Civil War History - General DiscussionFor Discussions on Civil War Era Personalities, Politics, Issues, Campaigns, Battles, and more. Serious Civil War Discussions Only Please! All other posts will be deleted.
Why do you think post-war cotton prices would be much different than had there been no war?
Because the amount of world-wide supply would have been much greater in 1861-65 if there had been no Civil War. Without a doubt, the self-imposed Confederate embargo on shipments of 1861 and the steadily tightening Federal blockade, combined with the lower production of cotton in the South in 1861-65 than would have been the case in peacetime.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cedarstripper
World prices were dependent on foreign supplies and foreign demand, all of which I cannot see much affected by the ACW, as compared to the economic circumstances in each country.
World prices are dependent upon the supply and demand on the world market. This was particularly true of US cotton, since some 84.5% of the world supply in the 1856-60 period came from the US, while only about 18.6% of the consumption did. US domestic purchaser competed directly with the British (49%) and other European (32.4%) buyers for the available cotton.
With the start of the Civil War, US cotton supply to the world market dropped sharply; therefore the world supply dropped sharply. This continued until after the war. This would have the affect of raising prices in real life, and would attract new supply from other parts of the world over time.
If we postulate "No Civil War", then the US supply does not drop (probably increases due to expanded plantings) and so the world supply will be much larger in 1861-65. Prices will be lower than they were in 1861-65 in real-life. If the world supply is high enough, prices will be lower than they were in 1860.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cedarstripper
Post-war production stumbled for a few years, I assume as a result of the war's destruction and the chaos of credit and workforce, and I imagine this prolonged the high market prices the textile industry endured since 1862, but by 1870, production was again at record levels, and the infrastructure to get it to market was rebuilt better than ever.
So, you are saying there was a disruptive effect approximately 10 years long in the world market. I think that, absent the ACW, there would have been no disruption and prices would have been lower.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cedarstripper
US cotton growers really kicked into high gear in the 1880s and production rose by between 50% and 100% over 1850s levels. I can only assume by considering the record plantings each year that markets prices remained somewhat stable. Its hard for me to imagine that this decade anyway would have been a good time for what by now would have been a more highly concentrated and aristocratic planter society to capitulate to those bottom-feeding yankee abolitionists and overturn their labor system.
Why not?
Quote:
Originally Posted by cedarstripper
Perhaps more efficient machinery would have made cotton growing less labor intensive enough that keeping slaves made no economical sense - I don't have any idea.
Not until about 1930 for cotton.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cedarstripper
But to make that choice, planters would then create their problem of "what to do with all these negroes."
Always a problem when the slave is finally freed. Same problem in the Northern states that had already fred the slaves prior to 1860, although there was a difference of scale. But the problem needs to be solved, sooner or later, as I am sure you agree, and when it does this problem still exists. Delay doesn't seem to make it go away. Personally, I think the solution chosen (secession and Civil War) was a pretty bad one.
World prices are dependent upon the supply and demand on the world market. This was particularly true of US cotton, since some 84.5% of the world supply in the 1856-60 period came from the US, while only about 18.6% of the consumption did. US domestic purchaser competed directly with the British (49%) and other European (32.4%) buyers for the available cotton.
I apologize for not being clear. I’m referring to foreign supplies and demand as being the variables outside the US production that swing market prices. US growers had always endeavored to grow and harvest as much cotton as they could. It was a combination of cheaper textile production, new markets such as China, and growing populations in existing markets who could afford those textiles that supported cotton prices – the variables I think planters based their enthusiasm for independence on. I understand your point that world supply in, say 1867, was short compared to had there been no ACW, and that cotton prices were affected accordingly. But my intent was to say that events unhealthy to cotton consumption (wars, famine, or even market saturation.) were always affecting that 80% of the market that was overseas, and I consider those factors more determinative in the long run than a 5-8 year shortage. As you said, markets have a way of adjusting themselves.
Quote:
If we postulate "No Civil War", then the US supply does not drop (probably increases due to expanded plantings) and so the world supply will be much larger in 1861-65. Prices will be lower than they were in 1861-65 in real-life. If the world supply is high enough, prices will be lower than they were in 1860.
I was referring to prices after 1865. The degree that a shortage during 1861-65 affects later years depends on the rate that raw cotton is consumed (if there is any surplus left over at all), the rate that consumption is deterred by high prices, and the rate that substitutes are relied on. "Other sources" doesn't seem to much have come into play. India apparently could not pose a threat as a serious competitor with US cotton, and southern planters were confident that any system that did not utilize slavery would ultimately fall short.
Quote:
Why not?
