Working With the Hands / Being a Sequel to "Up from Slavery," Covering the Author's Experiences in Industrial Training at Tuskegee

by Booker T. Washington

IN THE AGRICULTURAL LABORATORY

I believe that most of the worn-out and wasted fields, the poor stock, the run-down fences, the lost and broken farm tools and machinery, as well as the poor crops, are chargeable to the "farm hand" whom, I have been warned so many times, I must be careful not to spoil. Such a man is too ignorant to know what is going on in the world in progressive agriculture. He is without skill to such an extent that he knows almost nothing about setting up and operating labour-saving machinery. His conscience has not been trained, and hence he has little idea of giving an honest day's labour for a day's pay, and of doing unto others in matters of labour as he would have others do unto him.

It will be seen at a glance that such a worker in the soil as this cannot compete with the farmer of the Northwest, who owns the land that he cultivates, who is intelligent, and who uses the latest improved farm machinery. One such man is worth as much to the general industrial interests of a country as three "farm hands." No country can be very prosperous unless the people who cultivate the soil own it and live on it. I repeat, then, that one of my first thoughts in beginning agricultural training at the Tuskegee Institute was to help to replace the "farm hand" of the South with something better.

As an illustration of the need of new ideas in farming, and of the effect that the long-continued cultivation of a single crop has upon the tiller, I remember that some years ago I invited a farmer into my office and explained to him in detail how he could make thirty dollars an acre on his land if he would plant a portion of it in sweet potatoes, whereas if he planted cotton, as he had been doing for years, he could make only fifteen dollars per acre in the best season. As I explained the difference, step by step, he agreed with me at every point, and when I came near to the end of my argument I began to congratulate myself that I had converted at least one man from the one-crop system to better methods. Finally, with what I fear was the air of one who felt that he had won his case, I asked the farmer what he was going to cultivate on his land the coming year. The old fellow scratched his head, and said that as he was getting old, and had been growing cotton all his life, he reckoned he would grow it to the end of his few remaining years, although he agreed with me that he could double the product of his land by planting sweet potatoes on it.

Soon after we had succeeded in clearing the trees and stumps from a few acres of ground, we planted a small crop. This crop, as I have stated, was not very different from others which the students had seen planted or had taken part in planting at their homes, because the school was poor in implements and stock. The main difference between our first crop and those which the students had come into contact with at their homes was that ours was to some extent a diversified crop. The increasing number of students soon made it necessary to increase the acreage of land cultivated. In the first few months of the Tuskegee Institute the students boarded in families. This made it difficult to get the greatest value out of our farm products. Partly to overcome this, we arranged to begin boarding the students upon the school grounds. Here another difficulty presented itself. It was found that a student would be of little value to the farm and would gain very little in knowledge and skill if he worked only a few hours each day. We discovered that, after there had been subtracted the minutes required for him to reach his work, get his tools, and otherwise prepare himself, little time would be left for getting actual results out of the soil. In order to overcome this weakness in our system, we decided to follow in some measure the plan originated by General Armstrong at the Hampton Institute. This was to have the students study in the class rooms during four days of the week, and work on the farm two days. The students, however, for a long while referred to these two days as "lost days."

It was often amusing, as well as interesting, to note the intense faith of the students in their books. The larger the book and the bigger the words it contained, the more highly it was revered. At this time there were almost no text-books which dealt with industrial subjects. For this reason, any one who wanted to give instructions in such branches had, in a very large measure, to "blaze" his way. The absence of text-books on these subjects made it all the more difficult at first to combine industrial and academic teaching. We partly solved the problem by having the students work two days at some industry and study four days in the school-room.

We found it advisable to consider not only the best system of teaching in our practical work, but the economic values also. We felt that it would be possible to teach the students the latest and best methods of performing all kinds of hand work, and at the same time show them the dignity of such service. But in addition to this we wanted the students to do such work as they could about the school, work which otherwise would have been done by hired men not connected with the institution.