Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

1.-THE COTTON STATES PROPER.

Mississippi stands first in total production, while sixth in population, among the cotton states, thus bringing up its product to 0.85, or over eight-tenths of a bale per capita. At first blush, in view of the great fertility and large area of the Mississippi ("Yazoo") bottom within the limits of the state, the inference would be that the high position of the state's production is due to these fertile lowlands; but a detailed discussion of the areas of production shows that a little over one-fourth (25.5 per cent.) only of the cotton product of the state comes from the Yazoo bottom, while over one-half of the whole is produced in what might be termed the first-class uplands, viz, the tableland belt bordering the Mississippi bluff and the two prairie belts. The remaining one-fourth is grown scatteringly over the sandy uplands, bearing more or less of the long- and short-leaf pine, that form about one-half the area of the state.

It thus appears that the high production of Mississippi is due to the fact that quite one-half of its territory is occupied by soils of exceptional fertility, coupled with the circumstance that cotton culture is the one pursuit to which the population devotes itself.

Table III, columns 5 and 11, shows that Washington county, fronting on the Mississippi river and extending east to the Yazoo river, is the county of the state, as well as of the United States, having the largest total production, but the adjoining county of Issaquena exceeds Washington by 1 per cent. in product per acre, having 0.87 of a bale, or 413 pounds of lint, equal to 1,239 pounds of seed-cotton per acre. Issaquena stands third in this respect in the United States, East Carroll, Louisiana, and Chicot county, Arkansas, ranking above it. Even with the imperfect tillage and incomplete picking of the crop now prevailing in the Yazoo bottom the present average product per acre is over three-quarters of a bale; and, estimating the lands reclaimable by simple exclusion of the Mississippi overflows at only three millions of acres, the annual production could thus readily be raised to 2,250,000 bales in the Yazoo bottom alone without any change in the methods of culture. With improved cultivation the production could easily be brought up to 5,000,000 bales; and thus, with a similar improvement in the culture of the uplands, it is evident that the state of Mississippi alone could produce the entire crop now grown in the United States. (a)

Georgia stands second in total production, but examination shows that the causes which place the state so near to the highest in position are widely different from those obtaining in Mississippi. With half a million more inhabitants than Mississippi, the cotton product of Georgia is a little over half a bale (0.53) per capita, and the average product per acre is but two-thirds of that of Mississippi (0.31 to 0.46). A detailed examination of the soils of Georgia shows that her area of what in Mississippi are considered first- and second-class soils is very limited— far more so than is the case in the neighboring state of Alabama; yet Georgia stands slightly ahead of Alabama in the average cotton product per acre, and is only a trifle behind in production per capita (0.53 to 0.55). In other words, the high position of Georgia is due, not to natural advantages, but to better cultivation of the soil, the use of fertilizers, and the thrift of an industrious population. Reports also show a considerable extension of the area of cotton culture to and even beyond the Blue Ridge.

The geographical position of Alabama between the states standing at the head of the list gives double interest to the question regarding the causes of her position in the same, which would be the third place but for the enormous area of Texas, where the sparse population has thus far picked the best lands. Alabama is a newer state than Georgia, and there reach into it from Mississippi the two belts of rich prairie lands which terminate short of the Chattahoochee. Northern Alabama is almost identical in its agricultural features with northern Georgia, and we should therefore expect to find a much more marked difference in favor of Alabama than is shown in the figures quoted. The inference seems irresistible that, while Mississippi is still partly within the period of the first flush of fertility and Georgia has reached the stage when the use of fertilizers is renovating her fields, the soils of Alabama have passed the first stage, and her population has not yet realized the necessity of sustaining the soil's powers by fertilization.

Cotton culture in Florida is chiefly confined to that part of the state lying adjacent to Georgia. This is mostly pine land, and is cultivated without manure; hence the low product of less than a quarter of a bale per acre. Notwithstanding this, there has been a respectable increase in production since 1870, though not so large as that of the population; a circumstance doubtless due to the prominent position which the culture of tropical fruits has assumed during the past decade, and to which most of the new-comers have given their attention. No cotton is returned from that portion of the state lying south of Tampa bay, and but little from the coasts, as well as from the extreme western part. The cotton-growing counties show an average product of 0.26, or a little over a quarter of a bale per inhabitant. A considerable proportion (15,532 bales, or 28.2 per cent.) of this product is long-staple or sea-island cotton, of which the state produces nearly the entire supply at present. It should be kept in mind that the bales of long-staple cotton have an average weight of 350 pounds only, and that the proportion of lint to seed is reckoned as one to three, instead of one to two, as in the uplands cotton.

Tennessee presents the striking fact of a total production of less than half of that of Alabama, but with an average product per acre one-half greater, equal even to that of Mississippi. The cause of this state of things

a So far from being an overestimate, the above statement does not adequately state the possibilities within reach of careful culture. Fully 1,000 pounds of liut has repeatedly been picked off an acre of the "buckshot" soil of the Yazoo bottom.

becomes apparent when we circumscribe the regions of production in accordance with the natural divisions of the state. It then appears that the portion of Tennessee lying east of the "central basin", (a) from the eastern highland rim to the line of North Carolina, and comprising about one-third of the area of the state, produces only about 1 per cent. of the total amount of cotton, while 84 per cent. of this total is produced in the country lying between the Tennessee and Mississippi rivers, on the extreme west. More than this, within this region the average production per inhabitant is 0.57 of a bale and a little less (0.47 of a bale) per acre, while the average for the entire state per inhabitant is only 0.21 of a bale. Again, of the above 81 per cent., 70 belongs to the two tiers of counties lying nearest to the Mississippi river. Of these only a small portion is bottom land of the Mississippi river, the greater part by far being gently rolling uplands (" table lands"), such as form also a large body in northwestern Mississippi, and extend, gradually narrowing, as far south as Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

It thus appears that the cotton production of Tennessee is concentrated upon a comparatively small area of highly productive lands, the rest being devoted preferably to grain, grasses, tobacco, and other industries, to which the soils and climates are more specially adapted; while in the other cotton-growing states cotton is very generally grown as a matter of course, regardless of other cultures, of which the partial pursuit, at least, would in the end be more profitable than exclusive cotton-planting.

Arkansas produces its 608,000 bales (in round numbers) on somewhat over a million of acres, making the average product per acre 0.58 (slightly lower than that of Louisiana) and the average per inhabitant 0.76 of a bale. A cursory examination shows that by far the greater portion of the cotton produced comes from the eastern and southern portions of the state, which contain a large proportion of bottom lands, while in the extreme northern and northwestern counties but little cotton is grown. The form of the returns makes it difficult to segregate the production of the uplands and lowlands in this case; but the product per acre of the bottom county of Chicot stands second to the highest on the list, and it is safe to assume that, on detailed discussion, the average production of uplands and lowlands will be found, respectively, to be about the same as in Louisiana. In both states alike the use of fertilizers in the large-scale production of cotton may be regarded as wholly insignificant in its influence on the general result.

In the case of Louisiana, as in that of Tennessee, a considerable portion (about one-fourth) of the state is devoted mainly to other cultures than that of cotton, the sugar-cane gaining precedence in the lowland country lying south of the mouth of Red river, in which only about 6 per cent. of the total amount of cotton is produced, but at the average rate of 0.80 bale per acre. Nearly the same or a slightly higher average per acre is obtained in the alluvial lands north and west of the mouth of Red river, and in the Red river valley itself. The small parish of East Carroll, in the northeastern corner of the state, has the highest average product per acre of any county in the cotton states (0.95 of a bale), and stands second in total production within the state. It will be noted that East Carroll lies opposite Issaquena county, Mississippi, and adjoins Chicot county, Arkansas, both representing maxima of product per acre in their respective states; and there can be no doubt that were the riverward portion of Washington county, Mississippi, segregated from the less productive interior portion its product per acre (0.87) would equal that of Issaquena (0.88). We have here apparently the center of maximum cotton production on natural soils in the United States, and probably in the world.

The average product per acre in the uplands of Louisiana (0.41) is approximately half that of the lowlands; and as the average for the state is 0.59, it follows that somewhat more than half the acreage in cotton belongs to the uplands, while the lowlands yield nearly two-thirds of the entire amount. This predominance of lowland cotton explains the higher average product per acre in Louisiana as compared with Mississippi, where less than one-third of the cotton production comes from the Yazoo bottom lands. Within the cotton-growing region proper the average production is approximately 0.95 of a bale per inhabitant, but as this figure excludes the entire population of the city of New Orleans, so largely interested in cotton, it is not fairly comparable with the proportion existing in other states. If one-half the population of the city be taken as mainly interested in cotton, the per capita proportion would stand 0.80 bale.

The great state of Texas, while first in population, stands third in the list of total cotton production among the cotton states. The fact shown by the figures of acreage and total production, viz, that in the average product per acre (0.37) it stands eleventh in rank, will be a surprise to most persons, and is doubtless in part to be accounted for as an accident of the season, the year 1879 having been an unusually dry one, and therefore especially unfavorable to a country having a scanty rainfall, and in which so large a proportion of the staple is grown on upland soils. Among these the heavy black-prairie soils, so highly productive in favorable seasons, are notoriously the first to suffer from drought. It is probable that in ordinary seasons the average product per acre in Texas would approach more nearly that of Mississippi or South Carolina.

A discussion of the returns shows that 52 per cent. of the cotton product of Texas is grown in the northeastern portion of the state, north of the thirty-second parallel and east of the ninety-eighth meridian, and that within this region the production is highest in the counties adjoining Red river, the product averaging 0.54 bale per acre. South of the thirty-second parallel the average yield is 0.34 bale per acre. The coast counties produce but little cotton; inland, between Red river and San Antonio, about 35 per cent. of the total product is grown on black

a The "central basin" includes the valleys of the Cumberland, Duck, and Elk rivers, with tributaries.

prairie land, the average product per acre on such land being (in 1879) 0.34 baie per acre. A comparison of the returns of the present census with those of the preceding one shows that within the last decade the region of cotton production has extended westward 75 miles. On the south but very little cotton is grown south and west of the Nueces river.

