Unit III Scholarly Activity

THE LOW PRODUCTIVITY OF SOUTHERN SLAVE LABOR: CAUSKS AND E F F E C T S

Eugene D. Genovese

TnE ECONOMIC BACKWABP̂ 'Ess that eondemned the slaveholding Sonth to defeat in 1861-1865 had at its root the low productivity of labor, l l i s factor expressed itself in several ways. Perhaps most signifi- cant was the earelessness and wastefulness of slaves. Bondage foreed flie Negro to give his labor grudgingly and hadly, and his poor work habits retarded those social and economic advances that could bavB raised the general level of productivity. Less direct, as we shall preseotiy see, were limitations imposed on the free work force, on technaiogieal development, and on the division of labor.

Although the debate on slave produetivity is an old one, few argti- ments have appeared during Öie last hundred years to supplement those of contemporaries hke John Elliott Caimes and Edmund Ruf fin, Caimes made the much-assailed assertion that the slave was so defective in veisatility that liis labor could be exploited profitably only if he were (aught one task and kept at it. If we allow for some exaggeration, Caimes's thesis is sound. Most competent observers agreed that slaves worked badly, without interest or effort, Edmund Rnftin (although sometimes arguing otherwise] pointed out that whereas at one time cheap, fertile farmland required little skill, soil ejJiaustion had finally ereated conditions demanding the intelligent participation of the labor force,' Buffin neither developed his idea nor drew the appropriate conclusions. The systematic education and training of the slaves wonld have heen politically dangerous. Furthermore, the use of skilled work- era would have made a smaller lahor foree desirahle. This, in tnni, re-

Mn. CEKOI'E.'ÍE, the author of a number of recent articles on Smthem sfatenj, is assistant prufessar of fitifoiy at Rutgers.

' Caimes, The Slave Foiter {London, 1863), p. 48¡ Huffin, The Political Economy of Slavery ( Washington, lGSV), p, 4; Farmen'RMISIÍT, III ( 1893), T4S.749, The bKt ¡niroduction to Ihe ¡itciatiue Is SBH Ulridi B, Hiillips, American IVsgrn Slaeety (Ns» ïort, 1918), chip, Jivlli,

quired extensive markets for surplus slaves and therefore could not he realized in the Soudi as a whole, Otber Southemers simply dropped the whole matter with the observation tbat tbe differenc-e in productivity between free and slave labor only illustrated bow well tbe Negroes were treated,^

Ample evidence indicates that slaves worked well below their capa- bilities. In several instances in Mississippi, when cotton picking was carefully supervised in local experiments, slaves picked two or three times their normal ontpnt. Tbe records of tbe Barrow plantation in Louisiana reveal tbat inefficiency and neghgence were the cause of two-thirds of the pnnishments inflicted on slaves, and other contem- poraiy sources are full of corroborative data,^

However much tbe slaves may bave worked below their capacity, the limitations placed on that capacity were probably even more im- portant in nndermining productivity. In particular, tbe diet to whieh slaves were snb]eeted must be judged immensely damaging, despite assurances from contemporaries and later historians that die slave was well-fed.

The slave usually got enough to eat, hut the starchy, high-energy diet of com meal, pork, and molasses produced specific hungers, dangerous deficiencies, and that unidentified fonn of malnutrition to which the medical historian, Richard 11, Sbryock, draws attention.* Occasional additions of sweet potatoes or beans could do litQe to sup- plement the narrow diet. Planters did try to provide vegetables and fniits, but not much land could be spared from the staples, and output was minimal,' Protein hunger alone—cereals in general and com in particular cannot provide adequate protein—greatly rednces tbe abihty of an organism to resist infectious diseases. Even increased consumption of vegetables probably wonld not bave corrected tlie deficiency, for as a rule tbe indispensable amino acids are found only in snch foods as lean meat, milk, and eggs. Tbe abundant pork provided was, however,

2S«,- die Saulhaa Çiuirttrii/ Beclew, XIX (lSSl). 221, HuHin also «inietímes arened Ihis way.

'Cliarlei Saokett SydnDr, Slaver» la Misdisijipi (New York, 1933), p. 16; B. A. Davis (ed.). Plantation Life in the Florida Parishes of Louisiana.. Tlie Diary of K. H. Barrow (Nen' York. 1943), pp. 8S If,

' "Medieol FraoÜce in tie Old South," Souífi Atlantic Quarterly, XXIX ( 1930), lBO-lBl. See also Felice Swados, "Negro Healfli on Ante-Beliini Plonlolions." BuOetin o/ ihe Hlííorj of Medicine, X (1941), 460-481^ Eugene D, Genoveje, "Th« Medical end Insuvnnce Costs ol Slavdioldino in the CoHon Belt," /oriraoi of Ne^ro Wstmj. XLV (1960), 141-155.

5 'Trcibably at no time before Ule Ovil War were fnils and vegelables gro-i'n in Mississippi in quantities sufficient to provide the population with a halanced diet," writes Johu Hebron Moore, Agricallure in Aale-Bellum Mhsteippl (Neiv York. l9Sa), p. 61. At that, slaves undoubtedly received a dispioponionatejy small share

Soitlhera Slave Lahor 367

lajgely fat. Since tbe slave economy did not and could not provide sufficient hvcstock, no solution was at band,*

In the lS90's a dietary study of Negro field laborers in Alahama re- vealed a total bacon intake of more than five pounds per week, or considerably more than the three-and-one-half pounds that prohably prevailed in antebellum days. Yet, the total protein found in tbe Negroes' diet was only SO per cent of that deemed adequate.^ Recent studies show that individuals with a high caloric but low protein intake will deviate from standard beigbt-weigbt ratios by a disproportionate in- crease in weiglit.^ The slave's diet contained deficiencies other than protein; vitamins and minerals were also in short supply. Vitamin de- ficiencies produce xerotbalmia, beriberi, pellagra, and scurvj' and create what one authorit)' terms "states of vague indisposition [and] obscure and ill-defined disturbances."^

