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.

Bibliography

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

Popular posts from this blog

Social Misnomer: Social Interactions Matter

History of the Oxford English Dictionary

Madame C. J. Walker: December 23, 1867-May 25,1919