Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T05:28:39.677Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Economics of Industrial Slavery In the Old South

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2012

Robert S. Starobin
Robert S. Starobin
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor of History, University of Wisconsin, Madison
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The economics of slavery in the United States has long been a subject of great interest to historians, but the use of bondsmen in southern industries has been little studied. Professor Starobin not only provides new information on industrial slavery, but also offers important conclusions concerning the profitability, efficiency, and viability of this “peculiar institution.”

Type
Research Article
Information
Business History Review , Volume 44 , Issue 2 , Summer 1970 , pp. 131 - 174
Copyright
Copyright © The President and Fellows of Harvard College 1970

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Woodman, H. D., “The Profitability of Slavery,” Journal of Southern History, XXIX (1963), 303–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Engerman, S. L., “The Effects of Slavery Upon the Southern Economy,” Explorations in Entrepreneurial History,” second series, IV (1967), 71–97.Google Scholar

2 See Industrial Slavery in the Old South (New York, Oxford University Press, 1970), which is based on my doctoral dissertation of the same title, done at the University of California, Berkeley, in 1968. These works contain a full discussion of the use of slaves in southern industries, 1790–1861; working and living conditions; black resistance to bondage and work routines; means of control of slave workers; relations between black and white laborers; and the political relationship of slave-based industrialization to the coming of the Civil War.

3 This figure has been computed from tables on urban slave population in 1850 in Wade, Richard, Slavery in the Cities (New York, 1964), 30 and appendixGoogle Scholar; De Bow, J.D.B., Statistical View of the United States … Being a Compendium of the Seventh Census (Washington, 1850), 94Google Scholar, estimated that about 400,000 slaves lived in southern cities and towns in 1850, while Stampp, Kenneth, The Peculiar Institution (New York, 1956), 60Google Scholar, estimates that the total city, town, and non-agricultural slave population was about 500,000 in 1860. If two-thirds of the male population of towns and cities was engaged in industrial enterprises and occupations, then the 160,000 to 200,000, or 5 per cent, figure seems approximately correct for the years 1850 to 1860. See tables in my dissertation for some large slaveholdings by deep-South industries. For further estimates, see Sitterson, J. C., Sugar Country (Lexington, 1953)Google Scholar; Hopkins, J. F., A History of the Hemp Industry in Kentucky (Lexington, 1951)Google Scholar; Robert, J. C., Tobacco Kingdom (Durham, 1938)Google Scholar; Eaton, C., Growth of Southern Civilization (New York, 1961), 64–65, 134–35, 99–101, and ch. 10Google Scholar; Bruce, K., Virginia Iron Manufacture in the Slave Era (New York, 1930)Google Scholar; and Lebergott, S., “Labor Force and Employment, 1800–1860,” National Bureau of Economic Research, Output, Employment, and Productivity in the United States After 1800 (New York, 1966), XXX, 117–210.Google Scholar

4 Starobin, Industrial Slavery, ch. 1.

5 Stekler, H. O., Profitability and Size of Firm (Berkeley, 1963), ch. 1 and 2Google Scholar; Conrad, A. H. and Meyer, J. R., The Economics of Slavery (Chicago, 1964), ch. 3.Google Scholar

6 Phillips, U. B., “The Economic Cost of Slave-holding in the Cotton Belt,” Political Science Quarterly, XX (1905), 257–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Phillips, U. B., American Negro Slavery (New York, 1918), especially chs. 18 and 19Google Scholar; Ramsdell, C. W., “The Natural Limits of Slavery Expansion,” Mississippi Valley Historical Review, XVI (1929), 151–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Genovese, E. D., “The Significance of the Plantation for Southern Economic Development,” Journal of Southern History, XXVIII (1962), 422–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Genovese, E. D., The Political Economy of Slavery (New York, 1965)Google Scholar; North, D., The Economic Growth of the United States, 1790–1860 (Englewood Cliffs, 1961), esp. 132.Google Scholar Cf. Russel, R. R., “The General Effects of Slavery Upon Southern Economic Progress,” Journal of Southern History, IV (1938), 34–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and “The Effects of Slavery Upon Non-Slaveholders in the Ante-Bellum South,” Agricultural History, XV (1941), 112–26, and Economic Aspects of Southern Sectionalism (Urbana, 1924); Dowd, D., “A Comparative Analysis of Economic Development in the American West and South,” Journal of Economic History, XVI (1956), 558–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wade, Slavery in the Cities, esp. chs. 1 and 9, argues that slavery was dying in the largest southern cities and thus tends to lend weight to the old Ramsdell hypothesis.

Certain theoretical and methodological problems also should be noted. While the above questions are obviously interrelated, an affirmative answer to one of them does not necessarily imply an affirmative answer to the others. Much confusion has resulted from a failure to distinguish the differences between the questions. Precise analysis of the economics of industrial slavery is also difficult, since information on the sources of finance, the capital cost and maintenance of labor, and the profits of enterprise is scarce. Available statistics are unsatisfactory because not all businesses kept records and only a few fragmentary accounts have survived. Those that have do not necessarily constitute representative samples of non-agricultural enterprises, since most records pertain to large establishments, and it is not certain whether small industrial operators were as successful as large ones. Moreover, the data on costs of labor and rates of profit is often unclear because of the peculiarities of antebellum accounting and the difficulty of finding long-term statistical series. Company reports tended to underestimate expenses and to exaggerate earnings to promote southern enterprise, while official censuses were haphazardly taken and must be used cautiously. Prices varied, while business cycles caused fluctuating profit rates and frequent bankruptcies. Variables such as location, luck, competition, and caliber of management also make computations of the profitability of industrial slavery difficult for those slave-employing industries whose records survive.

7 D. Ross to J. Staples, Sept. 16, 1813, Ross Letterbook (Virginia Historical Society, hereafter cited as VHS); De Bow's Review, VI (1848), 295; Charleston Mercury, February 18, 1859; Tredegar Stockholders' Minutebook, reports for 1838–48, and Tredegar Corporate Holdings, 1866, 7–9 (Virginia State Library, hereafter cited as VSL).

8 Report of Court of Claims, #81, 34 C., 3 s., 1857, 62–64; L. McLane, Documents of Manufactures, House Doc. #308, 22 C., 1 s., 1832, 676–77; New Orleans Picayune, January 2, 1853.

9 Niles' Register, XXXIX (1830), 271–72; Olmsted, F. L., A Journey in the Seaboard Slave States (New York, 1861), 686–88Google Scholar; Report of the Secretary of the Treasury, House Exec. Doc. #6, 29 C., 1 s., 1845, 708–09, 748; Taylor, J. G., Slavery in Louisiana (Baton Rouge, 1963), 96–101Google Scholar; Sitterson, Sugar Country, 157–66, 178–84, 197, and passim.

10 J. E. Metts to J. R. Grist, December 5, 1858, Grist Papers (Duke University Library, hereafter cited as Duke); letters dated 1854–60, Williams Papers (University of North Carolina Library, hereafter cited as UNC); De Bow's Review, VII (1849), 560–62, and XI (1851), 303–05; Stephenson, W. H. (ed.), Isaac Franklin (Baton Rouge), 1938), 114, 177–80, 213–17Google Scholar; Harper's Monthly, XIII (1856), 451, and XIV (1857), 441; J. M. Cheney to E. Bellinger, February 16, 1855, Misc. Mss. (South Carolina Historical Society, hereafter cited as SCHC); C. H. Ambler (ed.), Correspondence of R.M.T. Hunter, AHA Annual Report (1916), 176–77.

11 Marshall, T. M. (ed.), Papers of Frederick Bates (St. Louis, 1926), I, 111–12, 244.Google Scholar For lead mining, see inventory of January 1, 1851, and Will of May 1, 1856, Desloge Papers (Missouri Historical Society, hereafter cited as MoHS); Report on Salt Springs, and Lead and Copper Mines, House Doc. #128, 18 C., 1 s., 1824, 20–22, 130–33; Report of Secretary of Treasury, House Exec. Doc. #6, 29, C., 1 s., 1845, 660, 664–65; and Mining Magazine, 1 (1853), 164–66. For gold mining, see 1828 memo and undated account sheets, Fisher Papers (UNC); High Shoal Gold Mine Records (UNC); letters of 1830–33 and account book, vol. X, 1843, Brown Papers (UNC); Expense Book of S. Burwell and J. Y. Taylor, 1832–39 (UNC); T. G. Clemson to J. C. Calhoun, January 23 and 24, 1843, and T. G. Clemson to P. Calhoun, October 12, 1856, Clemson Papers (Clemson University Library, hereafter cited as Clemson); Mining Magazine, XI (1858), 211, and XII (1859–60), 365–66; De Bow's Review, XII (1852), 542–43; American Farmer, series 1, XII (1830), 230; Hunt's Magazine, XXXI (1854), 517.

12 Telfair Account Books, 1794–1861, #s 90, 87, 88, 89, 152, 153, 155, and 156 (Georgia Historical Society, hereafter cited as GHS); Hart Gold Mine Company Accounts, 1855–57, Latimer Plantation Book (University of Georgia Library, hereafter cited as UG); Journal of James River Steamboat Company, 1833–49 (VSL); the Palfrey Account Books, 1842–61 (Louisiana State University Library, hereafter cited as LSU) reveal that Louisiana sugar plantations and mills earned substantial profits.

13 J. H. Couper Accounts, 1827–52 (University of North Carolina Library, hereafter cited as UNC); the financial statements and reports for Hopeton and Hamilton plantations, 1830's to 1843, 1849, and 1853–65, and J. H. Couper to F. P. Corbin, March 28, 1859, Corbin Papers (New York Public Library, hereafter cited as NYPL) permit the computation of Couper's profits from rice milling beyond the year 1852; Govan, T. P., “Was Plantation Slavery Profitable?” Journal of Southern History, VIII (1942), 513–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar, demonstrates the profitability of Couper's rice milling enterprise from 1827 to 1852.

14 Account Book, vol. IV, 1833–39, 1856–61, Manigault Papers (UNC); Govan, “Was Plantation Slavery Profitable?” 513–35, demonstrates the profitable returns on Manigault's rice milling investment. For the earnings of other rice mills, see J. B. Irving's Windsor and Kensington Plantations Record Books, 1840–52, and T. Pinckney's estate appraisals and account books, 1842–63 and 1827–64 (Charleston Library Society, hereafter cited as CLS).

15 Evans, R. Jr., “The Economics of American Negro Slavery,” Aspects of Labor Economics (Princeton, 1962), 217Google Scholar; Wall, B., “Ebenezer Pettigrew” (Ph.D. dissertation, University of North Carolina, 1946), 308.Google Scholar

16 See below on the use of women, children, and superannuates in southern industries; cf. Conrad and Meyer, The Economics of Slavery, ch. 3.

17 Stampp, Peculiar Institution, ch. 9, and Starobin, Industrial Slavery, chs. 2, 3, and 4, for a discussion of slave resistance and discipline. According to Fogel, R. W. and Engerman, S., The Reinterpretation of American Economic History (New York, 1968), part 7Google Scholar, the manuscript census schedules reveal that about one-half of the slave population was in the labor force—a figure which is close to, if not at, the maximum possible participation rate. Since 44 per cent of the slaves were children under fourteen years old and 4 per cent were adults over sixty, virtually every able-bodied adult slave and most teen-agers were compelled to work. The slave participation-rate in the labor force was, moreover, 60 per cent greater than that of white workers.

18 For the unreliability of white workers in the South, see Starobin, Industrial Slavery, ch. 4.

19 Genovese, Political Economy of Slavery, 226–27; for the politics of industrial slavery, see Starobin, Industrial Slavery, ch. 6.

20 Genovese, Political Economy of Slavery, 37 fn. 13.

21 For evidence on this point, see my dissertation, “Industrial Slavery,” ch. 5, fn. 20. The wages of white southern textile workers were somewhat lower.

