Understanding and Teaching the Roots of the Civil War

EDS 112 Summer Institute 2009

Jenny Wahl Economics Department

Carleton College

2

Influence of Regional Portfolio Composition

Asset CompositionLand (immobile)Physical capital (partly mobile)Slaves (generally mobile) Free human capital (mobile)Climate (immobile)

Land usePopulation densityUrbanizationFarm size

Production process(output = f[asset inputs])

Output mixTypes of agricultural productsAgriculture vs. manufacturingHome consumption, domestic market, exports

Generation and use of public fundsLand sales vs. tariffsInternal improvements

Transportation regimes

Credit and banking institutions

3

The United States in 1850

4

The Shift from Indentured Servants to Slaves

Unskilled labor

price

D0 D1

Sslaves

Sservants

Skilled labor

price

D0 D1

Sslaves

Sservants

5

Distribution of Population (1790, 1830,1860) and Land Mass

percent of population by region

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1790 1830 1860

percent

year

South

West

Northeast

Percentage land mass by region, 1860

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1

south

west

northeast

Note: Northeast= New England and MidAtlantic, South includes Texas and Oklahoma but not Missouri, West includes Midwest, Plains, Mountain, and Pacific.Sources: http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/collections/stats/histcensus/php/state.php; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_area

6

Distribution of Population (1860) and Land Mass, Part 2

• Population (1860)–Slaveholding states had 38% of the total population–Slaveholding states had 29% of the total white population–Border states had 1/3 of the white population in slaveholding states

• Land Mass–Territories 49%–North 23% –South 23%–Border 5%

Sources: http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/collections/stats/histcensus/php/state.php; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_area

7

Population per square mile, 1850 and 1860, selected states

1850 1860 NORTH

MA 123.7 153.1 NH 35.2 36.1 NY 65.0 81.4 PA 51.6 64.8 OH 48.6 57.4 IN 27.5 37.6 IL 15.2 30.6 IA 3.5 12.1

SOUTH AL 15.0 18.8 AR 4.0 8.3 GA 15.4 18.0 LA 11.4 15.6 MS 13.1 17.1 NC 17.8 20.4 SC 21.9 23.1 TN 24.1 26.6 VA 27.8 30.3

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Historical Statistics Series A-196 (reported in Gavin Wright, Political Economy of the Cotton South)

8

Percentage of Population in Urban Area, by Region (1790, 1830, 1860)

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

30.00%

35.00%

40.00%

1790 1830 1860

percent

ye

ar

Northeast

West

South

Note: Northeast= New England and MidAtlantic, South includes Texas and Oklahoma but not Missouri, West includes Midwest, Plains, Mountain, and Pacific.Source: Tab Aa36-92, Historical Statistics of the U.S., Millennial Edition online.

9

Urban Population, 1860

Source: 1860 US Census, reprinted in Roger Ransom entry, Historical Statistics Millennial edition online.

10

Source: U.S. Census, various years.

11

12

Location of Foreign-Born, 1860

North -- 86%NY – 24.4%PA – 10.5%OH, IL – 8% eachWI – 7%MA – 6%

South --13%Border states of MO, MD, and KY -- 7.3%LA – 2%TX – 1%

Source: U.S. Census, 1860.

13

Wealth of Farmers by Region, 1860Average Average Average Average

total personal farm value age

NORTH 3858 834 2909 44.2Northeast 4620 1104 3694 46.9Old Northwest 3176 682 2524 42.8West 2212 532 1672 39.9

SOUTH 22819 13277 8186 44Slave farms 33906 19828 11817 45.2Free farms 2362 1188 1568 41.8

Northeast= CT, ME, NH, NJ, NY, PA, RI, VTOld Northwest = IL, IN, MI, OH, WIWest = IA, KS, MNSouth = AL, GA, LA, MS, SC, TX

Source : Samples drawn from 1860 manuscript censuses by Roger Ransom, reported in Ransom, Conflict and Compromise (1989) and Ratner et al. 10-2.

14

PRODUCTION PROCESSES,North and South

North: • Land as primary asset• Labor as scarce factor (yeomen farmers)• Emphasis on internal improvements• More than half of acreage cultivatedSouth:• Both slaves and land as assets• Shifting cultivation • Only one-third acreage cultivated

15

Improved Acreage and Value of Implements per Worker by Region, 1860

Improved acreage value of implements per worker per worker

Northwest 43 60(IL,IN,MI,OH, WI) Midwest 29 44(IA,KS,MN,NE)Deep South 26 38(Al,FL,GA,LA,MS,NC,SC,VA,TX)

Source: Wright (In Porter)

16

Per Acre Land Values Over Time

Period South as Proportion of North

1770s 110%1850 33%Late 1850s 43%

Source: Gavin Wright, Capitalism and Slavery on the Islands: A Lesson from the Mainland, 17 J. Interdisc. Hist. 851 (1987).

17

Distribution of Slave Population by State, 1860

Number of slaves % of all slaves

as a fraction of state population

held in given state

VA 0.31 12.4% GA 0.44 11.7% MS 0.55 11.1% AL 0.45 11.0% SC 0.57 10.2% LA 0.47 8.4% NC 0.33 8.4% TN 0.25 7.0% KY 0.20 5.7% TX 0.30 4.6% MO 0.10 2.9% AR 0.26 2.8% MD 0.13 2.2% FL 0.44 1.6% DE 0.02 0.0%

Source: Table Bb209-214, Historical Statistics; fisher.uva census browser.

18

Total Value of U.S. Slaves, 1810-1860

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

1810 1820 1830 1840 1850 1860

year

va

lue

(in

mil

lio

ns)

Source: Ransom and Sutch, Capitalists without

Capital.

19

Average Value, U.S. Prime Male Slaves, 1843-1860

• 400

• 600

• 800

• 1000

• 1200

• 1400

• 1600

• 1800

• 2000

• 1843• 1844• 1845• 1846• 1847• 1848• 1849• 1850• 1851• 1852• 1853• 1854• 1855• 1856• 1857• 1858• 1859• 1860

• year

•d

oll

ars

• sales price

• appraised value

Source: Robert Fogel and Stanley Engerman. Slave Sales and Appraisals, 1775-1865 [Computer file].

ICPSR07421-v3. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester [producer], 1976.

20

Productivity of Southern Farms Relative to Northern Farms, 1860

Number of slaves Old South New South 0 98.4 112.7 1-15 103.3 127.2 16-50 124.9 176.1 51+ 135.1 154.7 All slave farms 118.9 153.1 All farms in region 116.2 144.7 Source: Robert Fogel, Without Consent or Contract, Tech. Papers I, p. 245 (1992).

21

Slave Ownership in the South

Percentage of families owning slaves:1830 – 36%1850 – 31%1860 – 25% (half owned fewer than 5, 90% owned fewer than

20, only 0.2% held 100 or more slaves)

Percentage of farm owner-operators owning no slaves:1850 – fewer than 40%1860 – about 50%

Sources: Gavin Wright, Political Economy of the Cotton South; Porter, Encyclopedia.

22

Per Capita Income by Region, 1840 and 1860

($ 1860)

1840 1860 annual rate of changeNATIONAL 96 128 1.4NORTH 109 141 1.3 New England 129 181 1.7 North Central 65 89 1.6SOUTH 74 103 1.7 South Atlantic 66 84 1.2 East South Central 69 89 1.3 West South Central 151 184 1Source : Fogel and Engerman, Time on the Cross, I (248), rep. Woodman (Porter)

23

Sectoral Shares, U.S., 1839-1859

agriculture manufacturing

1839 72 171844 69 211849 60 301854 57 291859 56 32

Source : Gallman, Commodity Output 1839-99, Trends in Am. Econ. in 19c.