There is no secret to why slaves appeared healthy: tbeir diet was well- suited to guarantee the appearance of good health and to provide the fuel to keep tliem going in die fields, but it was not sufficient to insure either sound bodies or the stamina necessary for sustained, really pro- ductive labor. We need not doubt tbe testimony of Wüliam Dosite Postell, who presented evidence of reasonably good medical attention for slaves and of adequate supply of food bnlk. Rathei, it is the finer questions of dietary balance that concem us. At ihat, Fostell bas provided some astonishing statistics that reinforce the present argu- ment: 7 per cent uf a sample of more than 8,500 slaves from Georgia, Mississippi, Alabama, and Louisiana above the age of fifteen were either physically impaired or chronically ül,̂ *̂

The limited diet was by no means primarily a result of ignorance or viciousness on tlie part of masters, for many knew better and wonld like to have done better. Tbe problem was largely economic. Feeding eosts formed a burdensome part of plantation expenses, (Jredit and market systems precluded the assignment of mutJi k n d to crops other than cotton and corn. Wlien so assigned it was generally the poorest land available, and the quality of foodstnffs consequently suffered,

'Eucsne D. Cenovise, •'Livestork in Ihe Slavt Economy of the Old South—A Heviîîd View," Agrlmbural History, XXKV! i 1962), 143-HS.

' W, O. Atwaler and Charles D, Woods, Dietary Studies loiih Reference lo Ihe JVirgiO In Alubanjn m 1895 and 189« (Washington, 1SS7). Adequate animal pro- teins plu: com probahly would hav^ lufficcd to prevent niilrihonal ileficienoies. SM C. A . Elvehjem. "Com in Human Nutrition." Froceeilings of file Foun/i An- nual Meeting of the Research Inslitate (Washington. 1955), p. 83.

'See ] . Mäset. "Hunger and Disease," in Josué de Castro ¡ed.). Hunger und Food (London, 1958).

>¡0!ué de Castro. The Ceography of iiunger (Boston. 1952), p, 48, ^'The Health of Slaves on SoMernFlantanons (Baton Rouge, 1951), especially

pp. 159 ff.

,368 E U G E N E D. C E N O V Ë S E

For example, experiments have shown that the proportion of iron ia lettuce m a y vary from one to fifty milligrams per h u n d r e d , according to soil conditions.

T h e slave's low productivity resulted d i r e c d y from i n a d e q u a t e care, incentives, and training, and from other well-known factors such as tlie overseer system. But just h o w low was it? Can the productivity of slave labor, which nonstatistical evidence indicates to h a v e been low, be measured? An examination of t h e most recent, and most impressive, a t t e m p t to assess it suggests that it tïannot. Alfred H, Conrad and John R. Meyer h a v e a r r a n g e d the following d a t a to demonstrate t h e move- m e n t of "crop value p e r h a n d p e r dollar of slave price" during the antebellum periodi s i i e of t h e cotton crop, average price, value of crop, n u m b e r of slaves aged ten to fifty-four, crop value p e r slave, and price of prime field h a n d s . " Unfortunately, this method, like t h e m u d i eruder one used b v ATgic M. Simotis in 1911 a n d r e p e a t e d b y Lewis C Gray, does n o t remove the principal difficulties.

First, the contributioti of w h i l e farmers w b o owned no slaves or who worked in the fields beside t h e few Negroes they d i d own, caimot b e separated from that of the slaves. T h e o u t p u t of slaveless farmers might b e obtained b y arduous digging in t h e manuscript census returns for 18S0 and 1860, b u t the o u t p u t of fanners working be.side their slaves does not appear to lend itself to anything better than baseless giressing. T h e r e is also no reason to beheve that slaves raised tlie same proportion of t h e eotton crop in any two years, and w e h a v e httle knowledge of the factors determining fiuetuations.

Second, w e eannot assume tbat the same proportion of t h e slave force worked in the cotton fields in any Uvo years. In periods of ex- pected low prices slaveholder.! tried to deflect p a r t of their force to food crops. vVe eannot measure the u n d o u b t e d fluctuations in the man- hours applied to ootton. T h e Conrad-Meyer resulls, in particular, waver; they show a suhstanlial increase in productivity before the Civil War, h u t t h e tendency to assign slaves to other crops in periods of falling prices builds an u p w a r d bias into their calculations for the prosperous lS50's. It might b e possible to circumvent this problem b y calculating for the total output instead of for cotton, b u t to do so would create

1' The thesii presented by U. B. Phillips, Avery O, Craven, Lewis C. Gray, and others that tlie slave worled badly not becaiita he ivas a slave but because he was a Negro eannot siuvive entical tiamination. For a eritiqne, and a snmmary of evidenee showing tbat NejroH btougbt to the U S weit dia'vn from apicultural eeonomias vhich demanded hard, disciplined labor, see Eugene D. Genove^e, "The Negio Laborer in Africa and the Slave South," P/rjiorr, XXI {I960), 343-35Û, Sei also Maniadon Día. Ráfteilom sur réconiimle de rA¡r¡qi¡e Robe im-, ed.; Pari!, I9B0). p. 23.

>2"Tbe Economics of Slaveiy in tbe Ante-Bellun. South," loiinmt ol foUticd Economy, LXVI (1958), 95.130, especially Table 17.

Southem Slace Labor 369

even greater difficulties, such as h o w to value food grown for plan- tation u s e . "

Not all bad effects of slavery on t h e productivity of t h e s o d e t y w e r e so direct. Critics of slaveholding have generally assumed that it created a contempt for manual labor, although others h a v e countered with the assertion that the Southem yeomen was held in high esteem. True, the praises of the working farmer h a d to b e t u n g in a society in which he had the vote, b u t an u n d e r c u i r e n t of contempt was always there. Samuel Cartwright, an outspoken and socially minded Southem p h y - sician, referred scornfully to those whites "who m a k e negroes of them- selves" in the cotton and sugar fields." Indeed, to work hard was "to work like a nigger." If labor was not lighdy held, why were there so many assurances from p u b h e figures that no one need b e ashamed of it?i5

There were doubtless enough incentives and enough expressions of esteem to allow white farmers to work with some sense of pride; the full impact of the negadve attitude toward labor fell ou the landless. The bnint of the scorn was b o m e by those w h o h a d to work for others, much as a slave did. The proletarian, rural or urban, was Eree and white and therefore superior to one w h o was a slave and black, b u t the dif- ference was minimized when h e worked alongside a Negro for another man. So demoralized was white labor that planters often preferred to hire slaves becanse they w e r e b e l t e r workers.'^ How much was to b e expected of white labor in a society that, in the words of one worried editor, eonsidered manual labor "menial and revolting"?"

