xt7q833n0710 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7q833n0710/data/mets.xml Charlestown County, South Carolina United States Works Progress Administration Division of Social Research Rural Section 1936 Preliminary report; Prepared by W. W. Troxell and others; 66 leaves: illustrations, maps, charts, 27 cm; Cover title has Research Bulletin (Not for Release); UK holds archival copy for ASERL Collaborative Federal Depository Program libraries; Call number Y 3.W 89/2:13/J3 books English Washington, D.C. This digital resource may be freely searched and displayed in accordance with U. S. copyright laws. South Carolina Works Progress Administration Publications Combined Farming-Industrial Employment in Charlestown County, South Carolina text Combined Farming-Industrial Employment in Charlestown County, South Carolina 1936 1936 2015 true xt7q833n0710 section xt7q833n0710   H3./\M8q/··2¤ Il < l»’= -=-7*    EEEEEEE  EL  '·z== aaaa=aEaaaaasaa==uazaaaasaa aaaaaaaaaaa = I
=; gl : |. E . I .· z  2 9, ,,,- gg _ A iam? 'EEEE.:E::: ;;;5;; I
.. F5  S »   E I- xp =       =aaaaa· ¤¤=¤=
if II  |   |I..-     E iégs :$§¤¤=¤¤.   E
ii   I ‘ ·¤I|  je ;  ‘ErEI¤s=I,·éEEE§ E Egsaaaaa aaass .
I  F »I  »  -i5 . ;:?`:~ .. Mer,  EEEEEEEEE .... EEEEE
v ° # w°‘ _:‘é "—=   hI?;*£ EEE? aaaasasaé aaaass
  M I I:    ;2»»—E%* zi; —#—;g EEEE: saaggasaa ssaaas =
  ..== E Ic  —  fi:   éE= E~>>€¤E  
I Z ‘ 2 E Y 2 ` I I =¢ @1.;%; 
EI § F     g » g  6 —u;E~¤ agi; IamazaaaaE;saas= ·
  IIIIIEIIII 8 · 5 III § ?I , E? E "  
»_,V Mh, ··¤¤;i E . 5%   I • ' ||I  "EEEEEEEEEEE
  I I. 5 . fig   » s D
é '|I|" III,. I _ 6 E O I Q M ;§: szaaq aaga E2 u
  b   E E I ` ;__;  25;   tigihiiig E N g 1
  ‘   · —- · IIIIIIIIIII     ;E§‘.%
NIH m J I !I¤“ IIII ; gift 3ZT,T,i?' Ijjj 'L"“‘ O ""; , •. O 5
    7 5   IIIIEIIIIII     IE    
E E  E Q E  :5: IIQ  IIIISIIIII  ::%,,:2 »s·.a¤
’ 5 ` Z (w;· 2 rg; I;I~ I»§_III ig;uJ;;,2i*.;? TI;   _ . ;; ‘* 2
    72 I    IIE IIII  
*;7‘ ,__,--;1:1.,,W z J ‘>?¤ · ,,: < •.. u
I   5 E   3  IEE EEEI   ° “ E
zi HW, _,,, , , ,. , . ._»._.. · ¥
¤ ‘ W -&—¢E;_-§;_~’ ¤;;  gE: E:§=
>     E I 5 A6    
"' ° W W >ii1?;;’§;,;Fi; i E-; -; 2;; EEE
I ` E ;   ;¤;;-EQ U   ;+$i¤;EIIIs=sEE5 E
5 *§   iifcqirféiigéi      é
EE   *¥??   %"·-’ ¤¢=iI·?IE III;  5
EE E r>>a;; — .
_4r F '/-T /;`> I" g § §
O I__ OWL  ' °\`·—/f/<( 8 O ff com
(D \\ A  \\ `Q Z Z :  E
aj ’ “~ —%·Iw ` 9 M ~ 29; 2
< \' " ` \ ¤> O f -*4 mg
U) LL]  v' ’ " *·;k*(`\°, lj ZJ I ;§> *§
|_|J —  §U`"*“YJ i E E EQLL? EQ .,7
K5 0- I   ·,; T"' E` 5 U 242 0( ¤ .
