Industry in the South, 1753-1950 (Lexington: University of Kentucky Press, 1973), 324-42; Mark Schmitz, "The Transformation of the Southern Cane Sugar Sector, 1860-1930," Agricultural History 53 (January 1979): 280-84; and Heitmann, Modernization of the Louisiana Sugar Industry. Production and price data were calculated from Louis and Alcée Bouchereau's annual Statement of the Sugar and Rice Crop Made in Louisiana (New Orleans, 1869-1917). On foreign competition and the beet sugar industry, see United States Department of Commerce, The Sugar Industry (Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1913); and Noel Deerr, The History of Sugar, 2 vols. (London: Chapman and Hall, 1949, 1950).
23. For a discussion of tariffs, the sugar trust, and the bounty, see J. Carlyle Sitterson, Sugar Country: The Cane Sugar Industry in the South, 1753-1950 (Lexington: University of Kentucky Press, 1973), 324-42; Mark Schmitz, "The Transformation of the Southern Cane Sugar Sector, 1860-1930," Agricultural History 53 (January 1979): 280-84; and Heitmann, Modernization of the Louisiana Sugar Industry. Production and price data were calculated from Louis and Alcée Bouchereau's annual Statement of the Sugar and Rice Crop Made in Louisiana (New Orleans, 1869-1917). On foreign competition and the beet sugar industry, see United States Department of Commerce, The Sugar Industry (Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1913); and Noel Deerr, The History of Sugar, 2 vols. (London: Chapman and Hall, 1949, 1950).
24. For a discussion of tariffs, the sugar trust, and the bounty, see J. Carlyle Sitterson, Sugar Country: The Cane Sugar Industry in the South, 1753-1950 (Lexington: University of Kentucky Press, 1973), 324-42; Mark Schmitz, "The Transformation of the Southern Cane Sugar Sector, 1860-1930," Agricultural History 53 (January 1979): 280-84; and Heitmann, Modernization of the Louisiana Sugar Industry. Production and price data were calculated from Louis and Alcée Bouchereau's annual Statement of the Sugar and Rice Crop Made in Louisiana (New Orleans, 1869-1917). On foreign competition and the beet sugar industry, see United States Department of Commerce, The Sugar Industry (Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1913); and Noel Deerr, The History of Sugar, 2 vols. (London: Chapman and Hall, 1949, 1950).
25. For a discussion of tariffs, the sugar trust, and the bounty, see J. Carlyle Sitterson, Sugar Country: The Cane Sugar Industry in the South, 1753-1950 (Lexington: University of Kentucky Press, 1973), 324-42; Mark Schmitz, "The Transformation of the Southern Cane Sugar Sector, 1860-1930," Agricultural History 53 (January 1979): 280-84; and Heitmann, Modernization of the Louisiana Sugar Industry. Production and price data were calculated from Louis and Alcée Bouchereau's annual Statement of the Sugar and Rice Crop Made in Louisiana (New Orleans, 1869-1917). On foreign competition and the beet sugar industry, see United States Department of Commerce, The Sugar Industry (Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1913); and Noel Deerr, The History of Sugar, 2 vols. (London: Chapman and Hall, 1949, 1950).
26. For a discussion of tariffs, the sugar trust, and the bounty, see J. Carlyle Sitterson, Sugar Country: The Cane Sugar Industry in the South, 1753-1950 (Lexington: University of Kentucky Press, 1973), 324-42; Mark Schmitz, "The Transformation of the Southern Cane Sugar Sector, 1860-1930," Agricultural History 53 (January 1979): 280-84; and Heitmann, Modernization of the Louisiana Sugar Industry. Production and price data were calculated from Louis and Alcée Bouchereau's annual Statement of the Sugar and Rice Crop Made in Louisiana (New Orleans, 1869-1917). On foreign competition and the beet sugar industry, see United States Department of Commerce, The Sugar Industry (Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1913); and Noel Deerr, The History of Sugar, 2 vols. (London: Chapman and Hall, 1949, 1950).
27. Sitterson, Sugar Country, 301.
28. A few large sugar planters successfully avoided selling their cane to refiners. For example, the Godchaux family expanded their sugar holdings and built a modern factory to maintain control over both production stages. Other large sugar planters, however, were unable to find sufficient funds to invest in a modern mill. See Sitterson, Sugar Country, 312. For an estimate of the number of cane producers who sold directly to mills and the costs of mills, see Schmitz, "Transformation," tables 1 and 2, 274-8. For a detailed discussion of the various changes in costs, see Sitterson, Sugar Country, 305.
