Conrad1958 1

THE JOURNAL OF
POLITICAL ECONOMY
VolumeLXVI APRIL 1958 Number
2
THE ECONOMICS OF SLAVERY IN THE ANTE BELLUM SOUTH1

ALFRED H. CONRAD AND JOHN R. MEYER
Harvard University
the writingsof men who lived with slav-

T
I. OBJECTIVES AND METHODS
HE outstanding economic character- ery: American or English liberals like
isticsof southernagriculturebefore G. M. Weston, H. R. Helper, or J. E.
the Civil War were a high degree Cairnes and southernslaveownerswho,
of specialization and virtuallyexclusive in a religious,self-righteousage, could
relianceon a slave labor force.The large- find every motive for the protectionof
scale, commercialdependenceupon slave the slave systemexcept that it was per-
labor was to distinguishthe ante bellum sonallyprofitable.The argumentis to be
South not only fromotherregionsin its found most stronglystated in the work
own timebut fromall regionsat all other of later southern historians, especially
times in American agriculturalhistory. C. W. Ramsdell and U. B. Phillips,who
Because of this unique historicalstatus, take the positionthat the Civil War, far
ante bellum southern agriculture has frombeing an irrepressibleconflict,was
been a subjectforspecial historicalatten- an unnecessaryblood bath. They argue
tion. Above all else, attentionhas been that slaveryhad reached its natural lim-
focusedupon the propositionthat, even its and that it was cumbersome and
without external intervention,slavery inefficient and, probablywithinless than
would have toppled of its own weight. a generation, would have destroyedit-
This allegationhas its sourcein the asser- self. To the question why emancipation
tions of slave inefficiency to be found in was not resortedto, theyreplythat slav-
1 This paper was presentedat a meetingof the erywas forthe southernersan important
Conferenceon Research in Income and Wealth at (and evidentlyexpensive) duty, part of
Williams College, Williamstown, Massachusetts, their"unending task of race discipline."
September4-5, 1957,and is publishedherewiththe
kind permissionof the Conference.We wish to On the otherside, Lewis Gray and Ken-
thankthe Harvard FoundationforAdvanced Study neth Stampp have strongly contested
and Research for a grant for computational and thisview,contendingthat southernplan-
secretarialassistance. The Foundation does not, of
course,share in any way the responsibilityfor the tation agriculturewas at least as remu-
viewsor conclusionsof the paper. nerative an economic activity as most
95
This content downloaded from 141.218.001.105 on August 09, 2016 18:46:00 PM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
96 ALFRED I. CONRAD AND JOHN R. MEYER
other business enterprisesin the young firstwhat it is we are talkingabout and,

republic. second,whetherwe can say anythingthat
The evidence employedin this debate can be provedor disproved.For example,
has been provided by the few, usually we mustask what theslave economywas.
fragmentary,accounting records that Was it cottonculture?Was it cottonand
have come down to us fromearly plan- sugar and tobacco? Was it all of ante
tation activities. The opposing parties bellum southernagriculture?In answer-
have arranged and rearrangedthe data ing, we shall defineslavery in terms of
in accordancewith various standardand two production functions. One func-
sometimesimaginaryaccountingconven- tion relates inputs of Negro slaves (and
tions. Indeed, the debate over the value the materials required to maintain the
of the different constituentpieces of in- slaves) to the productionof the southern
formationreconstructsin embryomuch staple crops,particularlycotton.The sec-
of the historicaldevelopmentof Ameri- ond functiondescribesthe productionof
can accounting practices. For example, the intermediate good, slave labor-
virtually all the accounting valuation slave-breeding,to use an emotionally
problemshave been discussed with rela- chargedtermwhichhas colored,even de-
tion to the slave question, includingthe termined,most of the conclusionsabout
role and meaning of depreciation, the this problem.
nature and accountability of interest What do we mean by "efficiency"?
charges,and the validity of distinctions Essentially,we shall mean a comparison
between profitsand payments of mana- of the returnfromthe use of this form
gerial wages. But, despite the fact that of capital-Negro slaves-with the re-
theproblemis ostensiblyone in economic turnsbeingearned on othercapital assets
history,no attempthas ever been made at the time. Thus we mean to consider
to measure the profitabilityof slavery whether the slave system was being
according to the economic (as opposed draggeddown ofits own weight;whether
to accounting) concept of profitability. the allocation of resourceswas impaired
This paper is an attemptto fillthis void. by the rigidityof capitalized labor sup-
Thus this paper is devoted to estab- ply; whether southern capital was mis-
lishingmethodologicalas well as histori- used or indeed drawnaway to the North;
cal points. Specifically,we shall attempt and, finally,whetherslaverymust inevi-
to measure the profitabilityof southern tably have declined froman inabilityof
slave operationsin termsofmoderncapi- the slave forceto reproduceitself.
tal theory.In doingso, we shall illustrate The hypothesis that slavery was an
theways in whicheconomictheorymight efficient, maintainableformof economic
be used in ordering and organizing his- organization is not a new one, of course.
toricalfacts.An additional methodologi- Nor are we, by one hundred years, at
cal point is also made evident by this least, among the firstto conclude that
exercise, namely, how the very simple Negro slaverywas profitablein the ante
statisticalconcepts of range and central bellum South. What we do feel to be
tendency as applied to frequency dis- 2 A more thoroughpresentationof these meth-
tributionsof data can be employed in odological views may be foundin our paper, "Eco-
interpretingor moderating inferences nomic Theory, StatisticalInference,and Economi
History," in The Tasks of Economic History,pro-
fromhistoricalfacts.2 ceedingsissue of the Journal of EconomicHistory
In executingthese tasks, we must ask December, 1957.

ECONOMICS OF SLAVERY IN THE ANTE BELLUM SOUTH 97
novel, however,is our approach. Postu- mit that this view is in errorand that
lating that AmericanNegro slaverywas the errorarises fromthe failureto recog-
characterizedby two production func- nize that an agriculturalsystemdepend-
tions,we argue that an efficientsystem ent upon slavery can be definedopera-
developed in which those regions best tionallyonly in termsof the production
suited to the productionof cotton (and function for both the final good-in
the other importantstaples) specialized our case, cotton-and the production
in agriculturalproduction,while the less function for the intermediate good-
productive land continued to produce Negro slaves. Considered operationally,
slaves, exporting the increase to the in terms of a neoclassical two-region,
staple-cropareas. It is thisstructurethat two-commodity trade system,it must be
we are examining. seen that a slave systemproduces labor
We propose to test the hypothesisby as an intermediategood. The profitabili-
puttingappropriatevalues on the vari- ty of the systemcannot be decided with-
ables in the production functionsand out consideringthe system's ability to
computingthe rate of returnover cost, produce chattellabor efficiently.
the stream of income over the lifetime There are also non-historicalreasons
of the slave. This rate of return, the for taking up once again the economics
marginalefficiency ofslave capital, must, of ante bellum southernslavery. A de-
in turn, be shown to be at least equal tailed re-evaluation of the profits of
to the rate of interestcurrentlyavailable plantationslaveryin theAmericanSouth
in the American capital markets. It is mighthelp us evaluate the possibilities,
furthernecessary to show that appro- first,that the near-slaveryexistingtoday
priate marketsexisted to make this re- in many highlyagricultural,underindus-
gional specialization possible and that trializedlands is an institutionthat can
slavery did not necessarily imply the be expected to disappear automatically
disappearanceor misallocationofcapital. or, second, that dislodgingit will require
Evidence on the abilityof the slave force substantialgovernmentalpressureor in-
to maintainitselfnumericallywill be had terference. These are, ofcourse,oftenkey
as a corollaryresult.For these purposes policy questions in formercolonial coun-
it is necessary to obtain data on slave tries that are just beginningto develop
prices and cotton prices, the average modernindustrialeconomies.
output of male field hands and field The possiblerelevanceoftheAmerican
wenches,the life-expectancyof Negroes experiencein this connectionincreases,
born in slavery,the cost of maintaining moreover, as the underlyingeconomic
slaves during infancy and other non- motivationsof a slave system are ana-
productiveperiods,and, finally,the net lyzed and established.This happens pri-
reproductionrate and the demographic marily because, once these motives are
compositionof the slave population in recognized, it becomes possible better
the breedingand using areas. to understand and predict the political
Looked upon simplyas a staple-com- structuresthat will accompany slavery.
modityagriculture,the southernsystem In other words, the interrelationships
must appear to have been burdened- between certain economic and political
possiblyeven to have been on the verge goals of slaverycan be betterunderstood
of collapse-under the weightof areas of once the underlying economic factors
unprofitablefarming.We sub-
inefficient, are understood.

98 ALFRED H. CONRAD AND JOHN R. MEYER
II. THE ECONOMIC RETURNS ON SLAVE- that the marginal efficiency exceeds the
HOLDING interestrate (in the Keynesian terminol-
From the standpoint of the entre- ogy). From this statementof the prob-
preneurmakingan investmentin slaves, lem, it is obvious that the followingin-
the basic problemsinvolvedin determin- formationis needed to determine the
ing profitabilityare analytically the profitabilityof slaveholding from the
same as those met in determiningthe slaveholder'spoint of view: (a) the lon-
returns from any other kind of cap- gevity of slaves; (b) the costs of slaves
ital investment. The acquisition of a and any necessaryaccompanyingcapital
slave representedthe tying-upof capital investments; (c) the interestrate; and
in what has appropriatelybeen called a (d) the annual returnsfrom slave pro-
roundaboutmethod of production.Like ductiveactivities,definedto includeboth
the purchase of any capital, a slave pur- field labor and procreation. We shall
chase was made in the anticipation of considereach of these in turn and then
gaininghigherreturnsthan are available put the pieces togetherto determinethe
from less time-consumingor capital- approximate profitabilityof slave in-
vestments.
TABLE 1
EXPECTATION OF LIFE AT BIRTH IN A. THE LONGEVITY OF STAVES
YEARS FOR WHITE AND COL-
Slave longevitycorresponds,of course,
ORED MALES, UNITED STATES,
1850* to the period for which a slave invest-
State White Colored mentwas made. We shall limitattention
Massachusetts.... 38.3 39.75 here to the purchase of twenty-year-old
Maryland........ 41.8 38.47 Negroes in the immediatepre-Civil War
Louisiana . .. .... 28.89
* ReportedinL. I. Dublin,A. J.Latka,and era, and we shall deal only with the
M. Spiegelman, LengthofLife(NewYork:Ron-
ald Press Co., 1949) p. 54, wherethesourceis typicalor median life-expectancy forthis
givenas the L. W. Meech table based on the
recordsof the 1850Censusand firstpublished group. These limitsgreatlysimplifythe
in J. C. G. Kennedy,TheSeventh Census-Re-
portoftheSuperintendent oftheCensus,Dec. 1, problemand stillincludethe vast major-
1852 (Washington,D.C., 1853), p. 13. The
Marylandcoloreddata are forslavesonly;the ity of relevantcases.
Louisiana,forslavesand freetogether.
There is a scarcityof good longevity
usingmethods.This modelis particularly data forthe period,but it is known that
applicable in the present case, because in 1850 Negroes lived just about as long
slave investments, like the forestsor wine as whitesin the two states forwhich ac-
cellarsof classic capital theory,produced ceptabledata are available. The available
a naturalincreasewiththepassage oftime. figuresare given in Table 1. There is
Investmentreturnsare properlycom- doubt about the quality of these esti-
puted by usingthe capital-valueformula, mates because theyshowNegroesin New
y = xt/(1 + r)t,wherey is the cost of the England expecting a longer life than
investment,xi is realized returnt years whites. This is not the case today, nor
hence,and r is the internalrate ofreturn3 3 Computationof rate of returnin this way is
or what Keynes called the marginal ef- preferableto the usual recordingof net profitrates
on total plantationinvestmentin slaves, land, and
ficiency of capital. When returns are durable equipment, because of the reproductive
realizedover a numberofyears,the total characterand the limiteddurabilityof slave invest-
earningsof the capital can be found by ments. Clearly, the same characteristicsdo not
apply to non-depreciableinvestmentsin land. A
simple summationin this formula.The non-depreciableinvestmentin agriculturalland is,
criterionfor a profitableinvestmentis however,quite rare.

was it the case in 1900, when the first Looking back at the data in Table 1,
good data became available. Also, Ne- thereis no reason to expect twenty-year-
groes would appear in this table to have old Massachusetts Negroes to have a
had a longerlife-expectancy in 1850 than lower life-expectancythan Massachu-
they had fiftyyears later. Althoughsur- setts whites, though both clearly lived
prising,thismay be perfectlycorrect.Ne- longerthan southernNegroes of the pe-
groescould have receivedbettercare un- riod. Taking all these factors into ac-
der slavery, because plantation owners count,an estimateofthirtyto thirty-five
had an economicinterestin keepingNe- years oflife-expectancy seemsmostplau-
groes alive. Furthermore,the Negro in sible for twenty-year-old Negroes work-
the period afteremancipationgenerally ing as prime cotton hands on southern
lacked the means to participate equally plantations in the period 1830-50, and
in the new medical advances, in contrast a thirty-yearlife-expectancywill gener-
to his position of roughlyequal medical ally be used in the succeeding calcula-
care in the period before1860. tions.
Life-expectationat birthdoes not tell
B. THE COST OF THE CAPITAL INVESTMENT
us much, of course, about the expecta-
tion of a twenty-year-old man. Actually, The capital investmentin plantation
thereare no data on Negro life-expect- operations included investmentboth in
ancy at differentage levels in the prewar slaves and in the land and equipmenton
period except for some imperfectesti- which the slaves worked. The price of
mates made by Sydnor for Mississippi slaves fluctuatedwidely,beingsubject to
slaves.4 Using the average reportedage the waves of speculationin cotton. Fur-
at death of those over the age of twenty thermore,the price depended, among
who died in 1850, he estimated a life- other things,upon the age, sex, disposi-
expectancy of twenty-twoyears for a tion, degreeof training,and conditionof
twenty-year-oldMississippi slave. This the slave. In order to hold these vari-
figureis probably low for two reasons. ables roughlyconstant,we shall confine
First,the estimatingproceduretellsmore our presentanalysis to eighteen-twenty-
about life-expectancyin the years pre- year-oldprimefieldhands and wenches.
ceding 1850 than after,unless we make Some summarydata on slave priceswere
the dubious assumption that there was compiledby U. B. Phillipson the basis of
no advance in medical and dietary available marketquotations,billsoftrans-
knowledgearound the middleof the cen- actions, and reportsof sales in most of
tury. Second, estimatesfromdeaths re- the importantslave marketsof Georgia.
ported at the end of ten-yearintervals His estimates of the best averages for
and averagedback overthe decade would
tend to underestimatelife-spansat the 5 L. I. Dublin, A. J. Latka, and M. Spiegelman,
Lengthof Life (New York: Ronald Press Co., 1949),
youngerages. Doubts about the quality p. 51. It is worthnotingthat thereis generalagree-
of the Sydnor data are borne out by ment that labor on the rice and sugar plantations
considerationof the Massachusetts life- was sufficientlymore arduous to reduce Negro
longevityin suchlocations.Therefore,theLouisiana
expectancyof40.1 yearsfortwenty-year- estimatesare probablyinordinatelypessimistic,and
old males, white and Negro, in 1850.5 the Maryland figuresare betterestimatesof condi-
tions prevailingon the cottonplantations.This, in
4Charles S. Sydnor, "Life Span of Mississippi esti-
turn,means that the thirty-to thirty-five-year
Slaves," AmericanHistoricalReview,XXXV (April, mates used beloware, ifanything,a littleconserva-
1930), 566-74. tive.

