Following on the recommendations of several fine studies of post-war economic development, I would suggest Gavin Wright's OLD SOUTH, NEW SOUTH: REVOLUTIONS IN THE SOUTHERN ECONOMY SINCE THE CIVIL WAR (1986) and Gilgert Fite's COTTON FIELDS NO MORE: SOUTHERN AGRICULTURE, 1865-1980 (1984).
Both argue that the slow pace of Southern economic development was ultimately tied to a labor market that remained low wage and under developed until the Second World War. Prior to the Civil War, the South was predominately agricultural and Southern capital was invested primarily in slaves. Following emancipation, land became the focus of investment, and cheap labor was necessary to work that land. The debt peonage and tennancy that followed worked against the accumulation of the capital necessary to invest in mechanization.
Moreover, I think that the difficulty in devising an effective mechanical solution for harvesting cotton, the South's foremost agricultural product between 1865 and 1945, reinforced the reliance on low-wage croppers and tennants who depended on the mule power. While the Rust brothers developed an effective and economically-viable cotton picker by the early 1930s, International harvester would not introduce the first commercial line until 1942 when they announced they would produce just twelve a year. The annual rate of production had only increased to 107 by 1946. However, the jump in production to 15,700 a year by 1953 demonstrates the impact of migration and economic diversification introduced into the South as a result of the Second World War WWII.
I understand and appreciate the difficulty in finding information detailing the introduction and proliferation of specific types of mechanized farm equipment, but I have found that the agricultural bullettins produced as a part of each deccenial census since 1880 provide excellent county-level data on products, livestock, farmholding, and equipment, although it does not identify specific kinds or brands of equipment farmers were investing in. The link to these is here: http://www.census.gov/prod/www/abs/decennial/.
-----Original Message-----
From: Discussion of research and writing about Virginia history [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Lyle E. Browning
Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2012 11:05 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [VA-HIST] The Peculiar Institution's End Without The Intervention Of The Civil War
Kevin,
You had suggested a couple of years ago that BREAKING THE LAND was a good place to start with my nascent interest in the mechanization of agriculture and the results that brought. I immediately got a copy and have spent two trans-atlantic trips post-it notating passages and from there gone on to acquire a relatively decent database of baseline data on economic factor so that when I put together a contextual statement on the effects of the post-Civil War (1865-1965) era on the agricultural worker, at least I can relate with some assurance that when I read that Joe Blogs made $237 dollars for the entire year, that I can place him economically in the correct "slot".
Having grown up in the agrarian and mechanized South, I had erroneously thought that there was a longer timespan for the mechanization, but it is clear now that I lived through the tail end of that process.
The problem I now face is how to get to the transition to mechanized ag in the South. Looking at the industrial census tabulations, I can get the number of manufacturing plants by state and their aggregate values. But what I can't yet find is where those products went. It appears that no-one has pulled those pieces of info out of the manufacturer's archives. The personal property tax lists require only aggregate value of farm equipment and have been that way for at least 40 years so unless I can find out how many John Deere or Farmall tractors got shipped to VA for sale (and I don't know if they did direct sales or consignment or what arrangements were made with the dealers) then I'm dead in the water. Likewise with farm implements such as disks, plows, cultivators, pickers of all stripes and combines when they became available. What I am seeing is that the mid and upper Mid-West states lead in the invention and production of farm equipment of all types. If I had those figures, then a little GIS work and the spread of equipment would be graphically evident.
Lyle
______________________________________
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
______________________________________
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
|