24

Size of U.S. Manufactures by Industry, 1860

item # employees total value value addedcotton goods 114,955 107,337,783 54,671,082 lumber 75,595 104,928,342 53,569,942 boots/shoes 123,026 91,889,298 49,161,124 flour/meal 27,682 248,580,365 40,083,056 men's clothing 114,800 80,830,555 36,680,803 iron 48,975 73,175,332 35,689,276 machinery 41,223 52,101,376 32,565,843 woolen goods 40,597 60,685,190 25,032,489 carriages/wagons 37,102 35,552,842 23,654,560 leather 22,679 67,306,452 22,785,715 Source: 8th census of US, Manufactures, 1860 (rep. Walton/Rockoff)

25

Importance of Manufacturing by Region, 1860

region # firms invested K value added

New England 20,671 257,477,783 223,076,180 MidAtlantic 53,287 435,061,964 358,211,423 Midwest 36,785 194,212,543 158,098,717 South 20,631 95,975,185 68,988,129 West 8,777 23,380,334 42,746,363 Territories 20,282 3,747,906 2,246,772

Source: 8th and 9th Census of Mfrs, cited in Wright Pol Econ of Cotton South 1978

26

Value Added in Manufacturing per Capita, 1850 and 1860, Southern States

1850 1860LA 8.34 12.50VA 8.09 12.41TN 4.55 7.72GA 4.05 6.56NC 5.19 6.52TX 3.63 5.31AL 2.98 5.29SC 6.36 4.85MS 2.70 4.35AR 1.53 3.68

10 S states 5.27 7.52Midwest 12.14 15.76Northeast 36.02 50.66US 20.17 27.42

Note: Midwest= IL, IN, IA, KS, MI, MN, MO, NE, ND, OH, SD, WINortheast = ME, NH, VT, MA, RI, CT, NY, NJ, PA, DE, MD, DCSources: Dodd and Dodd, Historical Statistics of the South (1973), Historical Stats of the US, US Bureau of the Census (reported in WrightOSNS Tab 2.4)

27

American Production of Raw Cotton, 1790-1860 (bales)

Year Production Year Production Year Production

1790 3,135 1815 208,986 1840 1,346,232

1795 16,719 1820 334,378 1845 1,804,223

1800 73,145 1825 532,915 1850 2,133,851

1805 146,290 1830 731,452 1855 3,217,417

1810 177,638 1835 1,060,711 1860 3,837,402 Sources: Adapted from Table 40 in Lewis Cecil Gray, History of Agriculture in the Southern United States to 1860, vol. 2 (Gloucester, MA: Peter Smith, 1958), 1026. Original Data from United States Department of Agriculture, Atlas of American Agriculture, V, Sec. A, Cotton, Table IV, p. 18. Crop Year begins October 1 for 1790-1840 and July 1 for 1845-1860. Production is measured in equivalent 500-pound bales, gross weight.

28

Cotton and Slaves,1805-1860 (output/slave, slave price, cotton export price)

29

30

Trade in Manufactures and Cotton, 1830-1860

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

1830 1840 1850 1855 1860

year

per

cen

t

Mfd goods as % of total imports

Mfd goods as % of total exports

cotton as a % of total exports

Source: Historical Stats; tables Ee569-589 and Ee446-457

31

Effects of Import Tariff

32

U.S. Import Tariffs, 1816-1857

Year Duty paid on imports for consumption

1816 20-25% mfrs, 15-20% raw materials1821 43% cotton goods, iron, paper, glass1824 47%1828 44% (tariff of abominations)1832 39% (reduced on hemp, flax, bar iron, cheaper wools--nullification crisis)1833 29% (Clay compromise -- reduce down to 20% by 1842)1842 19%, then raised with "black tariff"1846 29% (Walker tariff)1857 19%

Source: Pincus in Porter

33

Some Summary Stats by Region, 1860

North West South Income per capita 139 68 72 Mfg output per capita 112 38 19 % population in cities 35.7 13.9 9.4 Share GNP exported 15 23 29

Sources: Easterlin 1961, Bateman and Weiss, Fishlow – reported in Lindstrom, Dom Trade, Am Ec Hist Encyclo