22 See appendix on the cost of slave hiring in my dissertation;

23 Govan, “Was Plantation Slavery Profitable?” 513–35; Engerman, “The Effects of Slavery,” 71–79; Stampp, Peculiar Institution, ch. 9; and Starobin, “Industrial Slavery,” ch. 3.

24 Conrad and Meyer, The Economics of Slavery, ch. 3; Stampp, Peculiar Institution, ch. 9.

25 These prices are taken from the records of slave-employing industrial enterprises.

26 See table 4 on maintenance costs.

27 Ibid.

28 Ibid.

29 For white wages, see Starobin, “Industrial Slavery,” ch. 5, fn. 20.

30 Boarding bills for October and December 31, 1859, Treasurers' Papers: Internal Improvements: Cape Fear & Deep River Navigation Works (North Carolina Department of Archives and History, hereafter cited as NCA); Jackson Mississippian, May 4, 1849; Graham Cotton Mill Daybook and Inventory, 1837–41 (University of Kentucky Library, hereafter cited as UK); vol. XXVI, Hawkins Papers (UNC); account sheet, 1857–58, Jordan and Davis Papers (State Historical Society of Wisconsin, hereafter cited as WSHS). For further information on “integrated” companies, see Starobin, Industrial Slavery, ch. 4.

31 Norris, J., Frontier Iron (Madison, 1964), 40–41.Google Scholar

32 D. Myerle's testimony in Report of Court of Claims, #81, 34 C., 3 s., 1857; memorial of F. G. Hansford, et al., Virginia Board of Public Works Report, 1854, 403; Report of the Virginia and Tennessee Railroad, Virginia Board of Public Works Report, 1855; Buckingham, J. S., The Slave States (London, 1842), I, 264–65 and II, 112–13Google Scholar; De Bow's Review, XI (1851), 319–20; Lander, E. M., “Slave Labor in South Carolina Cotton Mills,” Journal of Negro History, XXXVIII (1953), 170–71.Google Scholar

33 Rolls of Labor, 1831–32, and Memorandum of Work, 1831, Baldwin Papers and Selekman Notes (Baker Library, Harvard University Graduate School of Business Administration, hereafter cited as Baker). However, the daily rent of slave common laborers averaged about 72 cents, while the daily wages of white common laborers averaged $1.01. Therefore, savings came in the cost of the more skilled hammerers, where slaves were cheaper than whites.

34 Cost of Hands for 1858, 1859, and undated, loose inserts in Jemison and Sloan Company contract account book, 1856–59, Jemison Papers (University of Alabama Library, hereafter cited as UA); Daybook and Inventory, 1837–41, Ledger and Inventory Book, 1832–45, Factory Time Book, 1847–52, Ledger, 1846–47, and Account Book, 1847–50, Graham Cotton Mill Papers (UK); Wages Ledger, 1856–61, Daybook, 1856–59, and G. Woolley to W. Peck & Sons, June 2, 1861, Lettercopybook, Woolley Papers (UK). However, the Woolley Papers reveal that common slave weavers cost almost as much to hire and to maintain as common white weavers. Again, savings came with skilled labor, where slaves were cheaper than whites.

35 Dew, C., Ironmaker to the Confederacy (New Haven, 1966), 18–20Google Scholar, 29–32, tables, and notes for prices of Tredegar iron products; J. R. Anderson to H. Row, January 3, 1848, Tredegar Letterbook (VSL).

36 J. McRae to J. Gadsden, November 4, 1849, McRae Lettercopybooks (WSHS).

37 This report is particularly valuable since it was based on detailed accounts and considerable experience with both slave and free labor, De Bow's Review, XIX (1855), 193–195.

38 For the cost of slave hiring and white wage rates, see my dissertation, “Industrial Slavery,” appendices, and ch. 5, fn. 20. In addition, Mills, R., Statistics of South Carolina (Charleston, 1826), 427–28Google Scholar, calculated that in Charleston in 1826 black common laborers cost half as much as whites; skilled blacks averaged 82¾ cents per day, while skilled whites averaged $1.37½.

