The Differences Slavery Made: A Close Analysis of Two American Communities
Sam Bowers Hilliard, Hog Meat and Hoecake: Food Supply in the Old South, 1840-1860 (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1972).

SYNOPSIS:

Hilliard examines the U.S. Census agricultural schedules for the South and built estimates of Southern patterns of consumption to test whether the region was so specialized in staple crops that it was not self-sufficient. Hilliard finds that landholding size was not as significant as location in determining the mix or ratio of staple crop and corn in the South. He observes that the heaviest corn production areas were in the hill country and that internal markets allowed corn grown in these regions to support intense cotton agriculture elsewhere. Hilliard estimates that Southern corn producers did not achieve the yields of their counterparts in the Northwest, but on a per capita basis produced a relatively high volume.

EXCERPT:

"Not always linked directly to all human activity in this area, cotton was the main force behind its culture and economy. It enriched the planter, impoverished the soil, made big farmers out of little ones and planters out of farmers. . . . Finally, it sustained the institution of slavery, making it a central element of the regional society and economy." (19)

"It is obvious that a description of the South as having been either 'self-sufficient' or 'dependent upon the West for food' would be unrealistic. From North Carolina to Louisiana, a number of agricultural 'regions' existed with each solving its problem of food supply as its situation, resources, and predilections permitted. In this respect the South differed little from other large sections of the country. But there is no justification for seeing the antebellum South as an area of such concentration on staple export agricultural production that it had to import most, or even much, of its food. As a region, it was, despite the exceptions noted, largely feeding itself." (235)

"Unlike corn, small grain production was far from universal in the South nor was it important when compared to corn." (160)

"The increase in the number of counties showing high ratios from 1850 to 1860 appears to reflect a strong renaissance in wheat growing throughout the Hill South." (168)

"The census manuscripts indicate that landholding size was much less significant than location in determining corn/cotton ratios." (151)

RELATIONSHIP:

We share Hilliard's interest in crop mixes and ratios as important measures of regional economic and social patterns. Hilliard points out that between 1840 and 1860 Virginia caught and then surpassed Pennsylvania in wheat production and that it was always ahead in per capita production. (166) Virginia, he finds, was the largest wheat producer in the South both in volume and per capita production (8.2 bushels per capita in 1860)--only Maryland and the old Northwest states out-produced Virginia. Hilliard maintains that despite this turn to wheat production in Virginia as the dominant staple crop, corn remained the primary agricultural commodity, as it was in the rest of the South. While Southern corn growers were not able to match the yield of the Northwest growers, Hilliard finds, they were able to produce a higher volume per capita. Augusta's mix of corn and wheat production match Hilliard's description for the kind of mix across the South in other regions with staple crops.

Points of Analysis to this Historiography:

"On a per capita basis, Franklin farmers grew far less corn and more wheat than their counterparts in Augusta, and their commitment to wheat was seen by many as both the symbol of the North's wealth and the evidence of its superior labor system."

"The richest farm households in Augusta, however, had a high correlation with relatively high wheat production and low corn production, and slavery enabled even greater success on these farms."


Citation: Key = H005
Historiography Tools