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.
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.
I believe I earlier noted my opinion that the effects of war were responsible for the drop in cotton production that did not fully recover (I would say) until 1870. My "Mother Nature" reference was directed not as a cause of shortages between 1862 and 1870, but rather to note that the increases in crop yields were not necessarily consistent in any decade and not necessarily an indicator of other factors such as acreage planted or market conditions. The 4 million bale years that were somewhat being used as benchmarks were in fact atypical bumper yields.
However, I did say that "from 1865 on" (I was meaning 'till 1870) crops were not "severely" out of line with pre-war levels. Comparing averages of crops during the 1850s and the years 1856-1869, annual production was down about 1 million bales. But year to year fluctuations were often in the 700,000 bale range anyway, so I consider my "not severely out of line" remark is justified. Actually, given the post-war conditions, many of which you listed, I'm amazed at the quickness of the comeback of the industry.
I am quite aware of the labor requirements to constantly grub out fallow land and return it to planting. In fact, it is the basis of my point that if slaves were in high demand to work <7 million acres in 1860, and this demand also fueled the proslavery sentiment of that time, then the working of 16 million acres in 1880 should double that demand - and I presume that sentiment. Our difference I think lies only in that you consider that peer pressure and some economic factors would have the (no ACW) 1880 southern planter voluntarily entertaining the idea of emancipating his slaves at the very time he needs them most. For me, its like demand for pork being at its highest ever, and the pork growers deciding its time to give in to the animal rights activists and free-range all ther hogs.
I'm thinking that its generally agreed on that in the first third of the 1800s, slavery even left a bad aftertaste in southern mouths, but with the growth of the cotton industry came the greater necessity for slaves, and directly relative to that demand came the defense of - and then the positive affirmation of slavery. The bad aftertaste was conveniently replaced with proclamations of slavery's beneficial place in God's plan. To openly question this was genuinely dangerous.
Had there been no Civil War to destroy this "cornerstone", and had southern society and politics continued to be run by this increasingly concentrated aristocratic oligarchy, I don't see as clearly as you the willingness to reverse this ingrained mindset, especially with the consistent need to till more land.....a lot more land.
For what its worth, some other factors that would have changed the economic scenery in the slave states include the building of more infrastructure (railroads, steamship lines out of southern ports) and an increasing self reliance on southern made products and services. Although the South had been previously more focused on chasing cotton money, there was enough public realization that they severely lagged behind the rest of the country in these other areas, that I can only trust that much more capital would have been invested in building southern commerce in promise of less reliance on northern (especially New England) commerce.
Quote:
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?
I have no idea - it is simply listed as the 1861 crop. Although more than half the crop grown in 1860 would have been actually shipped in Jan-April, 1861, the figures are from the Dept of Agriculture and not Dept of Treasury, so I would think they are referring to the crop grown in 1861 (and embargoed). I wondered the same thing when I saw that figure. I also found it surprising how large the 1865 crop was. Perhaps things were more "back in order" in parts of the cotton belt than I might have expected.
For what its worth, some other factors that would have changed the economic scenery in the slave states include the building of more infrastructure (railroads, steamship lines out of southern ports) and an increasing self reliance on southern made products and services. Although the South had been previously more focused on chasing cotton money, there was enough public realization that they severely lagged behind the rest of the country in these other areas, that I can only trust that much more capital would have been invested in building southern commerce in promise of less reliance on northern (especially New England) commerce.
This I doubt very much. I believe your trust is misplaced. I see absolutely no evidence in the South of the 1850s that there was a serious desire to do any such thing.
Mind you, I do see unrealistic complaints about Northern domination of such things in political rhetoric. What I do not see prior to the Civil War by Southerners to make a serious effort to develop an industrial infrastructure, shipping, etc. The entire mythos of Southern society mitigated against such an effort, because it would have required large numbers of free workers in classes Southerners did not respect: "greasy mechanics", "grubby shopkeepers", etc. Even when Southerners did start banks and businesses, I have seen evidence that Southerners continued to prefer to deal with Northerners for those products and services. When your society tells you that the type of activity you need to do is disreputable, it is unlikely your society wants you to do it.
Now if you wish to say that the folly of the Civil War convinced the South to change its ways on these matters, I'd see evidence of how true that was -- and I'd notice that a lot of it was done with Yankee money and know-how. Reconstruction brought good and bad down to the South.
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.
Highly recommended.
Thank you.
One of my points here is that we know that:
1) there appears to have been a surplus of cotton available in 1861-62 even with the Civil War in progress and interrupting supply.
2) the South was continually adding planted acres to their production, seeing no end to their good fortune, throughout the 1850s.
This argues that there is going to be a bust in the cotton market in the 1860s, and that 1861-62 is a good candidate for it if there is no Civil War.