39 Dew, Ironmaker to the Confederacy, 32; North, Economic Growth, passim.

40 See works cited above in fn. 1 and 6.

41 See De Bow's Review, 1846 to 1862, for such programs.

42 See Starobin, Industrial Slavery, fn. 42–48.

43 J. E. Colhoun Commonplace Book (Clemson); De Bow, J. D. B., Industrial Resources (New Orleans, 1853), II, 178.Google Scholar

44 See, for example, Graham Cotton Mill Papers (UK); Woolley Papers (UK); and King Papers (Georgia Department of Archives and History, hereafter cited as GA).

45 Jackson Mississippian, March 19, 1845; cf. De Bow's Review, XXV (1858), 114.

46 Southern Agriculturist, VI (1833), 587; De Bow's Review, XVIII (1855), 350–51; cf. Northrup, Narrative, 155–56; K. W. Skinner to C. Manigault, February 8, 1852, Manigault Papers (Duke).

47 Jackson Mississippian, March 19, 1845; De Bow's Review, XI (1851), 319–20, and XXII (1857), 394, 397; Richmond Enquirer, October 7, 1827; Southern Agriculturist, VII (1834), 582, and IV (1831), 368; New Orleans Picayune, October 16, 1858.

48 Fogel and Engerman, Reinterpretation, part 7.

49 See appendix on the cost of management in my dissertation, “Industrial Slavery.”

50 Moore, J. H., “Simon Gray,” Mississippi Valley Historical Review, XLIX (1962), 472–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

51 Account Books, 1794–1863, Telfair Papers (GHS); Northrup, Narrative, 89–99.

52 Rogers, G., Memoranda of Travels (Cincinnati, 1845), 196, 310Google Scholar; D. B. McLaurin to W. H. Richardson, April 19 and January 27, 1855, and pass dated April 20, 1855, Richardson Papers (Duke); M. Bryan to W. W. Davis, June 30, 1846, Jordan and Davis Papers (WSHS).

53 Vols. 39, 44, 17, 30, 45, and 46, Hawkins Papers (UNC).

54 Kemble, F., Journal (New York, 1961), 113, 116–17Google Scholar, 168, 176, and 187–88; C. C. Jones to Sandy, August 15, 1853, and C. C. Jones to T. J. Shepard, March 30, 1850, Jones Papers (Tulane University Library, hereafter cited as Tulane); Cook, H. T., David R. Williams (New York, 1916), 140Google Scholar; Mordecai, J. B., A Brief History of the Richmond, Fredericksburg and Potomac Railroad (Richmond, 1941), 17Google Scholar; Richmond Times-Dispatch, January 31, 1943 (VHS); Sydnor, C., Slavery in Mississippi (New York, 1933), 7Google Scholar; Farmers' Register, V (1837), 315; Dukede la Rochefoucault-Liancourt, , Travels Through the United States (London, 1799), III, 122–23.Google Scholar

55 R. Jemison, Jr., Letterbooks, 1844–54 (UA); cf. Olmsted, Seaboard Slave States, 553.

56 For further information and sources on slave managers in industry, see my dissertation, “Industrial Slavery,” ch. 3 and 5, fn. 64.

57 See earlier discussion on the costs of slave ownership.

58 Lander, E. M. (ed.), “Two Letters by William Mayrant on His Cotton Factory, 1815,” South Carolina Historical Magazine, LIV (1953), 3–4Google Scholar; American Farmer, series 1, IX (October 12, 1827), 235–314; Lander, E. M., “Development of Textiles in South Carolina Piedmont,” Cotton History Review, I (1960), 92Google Scholar; Jackson Mississippian, December 4, 1844; Charleston Courier, February 19, 1845. Another industry which often used white managers was sugar milling.

59 Report upon … the N.C. Gold Mining Co., September 5, 1832, Fisher Papers (UNC); Richmond Enquirer, March 23, 1839, and January 9, 1840; B. Broomhead to B. Smith, September 7, 1857, Smith Papers (Duke); Olmsted, Seaboard Slave States, 47–48; Harper's Monthly, XV (1857), 297; De Bow's Review, VII (1849), 546–47, and XXIX (1860), 378; S. Ashmore to C. Thomas, March 26, 1860, Silver Hill Mining Company Papers (NCA).