100 ALFRED) 1I. CONRAD AND JOHN R. MEYER
several years between 1828 and 1860 are dependingon the quality of the soil and
presented in Table 2. On the basis of the type of agriculturepursued, experi-
these data it would appear that both the mental control on our calculations re-
median and the mean price for prime quires that attentionbe confinedto cot-
field hands were in the range of from ton culture. The range in cotton-land
$900 to $950 in the period 1830-50. Be- pricesin the period 1830-50 is fairlywell
cause of the substantial price increases bracketed by the $6 per acre paid for
in the last ante bellum decade, these poor upland pine land in Alabama and
averages would run substantiallyhigher the$35-$40 per acre paid forclearedMis-
for the entire slave period after 1830; sissippialluvium. Such a range even en-
specifically, about $1,100-$s,200.Since compasses the costs of new lands in the
the prices of fieldwenchesusually aver- Southwest.Althoughsuch land was ob-
tainedfornominaloriginalcost,theusual
TABLE 2
costs of clearing,draining,and otherwise
ESTIMATED AVERAGE SLAVE preparingit, plus the transportationof
PRICES IN GEORGIA, SE-
slaves and supplies, would amount to
LECTED YEARS, 1828-60
somethingin the range of $20-$30 per
Average
Price of acre. There was also variation in the
PrimeField numberofacres needed per hand. Count-
Year Hands
1828. . $ 700 ing garden land and woodlots,as well as
1835 ............. . 900 productive fields,the usual number of
1837 .............. 1,300 acres per fieldhand was between 15 and
1839 . . 1,000
184 .. 700 35, the exact figuredependingprimarily
844 .. 600 on the quality of the land. This meant
184 .. 900 an originalland investmentper hand of
851 . . 1,050
853 . . 1,200 somewhere between$90 and $1,400,with
185 .. 1,650 $180-$600 encompassing the vast ma-
860 . . 1,800 jorityof instances.
Source:U. B. Phillips,"The Eco-
nomicCostofSlaveholding in theCot- The price per acre was, of course, re-
ton Pelt," Political Science Quarterly,
XX, No. 2 (1905), 267. lated to the durabilityof the land, which
immediatelyintroducesa furtherdimen-
aged about $100-$150 less than those of sionintothe capital costproblem.Cotton
hands, they were probably in the range lands lasted betweenten and fortyyears,
offrom$800 to $850 in the years 1830-50 dependingupon originalquality and fer-
and between $900 and $1,100 for the tilization. In the land-rich,labor-scarce
entireperiod 1830-60. (Phillips' averages economyof the nineteenth-century Uni-
are substantiallyconfirmedby the de- ted States, fertilizationwas a rare prac-
tailed tabulation of slave transactions tice. Furthermore,planters clearly had
shownin Table A of the Appendix. This the choice betweenoperatingless capital
is a reasonably exhaustive list of such intensively on low-durability land or
transactionsas reportedin the standard more capital intensivelyon high-dura-
referenceson ante bellum southernagri- bility land. For example, poor Alabama
culture.) pine land mightbe expected to last ten
As forthe non-slavecapital, by farthe years and require 30-35 acres per hand;
most importantwas the investmentin this meant that $180-$210 had to be
land. Since the land values variedwidely, reinvestedevery ten years to utilize the

slave force properly. Assuming thirty- ance of data on interest rates in this
year slave longevityand an 8 per cent period, none correspondsexactly to the
interestrate, the present value of the desiredrate. In a strictconceptualsense,
land investmentfor one slave's lifetime the relevantrate of interestis that which
was $302-$350 foran upland-pineopera- plantation owners or other investorsin
tion. On the alluvium, by contrast,the southernagriculturecould have earned
land would typicallyoutlast the slave in on theirmoney in otherpursuitsif slav-
usefulness;assuming,though,that both ery had gone out of existence. This is
lasted the same numberofyearsand that difficultto arrive at on the basis of his-
16 acres of cleared and 10 of uncleared toricalevidence,since it assumes circum-
land (at $10 per acre) wereused perhand, stances contraryto the facts.The closest
a total land investmentof $660 per hand substitute would be earnings on other
is indicated. This differencein value of investmentsthat were least dependent
the land investmentwas presumably a upon cotton and southern agriculture.
functionof different yields. At any rate, Given the importance of cotton in the
the typical case was probably halfway Americaneconomypriorto the Civil War
between these two, involvinga land in- and the general interdependenceof eco-
vestmentof about $450 per hand. nomic systems,even in so primitivean
Similar problems arise in estimating economyas that of the United States in
the investmentin plows, gins, wagons, the firsthalf of the nineteenthcentury,
cabins, and miscellaneous implements. it is difficultto find any conceptually
Such investmentsran about $25 per hand correct figures.The figuresthat follow
in originaloutlay and had to be renewed are offeredin complete recognitionof
every fifteenyears. This gives a total their fallibilityon this count, yet they
presentvalue in such items (again on the are probably as good as are available.
assumption of thirty-yearslave longev- In the contemporarychroniclesit is
ity and 8 per cent interest)of about $33. obvious that southernersand northerners
A small investmentwas requiredin work alike considered6-8 per centa reasonable
horsesand oxen,but in thiscase the stock rate of returnand a reasonable asking
was likelyto be self-replenishing, reduc- price forloans. Figures in this range are
ingthe coststo intereston theinvestment repeated over and over again and must
at most. Putting all these capital costs be given some significance.This is all
together indicates that $1,400-$1,450 the more true because these figuresare
was a fair approximationof the typical consistentwithreportedrateschargedon
or average total investment per male prime commercialpaper and otherdebt
slave in terms of present values. The instrumentsin the principalmoneymar-
range ran from$1,250 to $1,650. kets before1860. The prime commerical
rates charged in New York and Boston
C. THE INTEREST RATE in the period 1830-65, shown in Table
Determiningthe relevantrate ofinter- 3, illustrate this point.' Similarly, the
est-the rate withwhichthe cotton-slave
ofthesefigures,
6 In confirmation Lance E. Davis,
returnsmust be compared-is perhaps who is now completinga study of New England
empiricallythe easiest and conceptually financialintermediaries(the essentialsof whichcan
the mostdifficult of the tasks in comput- be foundin his Ph.D. dissertationon depositin the
Johns Hopkins UniversityLibrary), reports that
ing the economicreturnson slave invest- these New England firmsconsistentlyrealized less
ments. While there is a relative abund- than 6 percenton three-signature primecommerci a

rates on New York Stock Exchange call side the timeperiodof this investigation,
loans, New England municipal issues, may be conceptuallythe most pertinent
and rail debentures,shown in Table 4, figures in Tables 3 and 4. The Civil
fall for the most part within,or below, War representsas good an approxima-
this same 6-8 per cent range. While the tion as is achievable of a controlledex-
average annual ratesfluctuatedwidelyin periment to determine investment re-
the yearsbetween1830 and 1850 and the turns in the North under complete di-
distributionof rates is skewed, the cen- vorce fromthe plantationeconomy.The
tral tendencywas clearlyclose to the 6-8 difficultyis, of course, that too many
per cent range. Specifically,the New otherstructuralchanges took place con-
York average was 9.2 per cent, the comitantlywith the withdrawal of the
median was 8.0, and the mode was be- southerncottoneconomy:above all else,
TABLE 3
AVERAGE ANNUAL INTEREST RATES ON PRIME COMMERCIAL
PAPER FROM 1831 TO 1860
New York* Bostont New York* Bostont
1831............ 5.1 6.5 1849............ 10.0 12.0
1832............ 5.3 6.5 1850............ 8.0 7.5
1833............ 6.9 6.0 1851............ 9.7 7.0
1834............ 14.6 14.5 1852............ 6.6 6.0
1835............ 7.0 5.0 1853............ 10.2 10.7
1836............ 18.4 20.3 1854............ 10.4 12.0
1837............ 14.1 6.0 1855............ 8.9 7.0
1838............ 9.0 7.0 1856............ 8.9 10.0
1839............ 13.2 9.0 1857............ 12.9 9.0
1840............ 7.8 6.0 1858............ 5.0 4.5
1841............ 6.9 6.0 1859............ 6.8 7.0
1842............ 8.1 7.8 1860............ 7.0 6.0
1843............ 4.5 3.0 1861............ 6.5 ....
1844............ 4.9 5.0 1862............ 5.8 ....
1845............ 6.0 6.0 1863............ 5.0 ....
1846........... 8.3 8.0 1864 .. ..... 6.0 ....
1847............ 9.6 6.0 1865............ 7.6 ....
1848............ 15.1 15.0
Sources: New York data: Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Monthly Review, March 1, 1921, p. 3.
The figuresare also reproduced in A. 0. Greef, The Commercial Paper House in the United States (Cam-
bridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1938), p. 79. Boston data: Joseph G. Martin, One Hundred Years'
Historyof theBoston Slock and Money Markets (Boston: The Author, 1898), pp. 52-53.
* Two-name sixty-ninety-daypaper.
t "First class three to six months, bankable paper." The rate reported is either one sustained for a
major portion of the year or an arithmetic average.
tween 6.0 and 7.0 per cent. Because of the Lincoln administrationadopted the
the skew, the median rate of 8 per cent very essence of Keynesian expansionary
is probably the best measure of central fiscal policies. It simultaneouslyran a
tendencyforthe presentanalysis. large deficitbudget and closed the econ-
The interestrates for the Civil War omywith high tariffsand buy-American
years, although they lie somewhat out- clauses in governmentcontracts.On the
supplyside ofthe moneymarket,the war
paper in the periodbefore1840; from1840 to 1860,
however,almost all loans were made at 6 per cent,
meant that the southernwithdrawalwas
whichwas the legal maximumunderMassachusetts consummatedwithoutany flowof capi-
usurylaws. He estimatesthat these intermediaries tal out of slavery and into other ven-
realized an over-all returnof between 6 and 7 per
centin theperiod1840-60on theirtotalinvestment;
tures.Consequently,returnson northern
6 per cent on the debt and 7-8 per cent on equity. investments unquestionably remained

higherthan theywould have if southern withdrawalof capital fromslave opera-

cotton had been withdrawnwithoutoff- tions in southernagriculturewould not
setting governmentaction and with a have depressedmarginal investmentre-
flow of southern capital into northern turnsin the prewarUnited States econo-
moneymarkets.On the otherhand, there my muchbelow 4.5-5 per cent. Similarly,
mighthave been compensatorygovern- it seems safe to conclude that the with-
ment action even without the war, and drawn capital could not have expected
the loss of southernfunds was at least to earn returnsmuch in excess of 8 per
partially offsetby the loss of southern cent. Between these high and low esti-
opportunities.The 6-7 per cent average mates, a returnof 6 per cent seems the
returns in the period 1860-65 can be most probable and, therefore,appropri-
viewed as indicative of at least what ate forcomparisonin our model.
could be achieved in the United States
TABLE 4
in the absence of cotton investmentop-
YIELDS ON VARIOUS ECONOMIC
portunities.
ACTIVITIES, 1857-65
The realization on short-term,high- Call Money
quality commercialpaper mightnormal- Rates at the
New England New York Railroad
ly be expected to be below the realiza- Municipal Stock Bond Yields
tion on longer-terminvestmentsof the Bond Yields Exchange (January
(January (Arithmetic Average
type representedby ownershipof a cot- Index Averageof forAll
ton plantation. However, in the period Year Numbers) Months) Railroads)
1840-60 banking practices were rather 1857 ........
1858........
5.2
5.3
9.3
4.2
8.1
8.7
lax and potentiallyor actually inflation- 1859........ 4.8 5.4 7.4
ary, as indicated by the recurrentfinan- 1860 ........
1861........
4.8
4.9
6.0
5.8
7.5
7.4
cial panics of the time. Such unstable 1862........ 5.2 5.2 7.5
financialconditionsmay have givenequi- 1863 ........
1864........
4.4
4.7
6.2
6.6
5.6
6.0
ty a premiumthat it mightotherwisenot 1865........ 5.2 6.2 6.2
have enjoyed. Furthermore,the exist- Rates, Source: Frederick R. Macaulay, The Movementsoa Interest
Bond Y'ieldsand Stock Prices in the UnitedStates since 1856
ence of well-establishedslave and real A172-A173
(New York:NationalBureauofEconomicResearch,1938),pp.
and A34-A38.
estate marketsmade mostplantationin-
vestmentshighlynegotiable,therebyre- D. ANNUAL RETURNS
ducing the time commitmentin such The appropriatereturnfigureto enter
investments. There are some reports in the capital equation is the net return
available on the realizable returns on on current account, or the difference
longer-terminvestments; for example, betweengrosssales and all out-of-pocket
Table 4 presentsthe rates at whichsome expenses. The expense deduction is lim-
municipal and railroad development ited to out-of-pocketexpenses, because
bonds were floatedin the prewarperiod. all the book chargesthat complicatethe
In addition, Davis reports returns of usual accounting procedures are taken
16.76 per cent on total capital stock in into account in the process of construct-
the 1844-48 period and 5.75 per cent in ing the capital cost estimate.
the 1848-53 period fornine of the larger 7 Lance E. Davis, "Sources ofIndustrialFinance:
and moreprosperousMassachusetts tex- The American Textile Industry," Explorationsin
tile firms.7 Entrepreneurial History,IX (April, 1957), 201. The
figuresare based on the companies'financialrecords
From these many disparate sources it to be found at the Baker Library of the Harvard
seems safe to estimate that a wholesale Graduate School of Business Administration.