29. A few large sugar planters successfully avoided selling their cane to refiners. For example, the Godchaux family expanded their sugar holdings and built a modern factory to maintain control over both production stages. Other large sugar planters, however, were unable to find sufficient funds to invest in a modern mill. See Sitterson, Sugar Country, 312. For an estimate of the number of cane producers who sold directly to mills and the costs of mills, see Schmitz, "Transformation," tables 1 and 2, 274-8. For a detailed discussion of the various changes in costs, see Sitterson, Sugar Country, 305.
30. A few large sugar planters successfully avoided selling their cane to refiners. For example, the Godchaux family expanded their sugar holdings and built a modern factory to maintain control over both production stages. Other large sugar planters, however, were unable to find sufficient funds to invest in a modern mill. See Sitterson, Sugar Country, 312. For an estimate of the number of cane producers who sold directly to mills and the costs of mills, see Schmitz, "Transformation," tables 1 and 2, 274-8. For a detailed discussion of the various changes in costs, see Sitterson, Sugar Country, 305.
31. Sitterson, Sugar Country, 306-7. In the twentieth century, sugar refiners also increased their sugar farm holdings. See Bennett H. Wall, ed., Louisiana: A History (Arlington Heights: Harlan Davidson, 1990), 236.
32. Sitterson, Sugar Country, 306-7. In the twentieth century, sugar refiners also increased their sugar farm holdings. See Bennett H. Wall, ed., Louisiana: A History (Arlington Heights: Harlan Davidson, 1990), 236.
33. The trend in implement prices is documented in George K. Holmes, "The Course of Prices of Farm Implements and Machinery for a Series of Years," USDA, Miscellaneous Bulletins No. 18 (Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1901).
34. See Ferleger, "Sharecropping Contracts."
35. State and government studies on the cane-sugar industry cited the Louisiana Planter repeatedly. The Louisiana Planter also reported on sugar conditions across the globe, often reprinting articles from other publications on sugar conditions in, for example, Brazil and Cuba.
36. This is not meant to suggest that sugar workers were lazy, reluctant to work hard, or unproductive employees. Sugar planters and correspondents repeatedly complained about the quality of the sugar workforce, including African Americans, Italians, Chinese, and many hired white workers. White overseers and managers were also subject to sharp criticism about their inability to manage estates efficiently. For the most part, sugar planters were resident owners, sometimes managers, but were likely to delegate authority over operations to overseers or other managers. See Sitterson, Sugar Country, 313-14. The legacy of slavery and racism undoubtedly contributed to planters' perception of its African American workforce, but that does not explain their attitudes toward hired white labor. Further analysis of planters' attitudes toward cane cutters is needed because as planters frequently pointed out, it took a considerable amount of skill to successfully cut cane properly with large knives. Skillful cutters could average around three tons of cane per day. The 1913 sugar study found that cane cutters averaged between 2.22 and 3.59 tons per day. Because of a low level of equipment and implement use, even the fastest cutters and cultivators were less productive than comparable workers who worked in wheat and corn. See Department of Commerce, Sugar Industry, table 183, 302.
37. This is not meant to suggest that sugar workers were lazy, reluctant to work hard, or unproductive employees. Sugar planters and correspondents repeatedly complained about the quality of the sugar workforce, including African Americans, Italians, Chinese, and many hired white workers. White overseers and managers were also subject to sharp criticism about their inability to manage estates efficiently. For the most part, sugar planters were resident owners, sometimes managers, but were likely to delegate authority over operations to overseers or other managers. See Sitterson, Sugar Country, 313-14. The legacy of slavery and racism undoubtedly contributed to planters' perception of its African American workforce, but that does not explain their attitudes toward hired white labor. Further analysis of planters' attitudes toward cane cutters is needed because as planters frequently pointed out, it took a considerable amount of skill to successfully cut cane properly with large knives. Skillful cutters could average around three tons of cane per day. The 1913 sugar study found that cane cutters averaged between 2.22 and 3.59 tons per day. Because of a low level of equipment and implement use, even the fastest cutters and cultivators were less productive than comparable workers who worked in wheat and corn. See Department of Commerce, Sugar Industry, table 183, 302.