The attitude toward labor was thus eompoied of two strains; an undercurrent of contempt for work in general a u d the more prevalent and probably more daTnaging contempt for labor performed for an-

"5 Other questions are also raised by »heir price data- cottfta staíistiís were not tept wiih Ihe degree of accmsLy inquire«] for leully sophisücitlcd analysis, ior eaample. In any eirent, ¿¡g authors have not demonstrated a sigiuficani increa^ in producBvity at all. They show DO inerease for the depressed lMO's, bul 20 per eait lor the íaáiJ's. These results emeige from a certain cartlessnEss io [ounding off Kguies. Crop value per hand par i;llar of slave price is indeisd at .05 for 1840̂ -05 fm 1850; and .U« for ISflO. Bui if we carry out the arithmelio two more decimul plae« weget .0494 (IMO), .0538 (IBSO), and .0562 (I860)—i.e., a 9 per eent increase für the depressed lS40's and only 4 per ctnt ttJi the 16505. Thoe rcíufts are implau îbte and, in any case, contradict their own CHjnolusJons.

" J . D . B . DeBow, The ¡idisl'lalResoucres of ihe Southern and Weslem Stales (NewOrieaa!, 1652-53), 111,62.

""Let no one be ashamed of labor," Insisted William W. Holden of North Cawlioa: 'let no man be ashanied of a hard hand oi a sunbumt fats." Address Ddwend Before ¡he Ouplln Counia Agricvhrnal Sadely ( Raleigh, 1857 ), p. 7.

i^Comelins O. Calhey, Agrlculliiral DeixiopToenU in North Carolina, lTSS-1860 (Chapel Hill, 1058), pp. &1-S5.

"Southern CaltlaHor, V ( I S « ] . 141.

3 7 0 E U G E N E n , C l i N t ) V E S E

Other," These notions nndermined the produetivity of those free work- ers who might have made important periodie contributions, anu thus seriously lowered the level of productivity in the economy.

Few now douht that social structure has been an important factor in the history of science and technology or that capitalism has intro- duced the greatest advanees in these fields. For Amerieati agricultural teehnology, the craftsman, the skilled worker, and the small producer- all anxious to conserve Tabor time and eut costs—may well have pro- vided the most significant technological thrust. Specifically, the great advances of the modem era arose from a free-labor economy that gave actual producers the incentives to improve methods and techniques," In nineteenth-century America, writes one authority, "the farmers , , , directed and inspirai the efforts of inventors, engineers, and manu- facturers to solve their problems and supply their needs . , . [and] the early implements were in matiy cases invented or designed by the

If workers are to contribute mnch to teehnology, the eeonomy mnst permit and enconrage an increasing division of lahor, for skilled per- sons assigned to few tasks can best devise better methods and imple- ments. Once an initial accnmulation of capital takes place, the division of labor, if not impeded, will resnlt in further accnmulation and further division. Snch extensive division of labor cannot develop in slave economies. The heavy capitalization of labor, the higli propensity to eonsume, and the weakness of the home market seriously impede the accumulation of capital. Technological progress and divi- sion of lahor result in work for fewer hands, hut slavery requires all hands to be occupied at all times. Capitalism has solved tliii! problem by a tremendous economic e:q)ansion along varied lines (qualitative development), but slavery's obstacles to industrialization prevent this

In part, the slave South offset its weakness by drawing upon the technology of more progressive areas. During tbe first half of the nine- teenth century the North copied from Enrope on a grand seale, hut the Sonth was limited even in the extent to whicii it could copy and was especially restricted in possibihties for improving techniques once they had been acqnired. The regions in which transference of technical

" This latter atBtude may be an automatic inpedlent of a slave society, Xorl Polanyl sugcests thai Aristotle, refl«ling the Greek vieui, held vvoik tor others de- grading, Polaoyi a al. leds), Tral« and Market in the Esriu Empires (Glencoe, m., 1957), p, 77.

w Ediai Zilsei, "The Sodolcgical Ecols of Sdence," American Joimui of Sodah- gy, XLVIt (1942), SS7 ft,

» Fowler MeCoimiel;, Technological Progress In Amerieax Faming (Washing- ton, lMO), p, S,

Southern Slave Labor 371

skills has always been most effective have been those witb an abun- dance of trained craftsmen as well as of natural resources." In the Norfli a shortage of unskilled labor and a preoecupation wilh labor-saving machinery stimulated the absorption of advaneed techniques and the creation of new ones. In the South the importation of slaves remedied the labor shortage and simultaneously weakened nonslave productive units. The availability of a "routinized, poorly educated, and politically ineffeetual rural lalior force" of whites as well as Negroes rendered, and to some extent still renders, interest in labor-saving maebinery pointless."

Negro slavery retarded technological progress in many ways: it pre- vented the growth cf industrialism and urbanization! it retarded the divisiou of labor, which miglit have spuired tbe creation of new tech- niques; it barred the labor force from that inteUigeut participation in productiou whicb has made possible tbe steady improvement of im- plements and machines; and it encouraged ways of thousht antitheticsl to tlie spirit of modern science. Theie impediments undoubtedly damaged Southem agriculture, for improved equipment was largely responsible for the dramatic increases in crop yields per acre in the North during the nineteenth century.^^ The steady deterioration of American soil under conditions imposed by commercial exploitatíon, we now know, has been offset primarily by gains accniing from in- creased investments in tecbnological improvements. Recent studies show that from 1910 to 1950 ontpnt per man-honr donbled only beeanse of the rapid improvements in implements, machinery, and fertilizer.^

Ibe fanners of tbe South were especially hurl by teelinological back- wardness, for the only way in which they might have compensated for the planters' advantage of large-scale prodnction would have been to attain a mucb higher teclmolcgit^ level. The social pressure to invest in slaves and the high cost of machinery in a region t i a t had to import much of its equipment made snch an adjustment difficult.

Large-scale production gave the planter an advantage over his weaker competitots within the Sondi, bnt the plantation was by no means more efficient than the family farai operating in the capitalist economy of the free states. Ijrge-scale production, to be most efficient nnder modem conditions, must provide a substitute for the incentives pos- sessed hy tbe individnal fanner. The experience of Soviet agriculture,

"UonH. Dupriez(ed.),Econimiif:Pfogrei3(Louvain. 19S5). pp. 149-169. " James H, Street, ill? Mem BBOOIUWM In the CsHon econama ( Chapel Hill.