Estimates of plantationexpenseshave mates is presentedin Table 5. The total

been takenprimarily fromthreeexcellent, figureof $20-$21 annual out-of-pocket
exhaustiverecordsof the available mate- slave maintenancecosts will be used in
rial: J. L. Watkins' The Cost of Cotton subsequent calculations. These costs are
Production,Lewis C. Gray's History of to be subtractedfromthe annual gross
Agriculturein theSouthernUnitedStates returnfigureson slave activities.
to 1860, and Kenneth Stampp's The For a male fieldhand the returnscon-
Peculiar Institution.8A reasonablythor- sidered will be limited to the sales of
ough check of these secondary sources productsrealized fromhis fieldlabor; in
againstsomeprimarysourcesand against the case of a female hand, an addition
TABLE 5
TYPICALANNUAL OUT-OF-POCKET COSTS OF MAINTAINING AND WORKING
PRIME FIELD HANDS ON SOUTHERN PLANTATIONS
IN THE PERIOD 1840-60
A. Food and clothing
(1) Out-of-pocket costs wheremost food was producedon
plantationand mostclothingwas hand-sewn... .... . $ 2. 50-$ 3.46
(2) Cash costsifpurchased ............................ $25.00--$40.00
(3) Out-of-pocketcosts where some ready-madeclothing
and meat, fish,and otherfood "delicacies" were pur-
chased........................................... $ 7.00-$10.00
B. Medical care......................................... $ 1.50-$ 2.00
C. Taxes............................................... $ 0.39-$ 1.20
D. Supervision .......................................... $ 5.00-$15.00
Total, based on meansoftheestimatesabove and option(3)
underA............................................ $20.00-$21.00
Principal sources: J. L. Watkins, The Cost of CottonProduction (United States Department of Agri-
culture, Division of Statistics, Miscellaneous Series, Bull. 16 [Washington, D.C.: Government Printing
Office,1899]); Lewis C. Gray, HistoryofAgriculturein theSouthernUnitedStates to 1860 (Washington, D.C.:
Carnegie Institution, 1933), pp. 529-67; Kenneth Stampp, The Peculiar Institution(New York: A. A. Knopf,
Inc., 1956), chaps. vi, vii, and ix.
one another for consistency indicates must be made for the returnsrealized
that thesesurveyshave been reliablyand on the labor and sale of her children.
accurately made. A digest of the esti- Because of these basic differences in the
8 These three secondary sources carefullyand productionfunctionsfor the two sexes,
consistentlyrecord the estimates available from they will be treated separately.
threebasic typesofprimarymaterial.Gray'sHistory
of A griculturein the Southern United States to For the male fieldhand, limitedto the
1860 (Washington,D.C., 1933), esp. pp. 529-67, returnson his fieldlabor, the gross pro-
covers the cost estimatesintermittently reportedin ceeds will depend on the price of cotton
the principalagriculturaland businessjournals read
by the plantersand traders:DeBow's Review,Farm- and the quantity of his annual output.
ers' Register,Farmerand Planter,SouthernPlanter, The output, in turn, will be crucially
Southern A griculturist,and Hunt's Merchants' dependenton the quality of the land on
Magazine. Watkins' The Cost of CottonProduction
(U.S. Department of Agriculture,Miscellaneous which the slave was employed and, to
Series,Bull. 16 [Washington,D.C., 1899]) includes a much lesser degree, upon the quality
the estimatesrecordedin the Patent Officeand the and amount of capital goods with which
Commissioner ofPatents' Annual Reports,especially
fortheyears1844,1849, 1850, 1852, 1854,and 1855. he was equipped. The figuresin Table
Stampp's The Peculiar Institution (New York, 6 illustrate the possible variation in
1956), esp. chaps. vi, vii, and ix, reportsthe esti-
mates available fromdiariesand individualplanta-
productivityper hand. These estimates
in
tion recordsstill existence. agree with frequentstatementsin con-

temporary journalsthat in the typical ally equal to the Liverpoolpriceminus
casea primefieldhandcouldbe expected oceanshipping rates,theNew Yorkand
to raisefrom3.5 to 4 balesperyear.The Mobile pricesweregenerallysomewhat
maximum seemsto have been7-8 bales higher.Takingall thisintoconsideration,
on the best lands, and 2-3 bales was 7-8 centsseemsa realisticand conserva-
theminimum on thepoorestland. tiveestimateoftheaveragerealizedfarm
The relevantpriceof cottonforvalu- priceforthewholeperiod.
ingtheseyieldsis the net pricerealized Finally,the price,productivity, and
at thefarm(in orderthatpriceand cost capitalcostestimatesmustbe combined
data be comparable).This means that in orderto computethe actual profita-
exportpricesat themajorportsmustbe bilityofinvestments in maleslavelabor
TABLE 6
REPORTED YIELDS PER PRIME FIELD HAND
Bales per
Location Year Hand Sourcc
South Carolina coastal.......... 1849 43 Watkins
Mississippi(De Soto County).... 1849 4 Watkins
Unidentified ................... 1844 7 Watkins
Alabama (CherokeeCounty)..... 1855 4 Watkins
Mississippi(Vicksburgarea) ..... 1855 8 Watkins
New Southwestland........... 1850's 5 Gray,p. 912
South Carolina upland.......... 1852 3 Gray,p. 912
Texas ....................... 1859 10 Stampp,p. 408
ArkansasRiver................ 1859 7 Stampp,p.408
adjusteddownwardby the amountof TABLE 7

freight,insurance,storage,drayage,and COTTON MARKETING COSTS PER BALE
factor'scommissionchargesthat were CHARGEABLE TO PLANTERS IN 1840
properly chargeableto theplanter.Gray At At
estimatesthatthesecostsgenerallyran Mobile Charleston
in.............. $1.50*
between $2.50and$4 perbale.Somewhat Freight
Drayage........... 0.125
$1.25t
0.13
moredetailedinformation is presented Weighing.............. 0.125 0.06
by Watkins,whosefindings are summa- Storage (1 month) ......
Insurance(1 month). .
0.20
+
0.24
0.25
rizedin Table 7. The Grayand Watkins Factor's commission(2-
findingsarefullycompatible, and a mar- 2.5 per cent)......... 0.80 0.60-1.61
ketingcost of from0.7 to 0.8 centper Total per bale ....... $2.75 !$3.03?
poundappearsto be properly deductible Total centsper poundil 0.69
Source:Watkins,op. cit.,pp. 38, 39.
0. 76?
fromtheexportpricein determining the * By river.

pricef.o.b.farm. t FromColumbia.
+ Not reported.Note that the higher(Charleston)figures
The exportpriceitselffluctuatedwide- havebeenusedin theprofitcomputationsto follow.
ly overtheperiod.As can be seenfrom ?11Assuming $1.10factor'scommission.
Fourhundredpoundsto a kale.
Table 8, New Orleanscottonpricesaver-
aged almost50 per cent higherin the forcottonproduction.Capital costs must
thirtiesand fifties
than theydid in the be includedin the computations, since
depressedforties.Even in the forties, the presentvalue of the capital outlay
however, theexportpricelevelwas suf- will depend,as was previouslyshown,
ficientto insurean average net farm upon the rate ofreturn.In lieu ofa single
priceof not muchless than 6.5 cents. computation, severalcasesinvolving dif-
Sincepricesat anygivenportwereusu- ferentcapital outlays,yieldsper hand,

and realized farmprices have been con- The calculations in Table 9 represent
structed;the results are given in Table an estimate of potential returnsfor the
9.9 Cases 1, 2, and 3 are themosttypical; relativelysimple productionfunctionof
cases 4, 5, and 6 representthe situation primefieldhands. With the femalehand
on somewhatbetterland. These firstsix orprimefieldwenchthe situationbecomes
cases, with returnsrangingbetween 4' much more complex: in addition to her
and 8 per cent, encompass the majority productivity, the productivity of her
of ante bellum cotton plantation opera- childrenand the returnsrealized on their
tions. Cases 7, 8, and 9 representthe sale must be considered. Similarly,the
minimumof profitability or what might extra cost of maintaining the children
be expected on poor upland pine country and the maternity and nursery costs
or the worked-out lands of the eastern associated with their birth must also be
seaboard. By contrast,cases 10, 11, and counted.
12 show the upper range of profitability To make the calculationsin thisrather
TABLE 8
WEIGHTED YEARLY AVERAGE PRICES OF SHORT-STAPLE COTTON (USUALLY
LOUISIANA OR MISSISSIPPI MIDDLING OR SECOND GRADE) AT
NEW ORLEANS FOR THE CROP YEARS 1830-60
Year Price Year Price Year Price
1830.......... 8.4 1840.......... 9.1 1850.......... 11.7
1831......... 9.0 1841.......... 7.8 1851.......... 7.4
1832.......... 10.0 1842.......... 5.7 1852.. . 9.1
1833.......... 11.2 1843.......... 7.5 1853.......... 8.8
1834.......... 15.5 1844.......... 5.5 1854.......... 8.4
1835.......... 15.2 1845.......... 6.8 1855.......... 9.1
1836.......... 13.3 1846.......... 9.9 1856.......... 12.4
1837.......... 9.0 1847.......... 7.0 1857.......... 11.2
1838......... 12.4 1848.......... 5.8 1858.......... 11.5
1839.......... 7.9 1849.......... 10.8 1859.......... 10.8
-- 1860.......... 11.1
Decade average
price ...... 11.2 7.6 11.2
Source: Gray, op. cit., Table 41, pp. 1027-29.
which was realized on the best lands of complex situation manageable, the fol-
the new Southwest,the Mississippi allu- lowingassumptionswill be made:
vium, and the betterSouth Carolina and 1. Each prime field wench produced
Alabama plantations."0 fiveto tenmarketablechildrenduringher
I No allowancehas been made in thesecomputa- lifetime.(The computationsforthe ten-
tionsforthe expensesof maintainingslaves in their child or upper-limitcase are shown in
dotage. This would not appear to be a seriousomis- Table 10, while those forthe lower limit
sion. Generallyspeaking,slaves were consideredto of five
childrenare shown in Table 11.)
be virtuallyfullyproductivein fieldlabor untiltheir
birthdays-whichcorrespondsto the aver-
fifty-fifth 10 A purist mightask how different returnscan
age life-expectancyon the purchase of a twenty- be realized in what is ostensiblythe same type of
year-old slave. Furthermore,the direct out-of- economicactivityin a relativelycompetitiveindus-
pocketcostsofsimplymaintaininga slave wereonly try.The question overlooksthe fact that it took a
$1O-$15, figures considerably below productive muchlargerinitialoutlayto attainproductivesitua-
value in fieldwork.Given the possibilityof special- tionslike those in cases 10-12. This is all the more
ized use ofolderlabor in suchoccupationsas garden- true,sincethe capital outlay in thesecases would be
tending, nursery operations, and supervision, it concentratedat the startof the undertaking,while
seems doubtfulif many slaves lived long enough to in cases 7-9 someof theoutlaywould be delayedten
be economicdrainson currentaccount. or fifteenyears untilthe land woreout.

