Civil War History - Secession and PoliticsWas it Slavery, or was it States Rights? Perhaps it was the election of Lincoln? What were the real reasons for Southern Secession and what were the political issues in this time of war? Find your answers here in the Secession and Politics Disussion.
Ole, Compliments Sgt,
#103
Thanks for your input and to a point I agree and understand. A couple of points still baffle me.
Hypothetical[SP?]: You by a tractor for 1500 bucks. That tractor produces a work allotment of $30.00 a day over the cost of its maintenance[gas, oil, tuneup etc] And it works correctly for 10 years. I see this Equipment as netting a profit far in excess of the original investment over that period of time.
Now transpose: Buying a female[I do find it very uncomfortable speaking thus] at your $1500.00, and produces, even $5..00 a day over forty years, allowing for your curve, plus is able to produce offspring, a heck of a profit, now and future, is assured. Put the product of the labor at even a dollar a day and the profit of investment is still emense[SP again]. Not to mention the potential of the offspring.
Put this up against having to pay,however little, to keep the northern worker from "moving on". Which in itself signifies choice, or freedom to move on. Which obviously is lacking in the southern situation. I still feel the northern Barons felt that they were under a unfair labor disadvantage as far as southern costs of doing business were concerned. After all was it not the North East that first spoke of leaving the Union for economic reasons they felt were stacked against them?
Your Humble Servant
Pvt. Gauss
[Paul]
Ps. Tried reading first ten pages on the tariffs-darn near fell asleep- I am no economist.
Paul:
Not entirely sure what you said, but you said it very well. The planters most certainly thought that they could not manage without their slaves. I'm not entirely convinced that they couldn't have done as well or better paying for labor (if they could have found takers for that kind of work), but that's another matter.
I will disagree, however, that the northern barons felt themselves at a labor disadvantage. In fact, I don't think they compared their situtation with those in the south at all. Totally different things.
The idea of northeastern secession has been fairly well labled mythology on another thread. I believe Cash had the cap-it-off post. Yeah, I heard that too, but Cash did a job on the rumor with some telling research and sourcing. So I no longer believe there was any serious discussion of secession in the north east.
You by a tractor for 1500 bucks. That tractor produces a work allotment of $30.00 a day over the cost of its maintenance[gas, oil, tuneup etc] And it works correctly for 10 years. I see this Equipment as netting a profit far in excess of the original investment over that period of time.
When the tractor is past giving useful service, you park it. You can't just park an old slave. They tend to become a liability to the bottom line. You also don't have to ride around on patrols at night to make sure your tractors aren't conspiring to revolt or runaway.
Quote:
Buying a female[I do find it very uncomfortable speaking thus] at your $1500.00, and produces, even $5..00 a day over forty years, allowing for your curve, plus is able to produce offspring, a heck of a profit, now and future, is assured. Put the product of the labor at even a dollar a day and the profit of investment is still emense[SP again].
I think it all depends. Personally, I doubt there were any immense profits to be had until you attained enough land and slaves to get over the hump. I liken it in my mind to local dairy farmers. There are some around here who make a living with 200 acres and milk 60 cows, but they will never have "immense profits" no matter how many tractors they have. On the other hand, there are several farms around that milk over 1500 cows (3 times a day). Compared to the small farmer, they handle "immense" cash flow, but only they and their banker truly know what their ends profits are. But there is no question that it exceeds the guy with 60 cows; there is no question that the little guy aspires to grow like them; and there is no question that they hold the clout over the small farmer.
Put a couple figures together and see what you make of it. Average antebellum yields were around 150 pounds of cotton/acre. 1860 cotton brought about 11 cents/lb. Due to land rotation, only about 1/3 of a farmer's property was in cultivation. IOW, it took about 3 acres in cultivation to yield one $50 bale of cotton. To produce a gross of $1500 of cotton, it would take 30 bales of cotton, grown on 90 acres of cultivated land, on a 300 acre farm.
