Yes you can. But they have to be derived, as many historians have already done. You take the value of personal property totals and divide by the populations. Others have done it for you, and I have quoted those sources on more than 10 posts.
To repeat it again for you, a primary source that shows the exact per capita figures I have given you comes from William Parker, "Slavery and Southern Economic Development, The Structure of the Cotton Economy of the Antebellum South", 1970. here
Then you say: "Nor are they consistent with the findings of others census.
Then show where other census data was inconsistent. Documentaion.
Income was not a concept in use in 1860 either.
Actually it was. See here
You said: "And you have made several conflicting claims as to what those figures are."
Name them.
“You said: ‘Unfortunately, I cannot find those numbers in the 1860 census.’
Yes you can. But they have to be derived, as many historians have already done. You take the value of personal property totals and divide by the populations.”
This is what I expected. You do not understand the difference between “income” and “wealth”. Income comes from a flow. Wealth is a stock which has accumulated over time. TOTALLY different ideas. Your calculation gives per capita WEALTH not per capita income.
So you believe the National Bureau of Economic Research existed in 1860? The reprint you referenced was published originally at the end of the 20th century. It spoke of income but that was 130 or so years AFTER 1860. They did not use the term in 1860 as I said.
You have called those numbers by several names. Per capita income is only one of them and they are not all synonymous concepts.