“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.
You said: “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.”
Actually it is per capita income.
And not my calculation.
Again from William Parker's book, Fogel and Engerman, and the University of Virginia, here is the data.......
The per capita income of free populations in 1860 as compiled by the United States Census was the following:
........................South..............North
...........................$150................$142