For much of the 21st century it was believed that slavery caused the economy of the Antebellum South to stagnate. Many historians took issue with the profitability of slavery and thought that its demise was inevitable, regardless of the Civil War. Some even consider the Antebellum South’s economy to be backwards in the sense that slave labour rates were so competitive that it resulted in the wages of other free workers to drop below the subsistence level (Conrad & Meyer 1971, 341). This created a deficit of skilled white labourers in the market and prevented a sustainable perfectly competitive labour market. In addition to this, slavery was criticized as being preventative to long-term economic growth. Slavery required capital outlays which were significantly larger than those required by free labour. Capital investments were tied up in the slaves for their entire lifetimes, which meant that investments crucial to long term economic growth were not made. After studying Robert Fogel’s Without Consent or Contract: The Rise and Fall of American Slavery (1989), it becomes clear that this is not true and slavery was not holding back the economic growth of the Antebellum South.
…show more content…
In fact, during the period 1840-1860, the per capita income of those in the South grew more rapidly than in the North. To put into perspective just how prosperous the South was on the eve of the Civil War, many countries have never achieved per capita income growth as large as the South had. The country of Italy, for example, did not achieve the same level of per capita income until the beginning of World War II. One of the most vital and long lasting points raised by Fogel is that slavery was not doomed without of the occurrence of the Civil War. Slave owners were not becoming skeptical about the viability of their system in the period before the Civil War. In fact, the rise of the Southern secessionist movement had slavers confident that an era of unparalleled growth and prosperity was upon them. There is no evidence to suggest that slavery was doomed on the eve of the Civil War, if not for political intervention. Slavery was consistent with “modernization and productivity change” and was moving towards further entrenchment of the system (Fogel 1989, 98). Fogel provide substantial proof to end the misconception that the system of slavery was on the way out. In the period 1850-1860, the average cash value of slave farms rose by 58%, with the average number of slaves per slave owner rising from 9.54 to 10.69. These numbers indicate that slavery was healthy and profitable going into the Cfivil War. Continuing into the years 1860-1890, Fogel estimated that slavery would have continued to increase in profitability. By 1890, the world demand for American produced cotton was more than twice as high as it was in 1860. The real price of cotton rose over time, according to Fogel’s analytics, and faced a booming market. They supplement this point with another, stating that slave plantations “would have been the leading sector in the rapidly developing regional economy of the antebellum South for an indeterminable amount of time” (Fogel 1989, 354). Slavery was so healthy in this time that the price of slaves was increasing each year. This increase was due to the price of slaves being determined by an interaction of increasing demand with …show more content…
In his essay, titled The Profitability and Viability of Plantation Slavery in the United States, he analyzes the slave system using the “amount of the capitalized rent in the market price of slaves” in order to determine whether or not the system was sustainable. Much of his quantitative analysis is derived from the model of plantation economy originally presented by Conrad and Meyer in their original 1958 paper The Economics of Slavery in the Ante-Bellum South. Conrad and Meyer investigated the rate of return on costs inclusive of rent to test the hypothesis that “slavery in the South would have fallen before very long because it was unprofitable.” Using data on values reflecting the life expectancy and price of slaves from the period 1830-1860, they were able to “compute the marginal efficiency of slave capital, valuing slaves at the market price.” They determined that the marginal efficiency was high enough to reject the above
In fact, during the period 1840-1860, the per capita income of those in the South grew more rapidly than in the North. To put into perspective just how prosperous the South was on the eve of the Civil War, many countries have never achieved per capita income growth as large as the South had. The country of Italy, for example, did not achieve the same level of per capita income until the beginning of World War II. One of the most vital and long lasting points raised by Fogel is that slavery was not doomed without of the occurrence of the Civil War. Slave owners were not becoming skeptical about the viability of their system in the period before the Civil War. In fact, the rise of the Southern secessionist movement had slavers confident that an era of unparalleled growth and prosperity was upon them. There is no evidence to suggest that slavery was doomed on the eve of the Civil War, if not for political intervention. Slavery was consistent with “modernization and productivity change” and was moving towards further entrenchment of the system (Fogel 1989, 98). Fogel provide substantial proof to end the misconception that the system of slavery was on the way out. In the period 1850-1860, the average cash value of slave farms rose by 58%, with the average number of slaves per slave owner rising from 9.54 to 10.69. These numbers indicate that slavery was healthy and profitable going into the Cfivil War. Continuing into the years 1860-1890, Fogel estimated that slavery would have continued to increase in profitability. By 1890, the world demand for American produced cotton was more than twice as high as it was in 1860. The real price of cotton rose over time, according to Fogel’s analytics, and faced a booming market. They supplement this point with another, stating that slave plantations “would have been the leading sector in the rapidly developing regional economy of the antebellum South for an indeterminable amount of time” (Fogel 1989, 354). Slavery was so healthy in this time that the price of slaves was increasing each year. This increase was due to the price of slaves being determined by an interaction of increasing demand with …show more content…
In his essay, titled The Profitability and Viability of Plantation Slavery in the United States, he analyzes the slave system using the “amount of the capitalized rent in the market price of slaves” in order to determine whether or not the system was sustainable. Much of his quantitative analysis is derived from the model of plantation economy originally presented by Conrad and Meyer in their original 1958 paper The Economics of Slavery in the Ante-Bellum South. Conrad and Meyer investigated the rate of return on costs inclusive of rent to test the hypothesis that “slavery in the South would have fallen before very long because it was unprofitable.” Using data on values reflecting the life expectancy and price of slaves from the period 1830-1860, they were able to “compute the marginal efficiency of slave capital, valuing slaves at the market price.” They determined that the marginal efficiency was high enough to reject the above