Furthermore,we assume that successful nancy. This allowance for"lost time" is

pregnancieswerespaced twoyears apart. probably too generous, since the only
It must be recognizedthat these figures births that really cost any important
representassumptionsmore about what productive field time were those occur-
was achievable than about actual hap- ringduringthe peak agricultureseasons,
penings.Slave infantmortalitydata are plantingand pickingtimes.
too poor to permitinferencesabout the 3. The wench's childrenbegan to be
latter. productivein fieldlabor at age six, with
2. The primefieldwenchwas one-half the males becoming self-sustainingby
to two-thirdsas productive as a prime age nine tthat is, they then earned the
fieldhand when she was actually at work adult maintenance charge of $20 per
in the field. This estimate is based on year), whilefemalesbecame self-sustain-
thefactthat,whenprimefieldhands and ing by age thirteen.This can be repre-
TABLE 9
REALIZED RETURNS ON PRIME FIELD HANDS UNDER
VARIOUS HYPOTHESIZED CONDITIONS
PresentValue of Yield AverageNet Approximate
Capital Outlay per Hand FarmPrice Return
Case per Hand (Bales) (Cents) (Per Cent)
1........ $1,350-$1,400 33 7 4.5

3 8 5.2
2........ $1,350-$1,400
3........ $1,350-$1,400 33 9 6.5
4........ $1,600 42 7 5.0
5........ $1,600 41 8 7.0
6........ $1,600 41 9 8.0
7....... $1,)250-$1,300 3 7 2.2
8.... $1,250-$1,300 3 8 3.9
9... ... $1,)250-$1,300 3 9 5.4
10..... $1,700 7 7 10.0
11........ $1,700 7 8 12.0
12... . .
$1,700 . 7 9 13.0
wenches were hired out, the hiringrate sented by lettingthe male productivity
on the latterwas usually one-halfto two- go up $5 everyyear betweenages six and
thirds the hiring rate on the former. nine and lettingfemale productivityin-
Thus, it is assumed that the market crease by $2.50 for every year between
hiringrate reflectsthe relative produc- the ages of six and thirteen.These rates
tivityof the two sexes. In addition, ad- are in keepingwiththe previouslystated
justmentsmustbe made forthe timelost principlethat femaleswere roughlyhalf
by thefemaleduringpregnancyand post- as productive in field labor as males.
natal period.It is assumedherethat three Afterreachinga self-sustaining status at
months' productive field time was lost these ages, it is furtherassumed that
foreach successfulpregnancy;the entire theirproductivitycontinuedto rise line-
deductionhas been made in the year in arly until the childrenreached theirfull
which the successful birth took place, adult productivityat age eighteen;thus,
despite the fact that it would probably male productivityis assumed to rise $10
be more realistic to assume that one per year betweenages nine and eighteen
monthand a halfwas lost on each unsuc- and the femaleproductivity$5 per year
cessful as well as each successfulpreg- betweenages thirteenand eighteen.

4. The typical wench had as many annual returnsfor a typical prime field
male as female children. For purposes wench can be determined;such calcula-
of computation,the productivity,sales tions are shown in Tables 10 and 11. In
price, and other data for the two sexes constructingthesetables,it was assumed
have been averaged. For example, the that the primefieldwench and her chil-
final sales price of a typical child is as- dren worked on land that returned3.75
sumed to be $875, halfwaybetween the bales of cotton per year forevery prime
average price of $825 for prime field male hand employed; that is, the land
wenches and the average price of $925 is of approximatelyaverage fertility.Al-
forprimefieldhands. so, a 7.5 cent net farmprice for cotton
5. Nursery costs were about $50 per has been used. The firstsuccessfulpreg-
successfulpregnancy. nancy has been assumed to occur in the
Using these assumptions,hypothetical second year afterthe prime fieldwench
TABLE 10
ANNUAL RETURNS ON A PRIME FIELD WENCH INVESTMENT (WORKING ON LAND

WHICH YIELDED 3.75 BALES PER PRIME MALE FIELD HAND, ASSUMING A 7.5-CENT
NET FARM PRICE FOR COTTON AND TEN "SALABLE" CHILDREN BORN TO EVERY
WENCH)
Year from Personal Child Child
Purchase Field Field Sale Personal Child Net
Date Returns Returns Returns Upkeep Upkeep Returns
l.. ....... $56 ....... ..... 20 .... $ 36
2 . ....... 40 ....... .... 20 $ 50 -30
3. ....... 56 ....... .... 20 10 26
4. . 40
...... ....... .... 20 60 -40
5..... . ...... 56 ....... .... 20 20 16
6............ 40 ....... .... 20 70 - 50
7 . ....... 56 ....... 20 30 6
8. . ..
40 . $ 3.75
... .... 20 80 -56.25
9 . .... 56 7.50 .... 20 45 -1.50
10 . ....... 40 15.00 .... 20 95 -50.00
11............ 56 22.50 ....0 60 -1.50
12. ....... 40 37.50 ... . 20 110 -52.50
13 . ....... 56 52.50 ... . 20 75 13.50
14 . ....... 40 75.00 ... . 20 130 -35.00
..
i5........S.. 56 97.50 .... 20 95 47.50
16 . ....... 40 127.50 .... 20 150 -2.50
17. . ..
56 . ....
157.50 ... . 20 115 78.50
18 . ....... 40 195.00 .... 20 165 55.00
19............ 56 232.50 .... 20 130 134.30
20.. ....... 40 195.00 $875 20 170 920.00
21 . ....... 56 232.50 .... 20 1i30 138.50
22 . . ..
56 . 195.00 875 20 120 986.00
23 . ....... 56 232.50 ... 20 120 148.50
24...... .. . . . . 56 195.00 875 20 1() 996.00
25 . ....... 56 232.50 ... . 20 110 158.00
26. . 56 195.00 875 20 100 1,006.00
27. . . .. . . . . . . . 56 232.50 .... 20 100 168.00
28. ........ 56 187.50 875 20 90 1,008.50
29....... ... 56 225.00 .... 20 90 171.00
30....... ... 56 180.00 875 20 80 1,011.00
31 ......... . . 210.00 .... ... 80 130.00
32. 157.50 875 . .. 60 972.50
33.... 180.00 ... 60 120.00
34 ............ ... 120.00 875 ... 40 955.00
35 ......... .. . 135.00 ... 40 95.00
36 .. ... 67.50 875 ... 20 922.50
37..... ..... . 75.00 .... ... 20 55.00
38.... . ....... 875 ... .... 875.00

is purchased;furthersuccessfulpregnan- right-handcolumns of the tables on the

cies occur at regulartwo-yearintervals. assumptionthat the total investmentin
The childrenwere sold at age eighteen, the prime fieldwench, land, and equip-
and the annual maintenance cost per ment amounts to $1,200-$1,300, figures
child was assessed at the rate of $10 per which would appear to be very good
year for one-six-year-olds, $15 per year averages. A rate of returnof 8.1 per cent
for seven-twelve-year-olds and $20 per was thus obtainedforthe motherbearing
TABLE 11
ANNUAL RETURNS ON A PRIME FIELD WENCH INVESTMENT (WORKING ON LAND
WHICH YIELDED 3.75 BALES PER PRIME MALE FIELD HAND, ASSUMING A 7.5-CENT
NET FARM PRICE FOR COTTON AND FIVE "SALABLE"' CHILDREN BORN TO EVERY
WENCH)
Year from Personal Child Child
Purchase Field Field Sale Personal Child Net
Date Returns Returns Returns Upkeep Upkeep Returns
1 . ........ $56 ....... .... $20 ... $ 36
2 . ........ 40 ....... .... 20 $50 -30
3 . ........ 56 ....... 20 10 26
4 . ........ 40 ....... .... 20 60 -40
5 . ........ 56 ....... .... 20 20 16
6 . ........ 40 ....... .... 20 70 -50
7 . ........ 56 ....... .... 20 30 6
8 . ........ 40 $ 3.75 .... 20 80 -56.25
9 . ....... 56 7.50 .... 20 45 -1.50
10 . ....... 40 15.00 .. 20 95 -50.00
11 . ....... 56 22.50 .... 20 60 -1.50
12 . ........ 56 37.50 .... 20 60 13.50
13 .......... 56 52.50 .... 20 65 23.50
14 .......... 56 75.00 .... 20 65 46.00
15.......... 56 97.50 .... 20 75 58.50
16 ... 56 127.50 .... 20 75 88.50
17 . ........ 56 157.50 .... 20 85 108.50
18 . ........ 56 191.25 .... 20 85 142.25
19 . ....... 56 225.00 .... 20 90 171.00
20 . ....... 56 180.00 $875 20 75 1,016.00
21 . ........ 56 210.00 .... 20 75 171.00
22 . ........ 56 157.50 875 20 60 1,008.50
23 . ........ 56 180.00 .... 20 60 156.00
24..... 56 120.00 875 20 40 991.00
25 . ........ 56 135.00 .... 20 40 131.00
26 . ....... 56 67.50 875 20 20 958.50
27 . ........ 56 75.00 .... 20 20 91.00
28 . ........ 56 ....... 875 20 ... 911.00
29 . ........ 56 ....... 20 ... 36.00
30 . ....... 56 ....... .... 20 ... 36.00
year,the fulladult maintenancecost, for ten childrenand a returnof 7.1 per cent
those age thirteenand over. The mater- forthe motherwith fivechildren.
nity costs have been included in the These figuresare, of course,somewhat
annual chargeforthe children'supkeep; higherthan thosecalculatedfortheprime
similarly,the $16 decline every other field hands. A proper working of the
yearforthe firstfewyearsin the wench's market mechanism would suggest that
own field returnsrepresentsthe allow- the attainable returnson the two sexes
ance fortime lost because of pregnancy. should be approximatelyequal. That is,
Rates of returnwere computed on the the price differential
between males and
streamsof net returnsshown in the far females should be such that the rate of

returnon the two types of investment general sharing in the prosperitywas

turns out to be roughly equal in the more or less guaranteed, moreover, if
typical or average case. The question proper market mechanisms existed so
thereforearises why a somewhathigher that slaves could be bred and reared on
estimated return is obtained for the the poorest of land and then be sold to
female. those owning the best. Slavery in the
Several answers can be made to this immediateante bellumyearswas, there-
question. First, the differencebetween fore, an economicallyviable institution
the estimated returnsfor the two sexes in virtuallyall areas of the South as long
may arise because it probably took a as slaves could be expeditiously and
somewhat higherreturnon the females economicallytransferred fromone sector
to attract capital investmentinto that to another.
type of productiveactivity.Slave-breed-
ing and slave-tradingwere not generally III. REPRODUCTION, ALLOCATION, AND
consideredto be high or noble types of SLAVE MARKETS
activity for a southerngentleman. In- It thus remains to be determined
deed, many plantation owners would whetheran efficient supplymechanism-
stoop to all sortsofsubterfugeto disguise efficientin both its generative and its
the fact that they were engagingin any allocative functions-existedin the ante
part of the slave trade or breedingopera- bellumSouth. That the slave forcemight
fions. Second, the investmentin the fe- reproduceitselfwas not sufficient;there
male was a longer-termaffair; from must also have been a capital market
Tables 10 and 11 it is apparent that the capable of gettingthe labor to the areas
bulk of the returns on a female were whereproductionwas expandingif slav-
realized twentyor more years afterthe erywas to be profitable.It will be useful
investmentwas made, when the children to introducethe secondary propositions
had grown to marketable ages. To the by stating several argumentswhich to-
extent that more distant developments getherformthe orthodox opposition to
are more uncertain,investmentsin fe- the present hypothesis.The arguments
male slaves could be expectedto demand follow,in every case accompanied by a
a higher return. Finally, the over-all citation as a talisman against any pos-
average price of prime field wenches sible chargethat we are settingup straw
quoted fromPhillips may be too low for men:" (i) slaves are notoriouslyineffi-
proved"childbearers";as is evidentfrom cient and unwillingworkers; (ii) slave
Table A of the Appendix and contem- 11 (i) J. E. Cairnes, The Slave Power (New York:
porary comments, a female who had Follett Foster & Co., 1863), pp. 44-50; F. L. Olm-
sted, The CottonKingdom(New York: Mason Bros.,
proved herselffertilewas worth more 1861), pp. 100-110 (1953 ed.; New York: A. A.
than a female who had yet to bear her Knopf); W. A. Lewis, Theoryof Economic Growth
firstchild. (Homewood, Ill.: Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1955),
pp. 107-8; (ii) U. B. Phillips, Life and Labor
But thesequalificationsdo not change in the Old South (Boston: Little, Brown & Co.,
the principalconclusionthat slaverywas 1935), pp. 174-75; (iii) U. B. Phillips, "The Eco-
apparentlyabout as remunerativeas al- nomic Cost of Slaveholding in the Cotton-Belt,"
Political Science Quarterly, XX (1905), 257-75; (iv)
ternative employmentsto which slave Lewis, op. cit., pp. 111-13; (v) J. S. Duesenberry,
capital might have been put. Large or "Some Aspects of the Theory of Economic De-
excessivereturnswere clearlylimitedto velopment,"Explorationsin Entrepreneurial History,
III (1950), 9. This is, of course,intendedonly as a
a fewfortunateplanters,but apparently listofexamples,chosenin thehope thattheyare par-
none sufferedexcessively either. This ticularlywell stated.

