The Differences Slavery Made: A Close Analysis of Two American Communities

Slaveholders and Soil Quality

A significant majority of both slaveholders and nonslaveholders farmed on the best soil. The largest planter and slaveholder in the Augusta GIS data set resided on medium soil and achieved significantly higher productivity than nonslaveholders and slaveholders on the best soil.

Best Soil Medium Soil Worst Soil Totals
# % # % # % # %
0 slaves 476 79.3 71 11.8 53 8.8 600 100.0
1 slave 40 90.9 2 4.5 2 4.5 44 100.0
2 - 5 slaves 53 82.8 6 9.4 5 7.8 64 100.0
6 - 10 slaves 42 87.5 2 4.2 4 8.3 48 100.0
11 - 20 slaves 44 89.8 2 4.1 3 6.1 49 100.0
21 - 30 slaves 1 100.0 0 0 0 0 1 100.0
31+ slaves 0 0 1 100.0 0 0 1 100.0
Total 656 81.3 84 10.4 67 8.3 807 100.0



The data are based on the GIS of Augusta and Franklin households--maps are derived from a D. H. Davison map of Franklin County, published in 1858, and a Jedediah Hotchkiss map of Augusta County, published in 1870, and based on surveys completed "during the war." The maps have been georeferenced at the Virginia Center for Digital History, using ESRI Arc Info to produce a Geographic Information Systems map and database of households based on U.S. census data from the population, agricultural, and slaveowners' schedules.

Edward L. Ayers and William G. Thomas, III
Slaveholders and Soil Quality
2001.

Points of Analysis to this Data:

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

"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 = E143
Historiography Tools