me SPATIAL IMPACT or! V , GOVERNMENTAL DECISIONS on THE .~ PRODUCTION AND .msmsunon 0F _ f f _ LOUISIANA SUGAR wave-17514972 ~ Dissertation fer the Degree of Ph. D. MICHIGAN. STATE UNWERSITY PHILIP SHEA l 974 J .. “:-‘§§f€~}0§'fi\.‘g“’i\\'\V‘f§z’i°~'1')???1'3‘"§;$':'.‘“:‘"v“""""' '." H. I.:.‘ .w . , . . , . e m. w . ‘ , ‘ . .. ' J. _e_ \n...».‘. _. ',,‘ g “.3 "'\"' _m..r..v‘...l‘\-§".“r ‘ ..‘..-'..‘-. .‘,‘;u....m.,..w': """‘ "“- 4' a . -.'.:-.-f.-'.' - IIII .I.'V' . ...... This is to certify that the thesis entitled The Spatial Impact of Governmental Decisions on the Production and Distribution of Louisiana Sugar Cane, 1751 — 1972 presented by Philip Shea has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph . D . degree in GeographL eem Daniel Jacobson Date May 6, 1974 0-7639 ‘4 ‘4: -. A 5' .itil a 2 ,r ' ‘6 .‘e. illfib-o BINDING 'Y \I“ ‘ HUAB & SONS' 800K WNUEPYINC. ‘1 uamnv ewotns “ nl coniucpnnr ulcmnl ABSTRACT THE SPATIAL IMPACT OF GOVERNMENTAL DECISIONS ON THE PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION OF LOUISIANA SUGAR CANE, 1751-1972 BY Philip Shea The spatial impact of decision-making activity became a focus of interest for geographers during the 1960's and early 1970's. These studies have examined the relation- ship between the variation in man's attitudinal response to decision-making situations and the spatial manifestations of that response. This thesis provides a description and evaluation of the Spatial impact of decisions, particularly by governmental officials, upon the establishment and main- tenance of sugar cane production in Louisiana during 1751- 1972. Its focus is upon an examination of selected signi- ficant decisions, which specifiCally include United States tariffs and sugar acts, as they emerged in historical sequence to challenge Louisiana sugar planters in their development of the industry. Sugar cane farming makes an important contribution tx: the agricultural economy of Louisiana. It is the main chP in nine parishes and the third ranking cash cr0p in Philip Shea the state. The sugar cane region is located in central southern Louisiana, and is bounded by the Red, Vermillion, and Mississippi Rivers, and the Gulf of Mexico. The period of deve10pment (1751-1865) was initiated by the decision of planters in the then French colony to experiment with sugar cane as a cash crOp. When the colony became United States territory in 1803 Louisiana planters gained the protection of tariffs on imported sugar pre- viously enacted by the Congress. The tariffs were primarily intended to raise money for the Federal Treasury, however, the duty rate of several cents per pound made the imported sugar less competitive with the domestic Louisiana product. Sugar cane production fluctuated during the period due to bad weather and the reaction of planters to changes in tariff policy (an increase in duty was followed by a deci- sion by planters to exPand production while a decrease in the duty resulted in a decision to plant less cane). The Civil War brought an end to the period. The redevelopment of the sugar cane industry during 1866-1933 would have been virtually impossible if Congress had not decided to continue the protective sugar tariff policy. Production of sugar fluctuated considerably, how- ever, due to: the decisions of planters based on proposed and actual changes in the tariff (a sugar bounty replaced idle tariff from 1890-1894); the effect of World War I regulations; and the mosaic disease of the 1920's. Philip Shea The Congressional sugar acts provided a new system of protection for the sugar planters during 1934-1959. The decision to replace the protective tariff policy with a sugar program was made by officials of both the sugar industry and the federal government. The ample amount of sugar which was made available at moderate cost, and the progressive expansion and modernization of the Louisiana industry demonstrated the success of the decision—making which established the sugar acts. A new era in the American sugar program began in 1960 with the decision of the United States to establish the Cuban sugar embargo. Louisiana planters were allo- cated higher marketing quota allotments in the sugar pro- gram and responded with spectacular gains in production. In conclusion, the decision by Congress to enact protective tariff legislation made possible the existence of the Louisiana sugar cane industry during 1803-1933. Since 1934 the cooPerative decision-making of the planters and the federal government has resulted in a sugar program which has provided for the progressive expansion of Louisiana sugar cane production. The future Operation of the Louisiana industry will depend, as it has in the past, ‘upon favorable legislation by the United States Congress. THE SPATIAL IMPACT OF GOVERNMENTAL DECISIONS ON THE PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION OF LOUISIANA SUGAR CANE, 1751-1972 BY Philip Shea A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Geography 1974 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Many people contributed suggestions and informa- tion to this study. It is impossible to adequately express the gratitude of the author to all these people. Librarians and agricultural economists at the Louisiana State University, farmers, and officials at the United States Department of Agriculture Sugar Cane Field Station at Houma, Louisiana were especially helpful. A special recognition is due to the late Professor Paul Cross Morrison. As the original director of this dissertation, Dr. Morrison contributed many suggestions to the early stages of preparation. His untimely death came as a profound shock. I am most indebted to Professor Daniel Jacobson, the chairman of my dissertation committee. Dr. Jacobson aided me in assembling the fragmented pieces of the study after Dr. Morrison's death, and provided untiring guidance and advice throughout the develOpment and final compilation of this study. Appreciation is extended to the other members of my committee for their valuable criticism: Dr. Dieter Brunn- schweiler, Dr. Ian M. Matley, and Dr. Lawrence M. Sommers. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES O O O O O O C O O 0 LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . Chapter I. II. III. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . Sources of the United States Supply The Louisiana Sugar Cane Industry Statement of Problem . . . . . Review of Literature . . . . . Methods of Investigation . . . THE LOUISIANA SUGAR CANE INDUSTRY, 1751-1865 0 o o o o o o o The Introduction of Sugar Cane, 1751-1803 . . . . . . . . The DevelOpment of the Industry, 1803-1831 . . . . . . . . The Performance of the Industry, 1832-1865 . . . . . . . . The Areal Distribution of Sugar Cane Effect of the Civil War on Louisiana Sugar Production . . . . . smary O O O O O O O O 0 THE ERA OF REGROWTH, 1866-1933 . . Reestablishment of Sugar Cane Production Under Tariff Protection, 1866-1912 Tariff Policy and Cane Production, 1866-1889 a o o o o o o The Sugar Bounty, 1890-1894 . . iii Page vi vii 11 14 20 22 23 26 36 43 49 51 53 54 54 57 Chapter IV. Page Tariff Policy and Cane Production, 1895-1912 . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Significant Non-Tariff Decisions Affecting the Louisiana Sugar Cane Industry, 1866-1912 . . . . . . . 61 The Maintenance of Louisiana Sugar ' Production During Unsettled Times, 1913-1933 0 o o o o o o o o o o 65 65 65 The Underwood Tariff . . . . . World War I Controls . . . . . Tariff Policy and Cane Production, 1921-1933 . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Significant Non-Tariff Decisions Affecting the Louisiana Sugar Cane Industry, 1913-1933 . . . . . . 69 The Areal Distribution of the Louisiana Sugar Cane Industry, 1866-1918 . . . . 72 The Areal Distribution of the Louisiana Sugar Cane Industry, 1919-1933 . . . . 81 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 THE LOUISIANA SUGAR CANE INDUSTRY, 1934-1959 a o o o o o o o o o o o 93 The Sugar Program of the Agricultural Adjustment Act . . . . . . . . . . 95 The Sugar Program of the Jones-Costigan Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 The Sugar Act of 1937 . . . . . . . . 98 The Sugar Act of 1948 . . . . . . . . 99 Government Application of the Sugar Acts . . 101 The Sugar Program in Louisiana Under the Sugar Acts, 1934-1947 . . . . . . 106 The Areal Distribution of the Louisiana Sugar Cane Industry, 1934-1947 . . . . 112 The Sugar Program in Louisiana Under the Sugar Acts, 1948-1959 . . . . . . . 117 The Areal Distribution of the Louisiana Sugar Cane Industry, 1948-1959 . . . . 119 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 iv Chapter Page V. THE CUBAN SUGAR EMBARGO AND THE LOUISIANA Cuba's Role as a Source of Sugar . . . 127 The Sugar Program in Louisiana, 1960-1972 c o o o o o o o o 0 13]. The Areal Distribution of the Louisiana Sugar Cane Industry, 1960-1972 . . . 140 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . 149 VI. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION . . . . . . . 151 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . 161 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Production of Louisiana Cane Sugar in Short Tons O O O O O O O O O O O O 35 2. Louisiana Sugar Production in Short Tons by Parish as Recorded in the United States Census Returns, 1849-1909 . . . . . . . 44 3. Number of Parishes Contributing Approximately 50 and 75 Per Cent of Sugar Production . . 