I don’t have the figures for acreage planted in cotton before 1866, but it could reasonably be estimated from some other years. During the prosperous 1850s, US cotton production averaged roughly around 3.5 million bales annually. In 1870, US production hit just over 4 million bales and US acreage in cotton was 7.67 million acres. From this we can figure that cotton acreage during the 1850s was on average around 6.7 million acres, as yield rates had not much changed. Slave prices tell us that field hands were in high demand during this time to handle the grubbing, planting, cultivating and harvesting of <7 million acres of cotton. Had there been no forced emancipation, and the South continued to expand on its 1860 rhetoric of slavery as the natural condition and improvement of the African savage, what would make them voluntarily overturn this when by 1880 they needed labor to work almost 16 million acres, and 18 million acres by 1885?
True enough that we can look back at it and see that it must have indeed been possible to work over twice the acreage by hand with a free labor system in 1880, but that prediction didn’t seem to have many fans in 1860. Planters were instead bent not on change, but rather on expanding and cementing the master/slave relationship.
The number of slaves needed to work 16 or 18 million acres of cotton would have been in direct proportion to the number of slaves needed to work 6 million acres.
I forget the exact number, but one slave could work x acres of cotton -- that was a given, rock-hard number that even the hardest drivers couldn't exceed by more than small fractions.
Double the acreage, double the field hands. Would that have been possible in 20 years without importing fresh bodies?
Ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
I apologize for not being clear. I’m referring to foreign supplies and demand as being the variables outside the US production that swing market prices. US growers had always endeavored to grow and harvest as much cotton as they could. It was a combination of cheaper textile production, new markets such as China, and growing populations in existing markets who could afford those textiles that supported cotton prices – the variables I think planters based their enthusiasm for independence on. I understand your point that world supply in, say 1867, was short compared to had there been no ACW, and that cotton prices were affected accordingly. But my intent was to say that events unhealthy to cotton consumption (wars, famine, or even market saturation.) were always affecting that 80% of the market that was overseas, and I consider those factors more determinative in the long run than a 5-8 year shortage. As you said, markets have a way of adjusting themselves.
I am going from memory here, but IIRR US cotton production broke the 4 million bale mark in the crop of 1860. Down further in your post you say that US cotton production was at 4 million bales in 1870. If I have that right, it would seem to indicate that the net result of the Civil War and the resulting disruption was that ten years later US cotton production was just getting back to where it was in 1860. Would you be able to check and see if that is correct?
If so, it would seem to show exactly what I have been describing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cedarstripper
I was referring to prices after 1865.
Cotton prices in New York and London: 1) peaked in August of 1864 (when Lincoln thought he would lose the election and all looked darkest)
2) dropped in Spetember (Atlanta falls to Sherman, Sheridan wins at 3rd Winchester and Fisher's Hill, Farragut breaks into Mobile Bay)
3) dropped again in October (Sheridan wins at Tom's Brook and Cedar Creek)
4) rose slightly in November (Hood invades TN, election)
5) drops from that point on as the war becomes more and more clearly a certain Union victory.
Before the war, cotton prices at London and New York were very close to cotton prices in the South, usually showing only a 1-2 cents/bale difference for transportation. In late 1863-early 1864, the premium was about 50 cents. While the fate of the war was uncertain, the difficulties of getting large amounts of cotton to market were substantial.
I have seen estimates that 1.5 to 2 million bales of cotton came out of the South to the New York and London markets during the war, so I suppose it might have been a little higher (2.5 million?) due to insufficient records. In normal times, that might have been 16 million bales.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cedarstripper
The degree that a shortage during 1861-65 affects later years depends on the rate that raw cotton is consumed (if there is any surplus left over at all), the rate that consumption is deterred by high prices, and the rate that substitutes are relied on. "Other sources" doesn't seem to much have come into play. India apparently could not pose a threat as a serious competitor with US cotton, and southern planters were confident that any system that did not utilize slavery would ultimately fall short.
I would think US cotton production took several years more to catch up with 1860 production (see the 1860-1870 4 million bale figure above). Disruption to the labor and plantation market, fields needing to be cleared again, etc. seem to make this likely.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cedarstripper
I don’t have the figures for acreage planted in cotton before 1866, but it could reasonably be estimated from some other years. During the prosperous 1850s, US cotton production averaged roughly around 3.5 million bales annually. In 1870, US production hit just over 4 million bales and US acreage in cotton was 7.67 million acres. From this we can figure that cotton acreage during the 1850s was on average around 6.7 million acres, as yield rates had not much changed.
Cotton production in the US seems to have gone from about 2 million bales in 1850 to about 4 million in 1860, with new acerage being added all the time. It then seems to have dipped substantially and gone back to 4 million bales in 1870 (some sources say 3.841 million, some claim up to 5 million in 1860). There appears to have been no growth at all, so probably the acerage in 1860 is about the same as in 1870.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cedarstripper
Slave prices tell us that field hands were in high demand during this time to handle the grubbing, planting, cultivating and harvesting of <7 million acres of cotton.
