27] THE TENURE OF LAND BEFORE i860 2 J 



fore, the system of supervised large-scale production 

 rather than slavery per se that gave the planter an ad- 

 vantage over the small proprietor. The labor expense 

 involved in the production of a pound of cotton tended 

 to be the same under slavery as would have been the 

 case had competitive wages been paid under a system of 

 plantation cultivation. 



It may be added that the slavery-plantation system 

 did not tend to have monopolistic powers, for the plan- 

 tations remained competitive units with no attempt to 

 lower the price of cotton in order to oust the small pro- 

 ducer. But, notwithstanding this, the fact remains that 

 the small farmer was at a disadvantage as compared with 

 the planter, just as to-day, even aside from the question 

 of monopoly, the small producer in many industries is 

 handicapped in the presence of his large competitor. It 

 should be remembered, however, that it was, for the 

 most part, only in the production of cotton that this 

 struggle could have been acute, for it was the practice 

 throughout Georgia before the war to raise for home 

 consumption such supplies as vegetables, wheat, corn 

 and meat. To the extent that the small producer also 

 raised these necessaries, he was in a position of inde- 

 pendence. 



The position of the small proprietor has been com- 

 pared with that of the planter because there were many 

 of these small farmers with holdings ranging in size from 

 a few acres up to several hundred, and because it was 

 easy for a person to acquire a small farm. Up to within 

 a generation of the war the state practiced, as has already 

 been pointed out, a liberal system of land distribution, 

 and for several years after the last distribution, continued 

 to encourage the acquisition of land by reducing the 

 already low fees connected with the taking out of re- 

 verted grants. 



