Thank you for visiting SNEWPapers!
Sign up free
Editorial
March 13, 1902
Oxford Eagle
Oxford, Lafayette County, Mississippi
What is this article about?
Editorial advocates for Southern farmers, especially in North Mississippi, to plant more corn and less cotton to achieve self-sufficiency, reduce imports from the North, increase cotton prices, and promote regional prosperity by retaining money locally.
Clipping
OCR Quality
92%
Excellent
Full Text
MORE CORN-LESS COTTON.
Statistics show that there has been a decided increase in the amount of corn shipped to this country from the north, for the past three years. This is probably the case in the majority of the towns of North Mississippi. It is true that a succession of dry summers, and partial failure in the corn crops, one of the causes of this troublesome necessity, but it is by no means the sole or main cause.
Scarcity of corn in our state owing to the failure of farmers to plant sufficient corn crop to supply home consumption. The planter knows that the merchant, the doctor, the preacher, the lawyer, and sometimes even the editor, must be paid in cotton, and the advance in the price of cotton has caused a corresponding increase in acreage, and a diminishing in the acreage in corn. The farmer, like everybody else needs money, and plants cotton to get it. This would be all right if he didn't have to pay out all the money the cotton brings, for corn and meat, when he could as easily raise both on his farm, and turn them into cash any day he desired.
The scarcity of corn of course, means a rise in pork, and buying high priced northern meat is death blow to our independence.
It is a fact that one crop of corn may be produced and harvested in half the time, and with half the labor required for making crop of cotton, yet the average farmer who has a hundred acres to plant, will put three quarters of his land in cotton and the remainder in corn. A reversal of this custom throughout the South, would completely change the financial condition of our country. In the first place, the decrease in the acreage of cotton would cause a decided advance in the price of that staple. In the second place, it wouldn't be necessary to import a single grain of corn, or a single pound of meat, in the South, and the money now circulating from southern pockets into northern enterprises, and staying there, would be kept at home.
Such a reversal of time-honored customs among southern agriculturists would cause wide spread prosperity just where it is most needed, and we trust that the suggestion of more corn and less cotton will agitate our farmers until they resolve to abandon the old way for one decidedly better.
Statistics show that there has been a decided increase in the amount of corn shipped to this country from the north, for the past three years. This is probably the case in the majority of the towns of North Mississippi. It is true that a succession of dry summers, and partial failure in the corn crops, one of the causes of this troublesome necessity, but it is by no means the sole or main cause.
Scarcity of corn in our state owing to the failure of farmers to plant sufficient corn crop to supply home consumption. The planter knows that the merchant, the doctor, the preacher, the lawyer, and sometimes even the editor, must be paid in cotton, and the advance in the price of cotton has caused a corresponding increase in acreage, and a diminishing in the acreage in corn. The farmer, like everybody else needs money, and plants cotton to get it. This would be all right if he didn't have to pay out all the money the cotton brings, for corn and meat, when he could as easily raise both on his farm, and turn them into cash any day he desired.
The scarcity of corn of course, means a rise in pork, and buying high priced northern meat is death blow to our independence.
It is a fact that one crop of corn may be produced and harvested in half the time, and with half the labor required for making crop of cotton, yet the average farmer who has a hundred acres to plant, will put three quarters of his land in cotton and the remainder in corn. A reversal of this custom throughout the South, would completely change the financial condition of our country. In the first place, the decrease in the acreage of cotton would cause a decided advance in the price of that staple. In the second place, it wouldn't be necessary to import a single grain of corn, or a single pound of meat, in the South, and the money now circulating from southern pockets into northern enterprises, and staying there, would be kept at home.
Such a reversal of time-honored customs among southern agriculturists would cause wide spread prosperity just where it is most needed, and we trust that the suggestion of more corn and less cotton will agitate our farmers until they resolve to abandon the old way for one decidedly better.
What sub-type of article is it?
Agriculture
Economic Policy
What keywords are associated?
Corn Production
Cotton Acreage
Southern Agriculture
Crop Diversification
Economic Self Sufficiency
Northern Imports
What entities or persons were involved?
Southern Farmers
North Mississippi Towns
Editorial Details
Primary Topic
Advocacy For Planting More Corn And Less Cotton In The South
Stance / Tone
Strongly Advocating Agricultural Diversification For Economic Independence
Key Figures
Southern Farmers
North Mississippi Towns
Key Arguments
Increase In Corn Imports Due To Insufficient Local Planting
Farmers Prioritize Cotton For Cash To Pay Debts, Neglecting Corn
Planting More Corn Reduces Need For Expensive Northern Imports
Less Cotton Acreage Would Raise Cotton Prices
Corn Production Requires Less Time And Labor Than Cotton
Diversification Promotes Financial Prosperity And Keeps Money In The South