The Southwestern Historical Quarterly, Volume 82, July 1978 - April, 1979 Page: 358
This periodical is part of the collection entitled: Southwestern Historical Quarterly and was provided to The Portal to Texas History by the Texas State Historical Association.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Southwestern Historical Quarterly
sented in this table show participation rates of .491 in 1850 and .494 in
1860. Previous investigations of slave labor's productivity have generally
utilized .5o as a participation rate, and these calculations for Texas
certainly fall close to that figure. Thus, to simplify all conversions from
per slave to per hand, this study will also use a participation rate of
.50 for 185o and 1860.
Another step in determining the cash crop productivity of slave labor
is to limit consideration to only those farms using slave labor and pro-
ducing cotton and to omit all nonslaveholding farmers and all non-
cotton-growing slaveholders and their slaves. The results of this step are
presented in Table 2. In the 1850 sample there were 557 slaveholding
cotton farmers (14.8 percent of the farm population) who owned 6,170
bondsmen (62.5 percent of all slaves owned by farmers) and produced
an 8,761-bale crop (87.9 percent of all cotton). In the later sample there
were 751 cotton producers (20.5 percent of all farmers) who owned
9,519 slaves (80.5 percent of all farm slaves) and grew 27,758 bales of
cotton (90.5 percent of the entire crop). This step, while it is obviously
necessary to an accurate measure of slave productivity, also provides
striking evidence that only a minority of Texas's farmers participated
in any important way in the market economy.
One final adjustment is necessary before calculating productivity per
slave. The labor provided by free males in the farm family and by free
farm laborers aged fifteen to sixty-five who lived on farms managed by
slaveholders owning fewer than ten slaves must also be included. It is
assumed that these free farmers and farm laborers on small slaveholding
units worked with slaves in the field and that therefore their labor must
be added to the slaves' labor. Since slaves (including women and chil-
dren) and free male farm workers were not the same in labor equiva-
lents and cannot be added one to one, it is necessary to convert the slave
population into field hand equivalents with a participation rate (.50 in
this case) before combining the two. Then this combination of free and
slave hands can be divided into the cotton crop to determine produc-
tivity per hand [ (cotton crop) / (.50 slave population + free farm la-
borers) ]. This calculation may be converted to productivity per slave
by multiplying the whole by the participation rate as follows: produc-
tivity per slave = .5o [ (cotton crop) / (.5o slave population +- free farm
laborers) ].
Labor: A Micro-Approach," Agitcultural History, XLIV (Jan., 1970), 42-13. The age and
sex data from which participation rates were calculated are found in Statistical View of
the United States, 88-89; and Eighth Census of the United State, Population, 594-595.
8Foust and Swan, "Productivity and Profitability," 41-43.358
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Periodical.
Texas State Historical Association. The Southwestern Historical Quarterly, Volume 82, July 1978 - April, 1979, periodical, 1978/1979; Austin, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth101206/m1/420/: accessed April 30, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting Texas State Historical Association.