76 4. Louisiana Sugar Cane Production by Parishes, 1919-1964 0 o o o o o o o o o o o 82 5. Number of Parishes Contributing Approximately 50 and 75 Per Cent of Sugar Cane . PrOdUCtj-on O O O O O I O I O O O O 115 6. Sugar Cane Tonnage and Acreage by Subregions, 1959 and 1964 . . . . . . . . . . . 136 7. Coefficients of Correlation Between Sugar Cane Acreage and Total CrOp Acreage in the Subregions of the Louisiana Sugar Cane Region . . . . . . . . . . . 147 8. Coefficients of Correlation Between the Average Tons Per Acre and Total Tonnage in the Subregions of the Louisiana Sugar Cane Region . . . . . . . . . 148 vi Figure LIST OF FIGURES The Louisiana sugar cane region . Ante bellum plantation home . Twentieth century plantation home Louisiana sugar production, 1849 Louisiana sugar production, 1859 Audubon Sugar Factory and School Sugar kettle . United States Sugar Cane Field Station, Houma, Equipment Louisiana Louisiana Louisiana Louisiana Louisiana Louisiana Louisiana Louisiana Louisiana Louisiana shed sugar sugar sugar sugar sugar sugar sugar sugar sugar sugar Louisiana . . p. . production, 1869 production, 1879 production, 1889 production, 1899 production, 1909 cane production, cane production, cane production, cane production, cane production, vii 1919 1929 1939 1944 1949 Page 45 47 64 64 71 71 73 75 77 80 83 85 87 113 116 120 Figure Page 20. Louisiana sugar cane production, 1954 . . . 122 21. Louisiana sugar cane production, 1959 . . . 123 22. Copolymers petrochemical manufacturing plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 23. Self-propelled spraying machine . . . . . 134 24. Tinguaro project . . . . . . . . . . 139 25. The partially completed shell of the Tinguaro sugar mill . . . . . . . . 139 26. Distribution of Louisiana sugar cane lands, 1966 O O O O O O O O O O 141 27. Louisiana sugar cane production, 1964 . . . 143 28. Percentage of total harvested Cropland per parish in harvested sugar cane production in each parish, 1959 . . . . 144 29. Percentage of total harvested crOpland per parish in harvested sugar cane production in each parish, 1964 . . . . 145 viii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION This dissertation in economic geography is con- cerned with the evolution of the Louisiana sugar cane industry, 1751-1972. Its object is to evaluate the effect of decision-making by planters' associations, the federal government, and the state of Louisiana in the development and maintenance of the sugar cane industry in Louisiana. The per capita consumption of sugar in the United States averages about 100 pounds a year. Few Americans are aware of the complex, governmentally controlled program which provides this commodity. Several events which occurred during the early years of the past (1960-1969) decade, however, caused consumers to become concerned about the supply and cost of sugar. An embargo on the importa- tion of sugar from Cuba was established in 1960 by Presi- dential proclamation. Then in 1963, a rise in the price of sugar led to Congressional hearings which investigated the ability of the United States sugar program to meet present and future demands. Although Cuba was denied participation in the program during the 1960's a sufficient supply of sugar remained available at a reasonable price in the marketplace. During the 1950's, Cuba contributed approximately 35 per cent of the sugar used in the United States. American corporations and private citizens owned and operated some plantations and one-third of the sugar mills on the island. In 1956, Fidel Castro began a revolution which culminated in 1959 with the expulsion of the dic- tatorship of Fulgencio Batista. Castro's newly established government nationalized all existing industries in 1960. ProPerty belonging to American citizens and corporations was confiscated. Reacting to Cuban nationalization President Eisenhower issued a proclamation on June 6, 1960 which reduced the importation of Cuban sugar into the United States by 700,000 tons. During the ensuing months the diplomatic relations between the two countries worsened. President Kennedy, therefore, ordered the quota for Cuban sugar imports to be established at zero on March 31, 1961. No sugar of Cuban origin has been imported into the United States since that time, and Cuba's share has been re- allocated to domestic and foreign suppliers. Sugar production from all sources provided surplus amounts for world consumption from 1946 through 1960. .During 1961-1962 output fell below demand. Political turmoil in Cuba and bad weather in the European sugar beet producing areas were among the factors which con- tributed to the decline in supply. This shortage inflated the world price for the commodity. Although the United States sugar program depends only upon contractual supply of the commodity from selected foreign sources and not upon the Open world market, speculative activities by sugar companies led to a price increase in this country in 1963. A Congressional investigation revealed that the supply of sugar under the government program was ample and not en- dangered by the situation existing in the international market. With the cause for speculation removed by the evidence provided at the hearings the price of sugar returned to normal. Sources of the United States Supply The supply of sugar utilized by American consumers is made available through a complex program administered by the United States Department of Agriculture. The pro- gram was first established by Congress as the Jones- Costigan Act of 1933. The Sugar Acts of 1937 and 1948 continued the program. It has been altered several times since, the latest version in 1971. Under terms of the program, quotas are assigned each year by the Secretary of .Agriculture to Specified domestic and foreign producers. .An.examination of the operation of the program for the five years (1955-1959) previous to the Cuban embargo provides a comparison with the program as it functioned without Cuban sugar during the 1960's (1960-1969). From 1955 to 1959 an average 8,924,000 tons of sugar, raw value, was made available each year for con- sumption in the United States. Domestic growers supplied 52 per cent of the total, while 48 per cent came from foreign countries. In comparison during 1960-1969 the average annual United States quota supply was 10,349,000 tons, an increase of 16 per cent. During this period the domestic producers' portion was enlarged to 55 per cent while the supply share of foreign countries was reduced to 45 per cent.1 In the period, 1955-1959, preferential treatment among the foreign participants was provided to the Philip- pines and Cuba which furnished 11 and 35 per cent, reSpec- tively of the total United States program. This left only a 2 per cent token portion for the other three dozen countries involved. The capital investment in the Cuban sugar industry by United States citizens had much to do with that country's large allotment, while United States diplomatic policy dictated that a favored amount be accorded the Philippines to help maintain her economic and political stability. 1United States, Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Statistics, 1961 (Washington: Government Printing Uffice, 1961). p. 109; A ricultural Statistics, 1970 (washington: Government Printing Office, 19707, p. 82. The Cuban sugar embargo of 1960, however, brought a considerable change in the situation of foreign parti- cipation for 1960-1969. Cuba, of course, was omitted from the proqram. The Philippines, however, was able to retain its 11 per cent share of the entire United States sugar market. Four countries, Brazil, the Dominican Republic, Mexico, and Peru combined with the Philippines to dominate (70 per cent) the foreign producers' share (45 per cent) by capturing 29 per cent of the United States sugar program's entire quota.2 Domestic producers include mainland cane and beet areas as well as the Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, and Hawaii. None of these units had as large a share of the sugar program during 1955-1959 as did Cuba. The beet area produced 20 per cent (as compared to Cuba's 35 per cent) of the market quota. Hawaii and Puerto Rico each contri- buted 11 per cent (the same share as the Philippines), while Florida and Louisiana had a total share of 7 per cent. The Virgin Islands provided only 11,000 tons (less than 1 per cent) a year to the program.3 2Bill Rudd Associates, The Gilmore Sugar Manual, 1969 (Morehead, Minn.: The Gilmore Sugar Manuals, 1969), p. I4. 