Texas, Cotton, and the New Deal gives a thorough account of how Texans debated, sometimes opposed, and ultimately contributed to New Deal cotton programs, and of how these programs were linked to agricultural problems after World War I. The book commences with the 1920s and continues with a detailed account of the first major depression-era farm bill, the Agricultural Adjustment Act. The narrative is largely chronological, tracing attempts at cotton supply management after the U.S. Supreme Court declared the Agricultural Adjustment Act unconstitutional in 1936. Among the more fascinating accounts is that of the 1933 “plow-up,” as crops already planted were destroyed in the hopes of reducing supply and supporting prices. Political and logistical obstacles left the outcome in doubt until well into the 1933 crop season.

The twists and turns of policy proposals and debates are followed, as are the changing views of major political figures. How quickly, and under what conditions were public figures subject to changing opinions in the face of major economic emergencies? How malleable were views given initially stated ideals? What role did party loyalty play in politics? The account features Secretary of Agriculture (under FDR), Henry Wallace, other members of the USDA, and several members of Congress. Volanto shows why the resulting programs, somewhat effective in addressing cotton oversupply and rescuing Texas farmers, were as a whole “muddled” (p. 145).

The pressures of economic emergency, party politics, the desire for reelection, and the changing views of the electorate all contributed to the outcomes. For example, Marvin Jones (Amarillo, Texas), Congressman and Chair of the House committee on Agriculture began the 1930s opposed to production controls, citing increased exports as the solution to cotton overproduction. By 1933, as economic emergency deepened and out of “party loyalty,” he acquiesced to a farm program with reduced production—albeit voluntary reductions. Jones later became an outspoken advocate of the 1934 Bankhead bill, with its compulsory limits on production. He then went so far as to state that the compulsory features were not antithetical to the concept of freedom, claiming that order was essential to liberty (pp. 71–72). Even later Jones seemed to reverse his position again, supporting the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act, stating that its voluntary features were entirely adequate (p. 72). Only one Texan in Congress, George B. Terrell, appeared steadfast in his opposition to production controls.

Were the vacillations of Jones and others due to the changing degrees of economic crisis, or the changing political climate as Roosevelt's favor in Congress waxed and waned? Although the answers to these questions are not always clear cut, Volanto's account clearly documents the changes in graphic detail. As such, the narrative provides interesting reading and shows how emergency and expediency can result in abandoning stated ideals, however sincerely they are held at the outset.

Two Texas newspapers appeared more consistent in their editorial opinions. Even in the late 1930s, the Dallas Morning News and Houston Post, repeatedly editorialized against the federal government controlling the decisions of farmers. Those in politics thus seemed much more ready to abandon their rhetoric of free enterprise than these papers' editors. Although Volanto's account is invaluable, we might ask what other newspapers were saying, given that both Dallas and Houston had more than one paper, and the state contained many towns and cities of various sizes. In addition, what were the underlying motives of these papers' editors? Were they committed to the principles of individual rights, the independence of Texas, or the belief in the free press as critic? It is perhaps an index of the severity of the agricultural emergency, that even the Morning News grudgingly supported the Federal Commodity Credit Corporation by September 1933 (p. 52), although it later returned to its support of individual control (p. 106).

Among the questions one might ask of the book: Why Texas? The state contains virtually all the major cotton production regions within its vast borders as well as two major cities. While southern by most accounts, it was east Texas that was southern socially, whereas the High Plains had a greater proportion of owner-operator farms, and the far west was an embryonic cotton producer with large scale units. Volanto misses an opportunity to compare the regions within Texas. Intrastate comparisons would be most important with respect to the issue of “tenant displacement.” East Texas agrarian relations in the 1930s entailed deeply embedded paternalism and hierarchy based on race. There, the implications of farm programs implemented by the local elite were more ominous than elsewhere.

With respect to tenancy and sharecropping, the text is consistent with the conventional view that tenants and sharecroppers benefited little from New Deal programs whose raison d'être was supposedly to help the most distressed of the Great Depression's victims. Instead of focusing on the direct results of their actions, Volanto examines the perceptions of tenants and sharecroppers, as well as the USDA's defense of their own conduct. This provides a useful perspective.

The book is readable and skillfully put together, providing a detailed assessment of the New Deal farm programs in Texas in a relatively short work. Although it contains little direct economic analysis, it raises a wealth of economic issues, with a clear presentation of complicated farm programs and insights into why particular features were proposed. The results are important given that agricultural policy is still implicitly framed with reference to the New Deal. Volanto's perspective on Texas and the New Deal thus can teach us much about hastily constructed policies, the reasons why those most in need received only limited benefits, and the many negative and lasting unintended consequences of New Deal Policy. Perhaps Volanto did not intend as negative a view of the New Deal agricultural policy as this reviewer came away with; still, there can be little doubt that there is much to fault in the policy formulations so thoroughly documented in this book.