property,unlike wage labor, must be the constantenhancementofprices (and,

supportedin the years beforeand after therefore,overcapitalizationof the labor
the slave is economically productive; force)-rests in part upon two misappre-
(iii) slaveholding absorbed plantation hensions,attributableto U. B. Phillips:
earnings; (iv) slave economies are con- (1) that capitalizationinvolvesa net loss
stantly threatened by decline because throughthe paymentof interestand (2)
theycannotin generalmaintainthenum- that slaves were, somehow, a fictitious
ber of slaves; and (v) capitalization of formof wealth. We have already shown
the labor forceinhibitsthe efficient allo- that slave capital earned returnsat least
cation of labor. equal to those earned by other contem-
The firstand second of these argu- porary formsof capital. For the over-
ments are implicitlytested in the com- capitalization part of the argument,it
putation of the rate of returnon slave remainsto be shownthat slave pricesdid
capital. We are not concernedwith effi- not run away fromcottonvalues.
ciency per se, however that might be The last two of the assertionsstate the
measured,or withthe efficiency of slaves negative of our principal secondaryhy-
as opposed to free white laborers. The pothesis, which is that an efficient
market
more sophisticated version of this effi- system existed for the supply of slaves
ciency argument-that slave ineptness to the rapidly growing cotton industry
forcedthe plantersto use a particularly ofthe Southwestfromtheexhaustedland
wastefulformofagriculture -is probably of the Old South. It will be shownbelow
untestable because of the difficulties of that the slave population,in all but the
identificationwhere impetus or motives Louisiana sugar area, more than repro-
are being considered. It might be sug- duced itself.It will be furthershownthat
gestedas a partial answer,however,that the borderstateswerenot beingdepleted
extensive farmingwas not peculiarly a to provide for western needs but that
characteristicofslave agricultureor even only the natural increase was being ex-
ofplantationcottonculture.It was com- ported. Finally, avoiding the emotion-
mon to all NorthAmericancolonial agri- wracked testimonyof the time, we will
culture and, as late as the end of the attempt to demonstratethe existenceof
nineteenthcentury,was reputed to be regional specialization and an efficient
characteristicof farmingin the North- market by comparing the demographic
west wheat lands. It is, generally,a sa- composition of the cotton and border
lient feature of agriculturewhere labor states and by examining the price be-
is scarce relative to land."2But, insofar havior in the marketforNegro slaves.
as slaves were inefficient, the inefficiency
must be reflectedin the returns com- A. THE REPRODUCTION OF THE SLAVE
LABOR FORCE
puted in our model. Similarly,the costs
ofmaintainingslaves in infancyand dot- The history of slavery is full of ex-
age are accounted for in our cost of amples of slave economies which could
production. not reproducetheirpopulation and col-
The third argument-that the South lapsed because of a failure of supply.
lost from the payment of interest and Frequently,as in the Roman case, the
supply was dependent upon a steady
"2M. B. Hammond, The CottonIndustry(New flowof militaryprisoners.The Augustan
York, 1897), p. 82. See also UnitedStates Patent
Office Report (Agriculture), 1852 (Washington, peace and the stabilizationof the borders
D.C., 1853),p. 374. of the empire are creditedwith the de-

dine of Roman slavery for this reason. the discrepancy in natural increase is
Similarly,the labor supply in the Carib- even more striking. The evidence in
bean sugar islands could be maintained Table 12 does not admit of any doubt
only by importation.It is generallyar- that the slave population was capable of
gued that slavery disappeared fromJa- producinga steadysupplyoflabor forthe
maica because oftheinabilityofthe slave plantation economy.13
population to reproduce itselfonce the
slave trade had been closed and not B. SLAVE MARKETS AND ALLOCATION
because of abolition in 1834. The moreimportantissue, however,is

By contrast,the ante bellum cotton- whetheror not the slave forcecould be
slave economy of the southern states allocated efficiently. The natural rate of
managed to maintain and allocate its increasewas more than sufficientin the
labor supply by a system of regional Old South to meet the needs of agricul-
specialization which produced slaves on ture in the region,but in the West it was
the worn-outland of the Old South and less than sufficient to meet the demands
for increased cotton production.By di-
TABLE 12
rect export and by the migration of
PERCENTAGE DECENNIAL INCREASE IN WHITE
planterswiththeirworkforces,the east-
AND NEGRO POPULATION, 1790-1860
ernareas suppliedtheneeds ofthe South-
INCREASE DURING PRECEDING TEN YEARS
west. In every decade before the Civil
CENSUS Negro
YEAR Total White Total Slave Free War, the increaseof slaves in the cotton
1800.... 35.1 35.8 32.3 28.1 82.2 states was much above and in the Atlan-
1810.... 36.4 36.1 37.5 33.1 71.9
1820.... 33.1 34.2 28.6 29.1 25.3 tic and borderstatesmuchbelow the rate
1830.... 33.5 33.9 31.4 30.6 36.8 ofincreaseforthewholeslave population.
1840.... 32.7 34.7 23.4 23.8 20.9
1850.... 35.9 37.7 26.6 28.8 12.5 Indeed, in the decades ending in 1840
1860.... 35.6 37.7 22.1 23.4 12.3 and 1860, the net rate of population
Source: Bureau of the Census, NegroPopulation in theUnited
States, 1790-1915 (Washington, D.C., 1918), Tables 2 (chap. ii)
increasein the Old South was onlyslight-
and 1 (chap. v) and pp. 25 and 53. The sharp declines in the rate
of increase for slaves in the decades ending in 1840 and 1860
ly above the level sufficient to maintain
probably reflectthe generation cycle following the increase in
importations, mostly of mature Negroes, in the years just prior
the population at a constant level,4.5 per
to 1808. centand 7.1 per cent (see Table 13). From
1790 to 1850 the increaseof slaves in the
the borderstates forexportto the high- Atlantic states was just 2 per cent per
yield cotton land of the Mississippi and annum, while in the Gulf states (includ-
Red River valleys. For the whole nation ing Florida), Arkansas, and Tennessee
the Negro rate of increase in the six the rate was 18 per cent per annum. A
decades beforethe Civil War was only rough but probably conservative esti-
slightly below the rate for the white mate of the exportfromthe sellingstates
population; for most of the period, the between1820 and 1860 is given by W. H.
slave rate was verymuch above that for Collins.Taking thedifference betweenthe
freeNegroes. In the South the disparity average natural increase and the actual
between Negro and white rates of in-
crease is in favor of the Negro rate; 13 See Bureau of the Census,NegroPopulationin
consideringthe relative rates of immi- the United States, 1790-1915 (Washington, D.C.,
1918); Gray, op. cit.,chap. xxviii; Cairnes, op. cit.,
grationof whites and Negroes afterthe chap. iv; E. Halle, Baumwollproduktion und Pflan-
firstdecade of the nineteenthcentury, zungswirtschaft (Leipzig, 1897),Vol. I, Book III, 5.3.

rate in the sellingstates, Collins arrived beyond these estimates and states that
at the followingestimates:14 "in the 'fifties,when the extremepreju-
1820-30..... 124,000
dice against the interstatetraders had
1830-40.. ..... 265,000 abated and their inadequate supplies
1840-50..... 146,000 were eagerlypurchased,fully70 per cent
1850-60..... 207,000 of the slaves removedfromthe Atlantic
Collins estimated that at least three- and theborderslave states to the South-
fifthsof the removals from the border west were taken after purchase or with
states were due to emigration to the a view to sale, that is, were the objects
Southwestratherthan to export. XWhile of slave-trading.""7Whatever the accu-
this has little bearing upon the issue of racy of these several estimates, which
allocative efficiency, it does have signif- range from two-fifthsto four-fifths of
icance for the corollary assertion that total exports of slaves fromthe border
the slaveowners of the border states, TABLE 13
consciously or unconsciously,were en-
PERCENTAGE RATE OF POPULATION INCREASE,
gaged in a specializedbreedingoperation, BY RACE, IN THE COTTON AND BORDER
producingchattel labor for the growing STATES, 1790-1860
Southwest.In 1836 the Virginia Times DECADE COTTON STATES* BORDER STATESt
estimatedthat, "of the numberof slaves ENDING White Negro White Negro
1800..... 42.9 47.4 27.9 24.4
exported[fromVirginia],not more than 1810..... 37.5 61.3 23.5 23.4
one-thirdhave been sold, the othersbe- 1820..... 38.8 48.0 19.5 15.5
1830. . 40.0 46.8 19.0 14.0
ing carried by their masters,who have 1840. . 31.3 37.6 21.1 4.5
removed."'5 Ruffin supposed that the 1850..... 34.1 35.6 34.5 11.0
1860..... 27.6 29.0 39.2 7.1
annual sale in 1859 "already exceed in
Source: Ernst von HIalle, Baumwollproduklion And Pflan-
numberall the increase in slaves in Vir- ziingswirtscheftin den Nordamerikanischen Sudstaaten (Leipzig,
1897), p. 132. His sources were Tucker, Progress of the United
ginia by procreation."'6Bancroft goes States (to 1840), Census of Popuistion (1850 and after), and H.
Gannett, Statistics of the Negroesin the United States.
14 W. H. Collins, The DomesticSlave Trade ofthe * North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Ala-
bama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, Arkansas, and Tennessee.
SouthernStates (New York, 1904), chap. iii. In the
t Delaware, Maryland, District of Columbia, Virginia,
first decade the selling states include Virginia, West Virginia, Kentucky, and Missouri.
Maryland, Delaware, North Carolina, Kentucky,
and the Districtof Columbia; the buyingstates are
assumed to be South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama,
and the Atlantic states, it is clear that
Mississippi, Tennessee, and Missouri. In 1830, sales of slaves provided an important
Florida,and in 1850,Texas wereadded to the buy- capital gain for the exporting states.
ing group. Tennessee, Missouri, and North Caro-
lina are very uncertain assignments,since these
There is ample documentary evidence
states were far fromhomogeneousslave-marketing thatplantersin theOld South wereaware
areas; some parts imported,while other parts ex- of this, that some welcomed it and de-
ported, duringthe period (cf. Halle, op. cit., pp.
282 ff.,and FredericBancroft,Slave Tradingin the pended upon it, and that others were
Old South [Baltimore: J. H. Furst, 1931], chap. fearfulof its effectupon the agriculture
xviii, for similarestimates,consistentwith those of the area and upon the tenabilityof
given by Collins).
slavery. Some spoke franklyabout Vir-
15 Quoted in Slaveryand theInternalSlave Trade
ginia as a "breeding state," though the
in theUnitedStatesofNorthAmerica(London, 1841)
(by theExecutiveCommitteeof the AmericanAnti- reply to such allegations was generally
Slavery Society), p. 13. On the same page the au- 16 Edmund Ruffin, DeB ow's Review, XXVI
thorsassert that four-fifths or more of the slaves
(1859),650.
broughtinto the buyingstates are supplied by the
internalslave trade. 17 Bancroft,op. cit.,p. 398.

an indignantdenial. Whethersystemati- To compare to these rates, we have

cally bred or not, the natural increase purchase prices of male and female
of the slave force was an important, slaves, in the same markets,in 1859 and
probablythe most important,productof 1860. The purchase prices should reflect
the moreexhaustedsoil of the Old South. the relative usefulnessof the sexes for
The existenceof such specializationis fieldwork. More than this, however, if
evident in the demographiccomposition there is any additional value to slave
of the cotton and breedingareas and in women-for breedingpurposes,presum-
the price behavior in the markets for ably-there should be a premiumin the
slaves. Table 14 demonstratesthat the formof a narrowerpricedifferential than
selling states contained, in 1850 and is found in the hiringrates. The prices
1860, a greater proportionof children shown in Table 16 are taken fromTable
under fifteenyears and a substantially A in the Appendix. Whenever possible,
greater proportionof slaves above the 1860 is used; wherevernecessary, 1859.
age of fiftythan did the buying states. Table 16 includes age designationsand,
TABLE 14
SLAVE POPULATION BY AGE
(Per Cent)
1860 1850
AGE Selling Buying Selling Buying
(YEARS) TOTAL States* Statest TOTAL States* Statest
Under 15.......... 44.8 45.6 43.8 44.9 45.6 44.3
15-19 . ......... 11.4 11.5 11.4 11.1 11.3 11.0
20-29 . ......... 17.6 16.5 18.9 18.0 17.0 18.9
30-39 . ......... 11.7 10.7 11.8 11.3 10.5 12.1
20-49 . ......... 36.4 34.4 38.1 36.4 34.6 38.1
50 and over . ..... 7.5 8.5 6.7 7.5 8.5 6.6
Source: J. C. G. Kennedy, Population ofthe United States in 1860 (Washington, D.C., 1864), "Classified Popula-
tion," Tables No. 1, by state; J. D. B. DeBow, Statistical View of the United States, ... Being a Compendiumof the
SeventhCensus (Washington, D.C., 1854), Part II, Table LXXXII, pp. 89-90.
* Virginia,Maryland, Delaware, South Carolina, Missouri, Kentucky, District of Columbia.
t Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Florida, Texas, Louisiana.
NOTE.-The exclusion of Tennessee and North Carolina is explained in n. 14. Missouri was included with the
selling group because of its apparent net selling position in this period.
While the disproportionsare not great when available, a description of the

enough to characterizethe sellingstates grade or class representedin the average
as a great nursery,the age composition price.-9This evidence is a strikingcon-
is in the directionwhich our hypothesis 18The rates are quoted in Hammond, op. cit.,
would lead one to expect. The relation- p. 90, fromReportoftheCommissioner ofA griculture,
ship between the prices of men and wo- 1866 (Washington, D.C., 1867), p. 416. Three
men in the slave market,when compared Virginia newspaper quotations in G. M. Weston,
Who Are and Who May Be Slaves in the United
with the ratio of hiring rates for male States (undated pamphlet), give ratios rangingbe-
and female field hands, gives an even tween 2 and 2.5, supportingHammond's estimate.
is a possible overestimatein these ratios, if
strongerindicationthat the superioruse- There
theyare to be used to inferrelativeusefulnessin the
fulness of females of breeding age was field,since some allowance was probablymade for
economically recognized. The relative timelost fordeliveryby pregnantfemales.No evi-
hiringrates formen and women in 1860, dence has been foundon thispoint,however.
shown in Table 15, can be taken as a 19Withone exception-the South Carolina, 1860,
comparison-the pairings are taken from single
measure of their relative values in the sales. In addition,the pairingsare made, as far as
field."8 possible, with slaves of apparently comparable

firmationof the validity of the model. the slave-breedingarea for the cotton-
In everycase but one, the purchase-price raisingWest.
differential is narrowerthan the hiring-
ratedifferential. The pricestructureclear- C. THE cOVERCAPITALIZATlON" OF
ly reflectsthe added value offemalesdue THE LABOR FORCE
to theirabilityto generatecapital gains. The aspect of slave economics that

