A Postbellum Economic Experience: Productivity and Land Ownership in the Cotton South
Assigned with the task of presenting scholarly sources related to economic growth in two sectors of the postbellum economy, productivity and land ownership are relevant to the discussion about the state of the economy in the postbellum Cotton South. The term “postbellum” refers to the time period after the American Civil War. For this post, postbellum is referring to the years from 1865-1900. In regard to the state of the economy, productivity and land ownership in the Cotton South are being considered for this blog. It is important to note that even though the Emancipation Proclamation became effective at the beginning of 1863, slavery continued in parts of the Confederate South until June 1865. In June 2021, President Joseph R. Biden signed the bill making it a law to recognize Juneteenth as a federal holiday.[1] On June 19,1865, the last slaves in Texas were informed of the Emancipation Proclamation freeing them by the Union Soldiers led by Major General Gordon Granger.[2] The conditions of slavery and its aftermath are relevant to productivity and land ownership within the postbellum Cotton South areas.
By examining scholarly sources, a qualitative method was used
to measure the conditions of the areas known as the Cotton South. One source
contains the results of a quantitative study of data from census reports from
1880 through 1910, however, the charts and diagrams from the source are not the
focus for this blog post. Only the conclusion and conjectures formed from the
study were used as a point of reference for the results of research on the
topic.
In the conclusion of Unredeemed Land: an Environmental
History of Civil War and Emancipation in the Cotton South, Erin Mauldin mentions that by 1880 productivity and land
reform had improved. By 1880, the southern agricultural output had surpassed
prewar benchmarks. Land development rates in the South were up. Erin Mauldin
believes that the South was able to recover from the downfall of the Confederacy
and the seminal events of the Civil War and political adjustments of Reconstruction
from the Old South by that time.[3]
An accurate determination of the economic condition of the South
can present challenges when factoring in the role on slavery and its end. During
the Civil War, productivity in the South had declined. Also, the transition from
slavery to freedom factored into productivity as well. According to Stephen
DeCanio, the economic forces and political life in southern society continues
to be obscure.[4] In the article, “Productivity
and Income Distribution in the Post-Bellum South”, DeCanio used published
census data from 1880-1910 to measure the differences of productivity among whites
and blacks in the South. He examined ten major cotton-producing southern
states, excluding Virginia, in each of the census years from 1880 through 1910.
The results of the research yielded that low labor productivity contributed to poverty
of the freedman. Additionally, it concluded that the slaves were emancipated without
any kind of property which affected their overall income. Land ownership would
have allowed them to double their income. While the ownership of land and capital
would have increased the income of landless laborers exponentially.[5] Therefore,
the failure to provide the “forty acres and a mule” that was proposed resulted
in an economic loss for the freedman and has been proven to be more responsible
for the inequalities in income than discriminatory laws that were passed and coercive
practices in the labor market during that time.[6]
To sum it, an initial review of the scholarly sources used may
seem in opposition of each other. However, Erin Mauldin’s conclusion of the
success that the South experienced focused on land development and industries
in the postbellum Cotton South. Meanwhile Stephen DeCanio took a more in-depth
approach to the state of the economy by measuring the income of the people in
the postbellum Cotton South. When comparing the sources, the conclusion is that
the overall state of the economy had improved however, the improvement experienced
by the southern economy was not readily felt by the laboring people and remains
an issue today.
DeCanio, Stephen. “Productivity and Income Distribution in the Post-Bellum South.” The Journal of Economic History 34, no. 2 (1974): 422–46. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2116989. Accessed January 22, 2023
Fajardo Arteaga, Sgt. Tara, “Juneteenth: Marking the End of
Slavery” The United States Army, (June 19, 2022) https://www.army.mil/article/257708/juneteenth_marking_the_end_of_slavery
Accessed January 22, 2023
Mauldin, Erin Stewart. Unredeemed Land : an Environmental History of Civil War and Emancipation
in the Cotton South. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2018.
[1]
Sgt. Tara Fajardo Arteaga, “Juneteenth: Marking the End of Slavery” The United
States Army, (June 19, 2022) https://www.army.mil/article/257708/juneteenth_marking_the_end_of_slavery
Accessed January 22, 2023
[2]
Ibid
[3]Erin
Stewart Mauldin. Unredeemed Land : an Environmental History of Civil War and
Emancipation in the Cotton South. New York, NY: Oxford University
Press, 2018, 157
[4]
Stephen DeCanio, “Productivity and Income Distribution in the Post-Bellum
South.” The Journal of Economic History 34, no. 2 (1974): 422. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2116989
Accessed January 22, 2023
[5]
DeCanio, 443
[6]
DeCanio, 444