31bid., p. 14. For 1960-1969 the mainland cane and beet areas were able to increase their penetration of the program.4 The beet producers provided 28 per cent of the United States sugar needs while Louisiana and Florida combined to furnish 10 per cent of the supply. Hawaii maintained its 11 per cent allotment; Puerto Rico, however, saw its share drop to 3 per cent as production slumped. The Virgin Islands ceased participation in the program. The Louisiana Sugar Cane Industry The mainland cane area (Louisiana and Florida) provides the only sugar cane grown commercially in the continental United States. During the years which preceded the Cuban sugar embargo, Louisiana dominated production in the area. During 1955-1959, Louisiana's average annual sugar harvest (434,000 tons) provided 75 per cent of the mainland cane area's production. For 1960-1972 the Louisiana area share remained paramount although it was reduced to 55 per cent despite average annual production which rose to 576,000 tons. This was primarily due to the 4The term mainland cane area is a designation of the United States Department of Agriculture. It applies to those mainland states which have farmers who participate in the sugar program of the department. When the program was first established in 1933, the past history of the United States sugar cane production was reviewed. It was foumd that only Louisiana and Florida had farmers who were contributing significant crops. Only Louisiana and Florida, therefore, were included in the mainland cane [area. Further explanation of the program is included in Chapter IV. greater availability in Florida rather than Louisiana of land which proved to be economical for development of sugar cane. For the period of the 1960's the mainland cane area averaged 1,052,000 tons of sugar a year or 10 per cent of the nation‘s needs.5 Louisiana reached its position of leadership in the domestic sugar cane industry over a two centuries time- span. Cane was first planted in the soil of Louisiana in 1751. Since the third decade of the nineteenth century sugar cane has been a major crop on its farms and planta- tions (Fig. l and Table 1). At the present time it is the main crop and source of income in half of the sugar pro- ducing parishes, and the third ranking cash crOp in the state. Some 2,000 farms employ 20,000 laborers in the cane fields. The capital investment in land and machinery for growing and processing sugar cane is estimated to be in excess of $400,000,000. In addition forty-four sugar cane mills employ 4,500 workers to manufacture raw sugar. The sugar cane industry is, therefore, a significant con- tributor to the business economy of the state.6 5Bill Rudd Associates, op. cit., p. 18. 6L. P. Hebert Culture of Sugarcane for Sugar Production in Louisiana, AgriculturalT Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture Handbook No. 262 (Washington: Government Printing Office, June, 1964), p. 1; G. J. Durbin, "The Louisiana Sugar Cane Story," Sugar Journal, XXIV (March, 1962), 31. PLACE NAMES 1751 -1972 RAPIoEs N Bum. . AVOYELLES _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ‘0 9 WEST FELICIANA 7; “2‘ EAST FELICIANA cg EAST % 0v 1,, BATON ROUGE ST. LANDRY m "01"?” . 9 Baton Rouge '5‘» ’0 o Lafayette, 9:9,, .o O“ CALCASIEU LAFAYETTE ”a, ’(Q. See‘s" ST Jam, 5 4 . IBERIA 4380 4%“ 0‘90? '2‘ ' ow Orleans/1‘ 41 «x VERMILLION ”’04: (4» 4.9% 1) ST. BERNARD o 0 ST. MARY 04% 9'4 {0 Houma ' . 6‘ . Larose teen on Ms ' p 33. TERREBONNE ”(4006 o 20 40 4,, -:=--:==-. M% Miles 30 I Base : Louisiana State Highway Map THE SUBREGIONS 1972 2 vv'v nag-j". LAFOURCHE o 20 4o TECHE -:—=_ Miles RED RIVER THE LOUISIANA SUGAR (JANE REGION PS. 1972 Figure 1 Figure 2. Figure 3. Ante bellum plantation home. This structure, located in the Bayou Lafourche subregion of the Louisiana sugar cane region, is a symbol of the grandeur of the plantation homes of that era. "‘:Avlv L ‘ (..1 >1 A ll '- t ‘7 . -‘. . ,Tl , . A.'l . x N' "aiflsiurglwi A m 1- , Twentieth century plantation home. Also located within the Bayou Lafourche area, this home's archi- tecture captures some of the design of older homes. A field of sugar cane is located immediately to the left of the house. 10 Sugar cane is today produced in eighteen parishes in central southern Louisiana (Fig. l). The boundaries of the area are approximately the Red River, the Gulf of Mexico, the Mississippi River, and the Vermillion River on the north, south, east, and west reSpectively. These limits enclose a region of some 5,400,000 acres of which only 5 per cent, or nearly 318,000 acres are cultivated for sugar cane. The sugar land is not evenly distributed throughout the area; instead, it is concentrated on levees in four subregions which may be identified as the Red River, Mississippi River, Bayou Lafourche, and Bayou Teche (Fig. 1). Some 63 per cent (approximately 200,000 acres) of the total Louisiana cane land lies in the Mississippi (31 per cent) and Lafourche (32 per cent) subregions which are located to the east of the Atchafalaya River in the flood plain of the Mississippi River and the Bayou Lafourche (Fig. l). The cane land of the Mississippi River subregion is distributed between West Feliciana parish in the north and St. Charles parish in the south. With the exception of Pointe Coupee parish, most of this acreage is confined within a ten mile wide zone which is contiguous and parallel to the Mississippi River. In Pointe Coupee, however, where the cane is grown in the parish's southeast corner, the pattern is slightly altered because of the presence in the center of that area of False River, an ox-bow lake. 11 The sugar land of the Bayou Lafourche extends for a distance of approximately fifty miles through Ascension, Assumption, and Lafourche parishes from the source of the stream at Donaldsonville, on the Mississippi, to the vicinity of the town of Larose. The remaining portion of this subregion's sugar cane is planted on a five mile wide strip of land which extends from the city of Thibodeaux through Terrebonne Parish for a distance of about twenty miles to the vicinity of the city of Houma. Some 35 per cent (approximately 112,000 acres) of the Louisiana cane land lies to the west of the Atchafalaya River beside the Bayou Teche. The five parishes of the Teche subregion are: Lafayette, St. Martin, Vermillion, Iberia, and St. Mary. The cane is planted-along the bayou in a twenty-five mile wide belt (Fig. l). The remaining 2 per cent of the Louisiana sugar cane land is in the Red River subregion. Approximately 5,800 acres are located in a narrow band of land parallel and adjacent to United States Highway 71 in southwestern Avoyelles and southeastern Rapides Parishes. Statement of Problem The purpose of this study is to describe and analyze the geography of the sugar cane industry as it developed in Louisiana during the years 1751-1972. In particular, examination is made of the effect that decision-making activity has had upon the establishment 12 and maintenance of the production of this food crop. Decisions made by the President of the United States, the United States Congress, the United States Department of Agriculture, the Louisiana Legislature, and sugar planter associations have provided vital support. Some of the more important decisions have resulted in the establish- ment of federal sugar tariffs, a federal sugar bounty, a formal federal sugar program, the Cuban sugar embargo, sugar experiment stations, a sugar school, and the con- struction of river levees. A number of United States tariffs enacted between 1803 and 1933 were devised by Congress to raise money for the Federal Treasury from duty fees collected on imported raw and refined sugars. The decision to establish these protective tariffs, however, made possible the Louisiana sugar cane industry because Louisiana planters were able to receive for their product a price which was at least equal to the amount charged for the imported duty-paid sugar. The most important decision relating to the modern Louisiana sugar cane industry was the replacement of the sugar tariffs by a formal sugar program. In 1933, the Jones-Costigan Act was passed by Congress as an amendment to the Agricultural Adjustment Act. This act established a sugar program consisting of production and marketing quotas, payments to farmers, and an annual estimate of the l3 sugar market requirements of the United States. The Sugar Acts of 1937 and 1948 modified and continued this program of control managed by the United States Department of Agriculture. President Eisenhower's decision, noted earlier in this chapter, to place the embargo on the importation of Cuban sugar in 1960 altered the United States sugar pro- gram. Louisiana sugar cane production was permitted to expand during the 1960's as a result of the embargo. Co-Operation between Congress and the Louisiana Legislature has resulted in the construction, since the 1880's, of levees to protect cane fields. The American Sugar Cane League and the United States Department of Agriculture collaborated in 1925 to found the Sugar Cane Experiment Station at Houma, Louisiana. The Audubon Sugar School, established by the Louisiana Sugar Planters Association in 1885, is today operated by the Louisiana State University. These joint determinations have con- tributed to the continuation of the industry. Historical periods in the evolution of the industry form the basis of chapters II-V. Each chapter marks a critical time-span in the Louisiana sugar cane industry as it developed under significant policy decisions. Chapter II covers the years 1751-1865, and provides an evaluation of the development of the industry under tariff protection from colonial times to the Civil War. 14 During the Civil War, of course, the industry operated temporarily under the government of the Confederacy and was without United States tariff control. In fact, the Civil War caused almost complete destruction of the sugar plantations. The period 1866-1933 is traced in chapter III. During that time the policy of tariff protection was revived and, except for the years under the sugar bounty, continued in operation through the reconstruction of the war-devastated sugar plantations, the price controls of World War I, and the depressed sugar economy of the 1920's. Chapter IV spans the years 1934-1959, and pro- vides a study of the relationship between the Louisiana industry and the modern sugar program which began under authorization of the Jones-Costigan Act. —The topic of chapter V, which covers the years 1960-1972, is the Cuban sugar embargo and the effect its continuation has had on Louisiana production. Review of Literature The literature of economic geography includes very few studies of sugar cane production in the United