1657). p, 34, " Leo KogfD. The Introduction of Farm Maehlneru . . . in the United States

Oaring Ihe Nineteenth Cenlur, (Berkeley, 1B31). ehap. !. ^CiTed by Ronsid L Mighefl. ĵ mürícfln Agriculture: Its Structure and Place

In Ihe Economy (New York, 1955), pp. 7-8.

373 EUCEN'E D. GE NÓVESE

with its pohöeally induced collectivization, has again demonstrated that the prerequisite for efficient large-scale commodity production is 8 level of industrial technology such as is only now being attained even in the most advanced countries.^

Let ns tum now to a detailed consideration of the plantation division of labor. Although few scholars assert that tbe Southem slave planta- tions were self-sufficient nnits, most assume a fair degree of division o£ lahor in their work forces. The employment of skilled artisans is nsualiy treated as a minor matter not worth serious attention. An ex- amination of plantation manuscripts, and data in the manuscript census returns, however, shows that considerable sums were paid for the services of artisans and laborers, and that home manufactures were not well developed.

According to one study, the Confederacy was unable to repeat the achievements of the colonies during the Revolutionary War, wben fam- ily industry supplied the war effort and the home front, Altbongh house- hold manufacturing survived longer in the slave states than in other parts of the country, slave labor proved so inefficient in making cloth, for e.tample, that planters preferred not to bother, in those areas of the South in which slavery predominated, honsehold manufactures de- creased rapidly after 1840, and the system never took hold in the newer slave states of Florida, Louisiana, ajid Teias.== Whereas in the North Its flj-gapnpurjjnc.f. was occasioïiËQ uy tnfi uËVËlopuiËiit Oí mucu uiorfi advaDccd factory processes, in the Soutb it was part of a ^^D^rsl dfi- clinc in skill and a lowGrinp' of teclmitiiie.

An examúiatiou of tnanuscript census data for selected counties in 1860 beais out these geiiËralizatiûns. It also shows that the large plantations, although they nsnally produced greater totals than the small farms, did veiy poorly in the produotion of home manufactures. In Mississippi's eotton counties the big planters (thiity-one or more slaves) avEiraged Only S76 worth of home manufactures duiiog the year̂ where- as other groups of farmers and planters showed much less. In the Georgia cotton eounties the small planters ¡twenty-one to thirty

25 Paul A, Baiau, Th^ PoUlIcûl Economy of Cromth ( New Yotk, 1957 ), pp, 2Ö7 f£, 37S-2Ö3, insiib thnt collecliviîaiiDo ivas justified became the only alieraative to it ¡n a couQOy lacKiiig enough urban puicbssing po^er to suppoit bigli food price? would dry up mraf sources of capital sccumiilatiQTi by heavier peasaot » n - sumptíün. HE adds thai the U,S,S,R. had lu force the pace of industrialitetiûn lor pnliücsl and mililary reasons and that ?[aÍQ deiiveiies lo cities had to b« guaran- teed. These jugumeuts, howevtc valii do no! «mlradicl the observatiou ihal coUecrtlvETatlon removid a ^ û d paît oE the peasants' incentives without providing •hem with implemenCs and machinriF!. See W- Arthur Lewis> The Theorif of Eco- nomic Groujth fHomewoGd, III., 1955), pp. 134 fi,̂ far a çummary of ejiperierics wjth large-scale fanning.

zs Rolla M. Tfyoa. Uonsehald Manufacltàres in the üaüed Stuten 1G40-1860 (Chicago, lB17),pp. 5. 1B4 ff., 29&^fi. 3VL

Southern Slave Labor 373

slaves) led otlier groups with Î127, and the big planters produced only half as much. Fifty-eight per cent of the hig planters in the Missis- sippi counties examined recorded no home manufactures at all, and most agriculturalists in the Ceorgia counties produced none. In Vir- ginia the same results appeared; in tobaeco counties the big planters led other groups with SS6 worth of home manufaetures, and in tbe tidewater and northern wheat counties tlie big planters led with only S35,='

The Richmond Dispatch estimated in the 185O's that the South spent $5,000,000 annually for Northern shoes and b c o t s . ^ Although the figure cannot be verified, there is no d o u h t that Southerners bought most of thek shoes in the North, One of the bigger planters. Judge Cameron of North Carolina, o\viier of five plantations and 2S7 slaves in 1834, had to purchase more than half tlie shoes needed for his Negroes despite his larEe estahhshnient and a conscientious a t t e m p t to supply his own needs.^' Most planters apparently d i d not even try to produce shoes or clothing. When a planter with about thirty slaves in Scotland Neck, North Carohna, m a d e arrangements to lia^'e clothing produced on his estate, he hired an outsider to d o it.=° Yet, until 1830 shoes were pro- dueed in the United States b y tools and methods not essentially dif- ferent from those used by medieval serfs,^^ and not m u c h equipment would have been needed to continue tho.^e methods ou the plantations. Even simple methods of production w e r e not employed on the planta- tions because the low level of produedvity m a d e tbeni too costly rela- tive to available Northern shoes. At the same time, die latter were more eipensive than they ought to h a v e heen, for transportation costs were high, and planters h a d little choice b u t to b u y in t h e established New England shoe centers.

Plantation aceount books reveal surprisingly high expenditures for a variety of tasks requiring skilled and unskilled labor.'^ A Mississippi planter with 130 slaves paid an artisan S32D for labor and supplies for a forty-one-da;' job in 1S49, Other accounts show diat Coveraor Ham- mond spen! Ï4S2 to have a rond built in 1830; another planter spent

Ŝ FDr the sampling and computing methods employed Itere see Eugene D. Cenovese. "Tbe Limits of Agraiiai. Hefonn lo the Slavs Soutb" (Ph.D. diss., Columbia University, 1959). appendice!.