60 Pendleton, N., “Short Account, 1796,” Georgia Historical Quarterly, XLI (1957)Google Scholar; J. Baker to S. Plaisted, November 23, 1839, Plaisted Papers (LSU); Mies' Register, XLVII (1834), 55; account book, 1812–17, Telfair Papers (GHS); entry for June 6, 1857, D. C. Barrow Diaries (UG); C. L. Benson to M. Grist, October 1, 1855, Grist Papers (Duke).

61 Latrobe Papers (Tulane); Baldwin Papers (Baker); Brown, C. K., A State Movement in Railroad Development (Chapel Hill, 1928), 12Google Scholar; Heath, M. S., Constructive Liberalism (Cambridge, 1954), 241, 261CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Goodrich, C., Government Promotion of American Canals and Railroads (New York, 1960), 98Google Scholar; De Bow's Review, XXVII (1859), 725.

62 J. M. Taylor to F. H. Elmore, June 25, 1840, and agreements of September 30 and October 5, 1837, Elmore Papers (Library of Congress, hereafter cited as LC); Richmond Enquirer, June 3, 1851; Jordan, Davis & Co. to W. Weaver, November 24, 1830, W. Ross to W. Weaver, November 27, 1831, and G. P. Taylor to W. Weaver, October 7, 1831 and May 2, 1832, Weaver Papers (Duke); W. Rex to W. Weaver, January 8, 1859, Weaver Papers (University of Virginia Library, hereafter cited as UV).

63 Steadman, E., Brief Treatise on Manufacturing in the South (Clarksville, Tenn., 1851), 108Google Scholar; Columbia South Carolinian, December 18, 1844; De Bow's Review, XXVI (1859), 95–96.

64 De Bow's Review, XIV (1853), 622–23.

65 Report of the Upper Appomattox Company, Virginia Board of Public Works Report, 1822, 33.

66 Richmond Dispatch, December 9, 1853, for example.

67 T. J. Green to the Executive Committee of the Southern Pacific R.R. Co., October 14, 1856, Green Papers (UNC).

68 J. R. Anderson to H. Row, January 3, 1848, Tredegar Letterbook (VSL). However, employing slave labor could not solve Tredegar's problems of competing entirely, since American labor and transportation were costly and Virginia coal and iron were of a low quality. Tredegar's “most glaring weakness” lay not in its use of slave labor, according to Dew, Ironmaker to the Confederacy, 32, but in its “pitifully inadequate raw materials base” and in the southern transportation system.

69 See earlier discussion on the efficiency of slave labor and Starobin, Industrial Slavery, ch. 4 for further information on Tredegar. For sources on the use of white managers at other industrial enterprises, see my dissertation, “Industrial Slavery,” ch. 5, fn. 66 and 67.

70 Phillips, , “The Economic Cost of Slaveholding,” Political Science Quarterly, XX (1905), 257–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Phillips, , A History of Transportation (New York, 1908), 388–89Google Scholar; Linden, F., “Repercussions of Manufacturing in the Ante-Bellum South,” North Carolina Historical Review, XVIII (1940), 328.Google Scholar

71 As a source of industrial capital, the money derived from mercantile activity – mentioned in Atherton, L., The Southern Country Store (Baton Rouge, 1949), ch. 6Google Scholar, 194, 204 – seems less important than agricultural-based accumulation.

72 Standard, D. and Griffin, R., “Textiles in North Carolina,” North Carolina Historical Review, XXXIV (1957), 15–16Google Scholar; Coulter, E., “Scull Shoals,” Georgia Historical Quarterly, XXVIII (1964), 41–43Google Scholar; G. A. Henry to wife, December 3 and November 28, 1846, Henry Papers (UNC); Spinning Book, 1806–7, Taylor Papers (VHS); E. Carrington to A. Hamilton, October 4, 1791, Cole, A. H. (ed.), Correspondence of Alexander Hamilton (Chicago, 1928), 94, 145Google Scholar; Abdy, E. G., Journal of a Residence (London, 1935), II, 349.Google Scholar

73 Bill, May 9, 1829, account sheet, May 14, 1831, and J. N. Williams to J. Chesnut, May 17, 1831, Chesnut-Miller-Manning Papers (SCHS); same to same, ca. October, 1831, Chesnut Papers (WSHS); account sheets, 1829, 1830, June 19, 1830, and February 14, 1835, Williams Papers (South Caroliniana Library, Columbia, hereafter cited as USC).

