[203] Ellmore/Middleton/Pryor, March 8, 1979.
[204] Beard/Netherton/Reed, November, 1974.
[205] See _Ibid._, Derr Reports, 1926 and 1928; and Schaefer, _The Social History of American Agriculture_, 162.
[206] Virginia Agricultural Advisory Council, _A Five Year Program for Development of Virginia Agriculture_ (Richmond, 1923), 17; and Fairfax County Land Record Books, 1930-1931, in Virginiana.
[207] "Tax Rate," editorial in _Fairfax Herald_, April 23, 1926.
[208] Hawkes, "Harry Flood Byrd," 281.
[209] Beard/Harrison/Pryor, March 6, 1979.
[210] Editorial in _Fairfax Herald_, September 6, 1935.
PART IV
_The New Deal_
One of the most important changes to influence farming in the years between the two world wars was the new interest the government took in agriculture and its problems. For many years the nation had considered agriculture to be not just the fundamental, but the ideal way of life.
It was with a start, therefore, that people began to realize, soon after the turn of the century, that rural population was in fact decreasing, and that farm life fell short of the rosy dream of pastoral independence so cherished by Americans. A survey of farm conditions undertaken during the administration of President Theodore Roosevelt revealed that many rural areas lacked the most basic amenities offered in cities and that low farm prices r.e.t.a.r.ded the agriculturist"s efforts to better his condition. Farm conditions improved during the World War I years when the cries of "Feed the World" expanded markets and expectations.
Inevitably, though, this increased agricultural production became a liability, for when the European and domestic markets shrunk at the close of the war farm prices fell drastically. Many farmers, hoping to offset the low prices with higher yields, took advantage of the new technology to produce b.u.mper crops; the result was an additional surplus and even lower prices. Throughout the 1920s, the farm situation remained critical.[211]
The stock market crash of 1929 marked an extension and exacerbation of the grim farm conditions rather than a sudden decline. It rocked the farmer"s market, of course, by further decreasing the amount of raw products being sold; unemployed workers bought less of everything, and often kept gardens themselves. More crucial than the crash of 1929 to the farmer"s well-being in northern Virginia were two severe droughts, one in the late 1920s and the other in 1931. The latter was particularly harsh. Wheat planted in October did not come up until April, and one woman recalled that the cherry trees failed to blossom until the late fall.[212] Thousands of tons of hay and grain feeds had to be brought in from other parts of the country to feed the livestock, at enormous cost to the farmers. The combination of these unfortunate elements meant more mortgaged farms and tighter belts for the county"s farmers.[213]
Relief came in the form of the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) which went into effect in the spring of 1933. One of the earliest of Franklin Roosevelt"s New Deal policies, it offered a radically new approach to farm recovery. Whereas earlier governmental policies had relied on tariffs or half-hearted attempts to buy up surpluses to protect farm profits, the AAA promoted a scheme of "artificial scarcity." This was accomplished by price supports and through elimination of price-depressing surpluses by paying the growers to cut down their crop acreage. Payments were financed by taxing food processors, such as millers, who in turn shifted the burden to the consumer.[214]
Many of the AAA provisions were aimed at the large producers of the lower south and midwest, but they also had their effect in areas of smaller farms such as Fairfax County. Few county citizens were in absolute want during the Depression, in part because the effective work of the Maryland and Virginia Milk Producers a.s.sociation insured steady milk prices. Yet these and later policies were embraced as being the only available hope for turning around the farm situation. "They were distressed enough so that they were willing to cooperate in a considerable degree with anything that would help them out."[215]
Implementing the programs created some initial problems. A system of acreage allotment had to be devised for each farmer, and this involved setting up an intricate bureaucracy which included a county committee (made up of three local farmers), new responsibilities for the county agent, and close a.s.sociation with representatives of the new federal programs. Confusion existed about the allowances made in the act for home consumption and the process by which allotments were decided. To arrive at the allowances for wheat, for example, the farmer had to complete two forms, on which it was necessary to compute his average yield for a three-year period (1930-1932) then adjust it to relate to a five-year nationwide average; this figure, reduced by 15 to 20 percent was his allowed production. The ultimate decision was made by the members of the county committee who had been elected by the taxpayers.
"I"ve often wondered whether our judgment was accurate enough to really be used, but it was used," commented Holden Harrison who sat on the board.[216] The AAA county committee sought to be equitable in its determinations, but as in any process which tries to fit a series of requirements to individual cases, the decisions sometimes seemed arbitrary or unfair. Derr cited a case resulting from the Potato Act (which required a farmer to pay a penalty for yields exceeding his allotment) in which an older couple had "had poor luck with their potatoes for the base years; [they] almost wept when they learned that their future lease would be only forty bushels and they would have to pay a tax on what they sold over that amount."[217] Snags also occurred in the administration of the farm loan program, designed by the government to aid farmers in the purchase of seed and fertilizer. Not only were elaborate accounts of mortgage, store and personal debts, unpaid taxes and notes required (sometimes for a loan of $25.00), but repayment of the loan was set for dates such as July 1, when the crops were not yet harvested and ready cash was scarce. As a result, much of the money designated for aid to Fairfax County was never applied for.[218] To the farmer, accustomed to deciding for himself what and when he would plant, and unfamiliar with the niceties of bureaucratic finagling, the government sometimes seemed more geared to interference than a.s.sistance.
In reality, the programs affected Fairfax County less than other parts of northern Virginia. Statistics from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and the USDA show that only 71 wheat adjustment contracts were taken out in Fairfax County in 1935, compared to 233 for Fauquier County and 351 for Loudoun County. As each of these neighboring counties contained over 2,000 farms, these are small figures indeed.[219]
The federal government set few limits on milk or poultry production, the county"s two main economic sources, so the benefits of the AAA programs were often indirect. The princ.i.p.al effect was to force farmers to set aside about 15% of their land from wheat or corn production. Because Fairfax County farmers marketed little of their grain production, the outcome was that they received a bounty for planting another crop on this acreage, or allowing it to lie fallow and be fertilized. The policy resulted in a strong soil improvement program in the county, which was additionally aided by the cooperative buying power of the county committee. This meant, for instance, that purchases of lime needed to improve Fairfax County"s acidic soil could be had for $3.50 a ton, the cost at the quarry, plus handling charges.[220]
Of even greater benefit to Fairfax County farmers was the moratorium on mortgage and even interest payments during the Depression"s most severe period. Individual banks, such as the National Bank of Leesburg, which held many farm mortgages, also voluntarily followed the government"s policy of leniency on collection of farm debts. This relieved much of the stress on the area"s producers, allowing them to retain their land and, in some cases, even improve their holdings.[221]
The Depression years saw the advent of a radical new policy of government influence in farm affairs. Where laissez-faire had been the federal rule (and the farmers" desire), a control was now exercised over production, marketing and farm improvement. Though the farmer might believe this mitigated his independence and tied his judgment to that of an impersonal bureaucracy, he was forced to accept Uncle Sam"s interference. The role of the government in designing agricultural policy proved to be a lasting one, still felt by the farmer of the 1970s.
PART IV--NOTES
_The New Deal_
[211] Barger and Lansburg, _American Agriculture, 1899-1949_, 72-112.
[212] Beard/Harrison/Pryor, March 6, 1979; Rogers/Corbat, et al., June 12, 1970.
[213] Beard/Harrison/Pryor, March 6, 1979.
[214] Bailey, _The American Pageant_, 842-43.
[215] Rogers, Corbat, et al., June 12, 1970; Ellmore/Middleton/Pryor, March 8, 1979; Joseph Beard quoted in Beard/Harrison/Pryor, March 6, 1979.
[216] "Wheat Production Control Plan," _Herndon News-Observer_, July 27, 1933; "Wheat Allotment Based on Averages," _Ibid._, August 17, 1933; Beard/Harrison/Pryor, March 6, 1979.
[217] Derr Report, 1936, 4. The Potato Act, which would in fact have been disasterous for small farmers, was actually before any crop was harvested. However, its effect was still to create some hostility to government programs among farmers.
[218] Derr Reports, 1930, 1931, 1934.
[219] _Virginia Farm Statistics_ (Richmond, 1926, 1930, 1936).
[220] Beard/Harrison/Pryor, March 6, 1979.
[221] _Ibid._
PART V
_Community_
Beyond the family, with its special working relationship, the neighborhood community was the chief social unit for the farmer. It made available services the family could not provide for itself and added sociability and security to the farmer"s life. It also had some influence on the tenor of his work because a dynamic community spirit prompts individual enterprise. The Floris neighborhood on which this study is focused was such a vigorous community. Fairfax County was filled with similar crossroads which gave an ident.i.ty to each farming area and, with post office, blacksmith and general store, fulfilled the farmer"s simple requirements. Floris seems to have shown an outstandingly progressive impulse, however, and a social interaction which made it an area of particular cohesiveness and community longevity.[222]
The root of community interaction is neighborliness--an interest in and concern for other people. Villages contain the same variety of human relations and personality as large cities, with the advantage that the smaller number of people are more easily known and understood. There could be irritating aspects to this (privacy was not always available in abundance) but also a warm familiarity. The people of Floris were so well acquainted that each man"s favorite kind of pie was community knowledge.[223] Lottie Schneider, who grew up near Herndon, gave a charming description of village life in her book, _Memoirs of Herndon, Virginia_:
Everyone was interested in his neighbor. We shared our joys and sorrows, were sympathetic to each other. When we went down the street we knew everybody and would stop to greet each other. There was a village atmosphere of friendliness and kindness. How often I pause over every memory and savor again the charm of the friendly neighbors, the school and church relationships, the simple everyday happenings which like a weaver"s shuttle steadily wove the lights and shadows into the tapestry of life.[224]
Neighborliness went beyond social interaction; it was also the basis for mutual aid and cooperation. Work on hauling projects, barn raisings and emergency a.s.sistance was readily available. "If somebody got sick and couldn"t milk his cows, why the neighbors would go over and help him,"
related Joseph Beard.
I remember the neighbor next door to me had the flu, and everybody thought he was going to die and the snow was about twenty inches deep.... There was a wife left there with three ... small children, not of school age. My father not only did our work, but he went over and did their work too.[225]
Mutual a.s.sistance, concern and hospitality were the bedrock of community relations.
[Ill.u.s.tration: A map of the Floris community, c. 1930, drawn from memory by Joseph Beard.]
Rapid communications made information on everyone"s activities neighborhood knowledge. County agent Derr noted that it was "remarkable how rapidly news travels, whether good or bad," and that this was in fact an a.s.set to his work.[226] The postal agent and telephone operator were two other information catalysts. The postmaster, Thomas Walker, was notorious for reading the postcards which pa.s.sed his way, and often called the recipients to inform them of impending visits by relatives, or tidings of birth or death.[227] Telephone lines were put up in 1916, "strung on trees, just old poles up and down the road"[228] and this greatly speeded channels of gossip and necessary information. The telephone operator worked from her own bedroom and was the source for all the latest news. "If you didn"t know what was going on in the neighborhood, all you had to do was ask the telephone operator," one Floris resident observed. "She knew everything."[229] In a more pragmatic sense the operator was depended upon for help during emergencies. The fear of isolation, a chief liability of rural areas, was much reduced by the improved roads and telecommunications of the first decade of the 20th century.