The Political Economy of Slavery. Eugene D. Genovese
Econometric Studies (Chicago, 1964).
13 Other questions are also raised by the Conrad-Meyer price data; cotton statistics were not kept with the degree of accuracy required for sophisticated analysis. In any event, the authors have not demonstrated a significant increase in productivity at all. They show no increase for the depressed 1840s, but 20% for the 1850s. These results emerge from a certain carelessness in rounding off figures. Crop value per hand per dollar of slave price is indexed at .05 for 1840; .05 for 1850; and .06 for 1860. But if we carry out the arithmetic two more decimal places we get .0494 (1840), .0538 (1850), and .0562 (1860)—i.e., a 9% increase for the depressed 1840s and only 4% for the 1850s. These results are implausible and, in any case, contradict their own conclusions.
14 J. D. B. De Bow, Industrial Resources of the Southern and Western States (3 vols.; New Orleans, 1852–53), III, 62.
15 “Let no man be ashamed of labor; let no man be ashamed of a hard hand or a sunburnt face.” William W. Holden, Address Delivered Before the Duplin County Agricultural Society (Raleigh, N.C., 1857), p. 7.
16 Cornelius O. Cathey, Agricultural Developments in North Carolina, 1783–1860 (Chapel Hill, N.C., 1956), pp. 54–55.
17 Southern Cultivator, V (Jan. 1847), 141.
18 Cf. S. Daniel Neumark, “Economic Development and Economic Incentives,” South African Journal of Economics, March 1958, pp. 55–63. For a discussion of this question as related to Greek slavery see Karl Polany’s brilliant essay on Aristotle in Polanyi et al., Trade and Market in the Early Empires (Glencoe, III., 1957), p. 77.
19 Edgar Zilsel, “The Sociological Roots of Science,” American Journal of Sociology, XLVII (Jan. 1942), 557 ff.
20 Fowler McCormick, Technological Progress in American Farming (Washington, D.C., 1940), p. 9.
21 H. J. Habakkuk, “The Historical Experience on the Basic Conditions of Economic Progress,” in Léon H. Dupriez (ed.), Economic Progress (Louvain, 1955), pp. 149–69.
22 James H. Street, The New Revolution in the Cotton Economy (Chapel Hill, N.C., 1957), p. 34.
23 Leo Rogin, The Introduction of Farm Machinery … in the United States During the Nineteenth Century (Berkeley, Cal., 1931), Chap. I.
24 Cited by Ronald L. Mighell, American Agriculture: Its Structure and Place in the Economy (New York, 1955), pp. 7–8.
25 Paul A. Baran, Political Economy of Growth, pp. 267 ff, 278–83, insists that collectivization was justified because the only alternative to it in a country lacking enough urban purchasing power to support high food prices would dry up rural sources of capital accumulation by heavier peasant consumption. He adds that the U.S.S.R. had to force the pace of industrialization for political and military reasons and that grain deliveries to cities had to be guaranteed. Maurice Dobb, Soviet Economic Development Since 1917 (New York, 1948) presents similar arguments. These arguments, however valid, do not contradict the observation that collectivization removed a good part of the peasants’ incentives without providing them with implements and machines. Collectivization may, from the point of view of the regime, have been necessary and urgent, but a big price had to be paid for it. For a summary of experiences with large-scale farming elsewhere see Lewis, Theory of Economic Growth, pp. 134 ff.
26 Rolla M. Tryon, Household Manufactures in the United States, 1640–1860 (Chicago, 1917), pp. 5, 184 ff, 295–98, 371.
27 Specialists who wish to consult the sampling and computing methods used here may see my unpublished dissertation, “The Limits of Agrarian Reform in the Slave South,” Columbia University, 1959, appendices.
28 De Bow, Industrial Resources, II, 130.
29 Cameron Papers, CXIII, University of North Carolina.
30 Simmons Jones Baker Account Book, miscellaneous notes, University of North Carolina.
31 Blanche Evans Hazard, The Organization of the Boot and Shoe Industry in Massachusetts before 1875 (Cambridge, Mass., 1921), p. 3.
32 The use of white labor for ditching is frequently cited, but the size of the expenditures has not generally been appreciated. One planter paid $170 in 1852, another $250 in 1859. Such sums were not trifles, especially for small planters. See Moses St. John R. Liddell Papers, 1852, Louisiana State University; entry of Feb. 8, 1859, Leonidas Pendleton Spyker Diary, also at L.S.U.
33 Haller Nutt Papers, 1849, Duke University; James H. Hammond Account Book, 1850, Library of Congress; Stephen D. Doar Account Books, 1853, 1857, Library of Congress; Charles Bruce Plantation Accounts, 1856, Library of Congress.
34 Everard Green Baker Papers, I, University of North Carolina; Iverson L. Graves Papers, XV, University of North Carolina; Henry Watson Papers, 1847, Duke University. Graves spent $20 to sharpen and repair tools during four months of 1853.
35 De Bow, Industrial Resources, I, 161. One planter with 50 slaves spent about $75 in eight months. Killona Plantation Journals, I, 60 ff, Department of Archives and History, Jackson, Mississippi. See also William McKinley Book, p. 17, and Robert Withers Books, I, 46, at the University of North Carolina; and James Sheppard Papers, April 9, 1849, at Duke University.
Конец ознакомительного фрагмента.
Текст предоставлен ООО «ЛитРес».
Прочитайте эту книгу целиком, купив полную легальную версию на ЛитРес.
Безопасно оплатить книгу можно банковской картой Visa, MasterCard, Maestro, со счета мобильного телефона, с платежного терминала, в салоне МТС или Связной, через PayPal, WebMoney, Яндекс.Деньги, QIWI Кошелек, бонусными картами или другим удобным Вам способом.