" De Bow, Indusinal HssourcE!, II, 130, »Cameron Papers, GXIII, University of Nortb Carolina. » Simmons Jones Baker Aecount Book. misc. note!. University of Nortli Garolin». Î1 Bianehe Evan! Haianl, The Orsmitatitn of the Boor itnd Shoe Indusirj In

MituocfcuniKi Beiojff 7X73 (Gambridge, 1521), p. 3. " TTie use of white labor for ditobing is frequently cited, but the size of expendi-

ture! is not ceneraiiy appreciated. One planter paid tl7D in 1SS2, another Í250 in lflS9. Sueh suras wße not Qifle!. especially for small planleis. Ste Moses St. John R, LiddeU Papsri. 1852. Louisiana State Universityi entry of Feb, B, 1859, Iranidas Pendltton Spyker Diary, Ibid.

3 7 4 E O C E N E D. C E N O V E S E

ÎIOS for repair of a carriage and $900 for repair of a sloop in 1S53. as well as Î175 for repair of a bridge in 1857, a third spent 52,950 for the hire of artisans in 1856 on a plantation with more dian 175 slaves."

The largest eïpenses were for blacksmiths' services. A Fanola, Mis- sissippi planter listed expenditures for the following in 1853; sharpening of plows, mending of shovels, and construction of plows, ox-chains, hooks, and other items. In 1847 a Greensboro, Alabama, planter, whose books indicate that he was businesshke aud efficient, spent about $140 fcr blacksmiths' services on his large plantation of seventy-five slaves." One South Carolina planter with fort>'-five slaves had an annual black- smith's account of about 535, and ejipenditures by other planters were often higher.^

Even simple tasks like the erecdon of door frames sometimes re- quired the serviees of hired carpenters, as was the case with a Jeffer- son Connty, Mississippi, planter in 1831." Jf buildings, iJiimneys, or slave cabins had to be built, planters generally hired free laborers ta slave artisans.^ Skilled slaves had unusual privileges and incentives, hut there was not much for them to do on a single plantation. Rather than allow a Negro to spend all his time acquiring a skill for which there was only a limited need a planter would hire a hondman for short periods. Even this type of slave speciahzatJon was frowned upon by many planters, who considered the incentives and privileges subversive of general plantation discipline.

It may have paid to keep all available slaves in the eotton fields during periods of high prices, but dnring low prices the reverse was probably true. At those times the factors forcing a one-crop agrienlture and the low productivity of nonfield labor wrought devastating result!. The Souths trnnble was not that it had few shoe and clothing factories, or that it lacked a diversified agrieulture, or that it lacked enough

33 Haller fjutt Papers. 1649, Duke Uniiïrsity; James H. Hammond Acmunl Book, 1850, Library of Congressi Stephen D. Doar Acconnt Books, 1853, 1*57, ibid.^ Charles Bruce Plantation AaaunK, 1358, lUd.

M Evcrard Crten Bakef Papas, I, University of North Carolinai Ivnson L. Graves PapEii, XV, ihid.; Henry Watson Papers, 1817, Dull,: University. Craves bpent twenty doUars to sharpen and »pair tooU during four inonths of 1S53.

3S De Bow, Indastriid Resources. I, 161. One planter with fifty slaves iptnt ahout S75 in right months, Killona Plantation Journals, I, 60 ff., Dcpl. of Arohives and History, Joclson, Miss. See also Wilham McKinley Book, p. 17, UnJvHrily of North Carolina; Robert Withers Boots, I, 48, Ihid.; JomEs Sheppard Paper., Apr. S, 1M9, iliid.

M Entry of Jan. 4, IS.'Jl. Duncau G. MeCall Planlation Journal and Diary, VaVe University. Tbe planlatiou possessed sevrnry-fiv« slaves.

ä' E o t ^ of Jan. 8, 1851, iW.; tntty of Jon. 15, 1857, Spyker Diary. Spykei, with more than one hundred slaves, spent over (200 for the services of a maion. A letltr to Mrs. Hô veU Cobb (1846) indicates that Negro uibins were generally built hy hirfd labor at up to $250 per cabin. Uliich B. Fhillin^, Mantallnn anil Frontier Doaanent!: ie49-l%eS ICIeveland, 1903), II, 33.

Soirihem Slave Labor 37S

other industrial enteiprises. The trouble was that it suffered from a lack of nil three at the same time. The slight division of lahor on the plan- tations and the slight social division of lahar in the region forced the planters into dependence on the Northern market. The result was to raise the cost of cotton production dtinns periods of low as well as high cotton prices. Even during the extraordinary years of the Civil War, when Southerners stmggled manfully to feed and clothe them- selves, the attempt to produce home manufactures met with only in- different results." These ohservations merely restate the problem of division of labor in the slave Sonth; the low le\-el of productivity, caused by the inefficiency of the slaves and the general haekwardncss of society, forced increasing speeialization in staple crop production nnder virtual colonial conditions.

The broad problem of improved farm equipment deserves further amplification. "There is nothing in the progress of agricnlture, the United States Agricultural Society reported in 1853, "more encourag- ing than the rapid increase and extension of lahor-saving machinery,"™ As already snggested, the South did not profit much from these tech- nological advances, nor did it contribute mueh.*'

The most obvious obstacle tc the employment of better equipment was (he slave himself.̂ ' In 18,13 a Southem editor sharply rebuked planters and overseers for complaining diat Negroes could not handle tools. Such a complaint was, he said, merely a confession of poor man- agement, for with proper supervision slaves would provide proper care," The editor was unfair. Careful supervision of unwilling laborers would have entailed either more overseers than most plantéis could afford or a slave force too small to provide the advantages of large- scale operation. The harsh treatment that slaves gave equipment shocked traveler? and contemporaries, and neglect of tools was among the njost common reasons given for inflicting punishment on Negroes,*^

^ Maiy Elliabetli Msssey, Ersatz In the Confedcractj (Columtila, S.C, 1952), àiap. i and poEsini.

''Journal ^ the United States Agricullural Society, I (1853), 132, « Carhey, commentinE en the aptation for imptoved implements in North

Carcitaa in the IBM's, soys that, surprislnjdy, nene ot those demanded were pro- dueed on a large seule within the state end no local inventor piotited rnueh irom his stfcrts. Agricaltfral DecehpTuents, p. flS, In viEi" of the small market, howw«, the result is no surprise—unless undue attention is paid to the statements ot agrf- <1iltural reformen or Eo the illusory vsluatlom that sometimes appeared In census returns,

" The tamliiar generalization that slaves so miitrealed equlpmmt tlial planters •*'*'e reTuelcInt to purchase gcod Unplements has received new support from Moore's ifndy, AcHnilturB In AnU-Bellura Mlss^sippl, p. 41,

"Saiahem Planter (RIdunond), m (1843), 205-2«. <> See "Instruelions to Overseer," James H, Hammond PlantotioD Boot, 1832-39,

Lihruy ot Congress.

