[70] Williams, W. T. B., Negro Migration in 1916-17, Rep. U. S. Dept. Lab., p. 101.
Chapter V
THE EFFECTS OF THE NEGRO MIGRATION ON THE SOUTH
As we have noted the immensity, the make-up, and the causes of this movement, we are now justified in seeking to know something concerning its effects upon the South. If this movement had any effects upon the South, these undoubtedly must have been felt first and most in its economic interests; for, as we have seen, the majority of the migrants were laborers who left the farms and industries of this section in response to the great demand for labor in the North. That the South is almost wholly dependent on Negro labor is a truism, because for various reasons it has been unable to obtain any considerable amount of any other kind of labor. Its native white labor supply that is available to perform the menial work is considerably small, and very little of its labor force is drawn from the foreign-born element, which has been coming to this country in such large numbers during the years immediately preceding the beginning of the Great War. In 1910, when a study was made of the distribution of the immigrants to this country, it was found that 84 per cent of them were in the North, 9.7 per cent in the West, whereas only 5.4 per cent of them were in the South.[71] In 1920, 82.9 per cent of the foreign born were in the North, 10.8 per cent in the West, and only 6.3 per cent in the South. We are aware of the fact also that previous to this Negro movement there existed a surplus of Negro labor due to adverse natural conditions in certain parts of the South, and that in order to remove this excess the migration was gladly welcomed. It happened, however, that when this superfluous labor was removed, the migration stream did not stop, but flowed on, and thus swept off a very large part of the labor that was necessary to carry on production on the farms and in the various other industries. We may set down labor shortage, then, as the first effect of the movement upon the South.
Although the South was in direst need of labor as a result of this movement, yet the danger therefrom was not as extensive and serious as it was once thought to be. This labor shortage did not have the effect of plunging the whole section into disaster. For the most part, real hardships were experienced only in certain sections, especially those that had contributed heavily to the movement. From the farming and industrial interests of those States struck hardest by this exodus came many objections to the movement, and these were taken as indications of losses and interruptions in these enterprises. It is said that in every State from the Carolinas to Mississippi there lay idle thousands of acres of land, which would have been put to use had labor been available. Even where good crops had been grown, in many places, there was question as to whether or not sufficient labor could be secured to harvest them.[72] Again, in some instances, industries like farming had been completely paralyzed; in others they had been greatly retarded, owing to the necessity of breaking in new men to occupy the places of experienced workers who had left for the North. The lumber mills, mines, docks, and cotton oil mills all suffered from the effects of labor shortage.[73]
As far as this lack of labor affected the South, these facts indicate what was true in a general way; but in order to obtain a better view of the situation let us refer to labor shortage as it existed in a few of the States that were struck exceedingly hard by the migration. A study of the labor situation in Mississippi[74] showed that while the supply of labor was considerably diminished by the migration, the demand for labor was altered. In some parts of the State the demand was decreased, in others it was increased. In those sections where agriculture had had time since the invasion of the boll-weevil to reorganize itself on a mixed farming basis, with the emphasis placed on the raising of livestock, the demand for labor was decreased, and the wages were lowest, because this type of farming required less laborers a hundred acres than did the old type which emphasized mainly the raising of cotton. In East Mississippi much land lay idle, but it seemed that the shortage of labor there was due to lack of capital. A heavy migration stream flowed also from South Mississippi and resulted in cutting short the labor supply of the lumber mills and docks. On the whole, labor shortage in this State was quite general, inasmuch as after the movement started employers throughout the State were forced to advance wages from 10 per cent to 25 per cent.
Shortage of labor was a serious problem in Alabama,[75] especially in those sections of the State designated the "black-belt counties." Throughout these sections during 1917 much land lay idle, partly because of the scarcity of tenants and laborers, and partly because of the reluctance of landowners, merchants, and bankers to supply the capital necessary for cultivating it. The farm demonstration agent of Dallas County reported in 1917 a reduction of 3,000 in the number of plows usually operated. In these same counties farms owned and managed by lumber companies were for the most part deserted and in many cases the crops were given very feeble attention. In all parts of the State the lumber companies complained of a serious labor shortage.
In 1917 it was reported that no acute shortage of labor existed in either the rural or urban districts of Georgia, but that there could be found many instances of individual employers who needed more Negro labor. "If such labor were available," said an investigator, "from 700 to 1,200 (men) could be placed in the saw-mill and turpentine industries at $1.50 and probably $2.00 per day; perhaps 2,000 at $1.75 and $2.00 per day could be placed in shipbuilding industries; (and) from 1,500 to 2,000 could be utilized from September to December in picking cotton at $1.00, $1.50 and $1.75 per hundred pounds."[76]