So much for the good news - now the expenses. On top of the regular work in between plowing and picking, every year about a dozen acres of fallow land would need to be burned, grubbed and plowed under and brought into production while another dozen were put to rest. I don't have any good estimates from sources, but I'm guessing working 90 acres of cotton must have taken maybe three slaves in the field, give or take one. Take from the gross $1500 the cost of maintaing the slaves, fees for ginning and shipping, interest on credit to factors throughout the year, states taxes, livestock, etc. etc., and it seems to me that a guy with a 300 acre farm could only dream of "immense profits." I'm guessing this farmer's wife was not spending the day planning socials in the garden.
How many of this size farmer are we talking about? I took a look at Alabama in the 1860 Census (random choice). About 67% of farms were below 100 acres (about 1/2 of those were below 50 acres); 26% of farms were between 100 and 499 acres; and around 5% were 500 acres and over. That means that roughly 2/3 of 1860 Alabama farmers could not have each produced more than 10 bales of cotton ($500 worth); and 1/4 of them could not have each produced more than 50 bales ($2500). The immense profits of cotton had to have been held in the hands of only the larger planters and the businessmen who handled and financed the crop.
Quote:
I still feel the northern Barons felt that they were under a unfair labor disadvantage as far as southern costs of doing business were concerned.
Nothing kept the northern textile manufacturer from moving or starting his operation South if the slave labor was economical. Certainly his raw material was there, and certainly later on the textile and clothing industry capitalized on cheap and abundant labor there.
Up here on the shores of Lake Huron there is an old yooper saying used by the fisherman and boatman that when you don`t completely understand something or want more time to think on it, you "go check the water on that one". Well in my case the water appears to be deep and dark.
Now my quandry becomes what did brother fight brother about?
1. If not economics, What?
2. States rights, often quoted as a mere excuse and the way Jeff Davis ran the south, hardly put into practice. Then what?
3. To abolish slavery, often said to be a reason only after the Emancipation proclamation. Then what?
4. Regionalism. Hardly something to fight over. Then what?
5. A clash of cultures and ways of life so diverse as not to be able to exist within one country[house divided thing] Possibly.
I want to thank ya`ll for trying to clear the fog for me but I think I will stick to calibres, tactics, geography and personalities and leave the rest to the deep thinkers.
My mind does not work in that direction and am old enough to know you can`t teach a dog to be a cat.
Your servant,
Paul
Ps. Ole, I often amaze myself on how well I can explain something that I have no inkling about, I chalk it up to old age. Now what were we talking about??
Cedarstripper, I think you've just made the point that the many yeoman farmers didn't rely on cotton for their livelihood. If any of them planted any cotton, it was for the cash money. The balance of their arable acres would be for their own subsistence and maybe a bushel or two extra to trade for something.
The practices of letting land lie fallow, rotating crops, or applying organic fertilizer were rare. I've read this in several places (one a study on the Economics of Slavery by a couple of Harvard professors) and talked at some length with a history-oriented descendant of a a Mississippi owner of 1200 acres. Every square foot that could be put into cotton was put into cotton.
He, of course, did not mention that in the newer lands of the deep south, garden plots for slave subsistence were also often planted in cotton.
By the way, it was stated that in 1860, 10 of the richest men in the US were not just from MS, but were concentrated in the Natchez area.
I you would like access to the study, I'll try to get a better handle on where it can be found. It runs to 48 pages in its original form, but it is highly detailed down to life-expectancies, ROI, and all kinds of interesting, but boggling details.
Pvt Gauss:
You won't want to google that one unless you have insomnia.
Pvt Gauss:
I've been working on those questions for a number of years now.
"1. If not economics, What?"
Some argue that economics were a very important (if not THE most important) factor in the road to disunion. I found it amusing that the Kennedy's point out that the "plain folk" of the south had no interest in acquiring wealth (citing Owsley).
"2. States rights, often quoted as a mere excuse and the way Jeff Davis ran the south, hardly put into practice. Then what?"
Well, some of the CS certainly tried to practice states rights. It could be argued that their version of it seriously crimped the war effort.
"3. To abolish slavery, often said to be a reason only after the Emancipation proclamation. Then what?"
There were some who wanted to abolish slavery. They were probably abolitionists with a mixture of the truly righteous mixed in. Abolishing slavery as a primary reason for the WBTS has a following only among those who scraped through high-school history and never again opened a history book.
