We Were Told to Leave

This generation of relatives that I'm in has done well. As a group, I'd say we have outdone what our parents were able to do. We can be proud of our accomplishments, our careers, our families. Most of us married, with children, and some with grandchildren. Our lives are certainly different from those of the 5 Linn brothers who had their start on a Litchfield property, in a house built in the late 1800's that couldn't withstand the elements, that didn't have running water or electricity, that was up a 1/2 mile lane, in Iowa where the snow and winds could be deadly.

We've all heard, I'm sure, about their long, long walks to school. How deep WAS the snow? It depends on who's telling the story! All but Stanley finished high school, something that wasn't always common in the 1940's and 50's. Three of the 5 Linn brothers served in the military. At least one of the 5 owned his own business. All 5 started by working on the family farm with Peter.

When my family moved to the Litchfield property, my older brother was the only child. But all four of us lived on that farm, my brother and I attending Dayton Elementary School until we moved in 1957. On October 4, 1956, we received a letter to vacate the property by February 28, 1957. This letter, shown below, was written by the farm service that managed some of the Litchfield properties. 

I don't know the reason for this action by Litchfield, but it could have been because they had plans for the property to be sold or farmed by someone else; the property as used by my family may have been losing money for too long; or other reasons. Regardless, we had to be gone by February 28, 1957.

The Farm Sale was conducted on a blistery, cold day, January 29, 1957, and was not well attended. On February 14, 1957, my brother and I were picked up from school and the six of us drove to our new home in Des Moines. I remember the ride because I read all of the valentine cards that my classmates had given me at our Valentine's Day party that day.

We landed at our new home, a two-bedroom bungalow in a working-class neighborhood. The house was owned by Peter and Maude Linn. I really don't know the circumstances for why we couldn't or didn't rent something on our own, but nevertheless, we became renters for our grandparents who lived just a few blocks away. My father didn't have a secure job lined up (differing stories about what happened there), but he worked odd jobs and my mother went to work at Katz Drugstore. We started school, just two blocks away, and came home to a babysitter. Life was certainly different in this big city.

Since this isn't MY story, I'll stop at the circumstances of our leaving the farm and our arrival in Des Moines. 

The above letter, though, was clearly telling us that we had to leave the farm.

More on the Litchfield Property

On October 31, I wrote about the differences among renters, tenant farmers, and sharecroppers. I asked you to think about which category my family would have been in, as well as Grandpa and Grandma Linn, on the Litchfield property.

Today, I'm going to present a few documents that were in my mom's genealogy papers that might shed some light, or continue to confuse us all, about the nature of our agreement on the 160-acre farm just south of Dayton, Iowa. 

First, is a letter written to my parents on 28 November 1952 on the Litchfield letterhead and signed by their attorney, Kingsley M. Clarke.

You can see that this is a statement, based on an agreement between Litchfield and Rolland Linn for the cost of seed, nitrogen, and 0-62-0, and the rent to be paid to Litchfield for the use of alfalfa, the meadow, and the pasture land. The total owed to Litchfield was $230.93. Because of our payment and our sharing in the red clover, this can be interpreted to be support for something between a tenant farmer and a sharecropper. Undoubtedly, we had little, if any, choice in what to grow or how much, but we did share in the result of those plantings.

The next three documents are receipts for grain taken to the Wolf Grain Elevator dated 29 December 1952, 7 May 1953, and 12 August 1953. 

Two of the above receipts were for OATS; the other was for CORN. The amount shown on each receipt was to be divided between Litchfield and Rolland Linn. If you go back to my October 31 post and see the CROP RENTAL section in the agreement, you will read the following:

Tenant is to deliver at Dayton or Wolf Station free of charge, in elevator, crib or car, one half of all corn, two-fifths of all oats and soy beans, and one-half of all other grain raised on the leased premises, as lessor may direct. 

The tenant paid for half of the seed corn and ALL seed for other than corn, thus all of the oat seed was paid for by Rolland Linn. The tenant pays cost of threshing or combining oats and soy beans. Each party pays one-half of all other threshing. This means that we paid the entire cost for threshing the oats and half of the corn but received just a portion of the grains.  

But was this a tenant farmer or a sharecropper? The profit for the grain was SHARED, the cost of the seeds was either shared or fully paid by the farmer, and threshing and delivering the grain was totally paid by the farmer. All of this helps me lean more toward a combination of tenant and sharecropper, but more toward sharecropper.

Remember that the terms tenant and sharecropper were often used for the same purpose; each contract between Litchfield and the farmer was individualized to make certain that Litchfield would always make a profit before the farmer would.  

Anyone I talked with about the Litchfield name had nothing good to say about them. If it were a fair arrangement, if the farmer truly had a say in the agreement, I'm quite certain the negative talk would not have been universal. I believe that the farmers who had contracts with Litchfield had little, if any, say in what was grown, when, how much, or how the split was made. They paid for much of the grain, all of the threshing and delivery, they rented pasture and meadow land, they had to maintain their own equipment and the house in which they lived with no support from Litchfield. If they were truly renters, there would have been some support for the farmer and his family.

What are your thoughts?

Renter, Tenant Farmer, or Sharecropper?

My grandparents, Peter and Maude Linn, didn’t own their farm south of Dayton, Iowa. But what was the nature of their lease? Were they cash renters, tenant farmers, or sharecroppers? From the time they married in 1920 until they moved in the late 1940’s, they farmed the 160 acres and lived in a house that had no running water or reliable electricity.