The constant need to clear new land played a large part in this, along with the massive expansion going on from 1850-1860, when the total crop seems to have doubled.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cedarstripper
Had there been no forced emancipation, and the South continued to expand on its 1860 rhetoric of slavery as the natural condition and improvement of the African savage, what would make them voluntarily overturn this when by 1880 they needed labor to work almost 16 million acres, and 18 million acres by 1885?
Well, there is peer pressure, as I said, in addition to economic factors. The economy you are painting is one dependent upon constant expansion with no down cycle. That doesn't happen forever. Sooner or later there is always a downturn. In this case, the disruptive effect of the Civil War qualifies as a downturn. If you ignore that, US production would have never stumbled in the 1860s -- but there might have easily been a point in the 1860s where there was too much available production on the market, leading to a short and sharp correction. For example, without the Civil War, there would probably have been an extra 15 million bales of cotton on the market in 1861-65, and several million more in excess of real production for 1866-1870. What does that do to competition and prices?
Quote:
Originally Posted by cedarstripper
True enough that we can look back at it and see that it must have indeed been possible to work over twice the acreage by hand with a free labor system in 1880, but that prediction didn’t seem to have many fans in 1860. Planters were instead bent not on change, but rather on expanding and cementing the master/slave relationship.
Which is, of course, why they brought the Civil War down upon the nation.
I am going from memory here, but IIRR US cotton production broke the 4 million bale mark in the crop of 1860. Down further in your post you say that US cotton production was at 4 million bales in 1870. If I have that right, it would seem to indicate that the net result of the Civil War and the resulting disruption was that ten years later US cotton production was just getting back to where it was in 1860. Would you be able to check and see if that is correct?
The growth of cotton production was not exactly linear, and I suspect Mother Nature had much to do with it. There must have been areas where floods or drought severely damaged the harvest, and other years where it was bumper all around. Here's some numbers: (thousands of 500# bales)
``````````bales``````````````bales
1845.........1806 ``` 1861..........4491
1850.........2136 ``` '62...........1597
'51...........2799 ``` '63............449
'52...........3130 ``` '64............299
'53...........2766 ``` '65...........2094
'54...........2708 ``` '66...........1948
'55...........3221 ``` '67...........2346
'56...........2874 ``` '68...........2198
'57...........3012 ``` '69...........2520
'58...........3758 ``` '70...........4025
'59...........4508 ``` '71...........2757
'60...........3841 ``` '72...........3651
Source: US Dept of Agriculture - Bureau of Statistics
The bumper crop years of 1859, 1861 and 1870 are surely bad years to use as measures, but the point remains that by 1870 production is essentially back to prewar levels. You can see though that from 1865 on, production wasn't "severely" out of line as compared to the levels of '63 and '64.
Quote:
Cotton production in the US seems to have gone from about 2 million bales in 1850 to about 4 million in 1860, with new acerage being added all the time. It then seems to have dipped substantially and gone back to 4 million bales in 1870 (some sources say 3.841 million, some claim up to 5 million in 1860). There appears to have been no growth at all, so probably the acerage in 1860 is about the same as in 1870.
Ironically, as farm machinery became available to work more land more efficiently, so did better farming practices and fertilizers, making more land less necessary. In 1945, acreage dedicated to cotton had dropped back to 1885 levels (17.03 mil acres) yet yields had increased by 50% (9 million bales). Perhaps it would have taken chemical fertilizer to eradicate slavery.
Cedarstripper
Last edited by cedarstripper; 06-09-2007 at 05:46 PM.
The growth of cotton production was not exactly linear, and I suspect Mother Nature had much to do with it. There must have been areas where floods or drought severely damaged the harvest, and other years where it was bumper all around. Here's some numbers: (thousands of 500# bales)
``````````bales``````````````bales
1845.........1806 ``` 1861..........4491
1850.........2136 ``` '62...........1597
'51...........2799 ``` '63............449
'52...........3130 ``` '64............299
'53...........2766 ``` '65...........2094
'54...........2708 ``` '66...........1948
'55...........3221 ``` '67...........2346
'56...........2874 ``` '68...........2198
'57...........3012 ``` '69...........2520
'58...........3758 ``` '70...........4025
'59...........4508 ``` '71...........2757
'60...........3841 ``` '72...........3651
Source: US Dept of Agriculture - Bureau of Statistics
The bumper crop years of 1859, 1861 and 1870 are surely bad years to use as measures, but the point remains that by 1870 production is essentially back to prewar levels. You can see though that from 1865 on, production wasn't "severely" out of line as compared to the levels of '63 and '64.