38. There were only infrequent reports on wages from Iberia, Plaquemines, and St. John; however, the limited data on wages in these parishes is consistent with the data from other parishes.
39. Department of Commerce, Sugar Industry, table 18, 27-28.
40. Louis A. Ferleger, "Technological Change in the Postbellum Louisiana Sugar Industry" (Ph.D. diss., Temple University, 1978), table 4, 41-42b.
41. In some cases African American cane workers would contractually agree to work for an individual planter for the entire season but break the contract if labor market conditions changed. The number of cane workers who fulfilled their contractual obligations to planters is not available.
42. Louisiana Planter, 27 October 1894. In 1896 the planters started out offering eighty cents per day in October but had to pay one dollar in November, again because of market conditions.
43. Louisiana Planter, 29 September 1902.
44. Louisiana Planter, 17 October 1896.
45. Louisiana Planter, 17 November 1896.
46. Louisiana Planter, 28 November 1902.
47. The most frequent reporting of both shortages and surpluses for the cultivating and harvest seasons occurred in Ascension, 1890-92, 1895, 1900-1903; Assumption, 1896-98, 1902; Iberia, 1903-4; Iberville, 1894-97, 1900-1901; LaFourche, 1892-97; St. James, 1896-1903; St. Mary, 1894-1904; Terrebonne, 1897-1901; and West Baton Rouge, 1894-1904. The reporting of both shortages and surpluses, moreover, occurred not just at harvest time but at all times of the year. It did not necessarily coincide with either high or low wages, sugar prices, profits, the bounty, and so forth.
48. There were few work stoppages as well. See Ferleger, "Farm Mechanization," and Ferleger, "Cutting the Cane." For an illuminating article on the difficulties involved in mechanizing harvest operations, see Geoff Burrows and Ralph Shlomowitz, "The Lag in the Mechanization of the Sugarcane Harvest: Some Comparative Perspectives," Agricultural History 66 (Summer 1992): 61-75.
49. There were few work stoppages as well. See Ferleger, "Farm Mechanization," and Ferleger, "Cutting the Cane." For an illuminating article on the difficulties involved in mechanizing harvest operations, see Geoff Burrows and Ralph Shlomowitz, "The Lag in the Mechanization of the Sugarcane Harvest: Some Comparative Perspectives," Agricultural History 66 (Summer 1992): 61-75.
50. There were few work stoppages as well. See Ferleger, "Farm Mechanization," and Ferleger, "Cutting the Cane." For an illuminating article on the difficulties involved in mechanizing harvest operations, see Geoff Burrows and Ralph Shlomowitz, "The Lag in the Mechanization of the Sugarcane Harvest: Some Comparative Perspectives," Agricultural History 66 (Summer 1992): 61-75.
51. For a review of the literature on the development of agrarian labor market institutions, see K. Otsuka et al., "Land and Labor Contracts in Agrarian Economies: Theories and Facts," Journal of Economic Literature 30 (December 1992): 1965-2018.
52. Sitterson, Sugar Country, 333.
53. Few African Americans became cane tenants. For a listing by parish, see Department of Commerce, Sugar Industry, 33. Sitterson notes that "A survey of representative sugar plantations in Louisiana in 1911 . . . [suggests that] [a]ctual annual earnings of Negro workers rarely exceeded $240" (Sitterson, Sugar Country, 322). My wage data suggest that annual earnings were higher for sugar workers than cotton tenants. More research is necessary to determine the average annual earnings of cane workers because these figures depend on the average number of days worked per year (usually between 140 and 180 days) and plantation cultivation practices. The latter varied widely depending on the size and scale of sugar operations. African Americans, according to Sitterson could command higher-paying jobs than in other southern agricultural areas partly because the Louisiana economy generated employment opportunities that were uncommon elsewhere. See Sitterson, Sugar Country, 323. For a description of postbellum black property owners, see Loren Schweninger, Black Property Owners in the South, 1790-1915 (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1990).