‘ >- |-  $" 'i ~€?°`f’¢/2 N  »<§@°*‘¤35Jé3§ E
U- w `·/O "’¤{’“ :·?<:§°?§Z°Z ~ ¥
I- D  *’# %¤Z<* H  2.;,€i2¥*S§é§$ Q »2
‘ #~ ~_/w` \` OQ ·¤""i~g—· »— Z *5
O  ‘?  `*.{\G?` \J`{ § ;g ;8“5‘Z¤*2·;Q 5 $1i
U) gm `  Z—d\ ¤•` O mm lng) O ¤: _»
O —*  > gig" `&>’\`L’L :5 3 Qwiléigg §`Q  
Lu - #  ·#·°\ » wmizz z<;sa&:zm=;
Ll-I " ' °¤ O3 [I wml! .10n: ..,
'\1 ~ ‘ ;Zc>·—m ·=<*<¤<;O8:i
[~ »~  l` '  z, ¢>O"< *-<(¤¤“ 04-·*
l__   ‘L\ Q, &>¤"’ $"I$§gZ§"”$!
l I X   l ` $` J ***0 "§§&Z*‘$*¤»93,
`
m;< oc:
Z *   § r <..¤¤·-JQ J
Z  `· `     \\ |;`Jh-m§§_]§;B;`
___ V ·>4 ~. ; c; 11*2;
`.. Q  ’ qq  O . nl; 9} <3:$¢
O Y as 4   5 ,   ‘*:  
V .   7  *9
LL-I `_ E ‘< I  ge
m ` |  I "· OL` ~¤~`   * QD 3; *
- •-~ 60   i5` `\~ *9 w ri I
, {   ff, ·
A ;   _A! ‘\__*f}·gf   *
li  · _ \·»”` _ /i_ _r>—_\ 0*1 .E
l` {xl  up *1*] gm EZP {
1 Ii < ’C=. `AT.   ‘
I  ` ,' £~°°"    gm
n ld \I _·L7 V .;m>
' _ M §`r‘:, _ OQ?
·i:Q  ‘ _T   ° gik
;" `VJJ  
\\    LJ   \ FEES
f L \` Etmm t
\ O- < { ¤° ¤§j<
7~ l. ¤ 'L ’ ¤51m<¤n
` '- ¤. T mj \ ;j¤3
  ¢~ fl <# *’ “"‘ ‘ '
·L_ u ‘_< D¤J_(»-
l   _ I  /M4 ·~¤¤—<
(nj *‘ All v'l’- p-(gd
a ~*   ~¤“  
/ \ i»>\ 1 502
* (<»\ *-{YA   égég
\xA*_;xr_ Yr l 0'EOJ
 xQ\? ‘~\  ¤ °°"Zi3
y   ,v/J _   0 ZQUO
*   ¤  
    B gizi
  *‘;¤l;J I
\k.Ir gl-u|éJ< Ld
J \ 7 IDU] [5
VJ zI—O’1 ,_
I 902*- Jl
l I-Z‘O  
g<£(<( 24
zur `
`i:J<&*·¤
I Z4 E
mgsm Q
¤_OmO (,
<¤;0*‘ ¤-
§0¢1 W
MES O
‘L’O`¤c lh
I [D
D-**1;.40 ·
EI D
}-·LLJ ‘,
O3 Ei
" ‘5
3 
i
I

 5 ,;  
:3;, V,
  I ll
gy — vi — i?
  in
( South Carolina, is the most important area of any considerable size in 1
j the whole region. These two counties together include 50 percent of the i
l total value of farm land and buildings for the whole Flatwoods region of ,
South Carolina and Georgia.l/ I
The considerations leading to the selection of Charleston
County for study in this region were: (1) it includes one of the three
leading seaports; (2) it includes a part of tho principal truck farming ~
area; (3) it includes a considerable number of part—time farms; and (4)
the relief load has been relatively high. The 1930 Census of Agriculture I
reported 347 part—time farms in Charleston County, accounting for 18 per— `
cent of the total number of farms. In October 1934 the number of families
receiving relief in Charleston County amounted to 23 percent of the number I
I of families recorded in the 1930 Census of Population.
Criteria for_§glgcpipg_§gpilies. The location of farms clas— (
sified as part—time in the l930 Census was useful in indicating those `
counties in which there was considerable combined—farming industrial em-
ployment, but this classificationg/did not include all combinations which
_ were considered within the scope of the present study. In order to ap-
proach more nearly the limits of this study a classification was set up
including all farms reporting 75 days or more of off-the—farm employment t
for the operator. A special tabulation of 1930 Census data showed 607
Y farms, or 3l percent of all farms in Charleston County, with this amount
' of outside employment. These farms were fairly uniformly distributed over I
. the rural portion of the county; only three were located on the Charleston
· peninsula.
