What was the most valuable agricultural product in 1860?

major bill

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Forum Host
Joined
Aug 25, 2012
Well I think most of know it was corn. The total value of corn grown in 1860 was double the value of cotton grown in in the United States in 1860. The leading area for corn production was the Ohio Valley. This is one of the reasons both the Union and Confederacy wanted control of Kentucky and Tennessee.
 
How close is rice on the list for export? Corn would be home staple.
Lubliner.
Indeed it was a home staple, why 51% of the corn grown in the US in 1860 was from the slave states.

The strength of a slave economy in agriculture would seem to have to been its versatility, not only could it virtually dominate labor intensive segments of agriculture such as Cotton, Sugarcane, Rice, Hemp,and Tobacco production, but do it while also remaining self sufficient in production of other areas such as foodstuffs, also it lended itself to clearing land for expansion as well.

The one that really surprised me a bit was wheat, its normally considered a northern cold climate crop, yet even 28% of US wheat production was coming from slave states.
 
Vote Here:
Well I think most of know it was corn. The total value of corn grown in 1860 was double the value of cotton grown in in the United States in 1860. The leading area for corn production was the Ohio Valley. This is one of the reasons both the Union and Confederacy wanted control of Kentucky and Tennessee.




In 19th Century Great Bitain, nd I Believe, in Europe, the term 'Corn' loosely described many types of food grains, including Wheat, Baley Oats, etc., Are we talking specifically about American Corn specifically, or the British term?
 
Vote Here:
Indeed it was a home staple, why 51% of the corn grown in the US in 1860 was from the slave states.

The strength of a slave economy in agriculture would seem to have to been its versatility, not only could it virtually dominate labor intensive segments of agriculture such as Cotton, Sugarcane, Rice, Hemp,and Tobacco production, but do it while also remaining self sufficient in production of other areas such as foodstuffs, also it lended itself to clearing land for expansion as well.
I may be mistaken with the use of the term 'commodity' on the market. We are talking of valuable enterprises in terms of abundance, and the demand commensurate with production. Lucrative foreign trade would be more valuable for the assets of finance, but tariffs were a reckoning factor, in shipping etc. on exports, and northern trade; one of the griefs the south made complaint about. The value of domestic trade versus foreign trade needs to be figured on capital income.
Lubliner.
 
Vote Here:
I may be mistaken with the use of the term 'commodity' on the market. We are talking of valuable enterprises in terms of abundance, and the demand commensurate with production. Lucrative foreign trade would be more valuable for the assets of finance, but tariffs were a reckoning factor, in shipping etc. on exports, and northern trade; one of the griefs the south made complaint about. T.he value of domestic trade versus foreign trade needs to be figured on capital income.
Lubliner.
It should be noted most valuable commodity based on total production has little to with profitability but simply reflects the volume of the product. Some crops are adaptable to even poor soil and variable climate, others arent so are obviously limited as to where they can be grown
 
Vote Here:
It should be noted most valuable commodity based on total production has little to with profitability but simply reflects the volume of the product. Some crops are adaptable to even poor soil and variable climate, others arent so are obviously limited as to where they can be grown
And stored.!! Any quantity that supplies the silo can be marked as future revenue. The idea of 'valuable' is in a gray area. Any hardware store not moving its stock can be bankrupt by competition, and the ratio of on hand supply and the in hand demand has to be quantified somehow. This regulates price, as well as volume of purchase. But even dealing with, say Corn versus Rice, I cannot be sure of the answer as the question is posed. Too many factors contradict any sum in this equation, when most of the variables are unknown to me.
Lubliner.
 
Vote Here:
I have no specific expertise in this area, but I am going to say that wheat was the most valuable commodity, certainly as far as the Union was concerned. The McCormick Reaper had revolutionized the harvesting of wheat by mechanization. Consequently, during the CW, it freed up countless northern farmers who enlisted in the Union ranks, who otherwise would have had to remain on the farm or as was the case in the south, might have deserted in larger numbers to attend to their farms at home.
 
Vote Here:
...The McCormick Reaper had revolutionized the harvesting of wheat by mechanization. Consequently, during the CW, it freed up countless northern farmers who enlisted in the Union ranks...

Although, an aside, the Manny reaper was a superior design, and John Manny had proved that McCormick had infringed his patent. That was thanks to the skills of future U.S. Sec'y of War Ed Stanton who was lead attorney for Manny on the case. Though the trial was held in Ohio, Stanton had hired Abraham Lincoln because he needed an Illinois attorney on the team (Manny operated from Rockford, IL). Basically Lincoln was just told to sit out the trial and say nothing, as Stanton considered him a mere bumpkin at that time.

But after all an empty victory for Manny. He died a couple weeks after the trial, spent. McCormick's primary strategy all along was to sap Manny's financial and business resources and it worked (did you think lawyering was more civil back in those days?). McCormick simply carried on, and maintained his status and profit as the premier supplier of harvesters to the world.
 