States. During the past three decades contributions have been made by the following: Norman Schul, Lemar Stephan, Edwin Babin, Elizabeth Troth, Edwin Foscue, and Erich Zimmermann.7 The most ambitious work produced thus far 7Norman W. Schul, "The Florida Sugar Cane Industry," Sugar Journal, XLV (December, 1963), 53-57; 15 has been Babin's unpublished master's thesis which is a descriptive study Of a portion Of the Louisiana sugar cane region. Approximately 25 per cent Of Babin's study pictured the physical setting of the "riverine district" of the region; 25 per cent dealt with the Operations of a farm; 40 per cent noted the "riverine district's" economic activity associated with cane production; and the remainder was summary material. All other cited literature consists Of short articles which describe a small part Of the sugar cane industry Of the United States. Technical articles on the various aspects Of the United States mainland sugar industry have been provided by soil scientists, agronomists, entomologists, agri- business specialists, and historians. The Structure Of the 0.8. Sweetener Industry is a recently published example. Written by an authority on sugar production for the United States Department Of Agriculture this report contains a description Of some aspects Of the relationship Lemar Stephan, "A Little Known Sugar Bowl in Florida," Journal Of Geography, XLIII (February, 1944), 40-55; Edwin J. Foscue and Elizabeth Troth, "Sugar Plantations in the Irish Bend District, Louisiana," Economic Geo ra h , XII (October, 1936), 373-80; Edwin C. Babin, "The Riverine District: The Economic Geography Of Sugar Cane Production in Southern Louisiana” (unpublished master's thesis, Department Of Geography, University Of Arkansas, 1967), pp. l-132; Erich W. Zimmermann, World Resources and Industries (revised edition; New York: Harper and* Brothers, Publishers, 1951), pp. 231-59. 16 between the sweetener industry and the production Of sugar cane and beets in the United States.8 Commenting recently on the role Of geographic studies on agriculture, Anderson has noted that "the study Of agricultural production Offers a helpful approach to Obtaining a more complete understanding Of the problems Of agriculture in the Worlds Of Plenty and Poverty."9 He established the point that many current introductory text- books in economic geography continue to use the same approach to the classification Of systems Of agriculture which was developed by Whittlesey in the mid-thirties. Capsule descriptions or case studies Of specific crops or livestock production are usually provided as examples Of activity within these systems. Anderson has, therefore, discussed sugar cane in this respect in his own studies of specialized agricultural systems Of the South and crop and livestock production in the United States.10 Of special interest is Anderson's statement that "one Of the most important dimensions that has Often been 8Roy A. Ballinger, The Structure Of the 0.8. Sweetener Industry, United States Department Of Agricul- ture, EconOmIc Research Service Agricultural Economic Report NO. 213 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1971), 34 pages. 9James R. Anderson, A Geography Of Agriculture (Dubuque, Iowa: Wm. C. Brown Company, 1970), p.41. 10Ibid.; and James R. Anderson, "Specialized Agriculture in the South," Southeastern Geographer, X, l7 neglected in the geographical literature is the role Of governmental policy in determining many aspects of agri- cultural production."ll Gregor has concurrently reached the same conclusion. He has noted that "remarkably little research has been done on the effects Of political deci- giggg on the rural landscape, compared with other aspects Of agricultural geography."12 Gregor cites Hart (cotton), Hewes (grain), and Prunty (cotton, soybeans) as geographers who have published articles on the relationship Of govern- mental programs tO specific crOps. The spatial impact of decision-making activity became a focus Of research interest for geographers during the 1960's and early 1970's. WOlpert, Bowden, Gould, Harvey, Kirk, Pred, Sommers, and Gade have made contribu- tions relating to various aspects Of decision-making. These studies have examined the relationship between the variation in man's attitudinal response to decision-making situations and the spatial manifestations of that response. Various statistical techniques have been utilized to measure the significance Of these behavior patterns.13 11James R. Anderson, A Geography Of Agriculture, p. 84. 12Howard F. Gregor, Geo ra h Of A riculture: Themes in Research (Englewood CIifEs, N.J.: Prentice- Hall, Inc., 1970), p. 85. 13Leonard W. Bowden, The Decision to Irrigate, Department Of Geography Research Paper NO. 97 TChIOago: University Of Chicago, 1965); Peter R. Gould, ”Man 18 This behavioral approach contrasts with those traditionally used in economic geography. In the past, conventional studies Of problems have stressed description and/or Optimal solutions suitable to the traditional, com- pletely rational "economic man," who is concerned with maximizing utility. Instead, the behavioral approach is concerned with man as the ”satisficer," who searches his environment for alternative choices in decision-making, one of which may be "good enough" or acceptable in terms Of the level Of aspiration, rather than the “best" from a purely economic point of view.14 Kirk developed a simple decision-making model in which he postulated the existence Of several groups exposed to problem solving. One group, he noted, may not even Against His Environment: A Game-Theoretic Framework," Annals of the Association Of American Geo ra hers, LIII (1963f, 290-97; David Harvey,'“MOdels of gpatiaI Patterns in Human Geography,“ Models in Geography, ed. by R. J. Chorley and Peter Haggett (London: Methuen, 1967), chapter 14; W. Kirk, "Problems Of Geography," Geography, XLVIII (1963), 357-71; Allan R. Pred, Behavior and Location (Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup, Ltd., 1967); Lawrence M. Sommers and Ole Gade, "The Spatial Impact Of Government Decisions on Postwar Economic Change in North Norway," Annals of the Association Of American Geographers, LXI (197I), 522-36; Julian WOlpert, Decision-making in Middle Sweden's Farming - A Spatial Behavior AnaIysis (Ann Arbor: Univer- sity Microfilms, 1963); Julian WOlpert, "The Decision Process in Spatial Context," Annals Of the Association of American Geographers, LIV (1964Y, 537-58. 14Michael Eliot Hurst, A S stems Anal tic Approach to Economic Geography, Commission on COIIege Geography, Publication NO. 8 (Washington, D.C.: Association Of American Geographers, 1968), p. 3. 19 perceive the problem, while a second may be aware of the problem and perhaps solve it satisfactory. A third group, on the other hand, may perceive its choices for problem solving, make decisions, and learn by experience from their outcomes.15 Harvey utilized a synOptic model in which the decision-maker Operated under conditions Of uncertainty. Through choice, search behavior, and learning processes man sought a course Of satisfactory action.16 Pred in- vestigated decision-making in agriculture, manufacturing, and retailing through a behavioral matrix, where the amount and quality Of perceived information was related to an individual or group's ability to use the information.17 Bowden applied the technique Of the diffusion model to an examination Of decision-making among Great Plains farmers who had resorted to the use of irrigation.1 Sommers and Gade utilized the method Of factor analysis of variables to study the spatial effect Of governmental . . . . 19 dec151ons on economic change 1n North Norway. 15W. Kirk, loc. cit. 16David Harvey, loc. cit. l7Allan R. Pred, loc. cit. 18Leonard W. Bowden, loc. cit. 19Lawrence M. Sommers and Ole Gade, loc. cit. 20 WOlpert stimulated interest by contrasting the decision-making behavior Of "economic man" to that Of the "satisficer." In particular, he utilized the techniques Of linear programming and interpolation Of values through regression estimation in examining decision-making by Swedish farmers. The behavioral characteristics Of these "satisficing" agriculturalists were studied in terms Of their spatial significance. The farmers lacked evenly diffused information from technical centers, and labored under conditions Of uncertainty as to personal health, weather, the state Of the market, and the profitability Of crop and livestock combinations.20 Methods Of Investigation Field study was carried out in Louisiana between the summers Of 1964 and 1971, and library research in the libraries Of the Louisiana State University and the University Of North Carolina during the same period. The field study was concerned with Observation of the spatial distribution of sugar cane land, kinds Of farming Opera- tions, and the impact of expansion on production. Photo- graphs were taken of sugar cane phenomena, and information was Obtained by interviews with farmers, soil conservation Officials, parish agricultural extension agents, the Louisiana Commissioner Of Agriculture, and others. 