TABLE 15 causes the most confusionand outright
erroris that which relates to the capi-
ANNUAL HIRING RATES FOR MALE AND FEMALE
SLAVES (INCLUDING RATIONS AND CLOTHING),
talization,and, in the ante bellumsouth-
BY STATES, 1860 ern case, the presumed overcapitaliza-
Ratio tion,of slave labor. Phillips speaks of an
State Men Women (Men: Women)
"irresistibletendencyto overvalue and
Virginia.......$ 105 $ 46 2.28
NorthCarolina. 110 49 2.25 overcapitalize" and argues that slave-
South Carolina. 103 55 1.87 holding had an unlimited capacity for
Georgia....... 124 75 1.65
Florida........ 139 80 1.74 absorbingthe planters'earningsthrough
Alabama...... 138 89 1.55 the continualpaymentofinterestand the
Mississippi.. ... 166 100 1.66
Louisiana...... 171 120 1.43 enhancementof prices. For the Cotton
Texas ......... 166 109 1.52 Belt thiswas presumablyaggregatedinto
Arkansas.. ... 170 108 1.57
Tennessee..... 121 63 1.92 a continuouspublic drainofwealth,first,
TABLE 16
SELECTED PRICES OF MALE AND FEMALE SLAVES, 1859 AND 1860
State (Year) Age Condition Male Price Female Price Ratio
Virginia(1859). 17-20
..... Best
........... $1,350-$1,425 $1,275-$1,325 1.07
South Carolina......... ....... Prime $1,325 ............. 1.03
Wench ...... $1,283 f
South Carolina (1859) ... ....... Field hand $1,555 l...... 91
....... Girl ...... $1,705 f
Georgia.... ...... 21 Best fieldhand $1,900 ...... l 88
17 (9 mo. inf.) ...... [$2,150] 5
Georgia(1859). ....... Prime,young $1,300 ......
....... .Cotton hand, 1.04
houseservant ...... $1, 250
Alabama (1859)......... 19 ............... $1,635 ...... 1.37
18, 18, 8 .. . $1,193
Mississippi . ... ....... No. 1 fieldhand $1,625 $1,450 1.12
Texas................. 21,15 ............... $2,015 $1,635 1.23
Texas (1859) ........... 17, 14 . ........$1... .. 1527 $1,403 1.09
It is especiallyinterestingin this regard to England and New England and, later,

to note that the price ratios in Virginia to the upper South.20Moreover, a series
and South Carolina, the two breeding of writersfromMax Weber down to the
statesrepresentedin the list,showpracti- most recenttheoristsof economicgrowth
callyno differential.This evidenceclearly have argued that capitalization tends
shows that the Old South recognizedin to rigidifythe pattern of employment.
the market the value of its functionas "Free labor is necessary to make free
transfersof labor possible. A production
quality.The Virginiaand Mississippiquotationsare
fromaverage-pricelistingsand are probably most 20 Phillips,"The Economic Cost of Slaveholding
usefulforpresentpurposes. in the Cotton-Belt,"op. cit.,pp. 271 ff.

organizationcannot be very flexibleif it Phillips' analysis exaggeratesthe decline

has to engage in the purchase or sale of in cotton prices relative to the price of
slaves everytimeit changesits output."2 slaves: at the turn of the century the
But this is reallya question of how good demand forcottonwas increasingrapid-
the market is; no one, after all, claims ly, supportingremarkablyhigh prices,
that manufacturing is made suicidallyin- whiletheunrestricted Africanslave trade
flexibleby the fact that expanding sec- kept domesticslave priceswell below the
tors must buy the capitalized future level that mightbe expected in view of
earningsof machinery.There are three the level of profits.Table 17 and Chart
issues to be distinguishedin this argu- 1 demonstrate the relationship among
ment: first,the alleged tendencytoward slave prices,cottonprices,and the value
overcapitalization; second, the inflexi- of cotton output per slave (of fieldwork
bility of chattel labor and the difficulty age, ten to fifty-four).Several things
ofallocatingit,geographicallyand indus- become clear in this comparison.To be-
trially;and, third,the loss of wealth. gin, the relationshipbetween slave and
First,was the southernerhis own vic- cotton prices is significantfor Phillips'
tim in an endless speculativeinflationof purposes only if there is no increase in
slave prices?The assertionof an irresis- productivity.While he is struck by the
tible tendency to overvalue and over- fact that slave prices rise more rapidly
capitalize must mean that he was so than cotton prices in the long upswing
trapped, if it means anything.Phillips startingin the early 1840's, it is equally
answeredthe question by comparingthe strikingto observe that (New Orleans)
price of cotton with the price of prime slave prices rose about one and one-half
fieldhands, year by year. He found, or times between the low point in 1843-45
believed he found, a permanentmove- to 1860, while values of cotton produc-
ment toward overcapitalizationinherent tionper hand rose morethan threetimes
in American slaveholding.But specula- from the low in 1842. This was recog-
tive overexpansionis capable of reversal: nized in the New Orleans Daily Crescent
fromthe inflationof 1837 to the bottom in 1860, as follows:
ofthe depressionin 1845, slave pricesfell Nor do we agree with our contemporaries
as sharply as cotton prices. If the rise whoarguethata speculativedemandis theun-
fromthat lowerturningpointis a demon- substantialbasis of the advance in the priceof
stration of speculative mania, it was a slaves.... It is our impressionthat the great
demandforslavesin theSouthwestwillkeep up
mania solidly based on the increase in thepricesas it caused theiradvance in thefirst
the value of the crop per hand, owing to place, and that the rates are not a cent above
the concentrationof productionin more the real value of the laborerwho is to be en-
fertileareas, the greaterefficiencyof the gaged in tillingthe fertilelands of a sectionof
American-bornslaves, loweredtranspor- the countrywhich yields the planter nearly
double the crop that the fieldsof the Atlantic
tationcosts,and the developmentof new States do.23
high-yieldvarieties of cotton from the
fourthdecade of the centuryon.22Final- Furthermore,it would appear that slave
ly, the choice of the initial period in pricesfluctuateless thando cottonprices.
This and theless clear-cutlag ofthe slave
21 Duesenberry,loc. cit. 23 Quoted in Phillips, Life and Labor in theOld
22 Gray, op. cit., chap. xxx; DeBow's Review, Soithli,p. 180. Having quoted this,Phillips,without
XVIII (1855), 332-34; Hammond, op. cit., pp. 76- offeringany evidence, asserts: "But surelya peak
77, 113-19; T. P. Kettell, SouthzernWeallthand wvasbeingshaped,whosefartherside musthave been
NorthernProfits(New York, 1860), p. 48. a steep descent,whetherin timeof peace or war."

TABLE 17
VALUE OF COTTON PRODUCTION AND SLAVE POPULATION, 1802-60, NEW ORLEANS PRICES
Average CropValue
Crop Price No. of Slaves, Price of per Hand
(Thousands (Cents per Value Aged 10-54 Crop Value Prime per Dollar
Year of Pounds) Pound) (Thousands) Years* per Slave Field Hand Slave Price
1802...... 55,000 0.147 $ 8,085 550,708 $ 14.68 $ 600 .02
1803 ...... 60,000 .150 9,000 568,932 15.82 600 .03
1804 ...... 65,000 .196 12,740 587,157 21.70 600 .04
1805 ...... 70,000 .233 16,310 605,381 26.94 600 .05
1806 ...... 80,000 .218 17,440 623,606 27.97 600 .05
1807....... 80,000 .164 13,120 641,831 20.44 600 .03
1808...... 75,000 .136 10,200 660,055 15.45 640 .02
1809 . 82,000 .136 11,152 678,280 16.44 780 .02
1810 ....... 85,000 .147 12,495 696,505 17.94 900 .02
1811....... 80,000 .089 7,120 717,376 9.93 860 .01
1813....... 75,000 .155 11,625 759,118 15.31 600 .03
1814....... 70,000 .169 11,830 779,989 15.17 650 .02
1815....... 100,000 .273 27,300 800,860 34.09 765 .05
1816....... 124,000 .254 31,496 821,731 38.33 880 .04
1817....... 130,000 .298 38,740 842,602 45.98 1,000 .05
1818...... 125,000 .215 26,875 863,473 31.12 1,050 .03
1819....... 167,000 .143 23,881 884,344 27.00 1,100 .03
1820...... 160,000 .152 24,320 905,215 26.88 970 .03
1821...... 180,000 .174 31,320 933,517 33.55 810 .04
1822...... 210,000 .115 24,150 961,818 25.11 700 .04
1823....... 185,000 .145 26,825 990,120 27.04 670 .04
1824.... 215,000 .179 38,485 1,018,421 37.99 700 .05
1825...... 255,000 .119 30,345 1,046,723 28.99 800 .04
1826...... 350,000 .093 32,550 1,075,024 30.28 840 .04
1827 ...... 316,900 .097 30,739 1,103,326 27.86 770 .04
1828...... 241,399 .098 23,657 1,131,627 20.91 770 .03
1829...... 296,812 .089 26,416 1,159,929 22.77 770 .03
1830...... 331,150 .084 27,817 1,208,034 23.03 810 .03
1831....... 354,247 .090 31,882 1,247,489 25.56 860 .03
1832....... 355,492 .100 35,549 1,275,061 27.88 900 .03
1833....... 374,653 .112 41,961 1,302,633 32.21 960 .03
1834...... 437,558 .155 67,821 1,330,206 50.99 1,000 .05
1835....... 460,338 .152 69,971 1,357,778 51.53 1,150 .05
1836....... 507,550 .133 67,504 1,385,350 46.79 1,250 .04
1837....... 539,669 .090 48,510 1,412,923 34.38 1,300 .03
1838....... 682,767 .124 84,663 1,440,495 58.77 1,220 .05
1839...... 501,708 .079 39,635 1,468,067 27.00 1,240 .02
1840....... 834,111 .091 75,904 1,507,779 50.34 1,020 .05
1841....... 644,172 .078 50,245 1,568,022 32.04 870 .04
1842...... 668,379 .057 38,098 1,611,269 23.65 750 .03
1843...... 972,960 .075 72,972 1,654,516 44.11 700 .06
1844...... 836,529 .055 46,009 1,697,762 27.10 700 .04
1845...... 993,719 .068 67,573 1,741,009 38.81 700 .06
1846...... 863,321 .099 85,469 1,784,256 47.90 750 .06
1847...... 766,599 .070 53,662 1,827,503 29.36 850 .04
1848...... 1,017,391 .058 59,009 1,870,750 31.54 950 .03
1849...... 1,249,985 .108 134,998 1,913,996 70.53 1,030 .07
1850...... 1,001,165 .117 117,136 1,979,059 59.19 1,100 .05
1851....... 1,021,048 .074 75,558 2,034,482 37.14 1,150 .03
1852....... 1,338,061 .091 121,764 2,080,554 58.53 1,200 .05
1853....... 1,496,302 .088 131,675 2,126,626 61.92 1,250 .05
1854....... 1,322,241 .084 111,068 2,172,698 51.12 1,310 .04
1855....... 1,294,463 .091 117,796 2,218,770 53.09 1,350 .04
1856...... 1,535,334 .124 190,381 2,264,843 84.06 1,420 .06
1857....... 1,373,619 .112 153,845 2,310,915 66.57 1,490 .05
1858....... 1,439,744 .115 165,571 2,356,988 70.25 1,580 .04
1859....... 1,796,455 .108 194,017 2,403,060 80.74 1,690 .05
1860....... 2,241,056 0.111 $248,757 2,460,648 $101.09 $1,800 .06
Source: Crops: Computed from the data on number of bales and average weight of bales in James L. Watkins, Production and
Price of Cottonfor One Hundred Years (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Miscellaneous Series, Bull. 9 [Washington, D.C., 1895]).
Price: Gray, op. cit., Table 41: "Weighted Yearly Averages and Monthly Prices in Cents per Pound of Short-Staple Cotton at New
Orleans for the Crop Years 1802-1860." Slaves: Bureau of the Census, Negro Population in the United States, 1790-1915 ,"Slave and
Free Colored Population at Each Census by Sections and Southern Divisions: 1790-1860," p. 55, and "Negro Population in Years
Specified,Classified by Sex and Age Periods; 1830-1910," p. 166. Slave prices: Estimated visually fromthe chart "Approximate Prices
of Prime Field Hands in Hundreds of Dollars per Head: . . . at New Orleans . in U. B. Phillips, Life and Labor in the Old South
(Boston, 1935), p. 177.
* To estimate the slave population in the intercensal years, the increase over each decade was divided into equal parts and as-
signed to each year in the decade. The proportionof Negroes in the field-workage brackets (between the ages of ten and fifty-four)
was .641 in 1860, .635 in 1850, .621 in 1840, and .610 in 1830. The census-year proportions at the beginning and end of each decade
were averaged foruse in the interveningyears. For the years before 1830, an estimate of .60 was used. There is no implication that
we have measured the number of fieldhands, but it should be noted that the range .60-.65 brackets several contemporaryestimates
of the proportionof the slave population employed in cotton agriculture (see, e.g., P. A. Morse, "Southern Slavery and the Cotton
Trade," De Bow's Review,XXIII [18571, 475-82).

CHART I
SLAVE POPULATION AND PRICES AND THE VALUE OF COTTON PRODUCTION, 1802-60
.25|-- Mt (1)'
B
I A111
201 2j
I weiaCottonprJce NewOrleans
Veightd average _ts per pound
80
............ j X ! ''/
X2,000
Average price of prime field hand ....