Last edited:
Vote Here:
I have no specific expertise in this area, but I am going to say that wheat was the most valuable commodity, certainly as far as the Union was concerned. The McCormick Reaper had revolutionized the harvesting of wheat by mechanization. Consequently, during the CW, it freed up countless northern farmers who enlisted in the Union ranks, who otherwise would have had to remain on the farm or as was the case in the south, might have deserted in larger numbers to attend to their farms at home.
I have to agree. Wheat may have been a significant export as well.
Lubliner.
 
Vote Here:
Well I think most of know it was corn. The total value of corn grown in 1860 was double the value of cotton grown in in the United States in 1860. The leading area for corn production was the Ohio Valley. This is one of the reasons both the Union and Confederacy wanted control of Kentucky and Tennessee.
Without a list of commodity prices one would never know. I suspect cotton was the most valuable specialized crop. While Indian corn, because of its versatility sustained the population. But the economy was rapidly shifting towards wheat. At any rate, railroads and meat packing were making it possible for each section to do what it did best.
 
Last edited:
Vote Here:
Without a list of commodity prices one would never know. I suspect cotton was the most valuable specialized crop. While Indian corn, because of its versatility sustained the population. But the economy was rapidly shifting towards wheat. At any rate, railroads and meant packing where making it possible for each section to do what it did best.
As far as export it hands down by far was still cotton. Cotton represented 75% of US agricultural export value, and 60% of total US exports

In 1860 US total exports were 316.24 in millions, of which 256.56 was agriculture products, of which 191.81 was cotton...........well over half the value, approaching 2/3rds of US total exports was still cotton, in comparison breadstuffs was 22.42 and tobacco 15.91

source https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/se...18~560004:Value-of-the-exports-from-the-Unite

If one considers valuable as in capital brought into our country, it would be cotton.
 
Last edited:
Vote Here:
But what if one counts the total value of a crop, not just how much is capital was brought in from abroad? This method would mean corn produced twice the value cotton did.
 
Vote Here:
But what if one counts the total value of a crop, not just how much is capital was brought in from abroad? This method would mean corn produced twice the value cotton did.

Would think valuable in relation in an national economy translates into profits and exports. Sustenance farming simply provides sustenance, not income. Why the term dirt farmers exists, they generate little income, they simply get by

Thats where larger has always had the more potential for profit........If it takes X amount of labor and effort to simply be self sufficient or break even.........its everything above and beyond that x amount that can generate income and profit
 
Last edited:
Vote Here:
But what if one counts the total value of a crop, not just how much is capital was brought in from abroad? This method would mean corn produced twice the value cotton did.
Looking up a reference quote for verification, as @wausaubob mentioned the railroads had simplified movements of produce to some degree, the principle gained in raising crops or herds was affected by the amount of capital invested. Here is my reference;
Trial By Fire, Volume 5, by Page Smith, copyright 1982, pg. 8:
"The production of sugar involved a heavy capital outlay since sugar mills cost from $20,000 to $150,000."
He also mentions the cost of digging ditches for irrigation purposes. and drainage. These factors would be a part of the account. How much is advanced, or assumed as initial debt, and the ability for making payment when or if the market crashed.
Lubliner.
 
Vote Here:
A national economy benefits when money changes hands, a personal garden does little for a national economy

In small scale sustenance farming, not much changes hands. Corn was used by pioneers for ones own cornmeal, whiskey, and livestock feed, which often left little for commercial purposes

To me at least I value the profit margin more then simply meeting the overhead :D
 
Last edited:
Vote Here:
I'm gonna mention Sugar (primarily cane), Tobacco and Indigo. Under chattel slavery these were more intensely profitable than food crops like corn or wheat at the time, if smaller scale commodities.
 
Last edited:
Vote Here:
Indeed it was a home staple, why 51% of the corn grown in the US in 1860 was from the slave states.

The strength of a slave economy in agriculture would seem to have to been its versatility, not only could it virtually dominate labor intensive segments of agriculture such as Cotton, Sugarcane, Rice, Hemp,and Tobacco production, but do it while also remaining self sufficient in production of other areas such as foodstuffs, also it lended itself to clearing land for expansion as well.

The one that really surprised me a bit was wheat, its normally considered a northern cold climate crop, yet even 28% of US wheat production was coming from slave states.

Wheat was what brought my paternal GGGrandfather to Texas--North Texas, to be precise. When the Butterfield Road opened up in the late 1850s, a lot of small grain (wheat) farmers moved to Cooke and surrounding counties. It looked like a terrific deal--they could grow wheat (wheat flour was virtually unknown in the interior of Texas) and get cheap land. Win-win, right? Except for secession--and the Comanches...
 
Vote Here:
Back
Top