74 Various financial documents, Elmore Papers (LC and USC); account sheet, ca. 1840, P. M. Butler Papers (USC).

75 M. Austin, Description of the Lead Mines, 1804, American State Papers: Public Lands, I, 207; various letters between T. G. Clemson and J. C. Calhoun, 1842–43, Calhoun and Clemson Papers (USC and Clemson); American Farmer, series 4, IV (1849), 252.

76 American Railroad Journal, XXVIII (1855), 577.

77 For further information on the financing of southern transportation enterprises, see De Bow's Review, American Railroad Journal, Western Journal and Civilian, and the reports of boards of internal improvements and public works of the various slave states.

78 American Railroad Journal, XXIII (1850), 9.

79 For information on the public capitalization of southern internal improvements and the ratio of public to private investment, see Goodrich, C., “The Virginia System of Mixed Enterprise,” Political Science Quarterly, LXIV (1949), 366–69Google Scholar and tables; Goodrich, Government Promotion of American Canals and Railroads, passim; Taylor, G. R., Transportation Revolution (New York, 1951)Google Scholar, passim; Heath, Constructive Liberalism, 287–89; Smith, A. G., Economic Readjustment of an Old Cotton State (Columbia, 1958); 179–83Google Scholar; Million, J. W., State Aid to Railways in Missouri (Chicago, 1896), 232–36Google Scholar; Jennings, D., “The Pacific Railroad Company,” Missouri Historical Society Collections, VI (1931), 309Google Scholar; Allen, T. W., “The Turnpike System in Kentucky,” Filson Club History Quarterly, XXVIII (1954); 248–58 noteGoogle Scholar; Boyd, C. B. Jr., “Local Aid to Railroads in Central Kentucky,” Kentucky Historical Society Register, LXII (1964), 9–16Google Scholar; Folmsbee, S. J., Sectionalism and Internal Improvements in Tennessee (Knoxville, 1939), 28, 122, 135, 265Google Scholar; Reed, S. G., A History of Texas Railroads (Houston, 1941), passimGoogle Scholar; Reed, M. E., “Government Investment and Economic Growth: Louisiana's Ante-Bellum Railroads,” Journal of Southern History, XXVIII (1962), 184, 189Google Scholar; and railroad reports in De Bow's Review, XXVI (1859), 458–60, and XXVIII (1860), 473–77; American Railroad Journal, XXVIII (1855), 771; and the Western Journal and Civilian, XIV (1855), 292. Taylor, Transportation Revolution, 92, estimates that in 1860 about 55 per cent of the investment in railroads in the eleven Confederate states came from state and local authorities. This accounts for neither private investment in internal improvements other than railroads, nor investment generally in such states as Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri.

80 For federal funding of southern enterprises, see Goodrich, Government Promotion, 156–62; Taylor, Transportation Revolution, 49–50, 95–96, 67–68; Reed, “Government Investment … Louisiana's Railroads,” 184, 189.

81 For foreign funding of southern enterprises, see Kemble, Journal, 104–22; Hidy, R., House of Baring (Cambridge, 1949), 281, 330, 336Google Scholar; Ratchford, B., American State Debts (Durham, 1941), ch. 5Google Scholar; McGrane, R., Foreign Bondholders and State Debts (New York, 1935), 89, and ch. 9–13Google Scholar; Niles' Register, XXIX (1825), 178; XL (1831), 270; and XLII (1832), 91; Governor's Message, Milledgeville Federal Union, November 6, 1849, and December 2, 1845; Barclay, Ducktown, passim; correspondence for 1845–48, and 1855–61, Gorrell Papers (UNC); Green, F., “Gold Mining, Virginia,” Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, XLV (1937), 357–65Google Scholar; Green, F., “Gold Mining, Georgia,” Georgia Historical Quarterly, XIX (1935), 224–25Google Scholar; American Journal of Science, LVII (1849), 295–99.

