Dissertation

1 | P a g e
Please enteryour studentnumber and word count on the next page.

2 | P a g e
STUDENT NUMBER: 709842
WORD COUNT: 9878

4 | P a g e
The Economics of Slavery: What impact
did plantation era slavery have on the US
economy and the wider world?

5 | P a g e
Abstract
This dissertation examines the economics of slavery. The topic was chosen because the
economic viability of slavery is an ongoing debate amongst economists and historians even
after its abolition, 150 years later. The media portrays plantation era slavery as a highly
lucrative institution, where slaves were treated poorly and had a terrible way of life. This
dissertation tests the profitability of slave plantations in comparison to northern free
plantations and the effects that the slave plantations had on the wider economy.
The method chosen to efficiently conduct the research is a library based literature review.
This is due to the difficulty in effectively analysing the available data. There is accurate data
available on agricultural yields by state, but as there are no crops which were universally
grown, no fair comparison can be made. Secondly, any data that reflects the overreliance of
the south on slaves is obscured by the events of the Civil War.
The research points to a lack of efficiency from slave plantations. Slave labour depleted soil
quality, prevented specialisation and encouraged complacency. However due to the size of
most plantations, they remained profitable. These profits were not invested into newer
technology as new farming methods became available, which over time left the southern
states behind the rest of the US economically. What profits were made were achieved by a
relatively small number of wealthy plantation owners, which led to widespread income
inequality. Had plantation owners employed free workers rather than slave workers, then a
more motivated workforce may have encouraged profit-maximising behaviour which would
have benefitted the plantation owners, the workers, and the wider society as a whole.

6 | P a g e
Table of Contents
Table of Contents........................................................................................................................ 6
Chapter 1: Introduction.............................................................................................................. 7
1.1 Background.................................................................................................................. 7
1.2 Purpose of the Study....................................................................................................8
1.3 Research Questions......................................................................................................8
1.4 Chapter Summaries...........................................................................................................9
1.4.1 Chapter 2: Methodology............................................................................................... 9
1.4.2 Chapter 3: Literature Review........................................................................................ 9
1.4.3 Chapter 4: Discussion..................................................................................................9
1.4.4 Chapter 5: Conclusion .................................................................................................9
Chapter 2: Methodology........................................................................................................... 10
Chapter 3: Literature Review................................................................................................... 12
3.1 Literature against the economic value of slavery............................................................. 12
3.1.1 Profitability and Efficiency........................................................................................ 12
3.1.2 Wider Implications.................................................................................................... 19
3.1.3 Widespread Inequality.............................................................................................. 21
3.2 Literature supporting the economic value ofslavery....................................................... 22
3.2.1 Theoretical Argument............................................................................................... 22
3.2.2 Statistical Measurement............................................................................................ 24
Chapter 4: Discussion............................................................................................................... 28
4.1 Consumer Spending ........................................................................................................ 28
4.2 Employment.................................................................................................................... 28
4.3 Balance of payments........................................................................................................ 29
4.4 Gross Domestic Product .................................................................................................. 29
4.5 Wages.............................................................................................................................. 30
Chapter 5: Conclusion.............................................................................................................. 31
Bibliography............................................................................................................................. 33

7 | P a g e
Chapter 1: Introduction
This dissertation seeks to assess the overall economic effectiveness of plantation era slavery
between the 17th and 19th century, with particular focus on the antebellum southern United
States. By examining the costs and benefits of slavery on a number of economic factors such
as profitability, inequality, and employment, a valid judgement can be concluded to the
overall economic impact of plantation era slavery.
The topic of slavery was chosen because there is still ambiguity as to the conclusion of
slavery’s economic influence (C.W & A.J.K.D 2013). The general perception of slavery is
that slaves were treated extremely poor, that plantation owners made an infinite wealth due to
having zero marginal costs, and that slavery provided a backbone which propelled the United
States to be the superpower that it is today. This contradicts many of the literature within the
field of slavery, and it is likely that the perception of slavery is a result of the media, and that
many of the portrayals of southern life are more myth than reality (Sowell 2005).
1.1 Background
The first Africans arrived in the English colony of Virginia in 1619, they were sold by Dutch
traders in return for food and supplies (Davis, 2008). These African immigrants became
indentured servants, which meant they had to work to pay for their transport, typically
between four to seven years, after which they were awarded their freedom. In 1640, John
Punch became the first African sentenced to a life of slavery after he fled his indentured
service (Donoghue, 2010). From this point onwards, more and more African’s were
sentenced or sold into slavery.
Slaves soon became the primary source of labour in many southern agricultural estates and
were easily bought from auctions, after they had been captured and transported from Africa.
The import of African slaves became illegal in 1807, however it is likely that slaves were
imported via the black market after this time (Smith, 1973). The law stated that any children
of a female slave became the immediate property of the slave-owner, and as a result slavery
continued to thrive after the slave trade was abolished. The slave population continued to