54. Few African Americans became cane tenants. For a listing by parish, see Department of Commerce, Sugar Industry, 33. Sitterson notes that "A survey of representative sugar plantations in Louisiana in 1911 . . . [suggests that] [a]ctual annual earnings of Negro workers rarely exceeded $240" (Sitterson, Sugar Country, 322). My wage data suggest that annual earnings were higher for sugar workers than cotton tenants. More research is necessary to determine the average annual earnings of cane workers because these figures depend on the average number of days worked per year (usually between 140 and 180 days) and plantation cultivation practices. The latter varied widely depending on the size and scale of sugar operations. African Americans, according to Sitterson could command higher-paying jobs than in other southern agricultural areas partly because the Louisiana economy generated employment opportunities that were uncommon elsewhere. See Sitterson, Sugar Country, 323. For a description of postbellum black property owners, see Loren Schweninger, Black Property Owners in the South, 1790-1915 (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1990).
55. Few African Americans became cane tenants. For a listing by parish, see Department of Commerce, Sugar Industry, 33. Sitterson notes that "A survey of representative sugar plantations in Louisiana in 1911 . . . [suggests that] [a]ctual annual earnings of Negro workers rarely exceeded $240" (Sitterson, Sugar Country, 322). My wage data suggest that annual earnings were higher for sugar workers than cotton tenants. More research is necessary to determine the average annual earnings of cane workers because these figures depend on the average number of days worked per year (usually between 140 and 180 days) and plantation cultivation practices. The latter varied widely depending on the size and scale of sugar operations. African Americans, according to Sitterson could command higher-paying jobs than in other southern agricultural areas partly because the Louisiana economy generated employment opportunities that were uncommon elsewhere. See Sitterson, Sugar Country, 323. For a description of postbellum black property owners, see Loren Schweninger, Black Property Owners in the South, 1790-1915 (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1990).
56. Few African Americans became cane tenants. For a listing by parish, see Department of Commerce, Sugar Industry, 33. Sitterson notes that "A survey of representative sugar plantations in Louisiana in 1911 . . . [suggests that] [a]ctual annual earnings of Negro workers rarely exceeded $240" (Sitterson, Sugar Country, 322). My wage data suggest that annual earnings were higher for sugar workers than cotton tenants. More research is necessary to determine the average annual earnings of cane workers because these figures depend on the average number of days worked per year (usually between 140 and 180 days) and plantation cultivation practices. The latter varied widely depending on the size and scale of sugar operations. African Americans, according to Sitterson could command higher-paying jobs than in other southern agricultural areas partly because the Louisiana economy generated employment opportunities that were uncommon elsewhere. See Sitterson, Sugar Country, 323. For a description of postbellum black property owners, see Loren Schweninger, Black Property Owners in the South, 1790-1915 (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1990).
57. Gavin Wright, Old South, New South: Revolutions in the Southern Economy Since the Civil War (New York: BasicBooks, 1986); Jay Mandle, Not Slave, Not Free: The African American Economic Experience Since the Civil War (Durham: Duke University Press, 1992); Robert Margo, Race and Schooling in the South, 1880-1950 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990).
58. Gavin Wright, Old South, New South: Revolutions in the Southern Economy Since the Civil War (New York: BasicBooks, 1986); Jay Mandle, Not Slave, Not Free: The African American Economic Experience Since the Civil War (Durham: Duke University Press, 1992); Robert Margo, Race and Schooling in the South, 1880-1950 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990).
59. Gavin Wright, Old South, New South: Revolutions in the Southern Economy Since the Civil War (New York: BasicBooks, 1986); Jay Mandle, Not Slave, Not Free: The African American Economic Experience Since the Civil War (Durham: Duke University Press, 1992); Robert Margo, Race and Schooling in the South, 1880-1950 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990).
60. Harold D. Woodman, New South-New Law: The Legal Foundations of Credit and Labor Relations in the Postbellum Agricultural South (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1995), 26-27. For an insightful discussion of the meaning of freedom, see Elizabeth Fox-Genovese, "Contested Meanings: Women and the Problem of Freedom in the Mid-Nineteenth Century United States," in Historical Change and Human Rights: The Oxford Amnesty Lectures 1994, ed. Olwen Hufton (New York: BasicBooks, 1995).
61. Harold D. Woodman, New South-New Law: The Legal Foundations of Credit and Labor Relations in the Postbellum Agricultural South (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1995), 26-27. For an insightful discussion of the meaning of freedom, see Elizabeth Fox-Genovese, "Contested Meanings: Women and the Problem of Freedom in the Mid-Nineteenth Century United States," in Historical Change and Human Rights: The Oxford Amnesty Lectures 1994, ed. Olwen Hufton (New York: BasicBooks, 1995).