Gavin Wright, Old South, New South: Revolutions in the Southern Economy since the Civil War (Baton Rouge: Louisiana University Press, 1986).

SYNOPSIS:

Wright's book draws a distinction between the economic development of the South and the North in the antebellum period. Wright examines the structures of economic growth--town development, railroads, agricultural practices, and manufacturing and mining. Wright points out that the average slaveholder held almost two-thirds of his total wealth in slaves (19), and he explains how slavery's legacies extended into the post-Civil War period. Wright argues that slaveholders placed little wealth or value on land, a practice that set them apart from the North, where intensive land value growth was the norm. Slaveholders, according to Wright, were "land killers" whose disregard for the land and the low value associated with land led them to adopt wasteful agricultural practices that led to severe soil erosion.

EXCERPT:

"What sort of an economic class did the slaveholders comprise, and what sort of an economy did they bequeath to the postbellum South? The key to both of these questions is a basic difference between investment in slaves on the one hand, and investment in land and most forms of industrial capital on the other: slaves were movable, the other forms of investment were not. . . This simple distinction had a pervasive influence on economic life, affecting population growth, private investment patterns, farming practices, mineral exploration, and political coalitions. Slavery generated a weaker and looser connection between property holders and the land they occupied." (17)

"We can see these effects [of slavery] not just by contrast with the North, but by the marked changes in direction of economic activity after the war. The new incentives associated with simple land ownership led to a reallocation of land from corn to cotton, new enthusiasm for railroads and local development, and the rise of new manufacturing and mining sectors." (11)

"Property rights in human beings shaped the investment strategies, the economic geography, and the political economy of the South. As compared to the American North the incentives of slave property tended to disperse population across the land, reduce investments in transportation and in cities, and limit the exploration of southern natural resources. Above all, slave owners had no incentives to open up labor market links with outside areas, and the resulting inelasticity of the labor supply squeezed out labor-intensive manufacturing activity." (11)

"The value of investments in slaves was independent of local development, and planters had little to gain from improvements in roads and marketing facilities in a particular area. They had little at stake in community life generally, no particular desire to attract settlers by building schools and villages and factories. Since immovable land was a small part of their wealth, they had no great interest in spending time and money looking for precious metals or coal and iron deposits. . . They were not landlords but 'laborlords.'" (18)

"Northern observers in the late antebellum years had little doubt that the slave South was backward and stagnant. This view was not just based on remoteness and poor information, because eyewitness visits produced some of the most negative impressions." (31)

"Most slaveowners were . . . footloose. In one respect this was highly efficient, resulting in a rapid migration of slaves to the areas of highest fertility. But the implication for the regional economy was a sparse population spread thinly and broadly across the countryside." (26)

RELATIONSHIP:

We agree with Wright's emphasis on land value as an important sign of the difference slavery made, but most of Wright's evidence comes from the Cotton South. In our study it does not appear that slaveholders adopted wasteful extensive agricultural production. Instead, we find that Augusta's agricultural enterprises were highly productive even on the worst soil in the county.

"Franklin's wealth, like much of the North's, was located not in its cities and towns but in its rural agricultural land, where its richest citizens depended on the movement and production of wheat, oats, and livestock."

"Slaveholders in Augusta did not monopolize the best soil nor did they crowd out nonslaveholders or small slaveholders."

"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."

"Chambersburg was a larger place than Staunton, but no more vibrant or connected to the market than its Southern counterpart."

"Franklin and Augusta exhibited different spatial organizations, with a more organized and commercial approach in Franklin and a settlement in Augusta that followed the contours of soil and land more closely."

"Slavery brought not only wealth but also roads, bridges, railroads, canals, and turnpikes to Augusta, in an elaborate display of building, enterprise, and growth."

"In Augusta, almost every group of white people owned property and homes worth more than their counterparts in Franklin, most of it tied inextricably to slavery."