Cost of Slaves?

[johan_steele]

I have a question that has been bothering me. What did it cost to purchase a slave in 1860. I have run across figures ranging from as low as $25 to $1600. That's a bit of a range. I know there would be a diffeernce between a House Slave and a Field Slave but that much seems a bit extreme.

I need this for research as I'm writing up a bit of historical fiction.

Thanks

[tulip]

Seems a little ghoulsih, but then it was the reality of the antebellum years.

From what I know about it, like selling any livestock, the condition, age and health of a man dictated the price as well as what the local market would bear. If slaves were in abundance, as with all livestock the price dropped. If, however, the available stock was thin, a prime specimen would fetch a higher price. Market value for females was similar although cleverness with a needle, a cooking spoon or washboard could increase the price. Child bearing history also entered into the price of a female. Purchasing a woman was an investment since she could and hopefully would reproduce. The price of children was dependent on their pedigree and health, but buying young slaves was always risky since infant and child mortality for slaves was nearly double for children in the white community. In addition, most slaves were sold at auction and like any auction, prices often fluctuated drastically depending on the needs, desires, bank accounts and skill of the bidders.

William Jones, the male slave "about 30 years old" who Grant emancipated in 1859 had a market value of $1000. This was deflated because Missouri at the time was in a repression making cash flow tight and livestock prices low. Prices were reported in the local papers and a quick skim of publications in key urban centers would yield an average.

[johan_steele]

Thanks for the info Connie... As often as I've viewed period papers though the Auction bills never seem to list prices. I know it's goulish but it's actually an important part of what I'm writing.

In checking out some sources, I found that around 1800, a "prime field worker", was bringing $900. By 1860, the same slave would easy bring $1800. Also if two bidders, got into a fight, trying to out bid each other, the price could go much higher.

Gunsmoke

[blue_zouave]

To get those prices up to modern equivalents, Nofi in "A Civil War Treasury" recommends multiplying by 35. $1800 times 35 is $63,000. Ouch. We paid just a bit more than that for our 5 bedroom house.

Zou

That's one of the reasons, that I don't think slavery, would have lasted. The cost would be overwhelming. On top of buying the slaves, the slave owners, would have to provide land for them to live on, then either land would have, to be used for the slaves, to grow food on, or else the owner, would have to buy food for them. After the invention of farm equipment, a smart owner would figure the equipment, would be cheaper to use, than the slaves, and he would do away with slaves, and use the land they were living on, and the garden areas, for planting cotton.

Gunsmoke

[unionblue]

Thea, does this thread help you at all on prices of slaves for the period? I know you want me to find out what was offered for slaves by the federal government before and during the war and I will try and dig that out for you, but maybe we can use the figures and dates here as a base-line until I get that info back to you on our other thread.

Unionblue

[thea_447]

Neil,
I've just started reading this thread and since then you've given me more information on the prices but my question remains: was the price that Lincoln wanted to pay an adequate amount per slave? The math bothers me.

But I will re-check your figures on the other thread and see if someone is willing to give me a baseline figure per male blacks, in their prime.

I too, think it is bizarre to want this information, but it was a matter of business, pure and simple, back then.

As I've said before I am only interested in the black males because I would think that the old people and the children would have been considered more of a burden than useful property.

And surely the male field hands would cost more money than the females. But not all of those females could possibly have been used as house-workers.

[kat1121]

Thea, are you looking only for the price of a "field hand," or for all levels? Black males were trained as valets and butlers in the house, as well as for many craftsman jobs around the plantation (wheelwrights, coopers, etc.). A field hand was the lowest level of the social strata amongst slaves.

From what I've read in the past, pricing would've been based on the overall physical condition of the slave plus whatever talents/abilities he or she had. If I remember correctly, Olmsted's "Journey through the Southern States" (republished as "The Cotton Kingdom) talks about some of the specialty talents that slaves possessed and how their masters would loan them out and let them make a little money on their own.

Have you tried the "Documenting the American South" internet site? I don't have the link in front of me, but if you type the title into Google it should come up. Once in DTAM, do a search for slave prices and you may well find some concrete information.

Kat in NJ

[thea_447]

Thanks, Kat, for this information.

Yes, I did know that there were many different levels of work that the blacks performed in the South. And although the house servants certainly were in the "upper echelon" as far as status, the real work of the plantations must have been done by the field hands, thus my curiosity.

I did go to Google and began perusing "Documenting the American South", but alas, as in many other instances, I got interested in something I read and just couldn't leave it alone! This always happens to me!

But I will continue and am sure I'll find the answer one way or another soon.

Again, thanks for your help and for telling me about another new site on the net. I appreciate it.