Compared to the area of fertile lands susceptible of cotton culture, the present cotton acreage of Texas is almost insignificant..

The cases of the two Carolinas with respect to cotton production are nearly alike, and may as well be considered together. In both states the average cotton product per acre is high as compared with that of Georgia and Alabama, and in the case of North Carolina approaches that of Mississippi itself. Without entering into details on the subject of the distribution of cotton production in these states, it may be broadly stated that the culture of cotton is reported to have greatly extended of late, even up the slopes of the Blue Ridge itself. Among the causes leading to this gratifying result reports received show that the use of fertilizers, and, with it, better methods of culture, are foremost. In other words, these two members of the original union of thirteen have been the first to place cotton culture upon a permanent foundation by adopting a system of regular returns to the soil; and the high product per acre, as compared with Georgia and Alabama on the one hand and with Mississippi on the other, exhibits tellingly the tide-wave advancing westward, the ebb of the first native fertility in Alabama and Florida, the rising tide of restored productiveness in the Carolinas, with Georgia on the westward slope of the wave, on which it is rising and showing distinctly a higher product per acre in its eastern than in its western portion, where the use of fertilizers is much less extended.

2.-THE BORDER COTTON STATES.

The concentration of cotton culture upon the most fertile lands, already so apparent in Tennessee, becomes even more so in Missouri, the most northerly region of large-scale cotton production. It appears from Table III that Missouri stands at the head of the list for cotton product per acre cultivated in that crop, and it seems singular that this should be the case at the extreme northern limit of cotton culture; but the anomaly disappears when we locate the area of production, and it becomes apparent that it embraces almost exclusively the highly fertile lowlands lying at the head of the great "Saint Francis bottom", in the southeastern corner of the state. Their product per acre must therefore be compared with that of others of a similar character, e. g., that of the Yazoo bottom; here, as is partly shown in Table III, the average product ranges between 0.80 and 0.88 of a bale per acre, to offset the 0.66 to 0.75 shown by the Missouri cotton area. Assuming the soils to be similar in average fertility in either region, the difference is manifestly due to the comparatively short season for the development of the cottonplant in the latitude of the Missouri cotton region; and for the same reason cotton is there grown only on those lands whose high fertility insures the most rapid development. Taking these points into consideration, the product per acre seems high, owing, perhaps, to careful cultivation by white labor.

The cotton production of Kentucky pertains, in the main, to what has been appropriately styled the "penumbral" region of that industry. The bulk is produced in the counties lying adjacent to western Tennessee and to the Mississippi river, the latter embracing portions of the rich bottom, with an average product per acre of from 0.48 to 0.56 of a bale. Eastward the cotton is grown in small patches, mostly for home consumption. Such small tracts being well cultivated, the product per acre is comparatively high, even so as to reach the average of the counties bordering on the Mississippi river, doubtless through the use of manure.

In Virginia the cotton-producing region is confined to ten counties lying in the southeastern portion of the state, adjacent to North Carolina, and corresponding in their surface features and soils to the chief cotton-producing portion of the latter state. Accordingly the average product per acre of both states is the same, viz, 0.44 bale or 621 pounds of seed-cotton. A comparison with the returns of the census of 1870 shows a material increase of area as well as of total production of cotton in Virginia within the last ten years, as cotton was then produced in fifteen counties, with a reported product of 183 bales, as against 19,595 bales now shown from ten counties. The change indicates a tendency to the concentration of cotton culture in the southeastern portion of the state.

In the Indian territory the area of cotton production extends as far north as Tahlequah, in the Cherokee nation, and a few miles north of Muscogee, Creek nation; but the great bulk of the crop is produced south of the Canadian river, and in the Red River region from the Arkansas line as far west as Caddo, on the Missouri, Kansas and Texas railroad.

In the case of California no cotton was reported by the enumerators, but a special examination showed that cotton was grown during the census year in one locality, viz, on the bottom lands of the Merced river, to the extent shown in the table, the yield having been about a 400-pound bale per acre. The staple has at various times, however, been successfully grown in localities scattered throughout the Sacramento and San Joaquin valleys; but the limitation of the local market, and the great distance from the centers of manufacture, has thus far restricted production. The culture is, however, on the increase, since not only the excellence of the staple, but other natural causes, more specially referred to in the report on the state, seem to point to it as a promising industry in the future. In Arizona successful experiments in cotton culture have been made, but not as yet to the extent of marketing the product. The perennial character which the plant assumes there, as well as in southern California, may ultimately turn the balance in favor of its cultivation.

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »