Replies

"The 1860 per capita income in the South was $3,978; in the North it was $2,040.’"

I'm telling you again, these numbers are totally 100% bogus. Unless you are going to claim "adjusted for inflation," or some such nonsense, they are not even in the right ball park. And they are not the right ratios either.

Now, I already gave you one link to check me out, here is another. And this link is totally sympathetic to the South -- it's making your case for you, but at least it uses real numbers.

What does it say?

Total percapita in 1860, of all the South ($103) compared to all the North ($141) -- the North is about 37% more.

But if you just look at the free white populations, the South is about 27% more. And, within those overall numbers are some wide variations:

The West South Central region has three times the percapita income of the North Central region.
On the other hand, the Northeast has 46% more percapita than the South Central & Atlantic regions.

So, just what was going on in the "West South Central" region that made them relatively so prosperous? I'm guessing large plantations, with hundreds or thousands of slaves managed by just a few free whites. Naturally, those whites had very substantial incomes.

You are relying on Robert Fogel’s calculations that he used in 1989 in his book, “Without Consent or Contract: The Rise and Fall of American Slavery”, 2 volumes. He presents the same data format in his earlier work but with differences in the data values, “Time on the Cross: The Economics of American Negro Slavery”, 2 volumes, 1974.

So, which is right? There is no complete explanation of the methods of his calculations, or whether or not he included dependent household members in the count, variations in work patterns due to crop harvesting, or relative impact of recessions.

What is fact is that in 1857 a Senate report by Senator Johnson showed that the Daily wages for bricklayers in New Orleans and Charleston averaged $3. Wages for bricklayers in Chicago and Pittsburg was $1.50. Carpenters in New Orleans/Charleston earned $2.50 a day. The same in Chicago/Pittsburg earned $1.50. General laborers in these Southern cities earned $1.25. Their counterparts in the North earned $.75. Even your source reveals that between 1840 and 1860, per capita income increased more rapidly in the South than in the rest of the nation. By 1860 the south attained a level of per capita income which was high by the standards of the time, surpassing the status of many European countries.

According to the census, the growth in personal wealth in the South in the 1850’s was extensive. From the 1850 census, and state census records in 1858, the value of land and personal property had increased by 57%, while the same measure in the Northeast showed an increase of only 11%.

The typical southern state farm in 1860 had a valuation of $7,101. In the northern states this figure was $3,311. Net worth of southerners was higher than their counterparts in the North and West. Personal wealth in ownership of farm implements, machinery, and animals was greater in the South.

When the 1860 Census was completed it was noted that one measure of the census was “True Value of Personal Property” which was the per capita value of owned property. According to this measure of accumulation of personal wealth, the leading and most wealthy states among all of the United States were Mississippi, South Carolina, Alabama, Georgia, and Louisiana.

And finally, from several sources, according to the census, with only 30% of the nation’s (free) population, the South had 60% of the “wealthiest men.” The 1860 individual per capita income in the South was $3,978; in the North it was $2,040.

Now, whether or not you want to call that income or value per person calculated every 10 years, it still shows your points for what they are, BS.