One thing I note is that NO year from 1862 to 1869 is as high as ANY year from 1851 to 1861. That is a pretty strong indicator that the entire US cotton production from 1862-1869 was crippled by the effects of the war. Unless you wish to postulate a devastating "Mother Nature" effect lasting many years, that is not the cause of the drop.
Cotton planting, particularly as practiced in the ante-bellum South, wore out fields quickly. Keeping up production meant constant clearing of new fields (and migration to new lands) as the old ones wore out and had to be left to lie fallow. This was normal procedure for cotton planters in those days.
This, in turn, required huge amounts of manual labor every year -- which was one of the driving factors behind the Southern desire to expand to new lands, to expand the number of slaves, and to lower the price of slaves.
Now in the furnace of the Civil War, the existing slave system melted away. Southern planters ended up devastetd financially, their sons dead and crippled. Existing plantations were damaged and abandoned. Fields were overgrown. The capital needed was unavailable (at least to most Southerners). The disruption from all of this overwhelmingly causes the drop in production, IMHO, not any problem with Mother Nature.
Since the US cotton crop accounted for well over 80% of the world supply (and was also the most desirable type of cotton on quality), this tremendous dropoff in production had to have a massive effect. If there had been no Civil War, it is likely the US would have produced an additional 15 million or so bales in the 1860s.
BTW -- is your 1861 figure for the crop harvested and shipped before Ft. Sumter? Or the crop that was largely self-embargoed by the Confederacy?
Perhaps it would have taken chemical fertilizer to eradicate slavery.
How would that work? (I know you have an answer.) Seems to me that the slaves per acre would remain the same. Yield, in bales per slave and per acre, would increase. As I understand it, the acres per slave (or slaves per acre) was predicated on plowing, planting, and tilling -- not necessarily picking, ginning and baling -- although I suppose the latter three would certainly be included in the slaves' duties.
Over the winter the slaves would be set out, according to skill, strength, health, etc., to grub stumps and clear fields, or make repairs around the plantation.
Trice wrote:
Quote:
Cotton planting, particularly as practiced in the ante-bellum South, wore out fields quickly. Keeping up production meant constant clearing of new fields (and migration to new lands) as the old ones wore out and had to be left to lie fallow. This was normal procedure for cotton planters in those days.
As I understand it 7 years brought the land to the point that only shrubs and trees would grow. What's amazing is that the land was so frequently pushed to the full 7 years. Fresh, virgin, excellent soil might do as much as 5 bales per acre -- a figure that rapidly dropped off until fractions of bales were produced after as few as 4 years. It took 14 years for exhausted land to regain fertility (can't say that it returned to full productivity). Older plantations planted only a third of their acreage, the other two-thirds were lying fallow with half that fairly well covered in 12- and 13-year old growth. As mentioned above, the field hands cleared land when they weren't involved with cotton.
Some of the wealthier planters didn't bother with the plant, fallow, clear cycle. They just bought fresh land further West. I suspect that it was these "venturesome" planters who saw available land growing scarce and raised the alarm for expansion.
Hope you fellows don't mind my horning in occasionally. Your discussions are of great value.
Ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
As I understand it 7 years brought the land to the point that only shrubs and trees would grow. What's amazing is that the land was so frequently pushed to the full 7 years. Fresh, virgin, excellent soil might do as much as 5 bales per acre -- a figure that rapidly dropped off until fractions of bales were produced after as few as 4 years. It took 14 years for exhausted land to regain fertility (can't say that it returned to full productivity). Older plantations planted only a third of their acreage, the other two-thirds were lying fallow with half that fairly well covered in 12- and 13-year old growth. As mentioned above, the field hands cleared land when they weren't involved with cotton.
Some of the wealthier planters didn't bother with the plant, fallow, clear cycle. They just bought fresh land further West. I suspect that it was these "venturesome" planters who saw available land growing scarce and raised the alarm for expansion.
Hope you fellows don't mind my horning in occasionally. Your discussions are of great value.
That's about my understanding of the process as well.
Forgot to mention: In addition to the short-sighted plant, plant, plant, mentality, the planters failed to heed the prophets (Edmund Ruffin among them) who urged manuring the fields. One problem: it wasn't traditional. Another: they didn't keep enough animals to provide the manure.
Ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
The "bible" on the southern economy, cotton and slavery remains Gavin Wright's The Political Economy of the Cotton South: Households, Markets, and Wealth in the Nineteenth Century:
Wright's study extends into and beyond the War, discussing (among other things) the coincidental leveling off of worldwide cotton demand during the War years and the resulting dislocations that might have been caused even if the War had not occurred.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