Typically, commodities like cotton are subject to boom-and-bust cycles. Cotton had been riding an especially long boom, so it would not be at all surprising to see a "correction" in the market due to an oversupply condition. It appears that is what would have happened sometime in this period, but the artifical drop in the supply from the ACW avoided it.
How bad the effects of that would be in the South would depend upon the degree to which Southern planters were over-extended, and the severity of the oversupply. Effects might have included a drop in cotton prices (bad if the planter needs to get X/bale to pay his bills and gets less), or even unsold cotton from the crop. Short-term, cash-strapped planters have to re-do their credit arrangements and/or use up capital. Longer-term they have to sell assets (essentially land or slaves) to pay bills if the market does not quickly recover. If there are enough asset sales going on, prices drop precipitously, the planter has to sell more assets, and the prices decline more. In a society of cash-poor planters, the possibility exists for disastrous results in a short time from a setback in cotton.
I believe I earlier noted my opinion that the effects of war were responsible for the drop in cotton production that did not fully recover (I would say) until 1870. My "Mother Nature" reference was directed not as a cause of shortages between 1862 and 1870, but rather to note that the increases in crop yields were not necessarily consistent in any decade and not necessarily an indicator of other factors such as acreage planted or market conditions. The 4 million bale years that were somewhat being used as benchmarks were in fact atypical bumper yields.
However, I did say that "from 1865 on" (I was meaning 'till 1870) crops were not "severely" out of line with pre-war levels. Comparing averages of crops during the 1850s and the years 1856-1869, annual production was down about 1 million bales. But year to year fluctuations were often in the 700,000 bale range anyway, so I consider my "not severely out of line" remark is justified. Actually, given the post-war conditions, many of which you listed, I'm amazed at the quickness of the comeback of the industry.
I think you are not looking at your own figures from the right viewpoint.
What stands out to me here is that no year from 1865-1869 is as high as production in any year after 1850. While crops always vary from year to year due to Mother Nature, it does not appear to account for the variation here.
The likely reason is simply the Civil War and the disruption it caused. Massive amounts of work were required to get production back to where it was before the war, and much of that would be in activities that would not yield an immediate crop gain. Much of the production in 1865 was probably through the resuse of existing fields, and only after people got their footing again and could expand to new fields would we see production rise significantly. This appears to be what your figures show.
But at the same time, world-wide supply-demand does not seem to have created a crisis in the 1860s. Absent war-related issues, cotton prices would have probably declined in the 1860s, because it appears there would have ben too much supply. We already know there was a supply problem in 1861-62. The Confederates thought they could self-embargo and put pressure on the Europeans; the Europeans felt little pressure.
Assuming US production stayed at the levels of 1858-61 (roughly 4.1 million bales) and demand stayed about where it was in the early 1860s, a bust cycle is inevitable in the cotton market. Only the Civil War prevented it from happening, with a glut in the warehouses and new supply becoming available overseas. The questions become how soon and and how bad only.
At the same time, the flea beatle problem in the tobacco industry was growing. By 1876 it wiped out half the tobacco crop, and a viable solution was not found until 1880.
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.
Actually, with chemical fertilizer, slaves per acre would probably increase a bit- higher yields/acre means more cotton to pick and gin. My remark (don't take it too seriously) is based on the idea that fertilizer allows you to continue to grow over the same land, relieving much of the need to yearly burn and grub recycled acreage and/or clear virgin land to prepare for tilling. It could easily be argued though that - what the hey- the slaves aren't doing anything else before April, so clearly land didn't require more of them.
But in the end, to the extent that acres equaled labor, fertilizer with every crop meant more yields on less acreage, so presumably less labor. And somewhere after the turn of the century, the trend in acreage did reverse.
Quote:
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.
My impression was that much of this was planter's sons venturing out to expand the family plantation, which sometimes meant buying up land that had been recently grubbed by smaller operators who knew they could not compete with the slave planters who were moving in. This in fact was the reason young Lincoln's family had been forced to abandon their farm and move out of Kentucky, because they would not be able (or afford) to defend the legality of their deed against a wealthy planter.
Quote:
Hope you fellows don't mind my horning in occasionally. Your discussions are of great value.
I'm the one horning in. I might learn more when I just read and don't write....but sometimes I just can't help myself.
What stands out to me here is that no year from 1865-1869 is as high as production in any year after 1850. While crops always vary from year to year due to Mother Nature, it does not appear to account for the variation here.
The likely reason is simply the Civil War and the disruption it caused.
I have tried to make it clear that I agree with the Civil War as the cause of disruption.
Quote:
But at the same time, world-wide supply-demand does not seem to have created a crisis in the 1860s. Absent war-related issues, cotton prices would have probably declined in the 1860s, because it appears there would have ben too much supply.
That very well may have been the case, but I don't think we can ever know for certain. Although British warehouses may have been well stocked in 1860 because of recent bumper crops, increases in world-wide demand could have kept consumption up.