"4. Regionalism. Hardly something to fight over. Then what?"
Regionalism still exists, but I personally know no one who takes it seriously. Like areas tend to make jokes about unlike areas. Last I heard, the yoopers wasted little love on the lowers. Illinois makes jokes about hoosiers, cheese-heads and Idiots Out Wandering Around, but all appreciate Wisconsin's dairies (and beer), Iowa's pork and beef, and Indiana's prodigious manufacturing output.
"5. A clash of cultures and ways of life so diverse as not to be able to exist within one country[house divided thing] Possibly."
As Gary Gallagher put it: "(paraphrased) Actual differences were few, after all 40% of the northern population was involved in agriculture. But the perceived difference made a clash of cultures possible." We can blame that on the abolitionists and the fire-eaters.
I'll add a 6th: self-determination. Now there's a good cause for a minority to get the majority to fight.
The practices of letting land lie fallow, rotating crops, or applying organic fertilizer were rare. I've read this in several places (one a study on the Economics of Slavery by a couple of Harvard professors) and talked at some length with a history-oriented descendant of a a Mississippi owner of 1200 acres. Every square foot that could be put into cotton was put into cotton.
I was basing my statement on articles such as this:
If land rotation and fertilization were not common, then soil exhaustion must have been. Comparing the 1850 and 1860 Census, Alabama and Mississippi (random choice) both show approx. a 35-40% increase in both improved and unimproved acreage, meaning that clearing new virgin land and putting it into cultivation must have been the only thing keeping the cotton belt from fizzling out. This had to have been labor intensive.
Just a question for you. If planters had every square foot planted in cotton, why was cotton not the most profitable way for the small farmer to use his land also?
Thanks for the offer to find the study you refer to. I'm interested if you happen to come across it.
"If land rotation and fertilization were not common, then soil exhaustion must have been. Comparing the 1850 and 1860 Census, Alabama and Mississippi (random choice) both show approx. a 35-40% increase in both improved and unimproved acreage, meaning that clearing new virgin land and putting it into cultivation must have been the only thing keeping the cotton belt from fizzling out. This had to have been labor intensive."
Your choice of Alabama and Mississippi are most apropos. Planters who burned out their fields in the east either turned to planting food crops or moved west -- remember, we're talking nearly 200 years here. Interestingly enough, cotton and tobacco were not major crops in Virginia, Maryland, and North Carolina when the late unpleasantness started. To make the most use of their slaves and to pursue the ultimate in gentleman farming, they went west and started over.
The southwestern territory wasn't safely opened up until around 1840. The land had not yet been cleared and burned out (but it would have been).
"Just a question for you. If planters had every square foot planted in cotton, why was cotton not the most profitable way for the small farmer to use his land also?"
You answered that yourself: labor intensive. The little guy didn't have enough slaves to make it worthwhile to risk subsistence crops for the chance at. Corn he could eat and feed food and dray animals. With cotton, he could not. For a couple of bales of cotton at 8-cents per pound, he'd have to risk not having enough to feed himself and critters for the year.
Thanks for the offer to find the study you refer to. I'm interested if you happen to come across it.
Reply With Quote
I'll start looking up the sources as soon as I sign off.
Ole
My research and haphazard filing methods have not yielded the link that would put you directly in touch with that article. I believe I found it through a link someone else posted on some other thread. Maybe that person will recognize the article and repost the link.
The article was apparently published in "The Journal of Political Economy: Vol. LXVI, April, 1958, No. 12." The article was written by Alfred H. Conrad and John R. Meyer under the funding of Harvard University. It was titled "The Economics of Slavery in the Antebellum South."
It is scholarly and a sure cure for sleeplessness, but it is so crammed with information that each paragraph produced a gasp of amazement. It is many pages long, but a lot of those pages are tables of highly informative tables. Well worth finding and keeping on file.
Sorry, Ole.
Take from the gross $1500 the cost of maintaing the slaves,
It cost the average slaveholder $20 per slave per year to maintain his slaves.
Source: Alfred H. Conrad and John R. Meyer, "The Economics of Slavery in the Ante Bellum South," The Journal of Political Economy, Vol LXVI, No. 2, April, 1958, p. 104.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