The portion of the county located southwest of the Ashley River
and including the center of the truck farming area was selected for more
intensive study of these farms, using Census data.
After excluding families that had moved during 1929 or 1930, 386
in this area remained for study. Eowever, 363 of these were Negro and 23
were white. This was too small a group for an adequate study of part—time
farming by whites, and since most of the Negroes included were laborers on
truck farms in addition to being operators of small farms of their own, no
basis was afforded for studying combinations of farming with the industries
of the City of Charleston. For these reasons attention was directed to a
special field study. (
a
A field survey was conducted wiring the summer of 1935 in which
information was securedé/from families that, during 1934, (1) operated at
least three quarters of an acre of tillable land and/or produced farm
products valued at $50 or more, and (2) whose heads worked at least 50 days V
`
L/U. S. Census of AgricultureL_l935, preliminary reports.
Q/Those farms were classified as part~time farms whose operators spent 150
days or more at work in 1929 for pay at jobs not connected with their farms y
or reported an occupation other than farmer, provided the value of the
products of the farm did not exceed $750. This presupposes the Census
definition of a farm as comprising at least three acres or more unless
it produced $250 worth of farm products or more.
1 3/See Appendix C for a copy of the schedule used.

 ‘’’’ ' “" ' hit
·2 . W
z f I "
,t  J  
lv  ll
`#" it
  —· Vii — il!
  1
w »~
ag off the home farm. Only families which had operated the same farm during Q
ri iz  both 1933 and 1934 were included- The purpose of this limitation was to ro
phi exclude those who were just getting established as part—time farmers. All V
{gi professional and proprietary workers, except small storekeepers, were ex-
`EL Cluded, since a different set of considerations are involved in the Case of
E, “white collar“ workers with small farms and of "gentleman farmers". The
Qj study thus included a wider range of farming-industrial combinations than ¥
Qi did the classification from Census data of farmers reporting 75 days OT
é more of off—the—farm employment.
gl  
§» The inclusion of a considerable number of persons whose sole
il occupation was farming, and who were part—time farmers only in that they
ri worked part~time on small farms of their own and part—time as wage earners r
3 on other farms, requires a word of explanation. Coming logically within d
é the definition set up, they were included in order to describe in more Q
Q detail the situation which accounts for most of the part—time farming {
pi reported by the l93O Census of Agriculture for this subregion. p
M
g Area Co s Enumerated. Field enum- Q
§ eration was limited to the Charleston peninsula and to the four nearest Q
2 townships across the Ashley River. This area included most of those who ‘
5 work in the urban industries, since a high bridge toll renders commuting p
Q from across the Cooper River to the north of the city impractical. It
{ also includes a portion of the truck farming section.
  1
s. Records were secured from 213 unite and Negro families that met g
ly the above requirements. Their location is shown on the map (Figure 3).
._VV { This represents a nearly complete census of white part—time farmers (ac-
{; cording to the definition used) in the eight minor civil divisions included
. ig‘ in the enumeration. Occasional cases were passed by when any particular A
s “f. difficulty or delay would have been involved in securing the necessary data.
fg The enumeration of Negro part—time farmers was equally complete in and near _