Quote:
We already know there was a supply problem in 1861-62. The Confederates thought they could self-embargo and put pressure on the Europeans; the Europeans felt little pressure.
That might be because many Europeans were optimistically thinking the war would be short lived and the next years production would be back towards normal, and that they could ride it out with existing inventory supplemented with mainly Indian cotton.
Quote:
Assuming US production stayed at the levels of 1858-61 (roughly 4.1 million bales) and demand stayed about where it was in the early 1860s, a bust cycle is inevitable in the cotton market.
This is not important, but I think the 4.1 million bales is being optimistic. It takes two bumper years into the short average. Even the first half of the 1870s only saw production hit 4 million bales once, and that was in 1870, which suggests to me that while the industry was back to being capable of it, consistent crops of that level were still not reliable in the early 1870s, let alone the early 1860s.
Quote:
Only the Civil War prevented it from happening, with a glut in the warehouses and new supply becoming available overseas. The questions become how soon and and how bad only.
Are we discussing only A) the effects of a possible 15 million bale shortage and how longlasting those effects might be on post-war markets, and B) the degree that the war set back post-war production levels; or is this tied to your opinion of the economics of slavery in a "never been a war" US? A "correction" in the cotton market might have been inevitable in the absence of the Civil War, but this same generation of planters had endured the mid 1840s when everyone lost money growing cotton. Production records though the end of the century show fairly steady increases in the plantings and production. Do you think a downturn in demand starting, say with the big crop of 1861, would have been long enough to not be paled by the miseries of the mid 1840s?
It is discussions like this one that keep me vitally interested in the health of this board. It is discussions like this one that guarantee it.
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
Here's a taste of Gavin Wright on cotton demand during the 1860s:
"Indeed, in 1860 the textiles industry stood on the crest of a major crisis of overproduction, which would have ushered in this era of stagnation had it not been overshadowed by the Cotton Famine of the 1860s. . . [Immediately after the War], misled by the high famine prices that obscured the demand situation, Manchester merchants anticipated a return to pre-Civil War prosperity. They found, however, that when American cotton returned, demand for British cotton goods had vanished. By June of 1865, shirtings were 'almost unsaleable.' . . ."
* * *
"When output did recover to its 1859-60 level [in 1877-78], the South's market share and the price of cotton were both back to normal: this means that demand had gone nowhere for eighteen years, implying at least a 30 percent fall in Southern per capita cotton earnings [due to population increase], no matter what the South had achieved in cotton production."
Are we discussing only A) the effects of a possible 15 million bale shortage and how longlasting those effects might be on post-war markets, and B) the degree that the war set back post-war production levels; or is this tied to your opinion of the economics of slavery in a "never been a war" US? A "correction" in the cotton market might have been inevitable in the absence of the Civil War, but this same generation of planters had endured the mid 1840s when everyone lost money growing cotton. Production records though the end of the century show fairly steady increases in the plantings and production. Do you think a downturn in demand starting, say with the big crop of 1861, would have been long enough to not be paled by the miseries of the mid 1840s?
The situation is far more complex than you seem to want to treat here.
For example, a major reason -- probably the major reason -- for the bumper crops around 1860 is the constant expansion of acerage under cultivation in the 1850s. New fields produced more yield, old ones less. If there is not a continuing opening of new fields, crop yields will fall on the exact same acerage, year-after-year. Any result other than bumper crops in 1858-1861 would imply the Southern plantation system was wrong-headed.
As a result, weather can be perfect through the 1860s and yields will still decline unless new acres are introduced into the system. After the war, it would be natural to bring in crops from the already cleared fields because of the hard labor and capital required to clear new acerage. Even if they use the same fields the next year, yield would be expected to decline. I believe that is what you are seeing here -- not weather related variations.
By 1870, the social-labor situation was beginning to settle in and capital was available to have opened up new acerage. That's why you see a boom, IMHO.
In the economics of slavery, I believe the period 1861-62-63 would have seen a bust cycle if there was no war. All indications are that there was an inventory surplus in the warehouses of cotton goods and/or raw cotton. Given another complete US crop, there would have been a supply surplus in world markets, which could be expected to drive prices down.
Southern cotton planters were very highly leveraged, often borrowing on future crops for living expenses. This is very dangerous. In a severe downturn, they could quickly suffer major financial problems.
How bad the disruption would have been, I do not know. Perhaps a minor bump. Perhaps a localized Deep South Panic that would have rippled through the slave markets wildly -- the opposite of the Panic of 1857 that seemed to leave the South untouched. But the possibility of a major upset certainly existed.
If it went on long enough, and if the pain was deep enough (lots of personal bankruptcy, a flood of slaves on the market, a few suicides, say), the entire image of slavery might not have looked so good, and maybe the emancipation in a few states would have looked better.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
