English-owned plantation
The above words appeared in my text
…Immediate cognitive dissonance
I reread the paragraph for context. According to Lost Revolutions in the South, there was an English company called Delta and Pine Land Company in Mississippi. They owned a significant amount of farmland.
Of course, English-owned companies owned land in America. I bet some of our largest institutions are based overseas (as 2020 has repeatedly shown, corporations do not prioritize their communities). The idea of English-owned plantations is disgusting. Considering slavery as an institution propagated by business interests is revolting and yet… accurate. We spend so much time hating each other that we forget who, or what, caused the acrimony. Thomas Jefferson famously hated the institution of slavery but could see no way to prioritize humanity as much as his business interests. Obviously, hating slavery did not prevent his acquiescence to “the large plantation owners” when drafting the U.S. Constitution. That phrase puts the problem on the individuals. Yes, we must hold people accountable but, perhaps the lenses should also be zoomed out.
Who is or was Delta and Pine Land Company in Mississippi?
In 1886, it began as a timber speculating company. Tax laws allowed the company to hold large tracts of land and in 1911 the Fine Cotton Spinners’ and Doublers’ Association Ltd purchased 38,000 acres of farmland in Mississippi under the umbrella of D&PL.
Who or what was the Fine Cotton Spinners’ and Doublers’ Association?
An association of cotton spinners in England. Businessmen of similar trades joined forces to reduce the cost of cotton in order to drive up profit. In principle, a worthy endeavor. The rich found some loopholes to exploit.
What did the Delta and Pine Land Company do with 38,000 acres of quality farmland?
Exploited black men, women, and children who planted, picked, and cared for cotton crops in the deep south
Who was to blame?
Oscar Goodbar Johnston was born in Mississippi and earned the name “King Cotton” for his advocacy for large plantation friendly regulations. He held many political appointments related to agriculture. Although he recognized that living conditions were poor, his concern was limited to correcting what was “affordable”. By preventing sharecroppers from accumulating wealth, the policies of D&PL continued the paternalistic suppression of tenet farmers. Reducing tenets to mere planters and laborers, decreased autonomy, and self-dependency. The revival of work-gangs increased efficiency but at the cost of Mississippi communities. The paternalistic suppression extended into lines of credit, shopping options, and even religious worship.
Although dishonesty was rampant and tenants complained, D&PL did not investigate claims of management cheating. Instead, stories of the “rich tenet” were spread by officials. One official at the Mississippi State Experiment Station asked, “What other class of employer furnishes free shelter, fuel, water, garden, and pasture space?” The costs of participation in the system were too much for many. However, leaving the plantation often led to being hunted by company militias and their dogs.
Corruption at the highest levels of the company reached the White House. The Agricultural Adjustment Act was supposed to stabilize the agriculture markets during the Great Depression. The plan, similar to the Paycheck Protection Plan in 2020, was to buy surplus from farmers, who would limit their production while land-owners cared for their tenets. Cotton prices stabilized but life for the poor tenets did not. The wealth-gap increased thanks to additional funds supplied by American taxpayers. Senate investigations discovered nearly $400,000 paid to the British company, whose CEO was a ranking member of the Agricultural Adjustment Administration. Business concerns outweighed upsetting the status quo and eventually, the controversy died down.
Cheap cotton was key to D&PL’s business model and support from the British Monarchy ensured a ready supply from their colonies. Contrary to public statements, agriculture in Mississippi was not profitable. Through lobbying and backroom deals, D&PL earned money by leasing land to the government for experimentation of pesticides and crops. Planes used during WWII were outfitted for crop dusting and various chemicals filled the air and water of Mississippi. Over the years nicotine sulfate, calcium cyanide, arsenic, 2,4-D, and DDT were applied to large farms to study the effects. Full-page ads claimed that Weedone and Weedust would allow science to triumph over nature. We know now how much damage was done to the farmers and residents who were exposed to these chemicals. Clifford's report, Silent Spring, and the ban of DDT helped to shine a spotlight on the effects but did little to counteract the intentional poisoning of Americans.
Peace is government's primary goal. The United States Department of Agriculture chose to hide evidence of poisoning from their constituents. The Federal Drug Administration refused to publicize high levels of DDT and other toxins in commercially available milk products. When cattlemen were informed their stock may have unsafe levels of pesticides, they refused to cooperate with USDA inspectors. At the highest levels of the American government, corporate priorities and greed ran rampant at the expense of our neighbors. The Mississippi Delta was systematically and purposefully exposed to toxins in the name of progress. The experimental effects continue to be seen and felt throughout the south. Our government paid foreign countries to exploit and harm Americans and we call it progress?
Except where quoted:
Lindsey, Stella D., “Beyond Isolation: The Mississippi Delta in a Global World” (2017). Electronic Theses and Dissertations. 1431. https://egrove.olemiss.edu/etd/1431
Nelson, Lawrence J. “Oscar Johnston, the New Deal, and the Cotton Subsidy Payments Controversy, 1936–1937.” The Journal of Southern History, vol. 40, no. 3, 1974, pp. 399–416. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/2206491. Accessed 5 Jan. 2021.
Nelson, Lawrence J. “Welfare Capitalism on a Mississippi Plantation in the Great Depression.” The Journal of Southern History, vol. 50, no. 2, 1984, pp. 225–250. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/2209460. Accessed 5 Jan. 2021.