20Julian WOlpert, loc. cit. 21 Library research was concerned with the examina- tion Of books, pamphlets, maps, and other records for information on sugar cane production and governmental decisions pertaining to the industry. Especially valuable were the various publications on sugar cane issued by the United States Department of Agriculture and the Louisiana State University Agricultural Extension station. The next chapter (II) contains a description Of the development of the Louisiana sugar cane industry from the beginning in 1751, to the temporary ending in 1865, when the plantations lay in ruins as a result Of the Civil War. Attention is focused upon the decision Of the federal government to establish and maintain the sugar tariffs, which made possible the existence Of the sugar cane industry after Louisiana became part of the United States in 1803. CHAPTER II THE LOUISIANA SUGAR CANE INDUSTRY, 1751-1865 The introduction and initial develOpment Of sugar cane occurred during the eighteenth century in colonial Louisiana. Planters experimented with methods of growing and processing the crop relatively independent Of govern- mental activity by either Spain or France. The purchase Of Louisiana by the United States in 1803, however, im- mediately placed the youthful sugar industry in a position directly affected by governmental decision-making pro- cesses; in particular, the United States sugar tariffs. During the first half of the nineteenth century, Louisiana planters develOped their cane production accord- ing to the degree Of protection provided by the duty levied under the tariffs. Congressional decisions to raise the duty on imported sugar resulted in improvement Of the domestic industry, while decreases in the duty brought lessened production. The devastation Of plantations during the Civil War brought the Louisiana sugar cane industry to a temporary end. 22 23 The Introduction Of Sugar Cane, 1751-1803 The introduction Of sugar cane tO the French colony Of Louisiana tOOk place in the middle Of the eighteenth century. At that time Jesuit missionaries attempted to grow it from seeds imported from the island Of Santo Domingo. These attempts failed. In 1751, how- ever, several Louisiana planters Obtained cane joints from the Jesuits, and in 1753 sugar of imperfect quality was manufactured from cane grown from these sections.1 One Of the planters was Claude Dubreuil, who constructed a sugar mill on his plantation which occupied land now within the city limits Of New Orleans. In 1757, Dubreuil manufactured some sugar from his cane. Unfortunately, his experience was lost tO the planters, as he died soon'thereafter.2 The Spanish acquired French territory, including Louisiana, in 1769. Under their control the planters were permitted to produce agricultural commodities including those from sugar cane for exportation. Little was accom- plished, however, toward commercial sugar production. The loss Of Dubreuil was one. Another was the need for trained sugar technologists. Just as men had tO learn from ex- perience how to grow sugar cane, they also had to acquire lJ. Carlyle Sitterson, Sugar Country, The Sugar Cane Industr n the SOpth, 175311950 (Lexington: IThe University OI Kentucky Press, 1953), p. 6. 21bid., p. 6. 24 the knowledge Of how to turn cane into sugar. Much Of the cane produced from 1751-1790 was, as a consequence, used for the manufacture Of molasses and tafia.3 In 1791, however, Antonio Mendez purchased tafia manufacturing equipment and agricultural land from Josef Solis, a SantO Domingo immigrant, who had been Operating a plantation a few miles south Of New Orleans. Mendez then hired another immigrant from Santo Domingo, Antonio Morin, who was an experienced sugar-maker. Morin successfully produced sugar from the 1792 crOp harvested by Mendez. The project, however, proved to be so expensive that Mendez abandoned it after one year.4 In 1793, the man who is credited with being the first successful commercial sugar producer in Louisiana, Etienne de Bore, became interested in sugar cane. A wealthy planter, he had become disenchanted with indigo production because Of low prices and insect infestation Of the crop. He decided to switch to sugar cane. In 1794, he purchased some planting stock from Mendez, built a sugar mill, and persuaded Antonio Morin to make sugar from the resulting crop. Etienne de Bore was a gambler in the sense that he was Speculating in a crOp about which he 3Tafia is a distilled drink manufactured from the juice Of crushed sugar cane. 4Records Of the Cabildo (City Archives, New Orleans), Book 4, Vol. III, p. 24. Date Of record, April 19, 1799. 25 knew nothing. His experience with indigo, however, had taught him the necessity Of irrigating the fields during periods Of dry weather as in the Spring Of 1795. His first commercial crop was successful as were also Morin's sugar-making activities. The sugar was sold for a profit Of five thousand dollars and began an enterprise which built a considerable fortune for de Bore by the time Of his death.5 The original variety Of sugar cane grown by the Jesuits in Louisiana was Creole. This was the kind planted by the other experimenters, including de Bore. It originated in either the subcontinent Of India, in Africa, or perhaps in both areas. Creole cane was at first pre- ferred over other varieties available for importation from the West Indies, because the sugar made from its juice had more body and was, therefore, better suited for shipping in the wooden casks Of the time.6 Creole, however, was not a suitable sugar cane for Louisiana. The subtropical climate Of the colony had frosts which limited the growing season while the tropical 5A Brief Discussion Of the History of Sugar Cane, (Baton Rouge: The LouiSiana State Department Of Agricul- ture and Immigration, 1964), p. 8. 6C. W. Edgerton, Forty-two Years Of Sugarcane Disease Research at the LouiSiana Agricultural Expegiment Station, Bulletin NO. 448 (Baton Rouge: LouiSiana State University Agricultural Experiment Station, 1950), p. 11. 26 setting Of the West Indies, where the Creole thrived, was frost-free all through the year. In 1797, the Otaheite or Tahite cane (popularly called Bourbon cane) was introduced into Louisiana from Santo Domingo. Bourbon cane's chief advantage was its greater resistance to cold weather. It had several dis- advantages, however, which soon became apparent. One was the difficulty Of preserving the cuttings for replanting. Another was the plant's lack of a substantial root system. When strong winds blew the cane was easily uprooted. Twenty more years went by before varieties Of purple and striped sugar cane were introduced. Meanwhile the planters struggled along with the Old varieties. AS a result, production Of sugar increased very slowly. On October 1, 1800, Spain ceded Louisiana back to France. French control, however, was short-lived. The United States purchased the province Of Louisiana from France on April 30, 1303, for $12,000,000.7 The Development Of the Industry, 1803-1831 The original guideline for the develOpment Of the modern United States sugar program was set soon after this nation gained its independence and before the purchase Of Louisiana. The initial step was the establishment Of the first tax on the importation of raw sugar. The main 7Samuel F. Morrison, The Oxford History Of the American People (New York: OxfOrd UniverSity Press, 1965), p. 366. 27 purpose Of this and later sugar tariffs was to raise money for the United States Treasury, but indirectly they func- tioned to provide market protection for sugar cane farmers in the United States, including those Of Louisiana after _it became national territory. Import duties and domestic excise taxes were the chief sources Of federal funds well into the late nineteenth century and Of those forms Of income, the sugar tariffs yielded almost 20 per cent Of the money for all import duties.8 A brief review Of the provisions Of the tariffs which preceded the Louisiana Purchase will indicate the extent of their coverage. The tariff Of 1789, was the first, and it established a rate Of l¢ per pound on brown sugar in the hogshead, 3¢ per pound on loaf sugar, and 1-1/2¢ per pound on all other sugar. The first two types were considered to be raw sugar requiring further refining. The next tariff, passed in 1790, raised the rates to 1-1/2¢ per pound on brown sugar, 5¢ per pound on loaf sugar, and 2-1/2¢ per pound on all other sugar.9 8U.S., Congress, House, Committee on Agriculture, History and Operations Of the U.S. Sugar Program, 87th Cong., Zd sess., 1962, p. 18. 9U.S., Commodity Stabilization Service, Sugar Division, Spgar Statistics and Data Compiled in the Administration Of the 0.8. Sugar Acts, Statistical BuIletin NO. 214 TWashington: Government Printing Office, 1957), I, p. 299. 28 Two significant changes resulted from tariff acts passed in 1794. The first was an increase Of 4¢ per pound over the 1790 duty for any sugar which was imported in a refined condition. The second, designed in part to aid the United States Shipping industry, imposed an additional tax Of l¢ per pound on sugar imported on vessels owned by United States citizens and 1-1/2¢ per pound on that re- ceived on foreign owned vessels.lo Tariffs enacted in 1795, 1797, and 1800 brought additional changes in sugar rates. The 1795 act estab- lished a new rate Of 3¢ per pound on white clayed and powdered sugar. That Of 1797 and 1800 raised rates an additional total Of l¢ per pound on all brown sugar. Thus the rates in effect when Louisiana became a United States territory in 1803 were those Of 1795, 1797, and 1800.11 Again it should be stressed that although the main purpose Of these tariffs was to raise money for the Federal Treasury, they indirectly aided the United States planters by allowing them to receive at least the amount charged on the imported sugar for their domestic product. Unfor- tunately for the Louisiana farmers this new production protection by the federal government also brought other regulations which they found irritating. In 1804, Congress passed a law halting the importation Of Negro slaves into Louisiana. The slaves were utilized on the plantations 10 11 Ibid., p. 299. Ibid., p. 299. 