3 7 6 E U O E N E D . C E X O V E S E

In 18&5 a South CaroHna planter wrote in eiasperation that

The wear and tear of plantation taals is harassing to evety planter whe does not have a good mechanic at his nod and beck every day in the year. Our

demands are made on the blacksmilh, the carpenter, the tanner, and the har- nassmaker [jic].

The implements used on the plantations, therefore, virere generally mucb too heavy for efficient use, Tbe "nigger boe," often used in rela- tively advanced Virginia, was far beavier than the "Yankee hoe," which slaves easily broke. Those used in the Southwest were almost three times the weight of those manufactured in tbe Nortb for Northem use.** C!\irions]y, in many cases eqnipment was too liglit for adequate re- sults. Whereas most planters bought estra heavy implements in the hope that they would withstand rough handling, others resigned them- selves to breakage and bougbt the cheapest possible,*^

We do not Know the proportion of Southem implements made ay local blaeksmiths, bnt the difference in quality between them and Northem goods was probably not so great as one might think. Local blacksmiths made wretched goods, but tbose made in the Nordi es- pecially for the Southern market were well belo«' national standards. J. D. Legare, editor of tbe Southern Cabinet, visited Northem imple- ment factories and was "stmck" by the inferior grade of goods sent south, Tbe materials and workmanship were much worse than those put into goods for the Northem market. The reason for the double standard, as Legare admitted, was that planters demanded inespcn- sive items." Information on implements produced in the North for the Southem market is scarce, John Hebron Moore quite plausibly sug- gests tbat a few unscrupulous Northem manufacturers gave tbe reit a bad reputation by misrepresentations and other unethical prachees. Misrepresentations aside, frequent complains suggest that die imple- ments were ofLen inferior to tliose designated for the North. M. W, Fhihps demonstrated that Northem plows lasted three times as long as local Mississippi products.'^ but the question at issue is not the qnality of Nortliem equipment but the quality that Southemers could and would buy.

«FomsroaJPinnler. VI (1855). 43. «6C. G. Parsons, Imida View of Slavery (Boston, 1855), p. 94; Harold F. Wil-

lluiiion ííJ.). The Growth of the Amerlaia Ecoanny (Knded.i NEW Yoik, 1951], p. 120.

" On the coaslal plain of Ihe Southeast during the twentieth century the peuistinE lack of Capital has caused continned reliance on harrows and ploivs that are too light fof mosf purposes.

" SoBlliem Cnt/n«. 1 (1S40), 531-536, « Moore, Agriculture in Aate-Bellum Hiisissippl, p. 188. «Ihld., p. 166.

Soulhcm Slave Labor 377

In 1S57 an agricultural journal catiied a ipetia! repait by a former edilor who had visiled ihe South Carolina slate fair and had inspected plows made by Southern manuiacturers. He described tbe instrumeuls as poor, of indifferent quaKty and ciude construction, adding that most Southem producers had advanced only to the point al which James Small of Berwickshire had left the plow in 1740."

Good plows in 1857 sold for fifteen or twentj' dollars, although per- haps some of Üiose celling at five ot ten dollars were adequate. An eighly-acre Iowa farm in one estûnation, liad at least $375 worth of implements in addition to good plows aud small tools." Cultivators and harrows cost from five to tv,'erit>' dollars; a grist mill from fifteen to thirty dollars; a treadmill horsepower from eighty.five to 150 dollars; a seed drill sixty dollars^ a reaper-mowec 135 dollars, and so iorth. Planters, M, W, Philips noted, usually refused to buy anything cjcept the cheapest of essential items. "We of the South bave a jaundiced eye." he wrote. "Everything we view looks like gold-costly.""

Plows such as those generally in use in Arkansas were valued at five dollars, and perhaps of greater significance, an average cotton-pro- ducing unit of one hundred acres was said to have only fifteen dollars' worth of equipment other than plows.'* A Mississippi planter valued his thirty "indifferent" plows at seventy-five dolíais; even if he bad made a liberal allowance for depreciation, he was clearly using the poorest Itind of equipment." As an indication of the quality of the work done hy local blactsmiths, one planter spent a total of five dollars for ten turning plows in 1853,^ Gray claims that most Southem plows were worth only three to five dollars. There is little reason to question either tbis estimate or his opinion that tliey probably did not last more than a year or so.''

Most planters in Mississippi, wrote Philips, thought they could use one kind of plow for every possible purpose.^' The weakness was doubly serious, for the one Irfnd was usually poor. The mnst popular plow in the Lower South-at least well into the 1340'3-was the shovel plow, which merely stirred the surface of the soil to a depth of two or three inches." Made of wrought iron, it was "a erude and inefficient instru-

'O Farmer and FJanler,VlU (ISSJ). 245,

^Farmer and Plaraer,U (lSSl), IS. " De Boui-s Rinfeui. XH (1S52), 12. "ValuaHon figures for 1 8 « . ShcppBn) Papers. " EipcndituTM for Feh.-May, 1S5S, Giaves Papcri, XV. " Uwii C. Clay, History of Asricalture (n the Southern United SMIai (o ISBO

IWaiKingtoD. 1933), II, 79B, "American Cofion Planter. II [1854). 244. "Southern Cabinet, I ¡18401, 199; WUUanlson. CTOIDIÄ of tJie Amcricnn Econo-

mï. p. 118,

3 7 8 E U G E N E D . C E N O V E S E

ment which, as commonly employed, underwent no essential improve- ment throughout its long career.'™ It was light enough for a girl to carry and exemplified die "too light" type of implement u.îed on the plan-

In the 185O's the shovel ploïV slowly gave way in the Soudi to a variety of light mouldboard plows, which at least were of some help in tilling arid controlling weeds. Good mouldboard plows should have offered other advantages, such as aid in burying manure, but those in the South were not nearly so efficietit as those employed in the free states," In 1830, Conneeticut manufacturers began to produce large numbers of Gary plows exclusively for the Southern market. These light wooden plows with wrought-iron shares were considered of good quahty. Unfortunately, they required careful handling, for they hrobe easily, and they eould not penetrate more than three or four mcb^ be- lô v the surface, During the early 1820's Northern farmers had been sbifdng to cast-iron plows that could cover 50 per cent more acreage with 50 per cent less animal- and man-power.̂ * When cast-iron plows did enter the South, they could not be \ised to the same advantage as in the North, for they needed tbe services of expert blacksmiths when, as frequently happened, they broke.''