...
I
NewOrleans . . .
9~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
60- (3) A ,3...........>
70 %
601-- (4)
Average price of prime field hand,
i~1- lCharleston a
tv~~~~~~~~~~~~~A 6o
~4I
(1, (),3):seeTabe1;():stiate of cotton output per hand

Visuallyfromgraphlue
4)
o
Q
Ratio scales
bC U..
Lf%
LL.LLY
0
~~~~~~~~~~~~......
r I
~..... , .L.J ........ -.J.
Hi
09
Hi H
~~co
H
c
H
co
C
H-
co
CO
H
)D
H-
co
H
OX
H-
co
H-
co
H-
co)
H-
Souacas: (1), (2), (3): see Table 17; (4): estimatedvisuallyfromgraphin U. B. Phillips,Life and Laborin theOld South,p. 177.

prices make it difficultto accept the demand, should have meant more down-
image of unwaryplanters helplesslyex- ward pressure.The only influencewhich
posingthemselvesin a marketdominated operated in the directionof maintaining
by speculators.It wouldmake moresense the value of land in the older states was
to argue simplythat the risingtrend of the profitto be had from the increase
slave pricescoupled witha growingslave and sale of slaves. Indeed, in 1850 and
population is in and of itselfstrongevi- 1860,the value per acre of farmland and
dence of the profitabilityof slavery. buildingsin the borderstates was $7.18
and $12.33, and, in the Lower South for
D. THE EFFICIENCY OF ALLOCATION the same two census years, $4.99 and
The secondpoint relatesto geographic $8.54. Undoubtedly,the westerncotton
allocation and, to a lesser extent,to the land earned a considerablerentin farm-
mobilityof the slave labor forceamong ing over the older land. It was this rent
crops. The slave prices in all regions which maintained the flowof migration
move verycloselywith cottonpricesand to the Cotton Belt. But that migration
productsper hand. It is clear, too, that depended upon and supportedthe pros-
the easternpricesmove directlywiththe perity of the breeding states. It is not
cotton-areaslave prices,althoughin the clear that slavery was able to continue
last two decades the rate of increase of only by skinningthe topsoil and moving
prices fell behind in the breedingarea. on, leaving exhaustedland and low slave
If the marketwere extremelyimperfect and land value in its wake. Quite the
and the transferbetween the breeding contrary,the evidence can plausibly be
and consumingstates inefficient, in con- interpretedas indicatinga unified,spe-
tradictionto our hypothesis,then there cialized economyin whichthe settlerson
should be much less evidence of regional the naturallysuperiorwesternlands (su-
arbitragethan is foundhere. In response perior even before the deteriorationof
to the westerndemand,Virginiaand the the older regionsby single-cropcultiva-
othereasternstates shippedtheirnatural tion of tobacco and cotton) were able to
increaseto the cottonareas. Indeed, it is bid slave labor away fromgeneralfarm-
frequentlyargued that the transferwas ing and to make wholesale removal un-
too efficientand that the Old South was necessary,if indeed therehad ever been
beingcontinuouslydepressedby the high such a necessity.
price of labor occasioned by westernde-
ECONOMIC GROWTH
mand. Edmund Ruffin,particularly,took E. SLAVERY AND SOUTHERN
thispositionand argued that slave trade Finally, thereare two economic argu-
could not bring profitsto Virginia but mentsabout slaveryand potentialsouth-
could result only in the paralysis of her ern growthto be considered.The asser-
industry.If true, this argumentwould tion that slavery per se was inimical to
be supported empiricallyby increasing economic growthrests in part upon the
real estate values on the westernlands alleged inefficiency of slave labor in in-
and decreasingvalues in theAtlantic and dustrial pursuits and in part upon the
border states. That is, the chain of loss of capital that mightotherwisehave
high cotton profits-highslave prices- gone into industrializationand diversi-
increased cost of farming in the Old fication.
South should have depressedland prices The inefficiency argumentis not sup-
in that area. Emigration, by reducing ported very securely.There were slaves

employedin cotton factoriesthroughout not bring any release fromthe factors.

the South. Slaves were used in the coal But resortto factoringis characteristic
minesand in the North Carolina lumber- of speculative, commercial agriculture,
ing operations.In the ironworksat Rich- whether or not the labor force is or-
mond and on the Cumberland River, ganized in slavery. It is also frequently
slaves compriseda majorityof the labor argued that slaverygave southernplant-
force. Southern railroads were largely ers a taste forextravagant,wastefuldis-
built by southern slaves. Crop diver- play, causing the notoriouslack of thrift
sification,or the failure to achieve di- and the relativelack of economic devel-
versification,appears to have been a opment,comparedto that experiencedin
problemof entrepreneurship ratherthan the North and West. This is a doubtful
of the difficultiesof trainingslaves. In inference,at best. Slavery did not make
the face of the demand for cotton and the Cavalier any more than slavery in-
the profitsto be had from specializing vented speculation in cotton. However,
in this single crop, it is hardly difficult insofar as successfulslave management
to explain the single-mindedconcentra- requiredmilitaryposture and discipline,
tion of the planter.24 the southerner'sexpensiveimage of him-
In what ways was slavery allegedly self as a grandseigneurwas encouraged.
responsibleforthe drain of capital from It is beyond the scope of this paper to
the South? The lack of diversification, offerhypothesesabout thereasonsforthe
to the extentof a failureeven to provide relative degrees of entrepreneurshipin
basic supplies, made necessary the im- Charleston and Boston; in this context
port of much food and virtuallyall man- it is sufficientto state that slavery per
ufacturedarticles fromthe North. But se does not seem to have been responsible
half of this assertion,the argumentthat forthe excessive relianceupon factoring
laid the responsibility forthe single-crop and externalsourcesof credit.25
culture upon slavery, has been found There remains only the absorption of
questionablealready. capital in slaves to set the responsibility
The major avenues by which wealth forlack of growthin the South upon the
is said to have been drained from the peculiar institution.Earnings that might
cotton states were the excessive use of have gone out of the South to bring in
credit(throughdependenceupon factors' investmentgoods were fixedin the form
services)and the "absorption" of capital of chattel labor. For the early years,
in slaves. The dependenceupon advances during the external slave trade, there
was, in effect,a dependence upon the is some plausibility to this argument,
New York or London moneymarketand though it is difficultto see how the
was, therefore,an impediment to the capitalization of an income stream, ex-
accumulation of capital in the South. cellent by contemporarystandards, can
Good crop years bring the temptation 25 Hammond, op. cit.,pp. 107-12; Russel, op. cit.,
to expand production; bad years do pp. 49 ff.;M. B. Hammond, "AgriculturalCredit
and Crop Mortgages,"in The South in theBuilding
See Robert R. Russel, Economic Aspects of
24 of the Nation (Richmond, Va., 1909), V, 457-61;
Southern Sectionalism, 1840-1861 (Urbana, Ill., AlfredH. Stone, "The Cotton Factorage Systemof
1923), esp. pp. 54-64, and "Slavery and Southern the SouthernStates," AmericanHistorical Review,
Economic Progress," Journal of SouthernHistory, XX (1915), 557-65. For an excellentdiscussionof
IV (February,1938), 34-54. See also Gray, op. cit., see
the seigneurialimpedimentsto entrepreneurship
pp. 458-61, 940-42, and Hammond,op. cit.,pp. 40- W. J. Cash, The Mind of the South (New York,
44, 94-96. 1941), pp. 42-70.

be said to count as a loss of wealth. In states. The breedingreturnswere neces-

the later years there was, except to the sary, however, to make the plantation
extentthat northernor English bankers operationson the poorerlands as profit-
drew offthe interest,a redistributionof able as alternative contemporaryeco-
wealth onlywithinthe slave states: from nomicactivitiesin theUnited States. The
the cotton lands back to the less profit- failure of southernagricultureon these
able fieldagricultureof the older section. poorerlands in the post bellumperiod is
And, to the extentthat the old planting probablyattributable,in themain,to the
aristocracyused the profitsto maintain loss of these capital gains on breeding
the real or fancied magnificenceof the and not,as is so oftensuggested,to either
precedingcentury,capital was absorbed. the relative inefficiencyof the tenant
Slaverymade thispossible,so long as the systemthat replaced the plantations or
natural increase could be shipped off. the soil damage resultingfromwar opera-
But, as Russel pointed out, slaveryalso tions.These factorswereunquestionably
made the profitsin the cottonfieldsand contributingelements to the difficulties
the resultantdemand foreasternhands. of post bellum southernagriculture,but
We are left with the conclusion that, theywereofrelativelysmallquantitative
except insofaras it made speculation in importancecompared with the elimina-
cotton possible on a grander scale than tion of slave-breedingreturns.
would otherwise have been the case 2. There was nothingnecessarilyself-
and therebyweakenedwhateverpressure destructiveabout the profitsof the slave
theremighthave been fordiversification, economy.Neither the overcapitalization
capitalization of the labor forcedid not argumentnor the assertionthat slavery
of itselfoperate against southerndevel- must have collapsed because the slaves
opment. would not reproducethemselvesis ten-
able. Slave prices did not outpace pro-
IV. CONCLUSION ductivity,and the regional slave price
structurewould implya workabletrans-
In sum, it seems doubtful that the fermechanismratherthan the contrary.
South was forcedby bad statesmanship 3. Continuedexpansionof slave terri-
into an unnecessary war to protect a tory was both possible and, to some
system which must soon have disap- extent, necessary. The maintenance of
peared because it was economicallyun- profitsin the Old South depended upon
sound. This is a romantic hypothesis the expansion,extensiveor intensive,of
whichwill not stand against the facts. slave agriculture into the Southwest.
On the basis of the computationof the This is sufficientto explain the interest
returnsto capital in our model of the of the Old South in secession and does
ante bellum southerneconomy and the away withthe necessityto fallback upon
demonstrationof the efficiencyof the argumentsofstatesmanshipor quixotism
regionalspecialization,thefollowingcon- to explain the willingnessto fightforthe
clusionsare offered: peculiar institution.
1. Slaverywas profitableto the whole 4. The available productive surplus
South, the continuingdemand forlabor fromslavery might have been used for
in the Cotton Belt insuringreturnsto economic development or, as in totali-
the breedingoperation on the less pro- tarian regimesin this century,for mili-
ductive land in the seaboard and border tarism. In spite of this good omen for

development,southern investmentand that slavery must have destroyeditself

industrializationlagged. It is hard to can no longerrestupon allegationsofun-
explain this except on the social ground profitabilityor upon assumptionsabout
thatentrepreneurship could not take root the impossibilityof maintainingand al-
in the South or on the economicground locating a slave labor force.To the ex-
that the South did not really own the tent, moreover, that profitabilityis a
systembut merelyoperated it. Further- necessaryconditionforthe continuation
more, the American experience clearly of a private business institutionin a
suggests that slavery is not, from the free-enterprise society, slavery was not
stricteconomicstandpoint,a deterrentto untenable in the ante bellum American
industrialdevelopmentand that its elim- South. Indeed ,economicforcesoftenmay
inationmay take morethan theworkings work toward the continuationof a slave
of "inexorable economic forces." Al- system,so that the eliminationof slavery
thoughprofitability cannot be offeredas may depend upon the adoption of harsh
guarantyof the continuityof
a sufficient political measures. Certainly that was
southernslavery,the converseargument the Americanexperience.

* o o U
e~~~~~~~~~~~
to~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~n -
-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Y . n .
cC/ U)U ky~tts

cn U) onU)cn cn cn \ \s U)~ Q\ / )U 00 00 00 00 nC)C)c
4)cn ~
ub~U?~U)D) OUuUoosoO~o~oom~
;4 :4 v ; 4 PH v ;4 4 4 ;4 Pv v ;,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
;4 ??G
;4
r
t;4
v
4
) O
.) in Ln inL tr) 1r) u 11)0 C) C ) 1r)
r 0 tr t- O O t- CD VI
N CN O
I. tn d4 LnL n 0 ) N "t "t X t- in C) O- oo m o" tlb c I CN _- "It 00 't t CsS>
w 8 %
) z
. . . .
.t
. ). . . . . . . . . O
Z . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . o
. . . .
p o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . o V
< . : : : : : :~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~ ..: . . .. . . .

O EW
...........
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r
Q >
=~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
U oO W->
r.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ;I ; 4S
a~~~~~~E En 'n On cEn s2 U) WnE tn rn tn U ca

n ,, cn xa(3''
"c
C, ce d cd d od cd Cd od d cd CdCd d d Cde CCSC cd O . . d Cd dC
? 1=== = = = = or = e = * = = O
t
E - GaaaAAA
C)
Q QQQQQQ W)a Q Q . . . :. _
140C
41 0) co C) .) ) (1 u w
P-
s E~~~~~~Ei
W -a~
P.
;-4;W-4
P-4P
a?
a?."'
;wA;;XNAAH4;
,P -qPP44
- - q - 44 . -
:AAa . . - .
t3
O~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
t4
z ...........~. ... ..... .

........... .
.... ..... . .. . .. . . . . . . 00
. .
H?............ . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0
p . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . e -a 0 O
H~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ . +<
0
(#|) . . , , , . . . . w . . . . .
*
, , * . ' ' ' D~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
{:L,-
b;
V
; >
tX~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Li ut ctV ctV ce ce c C4C4C, CeVC4V Ce

V4 C4 V C:As, t
C/ t) U/i C/ 0 C/ > 14 U)~ u) > H /5)t)U > ; U U ) . *
tg ) 00 Cs ) o m 00 C\ C1 0
8 C) - 1-4 1- 14 C1 cq C1 C1 C1 ?
xo xo 0 xo 00
~~~~~~~~~~~~14I
00 00 00 00
-1 14
00 OD 00
T-
00
V-
-/
PL, P- ;L
123

Cd
CQC O)C
OO\ Um
CV UxUx 00C ?????c
00 00 x O'" t- 'nCQCQ<
=~~~~~~~~L .t
hC mmmmmm%
;mnnnmmmmmmm tr tn C, Cq Cq en en enmen nnec ; m
CU C CZ) J> C) C)
Q
v C) I t_) -
Cd Cd
E C oioC) C C)
C)
U GU) nI) O
Cd
Cd
U)~ ~~~~~~
.
. . . .
n~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
UCd
X~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i O a) C
.
S~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r
'vl 4-
(L)Cd Ud cd r> ) . .d C) cdcd C. c