29 for field and mill work and were especially important during the annual harvest Of the crOp. One year later Congress passed a new law which the United States Attorney General construed to mean that Negro Slaves could be im- ported into Louisiana as long as they did not enter by any other part Of the United States. This governmental deci- sion solved the problem Of securing cheap labor and was, Of course, received with great favor in Louisiana.12 After 1800, there occurred no further changes in the sugar tariff until the War of 1812 caused a temporary increase in duties charged to 18¢ per pound on refined loaf sugar, 6¢ per pound on white refined sugar, and 5¢ on raw and refined brown sugar. Although these rates were reduced by the Tariff Of 1816, those then applied were Of a protective type. The 3¢ per pound duty placed on the importation of raw brown sugar in particular encouraged the domestic cane growers and brought about an expansion Of the industry. The Tariff Of 1816 was unusual in that it provided the most recently elected Congressional legis- lators who were from Louisiana their first chance to work on federal sugar legislation. Louisiana had become a state in 1812. Rates established in 1816 were still retained by the Tariff Of 1828 and remained in effect until 1832.13 12Sitterson, Op. cit., p. 11. 130.8., Commodity Stabilization Service, op. cit., p. 299. 30 During the hearings on the 1816 tariff Louisiana interests proclaimed that they could produce all the sugar required by the United States, but that they could do so only if provided adequate tariff protection. In pressing for such aid, the Louisiana representatives were helped by fellow Congressmen from Georgia; that state, too, hOped to develop a sugar industry. However, the Louisiana members placed themselves in a rather difficult position when they went on record as Opposing protective tariff policy in principle while pressing for this kind Of shield for their state's sugar producers. Fortunately for these planters, Congress passed a tariff protecting industry in general, including sugar, for the reason that the country was deep in debt because Of the War Of 1812 and needed revenue, and because it was thought that development Of American industry should be encouraged. The Tariff of 1828 contained some changes but none affecting sugar.14 The various tariffs enacted by the federal govern- ment from 1789 to 1828 have been previously noted. Es- pecially important were the Tariffs of 1816 and 1828. They maintained protection during the initial period Of great expansion Of the sugar industry. During most Of this time the duty price Of the imported raw sugar was about 3¢ per pound. Without the tariff, foreign sugar would have been sold at a rate which was 3¢ per pound less l4Sitterson, Op. cit., pp. 175-76. 31 in the United States, thus underselling the American pro- ducers and probably eliminating sugar as an important crop in Louisiana. Thus it can be concluded that federal tariff pro- tection was the leading reason for develOpment Of the Louisiana sugar cane industry between 1803 and 1828, from its uncertain beginning tO a place of importance in the agriculture and economy Of the state. It was also during this period that the industry expanded from a few planta- tions in the New Orleans area to several hundred occupying much the same region as does sugar cane production today. In addition to the protective tariffs, other factors aiding the growth Of the industry were the introduction Of improved varieties Of cane, the invention Of new methods of cane processing, and the condition Of national agricultural markets. Each Of these factors warrants examination for the part it played in establishing the industry. During the early portion Of this period, as men- tioned previously, the Tahite and Creole sugar canes were the main varieties cultivated. Both are historically important tO the Louisiana industry because they were the first varieties to be successfully produced. In 1821, purple and striped cane was introduced and soon largely replaced the kinds previously grown. 32 Purple and striped sugar cane (also called Batavian striped or ribbon cane) was brought tO Louisiana by John J. Coiron as an experiment. Coiron, who had a plantation in St. Bernard Parish near New Orleans, had found the cane growing on St. Simon Island in Georgia in 1814'and decided to try it on his Louisiana fields. The experiment proved to be a success. The purple and striped cane ripened earlier than the other varieties and was more resistant to cold weather. These valuable characteristics made it possible to move the northern boundary Of produc- tion as far as the Red River, thus significantly expanding the sugar cane area Of the state. Although the purple and striped cane had a thicker cortical than the Older varie- ties, which made it necessary to redesign mill machinery in order to apply greater crushing pressure, its resis- tance to cold weather soon made it the dominant variety grown throughout the region.15 Improvements in milling sugar cane were also important in the industry's growth. TO emphasize this point reference can be made to the previously mentioned requirement Of a better crusher for utilization of striped and purple cane. Without the perfection Of a method of grinding the tougher cane the introduction of the new variety would have failed. It Should be pointed out in 15U.S., Bureau of the Census, Twelfth Census Of the United States: 1900. Agriculture, VI, Part II, p. 455. 33 those days the milling plants were located on the planta- tions and were run as part Of the farming Operation. Among the other innovations introduced during this time were the vacuum pan and the use Of the steam engine in the mills. The vacuum pan was invented in 1813. It made it possible to make more sugar than before out Of the same volume of cane. The first mill powered by steam began Operating in 1821. It crushed the cane as it was thrust between three rollers. Formerly, the rollers had been powered by animals. At first the cost Of a mill and steam engine was $12,000, a price tOO high for most pro- ducers. By 1831, however, the cost had been reduced to about $4,500 and more were in use.16 The status Of the national agricultural market during this period also played a role in the expansion Of sugar cane planting. From 1818 tO 1830 the price paid for cotton fell, thus encouraging planters to decide tO experiment with other crOps capable Of bringing in a profit. Sugar cane was found to be such a crOp. Thus the more important factors mentioned and others combined to contribute tO the expansion Of the Louisiana sugar cane industry between 1803 and 1831. Unfortunately accurate records are not available on a parish basis for this early period. It was not until the enumeration and publishing Of the Census of Agriculture 16Sitterson, Op. cit., p. 138. 34 in 1850 that creditable statistics Of detail were made available. Even the total production Of raw sugar for each Of the early years has been reported in contradictory figures. For example, a report appearing in the United States Census of 1900 and a chart on Louisiana sugar cane production published by the Louisiana State University Agricultural Extension Division in 1961 provide different statistics.l7 However, the overall trend illustrated by both Of these sources, as well as by accounts from various agricultural journals Of the time indicate that this was a period Of develOpment which saw the present region Of production established in Louisiana. Production Of raw sugar in the state expanded from 5,006 tons in 1815 to 42,000 tons in 1831. In general, increases occurred each successive year during the period, although some dramatic departures from this pattern did take place. By 1826 output had reached 25,873 tons, for example, and two years later in 1828, the year Of the passage Of the tariff retaining protection, production soared to 50,599 tons, only to fall back to 27,599 tons in 1829. This loss seems strange in relation tO the tariff enactment Of the previous year. Government policy, 17 . U.S., Bureau of the Census, Op. c1t., p. 454; "Production Of Louisiana Cane Sugar in S ort Tons, 1961" (Baton Rouge: Louisiana Agricultural Extension Division, Louisiana State University and United States Department Of Agriculture, 1961). (Mimeographed chart.) 35 .muauaaoauma mo unasuunmoa nuunum appease ooo.kmm www.mmm mmv.kmm kep.mpp vm~.ove omm.mom mmo.omm oae.mkm mkv.mme Hop.aee aam.mvo Ade.mpa oov.oea mme.~ev ~vp.emm emp.amv mo~.mma «Ha.mev www.mee omo.omv ppm.mmm www.mma amp.mae mam.emm mmm.pm~ mua.amm mam.mem ahma omma moma moma ooma ooma moma voma moma Noma aoma ooma mmma mmma hmma omma mmma vmma mmma Nmma amma omma mvma mvma hvma ovma mvma mem.mom o~m.amv 0mm.mmm ma~.~mm mmo.mmm ~em.pme Amp.mwv Hao.moe ooo.mam ooo.mmm ooo.vm~ ooo.mo~ ope.-~ «He.pma map.mmH mop.mma ooo.mHH ooo.me ooo.ka ooo.mma ooo.mm ooo.moa moo.mm~ mmv.a~m maa.moa mam.oma vvma mgma Nvma avma ovma mmma mmma hmma omma mmma gmma mmma Nmma amma omma mmma mmma hmma omma mmma vmma mmma NNma aNma omma mama mmm.omm amm.mv~ mam.m0m oom.ema ooe.~vm emo.mmm www.mma oom.amm mom.am~ mpe.aom mmm.m0m mme.vam mam.ssm HpH.eem ama.mmm mmm.mm~ mmk.mom kkm.oom mek.mom amm.apa mem.eem Hoe.eam oem.oam pv~.pom «mm.mmm pme.~m~ mama mama oama mama vama mama Nama aama oama moma moma moma ooma moma voma moma Noma aoma ooma mmma mmma hmma omma mmma vmma mmma mmo.e- ma~.oma vak.aam mes.mva mmp.