In 1948, Peter and Maude Linn, along with their 3 youngest boys, moved from the farm near Dayton to 1615 Arlington Avenue, in Des Moines. A large, stately house set on a large lot, this part of Des Moines had been the area in which the rich and well-connected professionals had lived in previous decades. They rented rooms to lodgers, and the 1950 US Federal Census shows Peter, Maude, sons Ellis, Ivan, and Merlyn, and NINE lodgers.

So, what became of the farm 2 miles south of Dayton? As a Litchfield Farm, another renter/sharecropper was needed. That’s when my family moved in and started to farm. But were we renters, tenant farmers, or sharecroppers?

At the bottom of this post is a lease agreement link for the Litchfield farm made between my parents and Litchfield. You may not be able to read all of the details, but let’s look more closely at a few important parts to this 1956-57 agreement. The property consisted of 160 acres, some of it forested, some pasture, and some cultivated land.

You may see the words “Crop Share” under RENTAL toward the top of the page. Before reading on, let’s learn about the differences among share croppers, renters, and tenant farmers:

In Iowa, many of the farmers were tenant farmers, meaning they likely paid part of the rent in cash and part to the owner in crops; and they sometimes were called “share croppers”. While the words tenant farmer and share cropper were used interchangeably, there were differences, depending on the contract that was written. A true sharecropper was considered to be the “poorest of the poor” in that they provided ONLY labor for the owner of the property. They were unlikely to ever be able to move up or out, never be able to buy their own land or make any real money. They had to use the seeds and equipment provided by the owner, plant what the owner demanded, and pay for their living arrangements with a percentage of the crops.

A cash renter was just that. The rent agreement was paid solely in cash. The crops, and money for those crops, were those of the renter, whether it was a good year or a bad year.

By contrast, a tenant farmer's contract usually contained provisions for both cash rent plus a share of the crops with the landlord. A good year was good for both; a bad crop year (caused by disease, drought, early winter, or other reasons) was bad for both. In even the best of situations, sharecropping families lived in a house and on land that was not their own and, without any notice, they could be evicted by their landlord. In addition, like the "company store" of Tennessee Ernie Ford's song, sharecroppers could be forced to pay elevated prices for seed or pasture land and split any profits in an unfair way. On the other hand, a tenant farmer's agreement normally called for notice to the farmer to vacate the land; and the same was true for a cash renter. 

Often we see in an obituary or in a life sketch that a person was the son or grandson of sharecroppers. You may think, as I did, that sharecroppers were only, or primarily, black? However, approximately two-thirds of all sharecroppers in the United States were white, and one third were black. However, both groups were at the bottom of the economic ladder.

By the 1940s—with increased mechanization and better-paying jobs in urban areas—sharecropping began to disappear in the United States, though some form of it still exists in a handful of areas. Sharecropping, however, is routinely practiced today in a few countries such as Bangladesh, Ghana, Zimbabwe, India and Pakistan. 

Of all acres in Iowa as of July 1, 2022, 7 percent were said to be under a crop sharing agreement which represented 12 percent of all leased land in Iowa. 

So, what happened to these renters or sharecroppers during the Great Depression? 

My mother always said that her family and her other relatives fared well during the Great Depression. They had plenty of food and animals and were able to keep their economic heads above water. But they actually OWNED their farms.

But for those who had high mortgages or didn’t own, including Peter and Maude Linn, what happened to them during the Great Depression? In general, farmers did struggle with lower prices, and, at some point, may not have been able to pay the rent on their farm or hire laborers for various jobs around the farm. I learned that Peter Linn (my grandfather) found that he couldn’t make any money by selling the pigs he had raised and was ready to just slaughter them all to have the meat and to stop the cost of their feed and upkeep. He was talked out of that at the time. But many farmers were making desperate decisions IF they were not able to keep up with the rent and other costs.

Some farmers in Iowa became so angry that they blockaded the transfer of milk to cities and towns, hoping that might drive the price up. In some cases, the price for a bushel of corn fell to just 7 or 8 cents. And during this time, some farmers declared bankruptcy.

Peter Linn, as a renter, and other farmers in our family who rented, felt the pressures of the Great Depression.

Farmers Grow Angry and Desperate:

The Great Depression Hits Farms and Cities in the 1930s | Iowa PBS

The Great Depression Hits Farms and Cities:

https://www.iowapbs.org/iowapathways/mypath/2591/great-depression-hits-farms-and-cities-1930s

Continuing the look at the agreement between Litchfield and my family in 1956, there is a section covering “who pays for what”. In our case, the following were included:

Tenant is to deliver at the Dayton or Wolf Station free of charge, in elevator, crib, or car, one-half of all corn, two-fifths of all oats and soy beans, and one-half of all other grain raised on the leased premises as lessor may direct. [We were paying in crops.]

Tenant pays one-half of cost of hybrid seed corn. Tenant furnishes all seed other than corn. [Somewhat of a split on corn seed.]

Tenant pays cost of threshing or combining oats and soy beans. Each party pays one-half of all other threshing. [A shared cost.]

Tenant pays $35.00 for pasture rent, $5.50 for meadow rental per acre for one cutting and $10 per acre for two or more cuttings.

Tenant agrees that he shall not be entitled to any compensation for buildings, repairs or other improvements … unless expressly consented to by lessor beforehand in writing.

There is much more to learn about these farm arrangements, but based on what you have read and your look at the 1956-57 agreement between Litchfield and my family, what do you think? Were we renters, tenant farmers, or share croppers?