Twenty years after the introduction of the cultivator in 1820 Northern farmers considered it standard equipmeDt, especially in the cornfields, but cultivators, despite their tremendous value, were so light tbat few planters would trust tbem to their slaves. Since htde wheat was grown below Virginia the absence of reapers was not especially important, but the backwardness of cotton equipment was. A "cotton planter' (a modified grain drill ) and tme man could do as much work as two mules and tour men,^ but it was rarely used. Similarly, com planters, espe-

'^ Rogin. Introduction of Fann Machinery^ p. 54. ^ On the advantages of the mouldboard ntoiv for wcedinc and burying manure

see E. Jobn Russell. SoU CnadlHens and Ffoil firouth (8di ed.: l̂ ondon, 1950). pp, 578 it. These plows were in general use in New England as early as 1840. M. H. Chevalier, "Les dianues ancienne; de l'Amérique et de l'Oceanle," Sodété de. Ingenieurs Civils de Franrc. Mémoires et compte rendu des Iratiaui, LXXm (1920). Tl. In retint yean some agronomisti bave challenged [be usefulnesf of àesp plowing, aieuing that it does more harm Ibao good. TIIR literature l! vast, but tbe is5ue unresolved. A firm eoneliülon about Ihe melbods used by sntebellum planters must therefore wait. Il is significant, however, tbat the planters' failure to plow deeph' was not due to any special knowledge or eiperience. but ratber to tbsii lack of proper equipment.

61 Bogin, Introduction of Farm Machiiieiy, pp. 8-9, 30-31. Tbe Cary plow was also eailed tbe Daj-on, tbe Degen, the Connectieut, and various othtr aames.

«ï Craven miintains that in ^faryland and Virginia fatmm and planter; used e>ce!lent equipment aft« 1840. See his Sou Eiiioajfion as a Factor in Ihe Agifcul- lurol Hlstori/ of VlrEinlo and Marylarid, 1606-19«) (Urbana, 192B1. p, 1S2. 'This equipment was ex»i3eat bowavei, only in comparison to Ibat uaed furtbei soutb.

Ö WlUiauison. Cro^ßth of the American Ecanamy, p, ISO; American Cotton

Sciiiífiem Slave Labor 3T9

eiully the one invented hy George Brown in 1853, might h a v e saved a good deal of labor time, b u t tliese w e r e costly, needed careful handling, and would have rendered p a r t of the slave force superfluons. Since slaveholding was a matter of prestige and status, and since slaves w e r e an économie necessity during the pieking season, plantera were not interested,"

The cotton picker presents special, complicated, technical, and eco- nomic problems. So long as a mechanical picker was not available a large labor force would have been needed for the harvest, b n t in I85D Samuel S. Hemhert and Jedediab Frescott of Memphis did p a t e n t a mule-drawn eotton picker that was "a simple prototype of the rnodern spindle picker.'*^ Virtually no progress was rnade on the original design until forty years later, and then ahnost as long a S|ian intervened before further advances w e r e made. T h e reasons for these saps were in p a r t technical and in p a r t the economic pressures arising from slavery and share-cropping. Althongli one can never b e fiure about such things, tbe evidence accumulated b y historians of soienoe and teelinology strongly suggests that the social and economic impediments to technological change are generally more powerful than die specifically technical ones. The introduction of a cotton picker would h a v e entailed tbe full mechanization of farming processes, and such a development would have had to b e accompanied b y a radically different social order. Surely, it is not accidental that the mechanical picker has in receut decades taksQ hold io the Southwest, w h e r e share-cropping has been weak, a n d has moved east slowly as changes in the social organization ot the coun- tryside have proceeded. Even without a mechanical piclter the planta- tions might have used gond implements and a smaller labor foree d n r i n g most of the year and temporary help during tbe harvest. In Califorroa in 1951, for example, 50 p e r cent of t h e occasional workers n e e d e d in the cotton fields ivas obtained from \vithin die county and 90 p e r cent from within the state. Temporary employees w e r e obtained from amongrurai and town housewives, youths, and seasonal workers anxious to supplement their incomes.™ T h e r e is no reason to believe that this

rlanter. XIT |1SE8), llS. Grain drills sold for about $100 in tbe South, according 10 the FurmiT and rionter, n (18S1), 181. See also De Boiu's Heuleiu, VI (IMS), 133.

** Cwrçe F. Lemmer ssyi that tobacco and hemp grow^rt in Missouri failed to seep pacr- VTlh gndn grmveis in the use of improved impleminit* and machinery hEcanse iobncco and hemp machinery did not iniprove much. See liii "Farm Ma- difaery ta Anle-Beüum Missouri," Missouri Historical SBUÍEIU, XL (1S4S), 499, 479. We need ID know v/hy labor-saving fiiachinciy for tboSB crops v/as not de- velnped. The »nswei—or at least part of it—may be triced to ihe use rjf slave labor in the tobacco and bemp regions^ free labor predominated in the grain regions.

» Stre«, Wem BevoJuHon, p. M. M ¡M., p. 197.

3ßO E U G E N E D. C E N O V E S E

alternative \vould not h a v e heen open to the South in the IS50's if slavery h e d been eliminated,

A few examples, whieh could b e multiplied many times, illustrate the weakness of plantation technology, A plantation in Stewart County, Georgia, with a fixed capital investment of $42,660 h a d only $300 in- vested in implements and maehinery. T h e Tooke plantation, also in Georgia, had a total investment in implements and machinery of S195, of which a gin accounted for SIlO. Plantations had plows, perhaps a few harrows and coulters, possibly a cultivator, and in a few cases a straw- c u t t e r or c o m and cob crusher, Whene\'er possible, a farmer or planter acquired a cii^ and all had small tools for various ptirposes.