~pa pmm.pea Hee.om mam.maa www.moa pam.mea Rom.mma opm.me mam.pma mme.mm mmk.maa mme.me vam.mm mAk.am mam.mo eoe.Hm mam.~p Ham.me maa.am Roe.mv Hm».~v mop.sm Nmma amma omma mmma mmma mmma omma mmma vmma mmma Nmma amma omma mhma mhma bhma omma mhma ohma mmma tha ahma omma moma moma homa moo.m~ Hoe.oa Hem.m mmv.aa oma.ma mma.vm~ mmm.ama mao.kma Hmv.eo~ evo.ama Hmm.ae mom.mma Ame.mma -H.Am~ mmo.ama Hmo.m~A are.maa Hmm.vma omm.p~H ooo.mma aam.me www.mma mam.HHH mom.km mom.om mom.am ooma moma voma moma Noma aoma ooma mmma mmma bmma omma mmma vmma mmma Nmma amma omma mvma mgma hvma ovma mgma vvma mgma Nvma avma mmm.mv mma.pp oa~.ov pmm.~m me~.oe me~.ka oom.km omm.av ma~.oa ooo.~a ooe.~a mam.e~ mam.om vwm.oa mem.m~ mv~.ka m-.ma mv~.ea oqma mmma mmma hmma omma mmma vmma mmma Nmma amma omma mmma mmma omma omma vaa vaa mmma NNma aNma omma mama mama mama oama mama mmZOB Emomm ZH mmwom mz¢0 £Z¢HmHDOA m0 ZOHBUDQQmm a mamflfi 36 of course, is not the only factor to consider in farming. In 1829, the industry was hit by severe spring frosts which damaged the cane. In 1830, however, production re- covered tO 42,700 tons Of sugar.18 The Performance of the Industry, 1832-1865 Between 1832 and 1856, as before and subsequently, tariff policy, improvements in cane processing, and changes in the national agricultural market importantly affected the Louisiana industry. These factors, plus the Civil War in particular, influenced the pattern Of production. Of special significance, the Tariff Of 1832 brought an end to the era Of protection. Despite protests from Louisiana legislators and planters, Congress reduced the duty on imported raw sugar tO 2-1/2¢ per pound. Tariffs Of 1833 and 1841 continued the trend, by reducing the duty in effect still further.19 As a consequence, relatively small crops Of sugar averaging 38,268 tons yearly were produced in Louisiana from 1833 until 1838, and the prevailing market price re- ceived by the planters for their sugar was 6¢ per pound as compared to approximately 5-1/2¢ paid during the latter 1820's. Larger crOps were produced, however, beginning 18"Production Of Louisiana Cane Sugar in Short Tons, 1961," Ibid. . 19U.S., Commodity Stabilization Service, Sugar Division, op. cit., p. 299. 37 with the 1839 crOp Of 66,135 tons and these, combined with the increasing volume Of foreign sugar on the market made possible by the lower duty, dropped the price to 4¢ per pound and brought chaos tO the Louisiana industry.20 Earlier, during the years when the industry was stimulated by protective tariffs, most planters had borrowed money at 8 to 12 per cent interest rates tO buy land, slaves, and machinery. The subsequent drop in sugar prices and income caused a larger number Of the planters to go bankrupt. Thus, the effects Of the 1832 and 1833 tariff reductions became clearly evident after 1838. Although planters had been Shocked by the reduction in duty in 1832, the provisions Of the 1833 tariff caused even greater concern. The latter called for reductions on a gradual basis until a 20 per cent ad valorem rate could be achieved. The fact that reductions were tO be gradual, no doubt helps explain the delayed reaction in market price beginning in 1838. On the 6¢ per pound price received for sugar in 1832, the 2-1/2¢ per pound duty then in effect represented a 41-2/3 per cent ad valorem charge. This, Of course, afforded domestic growers over two times as much protection at the same price as the 20 per cent rate which would eventually be effective as the result of the 1833 enactment. Although 20"Production Of Louisiana Cane Sugar in Short Tons, 1961," pp;_pip. 38 the 1833 law had called for gradual reductions, as pre- viously explained, provisions Of the act required in the years Of 1841 and 1842 the immediate installation of the 20 per cent ad valorem rate. With the 4¢ per pound price received by Louisiana agriculturalists for their sugar in 1841, the 20 per cent duty meant protection Of only 8/10¢ per pound.21 Clearly the time for relief Of the planters dif- ficulties had arrived. Aid was forthcoming in the Tariff Of 1842. The duty on raw sugar was restored to the 2-1/2¢ per pound rate of 1832. With this assistance the industry temporarily regained prosperity. Production slumped to 31,308 tons in 1841 because Of adverse weather conditions and the anticipation by growers Of reduced tariff pro- tection. It rebounded to 80,502 tons in 1842 and then climbed to a record 159,842 tons in 1845. The high yields of 1845, however, combined with the effects of the new Democratic tariff Of 1846 brought the return Of a depressed sugar economy. The increased production flooded the market, and this along with a 30 per cent ad valorem rate set by the tariff pushed the price received by LouiSiana producers down from 7¢ per pound in 1845 to 4¢ per pound in 1846. Unfortunately for the planters, the new tariff rate remained in effect until the Civil War. 211bid., p. 299. 39 Even though limited, however, the protection afforded sugar growers in the years leading tO the Civil War permitted their continuance in that type Of farming. Sitterson in his book on the southern sugar cane industry states that: In fact, however, many sugar planters were Operating on narrow profit margins in the 1850's, and a reduction in the price Of sugar by one cent a pound (with the removal Of the tariff) would have meant failure for many Of those with large overhead invest- ments. In final analysis, the profitability Of the antebellum sugar industry rested at least in part upon tariff protection. This fact was clearly understood by the sugar planters, and on no other issue, with the exception Of slavery, were they so consistently of one mind.2 Another federal activity related to Louisiana sugar cane production during the period was a government expedition to Obtain sugar cane planting stock in 1857. Two ships were sent to the West Indies and the Caribbean area, but unfortunately the collected canes rotted in the holds Of the vessels and became useless. The expedition resulted from pleas by Louisiana planters due to the severe cane rot which hit the 1856 crop in the fields, dropping cane production to 41,231 tons from the previous year's total Of 123,303 tons.23 A notable contribution to the culture Of sugar cane was the beginning Of use during the middle 1850's Of 22Sitterson, Op. cit., p. 178. 23"Production of Louisiana Cane Sugar in Short Tons, 1961'" Mo 40 guano obtained from Peru. There had been no widespread application Of fertilizer of any type to the fields before this time. Tried first on an experimental basis, the guano improved production and gradually became universally used. It can also be noted in conjunction with the dis- cussion Of farm practices, that fluctuation in the cotton market left its mark on total production Of sugar and in total land acreage devoted to cane during this period. During the 1830's cotton prices, which had been low during the 1820's, improved. This resulted in a movement back to cotton by some planters who had changed to sugar the previous decade. However, cotton prices again became depressed during the 1840's, and combined with the pro- tection afforded the sugar industry by the Tariff Of 1842, brought a considerable switch back to sugar. This was especially true in East and West Feliciana, Pointe Coupee, Avoyelles, and Rapides parishes. As might be expected, the weather occasionally interfered with successful sugar farming. Severe damage was caused by bad conditions in 1832, 1840-41, 1856, and 1860. The 1856 crOp was especially hard hit, having been dealt a triple blow by the elements. In October, 1855, a killing frost not only destroyed considerable cane destined for harvest that fall, but also much Of the root stock remaining in the ground--the basis Of the next 41 year's crOp. Alternate periods Of hot and cold weather in the following Spring (1856) brought further damage to the ratoons. Then in August, when what was left Of the crOp was maturing, a severe hurricane swept in from the Gulf Of Mexico and leveled the cane fields. Cane rot then set in and left the crop to total only a third Of that of the previous year. Cane production also was crippled by a wind storm in 1860. The output Of sugar that year, although average by ante bellum standards, was only half Of the following year's total Of 284,199 tons.24 The impressively large crop of 297,431 tons pro- duced in 1858 would have been considerably greater had it not been for a break in the levee along the Mississippi River which released flood water onto the cane fields beside the river and ruined approximately 20 per cent Of the potential crOp. Although the Louisiana planters had requested aid from Congress to improve the levee system, it was not until after the Civil War that this type Of appropriation was provided.25 Steam-powered mills which had been introduced just prior to this period continued to be established at an increasing rate. By the early 1840's steam-powered 24Ibid. 25Ibid. 42 mills outnumbered animal-powered mills. In 1861, 80 per cent Of the 1,291 sugar houses in Louisiana were powered by steam. The fuel first used in the mill furnaces and steam engines was wood, a by-product Of tree-clearing Operations designed to make swamp land available for crop use. In the 1840's coal mined in Pennsylvania replaced wood which had become expensive. The coal was brought to Louisiana on board flat boats which were floated down the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers. Bagasse, the remains Of cane after it has been milled, was the subject Of fuel experimentation during the 1850's. Practical use Of Bagasse for this purpose was delayed until after the Civil War.26 The various tariff bills passed by Congress between 1832 and 1842 have been described in respect to their effect on the Louisiana sugar cane industry. Also considered have been the several improvements in farm and mill techniques, the consequences Of adverse weather on crOp production, and the relationship of cotton and sugar cane as alternate crop choices. The areal distribution Of Louisiana sugar cane production during 1850-1860 will now be described and analyzed. 