Q Charleston, but less nearly complete in the rural portion of the county (
% where farm laborers were found in large numbers. The location of the cases
§ enumerated by townships is shown in Table l. r
  I
H
  ¤
.4
§ i
Q
F i A
» x
(
  E
_, é i

 M  s§’<*4> Q in de gg I- Q  
  'Vb-,,~7sO 5 Li ’ ‘]§;' S U7 Z I ;
 ¢  >_ qw, 18%; A S 5 zi \ Lj   @··
  Y M,. " "’> ’¤ E) ew *0 25 *2 ·
E =_ , Lu { G · '• O   U') Q ; < jj; .1 I` I
 ;. _ lu 2 LZ,]  \ HVOBVBS • 26;;-; 1/L, ) I gg Ld 5 1 ',
    g I/,53  ~_\     ”’-¤c,°`;/ U } I Z Y  
2    gg Nwawmcs . y-E. ‘ ”'_' "‘    { Q)k`° E
 · Q w~*“ <» Q · x `£€e O ° I
j  k (,L;’_3__,...·-·-·\ // x ` W  
  ,....--·-—·  4 1·
  LJ;]   /' 7 *0, f) r
‘ LL ,     I O G  
g Z , ··   ii
  Q >. / • ch il
5 Q g Z’ ° CJ I ¤
I ._- Z • O Ii
é 6 8/ GJ é jo ‘  
  . (Q? Lu g
  m g/Z g U) 5 -. <. Q {   ·  
  6 ,07 O U -1 O ‘ J • •· • 6 Q , z E  
  “" ’ § I- ;> ¤ < ' · *3 S E 5 “
; U- D: gg I 5 2 ° . :§_:=   . , LL. 5 g g  
  xm Lu *— EE 5 5 2 .`¤ ‘€··‘.·°   * i E E %
 ’ u. El 3 9 2/· ·<.°·,¤,: · Qi EE ·
` —   I Il) D-
E E gm { g ‘• O ‘;
  gy g U`) A Q é $5 ·· •. * U m  
  _ . gf ` *
ix :I U ¢/ U gy ’MH   Hluow 3** `
  I +— :,4 M V ‘* · E
  § / (I) { @ I` gm x
é fl ST Z   i
33 LI- , en- I
  O ` » Q x
$ " ’m¤% ` ,-J ‘“  ~’ _ »
1 <[ ` A }- _ , ‘ *
g 0 · ( a - *
g _] \ @$,09 Li { `
§
    ,BE/\|B·—OlS/ `
  {
 — ·

 I I MWWI IW", IW I I  
I `  
I; II
I I  
I   —— lx —  
I¥_ Table 1. Location of Part—Time Farms by Toynship and Type I'
If of Employment off the Home Farm,@ 1934 M
  I I `
  ___ UWIWW FV_i_i___Er@_IbI$enti€>ff the home Fe2%m_1; _ _` I
In Township _ Total IAgricultureI Rural I Ufbe¤
 I  ___ _____ I ___ ___ lndustri gs__II_n_dustri es II
ILI _____ White Ne roIThiteINe ro WhiteINeg;gQWhite Near0___
I I I
I  To tai I 71 142 9 I 94 I BO I 13 42 ss I
I I I — I
If I I I
IQ Wedmalaw Island I 16 58 6 I 54 I 1G ` 2 — 2
III Johns Island 5 6 - I 2 I 5 I 4 — — I
Ig` James Island 6 I 28 2 I 25 I 2 3 2 2 Q
'I· ,—L, St. Andrews 15 I 28 1 10 I 2 4 le 14 “I
c1' Second St. James and I I I
II Goose Creek 13 I 8 ~ I 1 I l — 12 7 _
II First St. James and _ I _ I I I I
II Goose Greek I 5 I 4 I - I 2 I — — 5 2 I
11 St. Michael and St. Philip I 12 I G I — I 1 - - 12 8 I
  chmiestm city   1   1 I - I 1 I - - 1 - I
  · I I
  TI.T_"""`“'_“‘—"if.i;;T.1‘_"I";?;Z‘T1"Z1Z;I,iIZIZ;‘.T `I;Q`.Y‘;L_.§`I"""_"’i`...-._.-._'_`~`°_` `T"_— __--`_——__  
  a/The classifi csgzti on of industry as rural and urban is based on location.
I — Those industries within the metronslit n area of Charleston were classified 'I
I- as urban and those in rural areas such as storckeening, mail carrying, I
,i‘ county road work, and school bus driving were classified as rural. I
I   I
I I I· I
  I
  I
I
  -
I
  I
  I
  I I
5  I
  I
g:  I
 I . I

 .. te
  2 Et;
  ti
  Hd
€  ‘ xs
  summm P:
gi ih
Iii No valid general answer can be given to the question of the ?=
'l·»»  S? desirability of combined farming~industrial employment as a way of liv- ip
`ii ing for white people in Charleston County. The farming activities con- 4
l]j tribute a substantial amount and variety of food to the family living at t
pg little net cash cost, and the farm does not appear to handicap the part—
if time farmer in earning money from industrial employment. Against this
VQ must be weighed such disadvantages as the extra work involved, the expense it
Y} Of commuting, and lack of urban facilities. The relative weights of the
yl advantages and disadvantages depend on the situation of the individual. N
iQf The fact that the number of white part-time farm families found was *
?s iii_ relatively small, in spite of a rather thorough search of the entire area p
{ within reasonable commuting distance of the industries, suggests that the I
i@i Het advantages qfthis way of living have not been sufficiently in evidence .
f` to attract many people. W
ii` There is some indication that Negro part-time farmers lived at i
Q- such distances from industrial establishments that they were handicapped »
TQT in securing employment. This was particularly evident for those employed {
Q in the fertilizer industry. The distances involved were not great for {
i automobile transportation but only two Negroes had automobiles which they L
yy" used in traveling to and from work. The shipping business is distinctly *
ty seasonal, with a slack period in the summer, but the docks are so far from
ff available farming land that no longshoremon or dock laborers were found 1
·5 doing part—time farming. p
 ` l
t· l
vt The possibilities of part—time farming as a device for improving i
t living conditions for whites and Negroes in this area seem to depend on ,
{ an educational program directed at increasing the food production of those I
 ; families who can live on small farms so located that they will not be handi— 5
ip capped in securing outside employment. I
Q The possibilities for rehabilitation of relief clients by the *
Qi part—time farming method appear to be limited. Sufficient employment to i
Q pfevide adequate cash income is essential. No marked increase in employ- T
Q ment is likely to take place in the Charleston area in the near future,
t and there is an ample supply of labor available locally to take care of a
_; considerably increased demand. i
., ! 4
g Seventy-one white part-time farmers were included in the study.
Y§ F0rty—two of these were engaged in urban industries, BO in industries of i
§ a distinctly rural nature, and nine in agriculture. A majority were regu-
§ larly employed at full—time jobs, but some had regular part~time jobs, and
g a few were casual workers. 1
  I
i Approximately two thirds of the white part—time farmers had small U
p non—commercial farms producing chiefly for their own use; the remaining 5
Q third had larger farms with significant commercial farm enterprises. PraC— M
# tically all of these part-time farmers grew vegetables, four fifths kept
Q chickens, one half had one or more cows, and slightly less than half kept
  1
  — X ~ I
_ \

 Mi;
_ 'mlfj.
5, U
  , ttl
f? . $
  - Xl —- dz
 5 D .
Qi one or more pigs. The estimated value of home-produced food by a typical Y
§g non—commercial white part-time farm family during 1954 was $187. Cash _°
Ll; receipts on non—commercial part—time farms averaged $30 as against average t
ii; ‘»»  cash farm expenses of $62. The average capitalized rental value of these
E€§ non—commercial part—time farms was $4,400 for owners and $2,293 for tenants- t
.4
tf; For comparison with the white part—time farmers a group of 103
lgl white industrial workers who did no farming was studied. Earnings of heads H
Qéi of households were about the same for this group as for the non—commercia1
if, part—time farmers in urban industries. The average was a little over $1,000 V
yi, per year. Total family cash incomes averaged about $1,250 for both of these
~ ari groups. Cash incomes were considerably lower for white part-time farmers in ,
gag rural industries. White workers were mostly skilled or semi-skilled workers
ifé or foremen. »
lil °
ifi Living facilities of most of the white part—time farmers were some- ll
itj what different from those of white industrial workers because of the location
[wQ of the farmers in the open country. only one half of the part-time farmers y
the had such facilities as electric lights, running water and baths, while near- H
lj. ly all of the city dwellers had them. Fear fifths of the part-time farmers q
lg, owned automobiles, which were needed for traveling to work, while only about t
}pr one half of the non—farmers hed.them. F
y L    ` H
ldd Part—time farming for Yegroes in Charleston County has had its T
,§] greatest development among farm laborers employed on commercial truck farms. t
1%% Of the large number of such cases, 94 were enumerated. Only 35 Negro part- Q
,§, time farmers were found who were employed in urban industries and 13 in “
tif rural industries. z
 `°`:_ Z  
`d= Practically all of the Negro part—time farmers grew vegetables, l
[QQ nearly three fourths kept chickens, nearly one half kept one or more pigs, l
ptj and nearly one fourth kent one or more cows. The estimated value of home
{QQ Produced family living for two typical Negro part—time farm families was ’
 {. about $70 each. Cash form expenses, exclusive of rent and taxes, averaged ,
lil $26 and cash receipts averaged $$8 for all Negro part—time farm families- T
 Q, The average capitalized rental value of these farms was $1,240 for owners
Q, and sooo for tenants.
S  7
Y The total family cash incomes of Negro farm laborers, exclusive `
Q of the sale of farm products, averaged $206 in 1934, as compared to $223 1
.‘ . for those in rural industries, $411 for those in urban industries, and T
ll $503 for the 105 non-farming workers who were inc1uded.in the study for '
{ comparison. The Negroes of both the part-time farm and non—farm groups i
it were mostly unskilled workers.
Q Heads of both white non—oommercial and Negro part—time farm E
Q femilies averaged about an hour and a half to two hours per day at work I
V E OH their farms, depending on the season. The remainder of the work was
Q usuall