Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-p2v8j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-30T10:58:36.101Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Self-Sufficiency, Cotton, and Economic Development in the South Carolina Upcountry, 1800–1860

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 March 2009

Lacy K. Ford
Lacy K. Ford
Affiliation:
Lacy K. Ford is Assistant Professor in the Department of History, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina 29208.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The expansion of short-staple cotton production into the southern backcountry during the nineteenth century opened opportunities for backcountry planters and yeomen alike. But contrary to the claims made by agricultural reformers, South Carolina upcountry farmers did not neglect the production of foodstuffs. The Upcountry as a whole was self-sufficient in foodstuffs though a significant minority of farms failed to achieve self-sufficiency. Thus a limited local market in foodstuffs developed, but it did little to stimulate the development of towns in the region.

Type
Papers Presented at the Forty-fourth Annual Meeting of the Economic History Association
Information
The Journal of Economic History , Volume 45 , Issue 2 , June 1985 , pp. 261 - 267
Copyright
Copyright © The Economic History Association 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Wright, Gavin, “An Econometric Study of Cotton Production and Trade, 1830–1860,” The Review of Economics and Statistics, 53 (05 1971), PP. 111–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2 For a broader investigation see Ford, Lacy K., “Social Origins of a New South Carolina: The Upcountry in the Nineteenth Century” (Ph.D. dissertation, University of South Carolina, 1983), Pp. 1–120, 269–368. I define Upcountry as the portion of the state north and west of the fall line.Google Scholar

3 Mendenhall, Marjorie S., “A History of Agriculture in South Carolina, 1790–1860” (Ph.D. dissertation, Univeristy of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 1940), pp. 93–132.Google Scholar

4 Ramsey, David, The History of South Carolina, 2 vols. (Charleston, S.C., 1809), vol. 2, p. 220.Google Scholar

5 The Cases, Federal, Comprising Cases Argued and Determined in the Circuit and District Courts of the United States (St. Paul, Minn., 1894–1897), vol. 29, p. 1072.Google Scholar

6 Simons, James, A Rallying Point For All True Friends to Their Country (Charleston, S.C., 1800), pp. 9–19;Google ScholarWatkins, J. L., King Cotton (New York, 1908), PP. 69–93.Google Scholar

7 Mendenhall, “A History of Agriculture in South Carolina,” p. 108.Google Scholar

8 “The Diary of Edward Hooker, 1805–1808,” American Historical Association Annual Report, 1896 (Washington, D.C., 1897), vol. 1, p. 846;Google ScholarSeabrook, Whitemarsh B., A Memoir on the Origin, Cultivation and Use of Cotton (Charleston, S.C., 1844), pp. 6–17;Google ScholarBridwell, Ronald E., “The South's Wealthiest Planter: Wade Hampton I of South Carolina, 1754–1833” (Ph.D. dissertation, University of South Carolina, 1980), pp. 397–504;Google ScholarSprings, Katherine Wooten, The Squires of Springfield (Charlotte, N.C., 1965), pp. 16–33;Google ScholarBell, Daniel J., “Interpretive Booklets for Local Historical Sites: Rose Hill State Park, Union, South Carolina As a Model” (M.A. thesis, University of South Carolina, 1983), pp. 10–17.Google Scholar

9 These figures were developed from the United States Census, 1790, Heads of Families at the First Census of the United States, South Carolina (Washington, D.C., 1801);Google Scholar United States Census, 1810, Aggregate Amount of Each Description of Persons within the United States (Washington, D.C., 1811); and from the Manuscript Census Schedules for South Carolina for 1790 and 1810.Google Scholar

10 Calculations made from United States Census, 1860, Agriculture of the United States in 1860 (Washington, D.C., 1864), P. 237.Google Scholar

11 Kaplanoff, Mark D., “Making the South Solid: Politics and the Structure of Society in South Carolina, 1790–1815” (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Cambridge, 1979), PP. 22–26.Google Scholar

12 Jenkins, Joseph E., “Address Delivered before the Agricultural Society of St. Johns, Colleton,” Southern Agriculturalist, 11 (08 1838), pp. 393–410.Google Scholar

13 Smith, Alfred G., Economic Readjustment of an Old Cotton State: South Carolina, 1820–1860 (Columbia, S.C., 1958), pp. 19–111.Google Scholar

14 McDuffie, George, “Anniversary Oration of the State Agricultural Society of South Carolina, 26 November, 1840,” in The Proceedings of the Agricultural Convention of the State Agricultural Society of South Carolina (Columbia, S.C., 1846), p. 98.Google Scholar

15 Ruffin, Edmund, Report on the Commencement and Progress of the Agricultural Survey of South Carolina for 1843 (Columbia, S.C., 1843), p. 73.Google Scholar

16 “Report of the Committee Appointed by the Milton Agricultural Society,” in Ruffin, Edmund, Report of the Agricultural Survey: An Appendix (Columbia, S.C., 1843), pp. 8–10.Google Scholar

17 “Report of the Fishing Creek Agricultural Society,” in Ruffin, Report of the Agricultural Survey: An Appendix, pp. 5–8.Google Scholar

18 Gallman, Robert, “Self-Sufficiency in the Cotton Economy of the Antebellum South, Agricultural History, 44 (01 1970), pp. 5–23.Google Scholar

19 One of every ten farms in the districts of Laurens, Spartanburg, and York for the census year 1850 were selected for the sample. Data from the Population, Slave, and Agricultural schedules were then matched and checked. Thus I determined the consumption requirements of each individual household and applied Gallman's self-sufficiency test to individual farms.Google Scholar

20 I tested for self-sufficiency in meat in two different ways, assuming in one case that swine herds fed on the open range and in the other that swine herds were fed entirely from surplus grain.Google Scholar

21 Ford, “Social Origins of a New South Carolina,” pp. 70–72.Google Scholar

22 Ford, Lacy K., “Rednecks and Merchants: Economic Development and Social Tensions in the South Carolina Upcountry, 1850–1900,” Journal of American History, 71 (09 1984), pp. 294–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

23 Parker, William, “Slavery and Southern Economic Development: An Hypothesis and Some Evidence,” Agricultural History, 44 (01 1970), pp. 115–125.Google Scholar