T h e figures reported in the census tabulations of farm implements atid machinery arc of limited valne and mnst h e used carefully. W e h a v e little information o n shifting price levels, and the valuations re- ported to the censns takers w e r e n o t standardized. Tlie same type of plow worth five dollars in 1850 may have heen recorded at ten dollars in 1S60, and in view of the general rise iti prices somcdiing of the kind probably occurred.™

Even if w e p u t aside these objections a n d examine the mvestments in selected counties in 1860, the appalling state of plantation technology is evident. T h e following table presents the data from t h e manuseript census returns for 1860, Of the 1,969 f a r m e r and planters represented, only 160 (or 8 p e r c e n t ) h a d more than $500 invested in implements and machinery. If w e assume that a eotton gin cost between Î100 and Í I 2 5 , the figures for the cotton counties suggfst that all except the planters {those holding twenty slaves or m o r e ) either d i d without a gin or h a d very little else. Note that an increase in die slave foree did not entail significant expansion of techtiique. In the cotton counties, as the size of the slaveholdings increased, the investments in imple- ments and machines increased also, b u t in small amounts. Only lnnts of twenty slaves or more showed tolerably respectable amounts, and even these w e r e poor w h e n one considers the size of t h e estates.

*" David HflDioiise Manoranduni Book, n. 25, Alexander Bohert Lawton Papas, University of North Carolina, For the Toolie Pinntation see Ralph B, Flanders, T w o Plantations and a Ccunty In Ante-Bellum Genrgis," Georgia Historical Quar- letli), X n (192S), 4. See alw Cameron Fapeis, CXIH; Haiiston FlantatiDn Bock, 1857, UniveTSity ot Nortli Ca.oÜna; 1849 mventory in KilLock Plantation Books, VII, ibid.; Newstead Flanlation Diary, lSBl, ibid.; Andrew Flinn Plantation Book, 1S40, University of Sonth Carohna; PlantaHiin and Aoeount Book, 1851, pp, 1, £3, Eli J, CapeU and Family Papers, Louisiana State University; Joseph M, Ja)Tie! Plantation Aceouiit Boolts, p. 15, Duke University.

•= Commodity priées rose tiom 23 to 35 psr eent from 1849 to 1857, and then slumped somewhat following the crisis. In 1858 prices weie trom 10 tc IB pel eEni higher then they had been In IMS, See Snyder-Tucker and WaiTen-Pearson indices in Bureau of Ihe Census (eomp.). Historical Statistics of Ihe UnUed Slates, 17S9- 1945 ¡Washington, 1949), pp, 232-233,

^ "The averages of southem states vjeis hjgh not ünly hecause sucar-retiniag

Suulhem Slave Labor 381

M E D M N VALUE O F FARM I M P L E M E N T S A N D MACHINERY I N S E L E C T E D C O U N T I E S , I 8 6 0 '

Sample Counties Number of Slaves on Farms and Plantations" 0 1-4 5-9 10-20 21-30 31-60 61-100 100+

Virginia Tobacco Counties (Amelia, Buckingham) $40 $ 50 $ 50 jlOO S150 S320 j 925

Virginia Tidewater (Gloucester, CbarlesCity) 30 35 70 150 200 500 725

Virginia Northem Wbeat Counties (Fauquier, Prinee Wuham) 60 100 150 300 425 1200 1350

Georgia Upland (Walker, Cordon)

( Doughert}', inomasj

Mississippi Cotton ( D e Soto, Marsball)

10

25

50

75

75

100

100

135

150

215

200

30O

450

350

500

300

400

700

500

1000 120O

' Calculated from Üie manuseiipt cenius letuiii! foi 1860; see note 27. "The nnmbei of persons in each group ™as as follows:

Virgioia TohadH, 67 45 45 53 33 äO 6 Virginia Tidewaleri 41 26 31 24 12 9 Virginia Nonhem Viheat: ITS 69 02 82 19 7 Georgia t;pland: 384 37 27 If 4 3 Georgi» Cotton, 43 19 18 21 13 32 MiLiisslppi (litton, 204 83 89 92 41 45 S

Gray has suggested that the poor qualit)' of Southern implements was only p a r d y d u e to slave inefficiency. O t h e r contribnting factors w e r e ihe lack of local market places for equipment, the ignorance of t h e small farmers and overseers, prejndioe agaiust a n d even aversion to

and eotton-cinnini' maehinerv were ejipensive but, moie important, bfcanse the ]aioi.r njarilaf'n c \ u . " ÙIT^...« IV,.».'.irlnr iii [nrr-ic T\n\ v,|l,ip i l Finn •n,1.̂ llEnprv KT aora of unproved land is a better inàçx. For representative sonthem states. tlMi lleurei are Virginia S0.82, North Carolina, SO.BOÈ Alihama Sl.lfl; Mississippi tl.74i and Louisiana S6.80, For representative northem states the figures ste Massadin- setts tl.8O^ Olilo H,SS: New York {2.03; and Ffnnsylvania |2,14." Paul W. Cates, The Farmer':: Age, ISIS-ISBO (NBW Yo.lt. 1960), p. 291,

'"Cray, History of Apiculture, II, 784.

mnovaüODs, and a shortage of capital in the inlerior.'" Eacb ot these contributing factors was in itself inevitable in a slave society. The weak- ness of the market, which JIEIS been discussed elsewhere,'^ l t d to a lack of markets, TTie social stmcturÉ of the eountryside hardly left room for anything buf ignorance and cultural backwardness. Tlie social and economic pressures to invest in slaves aud th6 hi^b propensity to con- sume rendered adequate capital accumubtioD ixnposElble. Hie psy- chological factor—hostility to innovation—traascexided customaty ag- rarian conservatism and was related to the patriarchal social structure.

The attempts of reformers to improvfi methods of cultivation- diver- sify produetion^ raise more ana better livfistock, and so forth, were undermined at the outset by a labor force without versatility and tbe possibility of increasing its productivity substantially. CMher factors would have to be examined in ordtr to understand fully why tbe move- ment for agricultural refcrm bail to be content with inadequate ac- complishments, but consideration of tlie direct effects of slave labor alone tells us why htde could be done.

" See Eugene D. Genovew, "The SigniËesDce of the Slave Plantation for South- ern Economic Developmem." Sounud of Southem HMory, XXVllI f l S ^ ) . ^¡^

Copyright of Civil War History is the property of Kent State University Press and its content may not be copied

or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.

However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Copyright of Civil War History is the property of Kent State University Press and its content may not be copied

or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.

However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.