-E U d . . . d d.
00O
csr 00 = = 00 wn
00 r * : *r Q * = X s 00 00 w . r q
~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~ :~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

? I I I I" I I I i ;
1 2 4o n )
*00 ?O 00 *C * _1 _s * 00
* * ** _{ _1_1
..C.O
_s
. cIO 0t .- 1t0 . * *t . . . . . . .
^) l
. .
' cd
Cr3 0~ W
H or
C'S* .. u*.:4 ci..W t>d Sd W.::*

ci v
nq C/ / C -
C's
* 0 0 0 0 0
*~~~~~~~~2

CN
C) I-r)tr) tn U-) tr) tr) tn U-) tr) t-- t--
U') tr) U-) tn in cN C\ C\ (:P\ cN C\ c\ oN c\ C\ b
tn W) tr tr) U-
1r) Lf) tr)
P P4P P4P,(JCJ
(J(Jd d d
r) tr)tr)C:) C) U) CNU-) tn 1r)C) C) tn C:) Ln tn In \C C) U') C) 00 \0

00 't tr) \C, i- t- C) \0 C) tr)
C\ CN m r 11734
00 \0 \C t- tn
C) 1r) tr)
C
00 C)
C)
tn 1r)
C)
C-1,0\00 r- tn m x t- t- m t--
CN
615
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
C'I . . . . . . . . . . . .
CN 00 Cq
4-J
Cd
Cd
Cd
71
-cl -C -Z:$ Cd
0
cd Id
1:11 $:.,
cd cd cd
P -
4-; : (1) lc
r, 1=1. 7 'O
01 $:.I
V Cd m
4 m r.-'o 'o m Cd C - Cd cd Cd Cd
o 'r.. - 4 - -- O C!
Cd C,3 -=
'C C) 7 -C 'C W 7 1 cd C, C'd C'd
C
"O In4
-4--j 4-i 4,J 4,J Cd
00 Ul)
0 t4-. bb "Z3 t4'. LZ C'd
Cld tn tr) "-I'
C' : Cd cd Cd
4,J "Cad 4-, U
Y
E -4 ,., I:.- 4,J
C) C'd
u
.2 end
. . . . . . . . . . .
tr) tr) C)
CN Clq . . . . . . tr)
. . . . CN (N
I I . I ---- 1-1
. . . 00 00 . . . . . . . In W
C) t- CN t- t'- C) tr) C) C'q
tn C-4
U)
C/)
vd. C4U, cd U C C4 C4
Cd
CN
10 tr) tr)
00 00 00 00 00
125

24 H H a H
1
C12 Ooq oq oq oq oq oq oq oq t- t- t- t0 0 mm
Z tf~~ ~
tf~~ ~ ~ tf~ ~~U~ if) if) \~~
f)~~~tf~ ZOO If1) 1r r r
u)~~~~~~~~i)
ooo0 ) 1
*O ?
0 )C
0oooootC\C)
e~~~~c" CN
O r'
')0 CN Ucs \ C\
0inCooo:mc"oI
m om 00 t-- t-
rcC
ro 00
0
oOt
oooco
lCAC4U-
m 00 t o C\
m -
00 0) CN
C14
m
* . '-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
qpqp ~P 4 qp P P4P4P )
4P 4P 4P
z.
.) o
W wob8wo
Cd C
cr~~~~~~~~~~~~~~- bt
H cd oo . . . . ^. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> En . . .:. . . .
.
> > . ;. . . . . . . . .r
* * O* 0 0~ * *Z 0 " e
>z *o 0 H5*
. . . . . . . . ..
?U .22 . . . .; . . .- . .gg . . .
.~~if
.~~~~~~~~~~JY . . . . . . . . .. 1. .
~~~~~~~
~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
. . ... .... . . . . . . .
..... .....
.
*N oN C126m c* m ocI
;L4~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ . .>
00~~~~~~~~o0 0 NC ) C
C/)
=~~~~~C
O4
5 e
C4 Y4U
C4
. . .~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
\~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0
126

C/)
O O O O
W~~~~~~~~~~
1- ino m CTm cI o- - o m
N o_m rT\IoCN 'IOCNt m en x- O - ONC CD \ C) in C) C) t+
I - - - - - - - o- o- o - - - -
44 _I f tf) Z _ _ ON I e __ I
l l l . '
4) N - 4 '-4
Cd in in) L )O t-) On C
C . ...
4._ . W;X;X;; . C'1 .

_~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~C
., . . .
. . . . ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-4
. .
*~~~.. Hn
(~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
( 54)4~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1
.. Q = C
-C
C ~~~~C
i.--
-41 4)C~~~~C~~
C)~~~0 EnCAC
C1, m cd . .. U) . . . . .
.t . QXJ o : : : :=A: O~4

Xq *_ P CC . . . . . .
t' "C) r- LO C) t- UA) 0_0 \>\ , =t * t \10
,-L cl- t, ,n ,l- . n .) . ) ,T . \.C It . . . A)d c

, .
C. . .
X ~ ~ ~
Cl)
L)
00
127

CCN
j t1c" C\ Cr1NNN
0\ C0\ C::N0\ \bChr- \ bbe00 0
o- 00 00 Olt
I-
umnnmmmmm nd "t )U C\ C\ C\ CN C\ C\ C\0 C\ C\ C\sC\ C\ C\ C\ in in in inU) in U- in
00 CN N NN c" c"I c" CN c,4 CqC N Cq Cq cq c" c" c"I c" c" m m m m m m m m m n
O
C)
.O r) lr)
C)* O)
C6....1
et)OO0
1-coC)
C)
C)
C\ O ) Cs C) Ox t O
oo 0f
tf
(= C?) C\ =) m0C\ ?O
O
Gq
CteN ),
00 0
C>1t)
O-t) U,) cq
C O)CT Ln in1 C>Xw-
P,
$,~~~~~~ - - -
CI
- - - - - - - - E- - -
~r)-
i -1
- -
CN
- - -
_e - 4e_e os_
cq
* * * If) O
cn 00 L CT ~ t t
; ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~.s ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ . ~. ~. ~ ~ ~ .
:R~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ . . .
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. ?. . . . . . . .) . > . .) . . . .,n
~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~
.~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~.
. . .
~ ~~~~ ~~
*~~~~~ o ... .
.
.
.
. . . . . .
.
. .
. . . . .
.
. . .
~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~
c
- -
. . . . . . .
0
od.
?- * (N100000 . * ~~~t~-
. . ~~ . . O. . ??. .. .. .. .. . .0.
.
. . .
?? . LI
to CI 0 .. .
.. .. .
..
u 1
R~~~~~~~~~~~~c
< . . . . . . .
. .i . . .
q~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. *. O
. . .; . .S S. . .^ .- >. 00. . c ~
m
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0. . . . . . . . . .0 . . .
u) )~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
11,)
00

vs- soo o oo ooo&D nO O
f)if) r 1 OO0 s t + re ir If)
00
Cf) Cf) f fX I) If) 00 00 00 0o
000 Cf) U) Irntf) 1CICN? ecn _ ? CN
IN IN e
m t'00 00
tt' 00; ob 00 ob .-i en _f
CN C 'em%%n ) If)
-)
c o
Ln
o
q Ln C) C) Z o-
00 O O .r
) f) O O) O o) o
o- o:
o
~ io
c
o
o0 c ot,s. '
f
In
S
oO
n
) ti
If
CN
o o
0 rOOOOOu
C) CD
zS Lr if)
r-
Z
O
v.,
C)
Ir)
c:
C> C
O
<t,~~~~~~-
s~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~c
_ - *- I r
_0
tc
o ~~~~. .
z-fI .~)
* -Z *
Z
.=
r,~~~~~~~~~~~r
= . e N n No NN
oN
N
X-e
-
t-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Z , ,
j) 14.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-if
x = * ; . .. e X
O O . . , . ,
C~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~C
: : : : * :
129* U : ' : =r :
C)
U * * *. . . . - . 0
, . . . . . cn .
0a. 02 5gX>a
IN~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~c
?0N=f . *N^)Q E . *v ? ft00 --0 ~ Z
ooI0
hsNINqO O. f)ot--I O N cot-0If c -2 N tr00
)
00
a) . ~ ~~~.::,
H ZAu 4H 03
129

d oo oO
m o
M m mm rn m C4 0m om 0 xxxm
C)%% 1) Ln Ln inn)>10 ) d
C) in U,) U') I t) ,
c,) ~ ~~ \ X -- enlzC :,t (
U O m mos oC _~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'r-
00dq oC1 o
z4
o
-
: o
14
s m
) 7
O z a)oOc
d
en 0 C> Lf -r-=
CQ O O ,
Z
X
U~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~L)
C
W;: 0
* d
o d?s
m .o . . ; . -~
'~~~~~d - , CN
X .' ,
abO*( ? 7 1 ' >Lr)
e= ,; ?
Cd 4 C$C
?~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~V
IV) * * ). C.)Ud
tH n , C~~X
, , , . * 1N
1 -4 t)
ced C4
,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Q
-,XC
"
U)Qd
t>k
sJ
cd~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~c
Cd c
cdZ q
> o
Cr~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ L
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~9z O
130~~~~~~~~~~~


Conrad1958 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Conrad1958 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE JOURNAL OF

THE ECONOMICS OF SLAVERY IN THE ANTE BELLUM SOUTH1

the writingsof men who lived with slav-

This content downloaded from 141.218.001.105 on August 09, 2016 18:46:00 PM

other business enterprisesin the young firstwhat it is we are talkingabout and,

This content downloaded from 141.218.001.105 on August 09, 2016 18:46:00 PM

This content downloaded from 141.218.001.105 on August 09, 2016 18:46:00 PM

This content downloaded from 141.218.001.105 on August 09, 2016 18:46:00 PM

This content downloaded from 141.218.001.105 on August 09, 2016 18:46:00 PM

This content downloaded from 141.218.001.105 on August 09, 2016 18:46:00 PM

This content downloaded from 141.218.001.105 on August 09, 2016 18:46:00 PM

This content downloaded from 141.218.001.105 on August 09, 2016 18:46:00 PM

higherthan theywould have if southern withdrawalof capital fromslave opera-

This content downloaded from 141.218.001.105 on August 09, 2016 18:46:00 PM

Estimates of plantationexpenseshave mates is presentedin Table 5. The total

This content downloaded from 141.218.001.105 on August 09, 2016 18:46:00 PM

adjusteddownwardby the amountof TABLE 7

fromtheexportpricein determining the * By river.

This content downloaded from 141.218.001.105 on August 09, 2016 18:46:00 PM

This content downloaded from 141.218.001.105 on August 09, 2016 18:46:00 PM

Furthermore,we assume that successful nancy. This allowance for"lost time" is

1........ $1,350-$1,400 33 7 4.5

This content downloaded from 141.218.001.105 on August 09, 2016 18:46:00 PM

ANNUAL RETURNS ON A PRIME FIELD WENCH INVESTMENT (WORKING ON LAND

This content downloaded from 141.218.001.105 on August 09, 2016 18:46:00 PM

is purchased;furthersuccessfulpregnan- right-handcolumns of the tables on the

This content downloaded from 141.218.001.105 on August 09, 2016 18:46:00 PM

returnon the two types of investment general sharing in the prosperitywas

This content downloaded from 141.218.001.105 on August 09, 2016 18:46:00 PM

property,unlike wage labor, must be the constantenhancementofprices (and,

This content downloaded from 141.218.001.105 on August 09, 2016 18:46:00 PM

because of abolition in 1834. The moreimportantissue, however,is

This content downloaded from 141.218.001.105 on August 09, 2016 18:46:00 PM

This content downloaded from 141.218.001.105 on August 09, 2016 18:46:00 PM

an indignantdenial. Whethersystemati- To compare to these rates, we have

While the disproportionsare not great when available, a description of the

This content downloaded from 141.218.001.105 on August 09, 2016 18:46:00 PM

ly reflectsthe added value offemalesdue THE LABOR FORCE

to theirabilityto generatecapital gains. The aspect of slave economics that

It is especiallyinterestingin this regard to England and New England and, later,

usefulforpresentpurposes. in the Cotton-Belt,"op. cit.,pp. 271 ff.

This content downloaded from 141.218.001.105 on August 09, 2016 18:46:00 PM

organizationcannot be very flexibleif it Phillips' analysis exaggeratesthe decline

This content downloaded from 141.218.001.105 on August 09, 2016 18:46:00 PM

This content downloaded from 141.218.001.105 on August 09, 2016 18:46:00 PM

Average price of prime field hand ....

(1, (),3):seeTabe1;():stiate of cotton output per hand

This content downloaded from 141.218.001.105 on August 09, 2016 18:46:00 PM

This content downloaded from 141.218.001.105 on August 09, 2016 18:46:00 PM

employedin cotton factoriesthroughout not bring any release fromthe factors.

This content downloaded from 141.218.001.105 on August 09, 2016 18:46:00 PM

be said to count as a loss of wealth. In states. The breedingreturnswere neces-

This content downloaded from 141.218.001.105 on August 09, 2016 18:46:00 PM

development,southern investmentand that slavery must have destroyeditself

This content downloaded from 141.218.001.105 on August 09, 2016 18:46:00 PM

cC/ U)U ky~tts

< . : : : : : :~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~ ..: . . .. . . .

a~~~~~~E En 'n On cEn s2 U) WnE tn rn tn U ca

z ...........~. ... ..... .

Li ut ctV ctV ce ce c C4C4C, CeVC4V Ce

This content downloaded from 141.218.001.105 on August 09, 2016 18:46:00 PM

(L)Cd Ud cd r> ) . .d C) cdcd C. c

~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~ :~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~ ~ ~ :~~~~~~~~~

C'S* .. u.:4 ci..W t>d Sd W.::