82 Taylor, Transportation Revolution, 97–102, and passim.

83 Financial documents and letters, Elmore Papers (LC and USC), and P. M. Butler Papers (USC).

84 W. P. Browne to G. Baker, January 30 and 31, 1857, Browne Papers (Alabama Department of Archives and History, hereafter cited AA).

85 Reports of Upper Appomattox Company, Virginia Board of Public Works Reports, 1816, ii, and 1835, 42; Reports of Roanoke Navigation Company, Virginia Board of Public Works Reports, 1823, 69, 1838, 98, 100, 1839, 125, and 1854, 478–88.

86 Report of Slate River Company, Virginia Board of Public Works Report, January 24, 1828, 23; American Railroad Journal, 5 (1836), 817; Andreassen, J., “Internal Improvements in Louisiana,” Louisiana Historical Quarterly, XXX (1947), 46–47.Google Scholar

87 A. C. Caruthers to W. B. Campbell, January 28, 1838, Campbell Papers (Duke), for the entire scheme.

88 Smith, Economic Readjustment of an Old Cotton State, 115–34; Woolfolk, G. R., “Planter Capitalism and Slavery: the Labor Thesis,” Journal of Negro History, XLI (1956), 103–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

89 Genovese, Political Economy of Slavery, 20, 24–25, 34, 37, fn. 13, 159–72, 185, 276–77; North, Economic Growth, 126, 130, 132, 166, 170, 172–76, 205–06.

90 Genovese, Political Economy of Slavery, passim; North, Economic Growth, passim. For further discussion of southern income distribution, see Engerman, “Effects of Slavery,” 71–97; Owsley, F. L., Plain Folk of the Old South (Baton Rouge, 1949), passimGoogle Scholar; Linden, F., “Economic Democracy in the Slave South'” Journal of Negro History, XXXI (1946), 140–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

91 However uneven income distribution was within the South, recent comparisons of regional and national wealth for 1840 and 1860 suggest that southern income levels and rates of growth compared favorably with those of the free states. See Engerman, “Effects of Slavery,” 71–97, especially fn. 35, and Easterlin, R., “Regional Income Trends, 1840–1950,” in Harris, S. (ed.), American Economic History (New York, 1961), 525–47.Google Scholar If one revises upward the maintenance cost of slaves (as Genovese, Political Economy of Slavery, 275–80, has done, and as I have also done above), then the size of the southern market and the demand for manufactured goods also increases.

92 Dew, Ironmaker to the Confederacy, 32; North, Economic Growth, 122–26; Genovese, Political Economy of Slavery, 159–65; Miller, W., “A Note on the Importance of the Interstate Slave Trade of the Ante-Bellum South,” Journal of Political Economy, LXXIII (1965), 181–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

93 Taylor, Transportation Revolution, chs. 1 and 10; Griffin, R., “Origins of Southern Cotton Manufacture, 1807–1816,” Cotton History Review, I (1960), 5–12Google Scholar; Griffin, R., “South Carolina Homespun Company,” Business History Review, XXXV (1961), 402–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Starobin, “Industrial Slavery,” ch. 1 and tables.

94 Taylor, Transportation Revolution, chs. 1 and 10; Eaton, Southern Civilization, chs. 9 and 10; Stampp, Peculiar Institution, 398–99.

95 Genovese, Political Economy of Slavery, 165–66.

96 Stampp, Peculiar Institution, 397. Though limited markets restricted southern industrialization, the extent of this phenomenon should not be exaggerated. Plantation self-sufficiency, slow urbanization, and other market factors did not restrict consumption entirely. Recent studies have also shown that plantation and slave consumption were higher than once thought, and that some southern businessmen found substantial markets outside of the slave states. See Genovese, Political Economy of Slavery, 25, 159–62, 170, 185, and 276–77; and North, Economic Growth, 130.