26Sitterson, Op. cit., pp. 138, 152. 43 The Areal Distribution of Sugar Cane Production,il850-1860 The United States Census Of 1850 made available for the first time information on production of crops on an individual parish basis. It is, therefore, difficult to provide meaningful maps illustrating areal differentia- tion in harvests before 1849. Fragments Of information which are available on the develOpment Of the sugar cane region, however, designate an area where scattered farms were brought into production along the Bayou Teche, the Red River south Of Alexandria, the Mississippi River south Of Angola, and the Bayou Lafourche. The yearly production figures which have been incidentally reported earlier in the chapter are for cane cultivated primarily in this region and are recorded in Table 1. Analysis Of this table indicates a history of fluctuating growth from the first recorded crop Of 5,006 tons in 1815 to the peak Civil War year crop Of 284,199 tons in 1861. Improvements in cane culture and processing, adverse weather conditions, and governmental decisions which caused changes in the protective tariff rates have been cited as reasons for the fluctuation in the growth rates over the years. A comparison Of maps based on the Census returns for 1849 and 1859 (Figs. 4 and 5), along with the use Of Table 2 provides an interesting study Of the distribution Of the sugar industry in the years immediately preceding wan-"F 44 ooo.mmm mem.aoa moo.omH ooe.om mum.mv aoe.maa omm.m~a Annoy panaoaoz .m.o ohm.oam omm.mma moo.oaa mmm.mm mmm.oa mom.oaa moo.maa Hobos ooaanaooa ome.m T T T mad mmm.~ amm.~ onoaoaaom poo: moa.ma mom.m mom.oH moa.m moo mmo.m ooo.m oooom oooom one: mom.m amm.a ome.a moo ems men one roaaaasuo> mom.om Hmo.oa oma.aa oem.o oo~.m Ham.m omm.a oooooonuoa Rom.am ooo.o~ mHo.eH mom.m oo~.m oom.ma mom.ma sums .um enm.oa who.m moa.~ eao.d has ome.m aoo.~ causes .um cam era moo.H omv.H woo oAR.H oeo.~ swoops .om eo~.ma Hm~.m mm~.o eom.o Hma.~ ooa.~ moo.m pron .um emo.om omo.0H omm.oa oma.k mma.n moo.o mmm.oa meson .om mme.m omo.o oam.o ooo.o emo.a omm.m moa.m noaunro .om T omm.H Hom kmo.a mom mmH.~ omA.~ ouncnom .um mmo moa.a ooo.a oao moo.a aoo.o nom.~ nopaoom mmm.m me ~mk.~ koa.~ one aoo.o omm.v oomooo ouoaoo mmo.o mom.m mom.m ooo.e mom.m oom.o mao.m nooasooonao omm.a ama.a has mma ohm mmo.a who noooano oao.~v Hom.oa omm.OH aom.m oom.m mom.n mmo.m oronoomoq mev.~H HHo.o mam mam oo mom aam.a opposoooo ~HA.~ oom.m mmm.m Hmo.m moo.a ome.e mov.v nonuommon oo~.mm mom.e omm.mH emo.e omo.m aao.m ooo.HH oaaa>uooH mmm.mm mmH.HH Hoo.m oo~.m emo T T nauonH T T T m T Rom mmm aeoaoaaom roam moo.~ oam.a Hmo.a moo.a Rae one.~ emm.m oooom oounm poem T T T as as ea omm ooanooaao acm.a ooa om~.~ amp mod mm~.~ Ham.~ moaaoso>a koo.Hm mam.ma omm.oa omm.m one.o omm.m omm.m ooaoosonna omm.ma 400.0 oom.mH oas.o ~H~.m evo.m oak.o roanroona mood more area okra mood omma mama ensure QmQMOUWM mfl mmgm wm mZOB Emomm ZH ZOHBUDQOmm £69m dzflamHDQa oomHTova .mzmoamm mamzmo mmaaem OmaHzo use zH N Hugh. 45 1849 LOUISIANA SUGAR PRODUCTION 25499 500 — . O 3 3 C) p. E J: V’ m a: a! v P l o o O. 9 499 100 — 9.999 ELOOO - 4,999 2,500 — 0 e s O ‘9'. ‘ v o .0 o... '”;‘. o o o o o o {'0‘ o o o o o 0 ~{‘ 0 o o o o o ‘ o o o o o ‘::o O O O O o o “" l . ' [I o o . . F‘s (‘D1‘ 9 0 g I o . .u‘.‘"‘:"'ud‘:“ o 6 “"ID" v o o C'. y .,‘I.."'. o o .{u’Sq‘g s It 4 u ‘4 4 o 'I..‘ q ‘. 0‘ vF',-‘ a t . .O “'O, F “"“ ,'1.“-|.A....’ v. b1d‘hi'JI-ag" 3"» t I .fi"; " 600090 .0000. 0.... .OOOOOOOOO. OOOOOOOOOOOQOOOOQ 'OOOOOOCOOOOO. -—-— O O O O —_qp- 90.900.99.000 1972 Pji —33 O O (I) D (D Z W U E e 3 (.1. ° 3 D I- < ‘2 I“ S O ‘9 a U? :3 <2 .— < 0 o a a " O 2 C 9 S 8 J T—3O 9‘ Figure 4 46 the Civil War. In 1859, state-wide sugar production totaled 110,863 tons, a decline Of only 2 per cent from the 113,005 tons Of 1849. The number Of parishes re- porting an output of at least 100 tons was reduced from 25 to 24 over the period (Calcasieu ceased production). These findings would seem to indicate stabilization in the previously unpredictable yields Of the industry. While it is true that during the decade, one-third Of the parishes reflected a near status-quo in their figures (Assumption, Avoyelles, East Feliciana, Jefferson, Orleans, St. Bernard, Vermillion, and West Feliciana) the others exhibited considerable change. Nine parishes including Calcasieu suffered notable drOps in yields, while eight made important gains. Some of these changes were signi- ficant. For example, two Of the top three parishes in 1849, Iberville, and St. James suffered major declines in harvests; Iberville, 53 per cent and St. James, 37 per cent. Of the remaining group reporting diminished sugar crop amounts, the range was from 22 per cent for East Baton Rouge to 62 per cent for Lafayette. St. Mary, the 1849 leader, however, retained that position and reversed the state trend by increasing its sugar output by 24 per cent. Seven other parishes also displayed improvement varying from 20 per cent for Ascension to Rapides' 162 per cent. 47 m ousmam . . a «no. . m a a . 3:2 8 3 . I o T INN a. 3.38.. cm. W a“ "ufiihs. O 2 ’00!‘ 0.0 COOP~6§ O on 0‘ ON o .3. f. eagle-co ... Cubes-1o was I; 4 A‘ not Q 9".” 9" do 0V 05"“! US$0.06 d 6 4o D $0494.64! '1‘...qu ’c switfipoacotihvveob Oven. we v «av/T... .42.... 0.0.3.... 2.0.... . mamzmo we: no Qumran .m a ”(:3 «bus 0" Ooh 9 Oshvosdoa’ ‘9‘ 0 0v, 0". .05500d .4 v ‘0’)? ovd 0 Q «Obi . at 0 Of 5 N D‘ 400'“. K 0.00.09... 000909.000... 0.00009. 00.00.90 #0900... 900900.. 0000900.... " 4 b a an“, ‘ p (2“ ‘4'. ‘91 ‘5. V t O 9 l o 'n "C 8: T oom ooo.o T oooo . mmm.‘ I OOm.N mmm.¢~ I 0006— mZOh Pcozm 2050300“..— ¢<03m .m~n msm.an mum.mv omm.nom Hmv.vsa www.mv mvv.¢oa m v.ona nanonmu m> I can.mmn ham.NH va.flm mvn.H0N www.mud mmh.vm vv boa W08 «Hm.~sm . oam.moa om~.ov ham.mm cum.HH~ maa.oca cosmos saunas .um va.~oa mao.hmo u omm.mo~ Hmm.om mom.mv me.~ma mo~ on mucosa .um oao.nmc moo.mm Hmm.osm u Hpa.hma omo.mh «Ha.o oqm.nna anon .um moo. mom. mac. mam.m u Ham.on ~mv.v~ mam.am a um I 0mm. mow. can. a mam. ma I 2. Q: 0 ha no um own man ea c . vb . dunno . msm.vm u mmn.nam can.omm www.mna Hoe moe n m m.vm one am maa.mqm vam.vq ~sa.a oco.amm one.nmn ovo.mpa «mo.hh~ m6.3. oomsoo ouwmam "Ho.ma~ nom.mmm aao.an - h$.86 «~F.mvm oe~.ova ~mo.om~ nocwauauwoa mmm.NHN hmh.nmb mm¢.ho I hnH.nmm mma.oo~ ANA Hm manna Hm nnm.vm~ mom.man mam.mm u mm~.oon mus.von ouuomomuq vwmd mew. mun nmh . who «no . we I mmn . mm." 0.3." and.” «mag ooo.mv cam.ovm mmm.av oases : nauonu m? H e W s 093m U . ma a: .2. no c3 can ( «wad moo.~m acaaoaoaa finmd QOHUQfiflmud A mHaH mZOH. amoamv suauum cvmmalmama . mmmm Hmam um onaoooomm H240 madam 424." 9:54 I Q Ngflfla O 338 an» «o suonsm magnum no» «can 82 NFVsM¢m~ ma uhv.vov.h mmm.mna.s oo . mvm. . oma.ao . , 0 cm «ma m mo . m 0 «mm. . Gmmsmmfl mm¢~flm m thsm Qm¢sOVQ m MNfls s thsfih OMNammfl OOO~M¢ a Goosm mmm~00n m bflflsvm s www.mmv Hmo.on mnh.mn~ now am v¢6.e p~a. a n vam.o . . m . mow. omu. mmm.mm ~mm.~ «o a he» mom on one om mm" . mmo. annoy . ¢m¢.m~e ma~.vmm vma.m¢m moo.ua mmn.m- mmw.«o omo.n Hauw.o nausea»: - 235 393... 828" 32 m3 - a . a 3:5 vow. oma.vh an mm on m . I mam. mom.m oom.hmm «ma « 3.3N . ma .omm man. we unm.v . Hmh.nm~ omo.naa ooa.ova uaaauwao Mud me “mo mod mNM.m AMH.%aN mmw.mMW Howsmmv mam.vmu vbh.ab annex coudM #003 m . o . H .3” an. aim we”... Mm”... mam. 3...“... m . ms . mam. omn.n mq.vsa v mv «ma a oqaonou FFIMNM OHMsMM FHmsMM HVflsNMM MVfluflmfl mmmsONH MGFsVN ”MGHFOH *Hd: ”“9 ¢H¢~N I N OHM.GOH OmN~OQ mesOM VOM~HHN QHHHOQH MOhswv “HHHUZ cum HGmsfiww mflmshmm I OQmsQON Hnwswm www.mV “mwaflmfl OQM.MB %Hfifldfl .9“ Q oam.nmv www.mm Hmm.0hm m H th.hma HMM.mh va.wm mam.HMH anon .um moo.mmm oom.a~m mmo.o~a so mum I mma mm . mmo. moans .um I om~.om mo~.mbm oa~.Hva mam.mao I h and wh .ha modudnu .u 0 a 0 Owns VQM~0 GOOsMM HOOsWWV I O V@ N m hm #0 I ham mm H o . vmm. mnm.m com Qfldmflm mma.mvm vsm.vv ~sa.a ovm.Hom ”Mhunmn www.msa o¢~.ww~ ~mo.om~ uaoo cannon nao.m>~ mom.mmm sao.am I m moo h .mvm mma. a HNH. ocasosgaam m . hm . omv. I ma nnm oo~ am «no»: mm ~H~ nbm.wms mam.wms mam.mm I mm~.mom Msnuvon ouuosmmuq «mad N mvm. mmh.N unm.om I mm and 0H «an th NW 0 a 00 . Hfl>HOQ mmma mam. nam.ma hm mm a ma H #5." m m a 0.0 Manon «mad oom.mva cum.ovn ma av 90a canon H mvma ava.ah wmw.ema nod noun I... In... mama so and mNmH HQGOOQ‘ mama Amzoa Hmommv SGHHUQ «331:3 .mmmm Hmam um onaooooam azao macaw ¢2¢H mHDOQ 83 «a musmnm mmvd mam.v mmmd I 03 mam... I 08.9 I oomd mmm€u I 006.9 I 0006 mm>o 02¢ ooodw wzo» Eozm 29.—0:09: «<03 0 02< 000.000 029—. 5.010 ZOCUDQOME mZ o o z < o o O. o o Q 400,000 —— 799.999 200.000 — 399,999 00000000000000000 00000000000000000000 m a: m_ a: 92 l O C 0 O O .. 000.000.000000000000000...000000000000 0'0“ 000000000000 000000000000 9000000 60 (n D m 2 LU ‘ 0 . I.“ 0 I o I I- g: I. u- 00. O m 000 0. 3 g 00 < z: w 2 1' g : 0 8 . . ' U? D < p— < 0 o I I 8 '8 o— O O a E c 9 '6 U o J V -—I O: Figure 27 1.441 mm messes 8.. 8 I” on: 8:83 on oe on o WDmeU wI... mo DM