Replies

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.

from 1,828 WIHAIY: "The 1860 individual per capita income in the South was $3,978; in the North it was $2,040..."

"The typical southern state farm in 1860 had a valuation of $7,101. In the northern states this figure was $3,311."

"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."

"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."

Did you ever take time to actually read the 1860 census? Here it is again.

The link is a real pain -- takes a long time to find what you're looking for. But if you take the time, and look down to page 294, you'll see a brief discussion (followed by pages of numbers), including the following:

"in the whole United States each man, woman and child is represented by the figure of $607."

You'll see that it cites New York as having the highest value of real and personal property ($2.3 billion) followed by Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia, Illinois, Tennessee, Alabama, Massachusetts, Kentucky and Mississippi ($755 million).

On the economic growth rates of various states:

"The rate of increase in the western states has been immense, while the absolute gain in the older states has been no less remarkable.

"For example, the rate of increase in Iowa has been more than nine hundred percent, while the absolute increase of wealth has been two hundred and forty-seven millions of dollars; while Pennsylvania has increased at the rate of ninety-six percent, with an absolute gain in wealth of seven hundred million dollars.

"The wealth per capita of Iowa in 1850 was $123 while in 1860 it amounted to $366, a rate of increase of one hundred and ninety-seven and a half percent.

"The wealth of Pennsylvania in 1850 per capita was $312 in 1860 per capita $487, the rate of increase fifty-six percent."

Now, by all appearances, these numbers in no way square with yours, but since these are indisputably official 1860 census numbers, I'd suppose you might want to reconsider the question of which one of us is just spewing "BS".