Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T05:19:14.700Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evidence on the Use of Oxen in the Postbellum South

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 January 2016

Martin A. Garrett Jr.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Given the importance of draft animals—horses, mules, and oxen—in the development of the American economy, it is surprising how little attention has been paid to their contribution. Moreover, this is not, in most cases, attributable to a lack of empirical evidence; the vast majority of the work on draft animals to date is found in oral history and folklore literature. While this literature delighted in presenting the sentiments and personal stories of a few rather than attempting to provide a broader perspective, it does provide valuable historical information. Not surprisingly, however, the sentiments of a few, perhaps sometimes embellished, occasionally led to conclusions that are not consistent with predictions. For example, recent evidence supports the superiority of mules over horses and oxen in southern agricultural production, which refutes the notion that southerners used the mule for cultural reasons (Garrett 1990; Kauffman 1993). As Rockoff (1991: 243) states, “One of the main functions of the economic historian, from the point of view of economics, is to examine the foundation of these myths.”

Type
Research Article
Information
Social Science History , Volume 22 , Issue 2 , Summer 1998 , pp. 225 - 249
Copyright
Copyright © Social Science History Association 1998 

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.)

Footnotes

Martin A. Garrett, Jr., is professor of economics at the College of William and Mary. His current areas of research include an empirical analysis of the efficiency of sharecropping and a book-length manuscript on the development of the South from 1790 to 1990. Recent publications include “Urban Regeneration Using Local Resources: Cost-Benefit Analysis,” Journal of Urban Planning and Development 121, no. 4 (Dec. 1995): 146–57; “The Mule in Southern Agriculture: A Requiem,” Journal of Economic History 50, no. 4 (Dec. 1990): 925–29; and Land Use Regulation: The Impact of Alternative Land Use Rights (New York: Praeger, 1987).

Garrett is deeply indebted to Carl Moody for econometric assistance and to Zhenhui Xu for comments throughout this work. In addition, two referees made substantial improvements to the content of this article. The responsibility for any errors rests, of course, with the author.

References

Ayers, E. (1992) The Promise of the New South. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bradley, M. (1993) The Missouri Mule: His Origin and Times. 2 vols. Columbia: Curators of the University of Missouri.Google Scholar
Broehl, W. (1984) John Deere’s Company: A History of Deere and Company and Its Times. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
Caudill, H. M. (1962) Night Comes to the Cumberlands. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Chivers, K. (1979) The Shire Horse. London: J. A. Allen.Google Scholar
Clark, T. D. (1981) “Kentucky logman.” Journal of Forest History 25: 144–57.Google Scholar
Clark, T. D. (1984) The Greening of the South. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky.Google Scholar
Danhof, C. (1969) Change in Agriculture: The Northern United States, 1820–1870. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Dethloff, H. (1988) A History of the American Rice Industry, 1685–1985. College Station: Texas A&M University Press.Google Scholar
Easterby, J. (ed.) (1945) The South Carolina Rice Plantation: As Revealed in the Papers of Robert F. W. Allston. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Garrett, M. (1990) “The mule in southern agriculture.” Journal of Economic History 4: 925–30.Google Scholar
Genovese, E. (1963) The Political Economy of Slavery: Studies in the Economy and Society of the Slave South. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
Ginn, M. K. (1940) “A history of rice production in Louisiana to 1896.” Louisiana Historical Quarterly 23 (April): 544–88.Google Scholar
Gray, L. (1958) History of Agriculture in the Southern United States to 1860. 2 vols. Gloucester: Peter Smith.Google Scholar
Gregg, J. (1954) Commerce of the Prairies. Ed. M. Moorehead. London: Holborn Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Hammond, M. (1870) “Draft labor.” Rural Carolinian 1: 35–38.Google Scholar
Hickman, N. (1952) “Logging and rafting timber in south Mississippi, 1840–1910.” Journal of Mississippi History 19:154–72.Google Scholar
Jacobs, D. (1987) “Oxen: Better than a tractor.” American Forests 93: 70.Google Scholar
Kauffman, K. (1993) “Why was the mule used in southern agriculture?: Empirical evidence of principle-agent solutions.” Explorations in Economic History 30, no. 3: 336–51.Google Scholar
Kauffman, K., and Liebowitz, J. (1997) “Draft animals on the United States frontier.” Overland Journal 15, no. 2:13–26.Google Scholar
Kirby, J. (1987) Rural Worlds Lost: The American South, 1920–1960. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press.Google Scholar
Lamb, R. (1963) The Mule in Southern Agriculture. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Liebowitz, J. (1992) “The persistence of draft oxen in Western agriculture.” Material History Review 36: 29–37.Google Scholar
Montell, W. (1988) Don’t Go Up Kettle Creek: Verbal Legacy of the Upper Cumberland. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press.Google Scholar
Montell, W. (1993) Upper Cumberland Country. Jackson: University Press of Mississippi.Google Scholar
Morrison, F. (1945) Feeds and Feeding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rasmussen, W. (ed.) (1975) Agriculture in the United States: A Documentary History. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
“Relative expenses of animal labor” (1836) New England Farmer 14, no. 8: 60.Google Scholar
Renner, G (1980) “The mule in southern agriculture, 1821–1950.” Missouri Historical Review 74: 442–51.Google Scholar
Rockoff, H. (1991) “History and economics.” Social Science History 15: 239–64.Google Scholar
Sargent, C. (1884) Report on the Forests of North America. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Southern Planter (1886) (April): 172.Google Scholar
Steers, H. (1948) Lumber Production in the United States: 1799–1946. U.S. Department of Agriculture Miscellaneous Publication no. 669 (October), Table 4,11–19.Google Scholar
Thornbury, W. (1965) Regional Geomorphology of the United States. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
U.S. Bureau of the Census (1860a) Census of Manufactures. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
U.S. Bureau of the Census (1860b) The Eighth Census, Agriculture of the United States. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
U.S. Bureau of the Census (1890a) Census of Manufactures. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
U.S. Bureau of the Census (1890b) The Eleventh Census, Statistics of Agriculture. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture (1951) Agricultural Statistics. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Warder, J. (1864) “Mule Raising,” in U.S. Patent Office, Report of the Commissioner of Agriculture for the Year 1863, 38th Cong., 1st sess., H. Ex. Doc. 91, serial no. 1196. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Welsch, J. (1988) “Defending oxen: A reassessment of their role in American agriculture,” in Exploring Our Livestock Heritage: Proceedings of the 1988 Annual Meeting of the American Livestock Breeds Conservancy. Pittsboro, NC: The Conservancy: 26–40.Google Scholar
Williams, M. (1989) Americans and Their Forests: A Historical Geography. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar