Could the South be a Breadbasket?

It's not a great way to judge production,
it occurs to me that it might be the only way we have to judge it. A better way would be to know just how many acres in each section was devoted to corn and how many people were directly involved in growing corn, but I'd bet that kind of info for 1860 isn't available.
 
Regardless of that, however, we know the South held both an absolute and competitive advantage over the North in terms of production.
Despite your ongoing insistence, that has NOT been established whatsoever. Population numbers are only a small part of the equation. What matters is the number of workers who are devoted to that production, and the land use. Which none of your numbers have established, and which almost certainly don't exist.
 
Despite your ongoing insistence, that has NOT been established whatsoever. Population numbers are only a small part of the equation. What matters is the number of workers who are devoted to that production, and the land use. Which none of your numbers have established, and which almost certainly don't exist.

I have already established this, there is no insistence or question about it. Explaining the Relative Efficiency of Slave Agriculture in the Antebellum South quite clearly lays out that Southern agriculture, whether Slave or Free, was more productive than Northern agriculture.
 
I have already established this, there is no insistence or question about it. Explaining the Relative Efficiency of Slave Agriculture in the Antebellum South quite clearly lays out that Southern agriculture, whether Slave or Free, was more productive than Northern agriculture.
Except your vaunted source DOESN’T establish this, at least what you’ve quoted doesn’t. It harped on about total population comparisons, but total population is irrelevant to the question.
 
Come on now. I didn't say that, and that is clear. You were citing data from a specific year, which is 1860, and you are citing data about a specific crop, corn.

There is is no other way to interpret this:

Like I said, the amount of corn that was grown in 1860 is really immaterial to the discussion.

This thread is not about the amount of corn grown in 1860. It is about whether the South would act as the [or a] nation's breadbasket. Corn in 1860 doesn't tell the whole story. Corn production in 1860 doesn't even tell the whole story of grain production in 1860.

Because all of that is irrelevant. Your entire argument rests on the basis that, because the South didn't grow, say, buckwheat, it couldn't be a breadbasket despite the fact it produced the most corn and that corn was the leading crop in the nation by cultivation by a factor of two. Further, the definition of a breadbasket is a a major cereal-producing region. Corn is a cereal crop, the South produced the most of it in the nation, and, expanding past the bounds of the definition, it was in a prime position to export lots of it given its low population. By all objective metrics the South was a breadbasket and this cannot be dsiputed.

Since there are many cereal crops and North America did not, in fact, sink into the Pacific in 1862, its important to look at the question more broadly.

When I hear something referred to as a place's breadbasket, what comes to mind is that place's chief grain producing region. Maybe Wikipedia disagrees, but I think that's a pretty common understanding of the term.

So if I'm asking if region X could be the breadbasket of polity Y, then my main questions are going to be "can X produce grain," "is grain the most profitable thing for them to produce," and "is there another region in polity Y other than X which is more suited to growing grain?"

Herein lies the issue of your argument. You're attempting to say it's more rational for the South to produce Cotton than it is grains because of rate of returns; no one disputes that. What has been established, however, is that the realities on the ground was that the South could and did do both.

Who is we? When was this established? I have seen some data that showed that the South grew more corn in terms of bushels than other regions of the country in 1860, but it has never been the best place to grow it. In 1860, the land west of the Mississippi--where some of the world's best land for growing grain of all kinds is located--was sparsely settled. The South wasn't, and it was much bigger than the states of the Old Northwest, which is really the breadbasket area that exists east of the Mississippi.

Again, this is false; the South was the breadbasket area East of the Mississippi.


Haha. I feel like I'm in a debate with Phaedrus.

That is not remotely what my logic says. My logic says that bread is made from many kinds of grain, and therefore if I want to determine where breadbaskets might appear, I should take a survey of cereal crops in general and look at where they have the best environment in which to grow, and where the incentives for growers to grow them are the strongest. Just picking one grain and seeing who grew the most of it in a random year doesn't answer answer the question.

That's why I've done the citations to establish this was the case in the Antebellum South.

This article? https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/63579/explainingrelati00davi.pdf?sequence=1

That article only mentions the word corn three times. One is in the bibliography and the other is in a graph, and the third is in the introduction to the graph.


The wider review looked at productivity and find the South was superior to the North. They then lay out how they came to this by explaining away possible reasons that could distort their findings.

That was certainly a cause of his. But that doesn't mean that everyone read "an Essay on Calcereous Manures" and that was that.

Nor was that the point. That soil improvements were needed in the South was well understood and an established thing.

What is "the mass?"

Academic literature.

Don't comment on my state of mind. There've been many times when I could interpret your comments as cherry picking, setting up straw men, or throwing out red herrings.

But I want to give you the benefit of the doubt and not start a flame war.

Where did I comment on your state of mind?

Also, where do you think North Carolina is?

Hint: It ain't the Deep South.

Also: It rhymes with "supper mouth."

TIL North Carolina is the only Upper South state.
 
Except your vaunted source DOESN’T establish this, at least what you’ve quoted doesn’t. It harped on about total population comparisons, but total population is irrelevant to the question.

Except it does. I think you're confusing it with The Pre-Civil War South's Leading Crop, Corn.

In 1968 we undertook to measure and explain the relative technical efficiency of input utilization in the agricultural sectors of the North and South in 1860. The prin- cipal instrument that we employed for this task was the geometric index of the relative total factor productivity, which is defined by equation (1) (symbols are defined in Table 1):

(1) GIG ~ Q ________Q ___ (Ln /L= )'L(K )cK (L / Tn) T

This index' was originally computed from published census data and the results were reported in 1971, both with and with- out adjustments for differences in the qual- ity of outputs and inputs. The ratio of G,/G, yielded by the unadjusted computa- tion was 109.2.2 Crude adjustments for differences between the weights of northern and southern livestock, for land quality, for the proportion of women and children in the labor force, and for other factors, did not reduce this ratio as we thought they would, but increased it to 138.9.3

All differences between the northern and southern indexes of total factor productivity are, in a certain sense, errors of measurement. If output was correctly measured, and if all the inputs and conditions of production were fully specified and correctly measured, the ratio GI/G, would be equal to 100. To explain why GI/Gn deviates from 100, then, is a process of accounting for such errors of measurement as omitted inputs, failure to adjust for differences in the quality of inputs, neglect of economies of scale or of improvements in the organization of production, omitted outputs, disequilibrium in markets, and differences in product mixes.

In order to measure the effect of slavery on the process of production, it is therefore necessary to distinguish those mismeasurements that represent specific features of the slave system from those that are due merely to imperfections in the data, imperfections in methods of aggregation, or other mismeasurements that have no particular bearing on the operation of the slave system. In other words, we wish to obtain a residual measure of efficiency limited exclusively to measurement errors called "specific features of slavery." We then have the further task of identifying which specific features of slavery account for what parts of the aggregate value of the residual.

In our 1971 paper we stressed that a higher productivity index for the South than for the North did not necessarily imply that the southern advantage was due to special features of the slave system. We thought it was possible that slave-using plantations were less efficient than those using free labor, but that for some still un- disclosed reason free southern farms were extraordinarily efficient. The high value of the southern productivity index would then be the consequence of averaging over a high index for free farms and a low index for slave plantations. Another possibility was that both slave and free farms that engaged in diversified agriculture were about as efficient as free farms in the North but plantations specializing in the export staples were highly efficient. In that case the rela- tive productivity of the South might be due not to slavery per se, but merely to an unusually favorable market situation in 1860 for those export staples that happened to be produced by slave labor.

While we did not at that time rule out these alternatives, evidence in the 1860 Census indicated that the large slave plantations produced not only more cotton per capita but also more food per capita than small free farms in the South. It therefore seemed likely that the relative efficiency of southern agriculture was probably related to certain special features of the slave system. We conjectured that two features of slavery were particularly important. The first is that labor, and perhaps other inputs, were employed more intensively under the system of slavery than under the system of farming with free labor. There is much testimony for the proposition that slaves worked more days per year and, perhaps, more hours per day than free farmers. Since our efficiency indexes measured the labor input not in man-hours but in man-years, the more intensive utilization of labor shows up not as greater labor input but as a higher level of productivity. In 1971 we were inclined to believe that our failure to take account of the greater number of hours worked per year by slaves than by free men explained all, or nearly all, of our index of the superior efficiency of slavery. We also considered the much-debated possibility that there were economies of scale in the slave sector of agriculture. Even scholars who thought that slave labor was less efficient than free labor had suggested that the lower quality of labor might have been offset by the superior entrepreneurship associated with large-scale plantations.

To test these hypotheses we launched a search for additional data. A sample of 5,700 estates containing information on the price, age, sex, skills, and handicaps of slaves was retrieved from the probate records of southern courts. Southern archives yielded a sample of the business records of roughly 100 large plantations containing either detailed information on the organization of production, including the daily activities of each slave in the labor force, or demographic information needed to adjust the labor input of women.5 The data in these sources, combined with the data in the Parker-Gallman sample of over 5,000 southern farms listed in the manuscript schedules of the 1860 Census,6 made it possible to refine the input and output measures of G, The net effect of these refinements was to reduce Gs /Gn to 134.7.7 The new data also permitted the computation of total factor productivity indexes by farm size and subregion. Tables 2 and 3 show that the superior efficiency of southern agriculture was not due primarily to the high performance of the free farms of the South. Free farms of the Old South fell be- low the efficiency of northern farms by 2 percent, while free farms in the New South exceeded the efficiency of northern farms by 13 percent. Thus only 4 percent of the efficiency advantage of southern over northern agriculture was due to the superior performance of the free sector. Slave farms accounted for 96 percent of the southern advantage.

Table 3 shows that within each region efficiency increased with farm size, except that in the New South the efficiency index is higher for medium than for large plantations. While we considered the possibility that in the West this intermediate category of slave plantations was actually more efficient than large plantations, we believed that the reversal was probably due to measurement errors. One was a failure to adjust adequately for the locational component of land values, which might have accounted for a much larger share of total land value on slave plantations with 51 or more slaves, especially in the New South, than on slave plantations in the 16 -50 category. Another was the inadequacy of our adjustment for omitted products. Large slave farms, especially in the West, probably engaged much more heavily in home manufacture than did small ones. Large slave farms also appear to have devoted a larger share of the labor force to domestic services than did small plantations. We did not think that when these adjustments were made the entire differential in efficiency between the Old and New South would disappear. The continuous flow of labor from the Old South to the New South suggests that the long-run equilibrium between the two regions had not been attained by 1860. Hence one would expect to find some efficiency advantage in the newer area.
 
I have already established this, there is no insistence or question about it. Explaining the Relative Efficiency of Slave Agriculture in the Antebellum South quite clearly lays out that Southern agriculture, whether Slave or Free, was more productive than Northern agriculture.
one book I have claims that there was a difference between slave and free agricultural labor, but the only example they give is hog weights, which were much lower on plantations than on free farms. The book also notes that there is a difference on the size of the farms/number of slaves as well... the big plantations allowed slaves the opportunity to shirk feeding/weeding duties (can't say I blame them), whereas those farms where the owner had just a few slaves, the owner worked right alongside of them, so they tended to be as efficient as free labor farms...
 
Except it does. I think you're confusing it with The Pre-Civil War South's Leading Crop, Corn.

That's not what that says.

It says that pre-War that free farms in the south were less efficient than those in the north, by 2%. Slave farms were moreso, but this was probably because the people who did the study didn't account for man-hours but for man-years (i.e. the owners forced the slaves to work longer hours and more days than free farmers would do), which they state when explaining methodology. It should also be noted that their comparison to the "New South" is also noteworthy since technically all farms after the war qualified (unless the author is using a different definition of New South than the normal meaning*), which means those farms were often worked by sharecroppers.

*I guess its possible they are using the term "New South" to mean the south Atlantic states, but that doesn't make sense as the New South is the exact same thing as the Old South in that case, only with Florida added.
 
That's not what that says.

It says that pre-War that free farms in the south were less efficient than those in the north, by 2%.

You misread:

"Free farms of the Old South fell be- low the efficiency of northern farms by 2 percent, while free farms in the New South exceeded the efficiency of northern farms by 13 percent. Thus only 4 percent of the efficiency advantage of southern over northern agriculture was due to the superior performance of the free sector. Slave farms accounted for 96 percent of the southern advantage."

Average them together and you find even free farms were more efficient, and they note this elsewhere in the paper.

Slave farms were moreso,

Absolutely false as noted even in the snippet I provided.

but this was probably because the people who did the study didn't account for man-hours but for man-years (i.e. the owners forced the slaves to work longer hours and more days than free farmers would do), which they state when explaining methodology.

They actually did cover man hours in the rest of the study and debunked that as well; free farmers in the North worked more days than slaves in the South. I'd highly recommend you read the study before we continue as you've developed some serious misconceptions about it. If you don't have JSTOR I can provide the article to you.

It should also be noted that their comparison to the "New South" is also noteworthy since technically all farms after the war qualified (unless the author is using a different definition of New South than the normal meaning*), which means those farms were often worked by sharecroppers.

*I guess its possible they are using the term "New South" to mean the south Atlantic states, but that doesn't make sense as the New South is the exact same thing as the Old South in that case, only with Florida added.

Geographic differences; New South is Western South and Old South is the Eastern, more established states.
 
Geographic differences; New South is Western South and Old South is the Eastern, more established states.
That's not what the New South and Old South are though. The Old South has two definitions.
You misread:

"Free farms of the Old South fell be- low the efficiency of northern farms by 2 percent, while free farms in the New South exceeded the efficiency of northern farms by 13 percent. Thus only 4 percent of the efficiency advantage of southern over northern agriculture was due to the superior performance of the free sector. Slave farms accounted for 96 percent of the southern advantage."

Average them together and you find even free farms were more efficient, and they note this elsewhere in the paper.
I did not misread. I did not include the New South because the New South is a term relating specifically to the south after the Civil War, as the term itself was coined in 1874 as a way of trying to pretend the South had moved on. If they are using it to mean something else than that needs to be stated in the text, but I didn't see it.

Absolutely false as noted even in the snippet I provided.

It is not, the authors noted that virtually the entire difference was caused by slave plantations.

They actually did cover man hours in the rest of the study and debunked that as well; free farmers in the North worked more days than slaves in the South. I'd highly recommend you read the study before we continue as you've developed some serious misconceptions about it. If you don't have JSTOR I can provide the article to you.

Then you should have provided that, but going out and looking in another place, it looks like by their own admission the number of hours worked in the north has no certain data related to it, but there is some evidence that it was significantly higher, with things like dairy farms being the longest days. In which case my answer is...so? Dairy farms are kinda irrelevant to the topic of corn production, and so without looking more directly at differences in production, which they acknowledge but I didn't see addressed.

Geographic differences; New South is Western South and Old South is the Eastern, more established states.
But that isn't what it normally means. New South is primarily a cultural term, not geographic. Even the geographic term, which is less used double-counts there. I get that that's probably what they are referring to, but with the primary use of the cultural term not making an obvious qualifier on the term is kinda weird.
 
Last edited:
That's not what the New South and Old South are though. The Old South has two definitions.

Okay, and? The papers authors used it as a geographic term and defined what it constitutes in Table 2:

N4k6aDXV_o.png


I did not misread. I did not include the New South because the New South is a term relating specifically to the south after the Civil War, as the term itself was coined in 1874 as a way of trying to pretend the South had moved on. If they are using it to mean something else than that needs to be stated in the text, but I didn't see it.

See above, but you're also goal post shifting here; you originally were claiming it said Southern free farms were less efficient, not arguing about the geographic term they are using.

It is not, the authors noted that virtually the entire difference was caused by slave plantations.

They noted that 96% of Southern efficiency over the North was in slave plantations, not that they were less efficient as you claimed. Further, how much of the efficiency comes from slave labor is irrelevant to this specific point of if Southern free farms were more efficient than their Northern counterparts. The answer the studies authors found was yes, they were.

Then you should have provided that, but going out and looking in another place, it looks like by their own admission the number of hours worked in the north has no certain data related to it, but there is some evidence that it was significantly higher, with things like dairy farms being the longest days. In which case my answer is...so? Dairy farms are kinda irrelevant to the topic of corn production, and so without looking more directly at differences in production, which they acknowledge but I didn't see addressed.

You didn't ask and JSTOR is somewhat picky about posting stuff in public; your original point was whether or not Southern agriculture was more efficient. As I said, do you want me to send you a copy?

But that isn't what it normally means. New South is primarily a cultural term, not geographic. Even the geographic term, which is less used double-counts there.

They define what it means within the study and this is a pedantic point that really has no baring on the overall question.
 
They noted that 96% of Southern efficiency over the North was in slave plantations, not that they were less efficient as you claimed. Further, how much of the efficiency comes from slave labor is irrelevant to this specific point of if Southern free farms were more efficient than their Northern counterparts. The answer the studies authors found was yes, they they were.
That isn't what I said. I noted that the authors said that free farms of the Old South was less efficient, and the slave plantations were more. I specifically said: "Slave plantations were moreso".

You didn't ask and JSTOR is somewhat picky about posting stuff in public; your original point was whether or not Southern agriculture was more efficient. As I said, do you want me to see you a copy?
No, I found one. But its twenty-odd pages and I have about twenty-hours of differential equations to work on this week in addition to everything else, and can't be bothered to stop that long enough to read it (and before you ask I can stay on this site and occassionally post a lot easier). So I'll try to read it in full rather than skimming...probably in a couple of months. Maybe.
 
That isn't what I said. I noted that the authors said that free farms of the Old South was less efficient, and the slave plantations were more. I specifically said: "Slave plantations were moreso".

In the context it was used, I misunderstood; my bad.

No, I found one. But its twenty-odd pages and I have about twenty-hours of differential equations to work on this week in addition to everything else, and can't be bothered to stop that long enough to read it (and before you ask I can stay on this site and occassionally post a lot easier). So I'll try to read it in full rather than skimming...probably in a couple of months. Maybe.

Nah, you're good. I've got three papers due this week so I know the feeling.
 
Top