8 | P a g e
increase up until 1865, when the Thirteenth Amendment was made to the United States
constitution, which abolished slavery indefinitely (Thirteenth Amendment, 1865).
1.2 Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to to make a judgement on an ongoing debate that has lasted for
over a century. By studying all the relevant literature, arguments and data, a conclusion will
be made that will try to define the economic viability of antebellum slavery.
1.3 Research Questions
This dissertation seeks to make a judgement on the economic impact that slavery had in the
17th, 18th, and 19th century. In order to come to a conclusion, the following questions will be
answered which will shed light on the impact slavery had on various interest groups:
1. How did agricultural yields on southern plantations compare with the yields
achieved in the free, northern states?
2. What impact did slavery have on the non-slave owning free population in the
southern states?
3. To what extent were the southern plantations exposed once slavery was
abolished, and how did southern plantations cope postbellum?
4. What opportunities arose that instigated the opening of new industries and
markets as a result of slavery?

9 | P a g e
1.4 Chapter Summaries
1.4.1 Chapter2: Methodology
Chapter 2 will look to explain the reasoning behind a comprehensive literature review, but
also some of the difficulties faced with regards to availability of data and its use.
1.4.2 Chapter3: Literature Review
Chapter 3 will explore all of the key literature from both economists and historians that weigh
in with their view on the economic eligibility of slavery, and seeks to contrast and compare
various works with similar or contradicting themes. Key authors include Fogel & Engerman
(1974), and Conrad & Meyer (1958), both of whom argue in favour of slavery’s profitability
and its success in southern development. Secondly, Cairnes (1862) and Phillips (1905), who
give a theoretical argument to suggest that slavery hindered the development of the southern
states and the wider economy.
1.4.3 Chapter4: Discussion
Chapter 4 will look to analyse some of the key arguments on the subject, and bring together
ideas which give an indication on how they effected the economy as a whole. Employment,
consumer spending, balance of payments, and real gross domestic product are a number of
economic factors discussed and how they were affected by slavery.
1.4.4 Chapter5: Conclusion
The conclusion will assess the strengths and evidence behind all of the arguments and use
them to construct a valid judgement on the success of slavery in developing the economy of
both the antebellum south and the wider world.

10 | P a g e
Chapter 2: Methodology
This chapter will explain how this paper was accomplished. It explains the decision behind
neglecting a data analysis chapter and why a critical literature review is more appropriate. It
was vital to use the most appropriate method of study in order to achieve an unbiased,
realistic conclusion.
Due to the historical nature of this dissertation, there would be little or no use in collecting
primary research. Relevant data is available in the national census, which is collected each
decade, and contains data on incomes, agricultural yields and land values (NGC, 1860). The
data could have been used to answer the questions acknowledged in the introduction, but in
comparing the agricultural yields of the north and south, there were no crops that were grown
in both regions, and therefore it would not have been fair to analyse the yields of the north
and south, when each region specialised in different products. Secondly, in answering the
question with regards to pre and post abolishment income levels, the southern economy was
severely disrupted by the events that took place during the Civil War, and so it would have
been unfair to make judgements on data that was so heavily influenced by external events. As
a result, government data recorded at the time may not truly reflect the efficiency or
profitability of slave labour, and so a library based literature review was deemed to be a more
practical method of coming to a conclusion.
Whilst the decision was made not to use data analysis, there are still many advantages to
conducting literature based research. Through software such as Google Scholar and JSTOR,
there is a rich source of available data that takes minimal time to access which allows more
time for analysis. Literature no longer takes a long time to obtain, and so research is more
convenient and productive. Collecting empirical data can take both time and money to obtain,
so conducting library based research will allow for a more careful analysis of the relevant
literature. Simply searching in Google Scholar keywords such as ‘economics of slavery’ can
lead to an abundance of literature which all provide arguments which can be used within the
dissertation, and then by looking at the bibliography, more well-known and prominent work
can be sourced and identified.
The literature was broken down into two sections, arguments that believed slavery had a
positive impact on the economy and arguments that believed slavery had a negative impact
on the economy. Arguments and theories could therefore be collected and assembled in a way

11 | P a g e
that can best deliver a well-rounded and compelling argument, based on a variety of different
concepts. A discussion section was added in order to develop some of the major arguments
and clarify the impact they had on the economy. Finally, the sources used throughout this
dissertation were recorded and catalogued into a bibliography located at the end of the
dissertation to allow for further reading.
Overall, given the issues surrounding the census data at the time regarding both the Civil
War, and the inconsistent agricultural production, a library based literature review was
considered the best method of achieving a valid conclusion to the question in hand.

12 | P a g e
Chapter 3: Literature Review
This review looks to compile arguments based on literature that has been collected and
studied from 150 years ago up to the modern day. There have been many texts/books that
discuss the impact that slavery had on all aspects of life in a variety of regions, and from
varying viewpoints. This chapter seeks to compare and provide critical analysis on many of
these arguments with a focus on some of the more recognised authors within the field of
plantation era slavery. Some of the earliest literatures on the topic of slavery argued that
slavery was inefficient and damaging to the wider economy, it was perhaps not until 100
years after these literatures were published that less conventional thinking appeared. For this
reason, the negative school of thought in slave economics is often referred to as the
‘traditional view’ (Fogel & Engerman, 1974, p. 215).
3.1 Literature against the economic value of slavery
3.1.1 Profitability and Efficiency
As early as 1862, Irish economist John Elliot Cairnes published ‘The Slave Power: It’s
Character, Career and Probable Design’. One of the most famous literatures within the
subject of slavery, The Slave Power credited Cairnes as being one of the most reputable
authors in the field. Cairnes was a strong believer that slavery was inefficient, to the extent
where the institution of slavery was on a direct course to its end due to no longer being
profitable. This was in part accredited to the lack of motivation of the slaves, as labour was
given reluctantly, but this does not explain why slavery was a failing organisation, as slavery
had run consistently for 242 years by this point (Berry, 2014).
Cairnes clearly believes that slavery was proving detrimental to the economy because of the
growing slave population being held within a confined area. In 1860 slaves accounted for
57% and 55% of the total population in South Carolina and Mississippi respectively (Gov.
Census, 1860). Cairnes believed that slave populations were growing at a faster rate than the
available plantation space which led to an increase in concentration of labourers per acre. The

13 | P a g e
continuous increase in concentration that occurred since slavery begun up until its
abolishment in 1865 eventually became excessive, and began to cause damage to the quality
of soil. Slave labourers were often less skilled, and utilised less capital than free labourers in
the North. As a result, more labourers were required in southern plantations to achieve the
same yields as those in the north, and slaves who had no interest in learning new skills
prevented plantations from diversifying their crops, refreshing the quality of the land, as was
custom in northern plantations. High quantity of slaves over time depleted the fertility of the
land, and reduced the harvests of many southern plantations.
Cairnes argued that whilst estates with high quantities of slave labourers had no wage costs,
there were significant costs in the form of upkeep, and that as soil depletion led to
diminishing marginal returns for slave labour, the upkeep of maintaining a high labour force
in terms of food, housing and security continued to rise to the extent to where it became
unprofitable for some southern plantation owners.
Cairnes’ theory on soil-depleting slaves has been supported in modern work by John
Majewski (2000), and later Roger Kennedy (2003), who recognise firstly that land was
stripped from the native people, and secondly stripped of its nutrients. Kennedy suggests that
Britain’s ‘textile colonial-imperialism’, or Britain’s high demand for textile goods led
southern plantation owners to overextend and attempt to maximise harvest by stockpiling
slaves, and that family owned farms in the northern states had superior soil quality as a result
of more sophisticated and sustainable farming techniques.
Soil depletion is only half of the arguments put together by Cairnes, it was not only the
profits of the plantation owners that suffered but also the southern population as a whole.
Plantations weren’t able to maximise crop yields, which mean plantations couldn’t provide
food for large communities. This meant that individuals had to scatter into different territories
rather than assemble societies. Consequently, there was no capacity to facilitate large
civilisations such as towns and cities where heavy industry and manufacturing could generate
real economic growth.
Cairnes’ believed that slavery not only led to poor farming techniques that damaged the land,
he also argued that slavery had a negative psychological impact on the white population
which discouraged economic activity. Cairnes argued that the free members of society saw
slaves as nothing more than poor, despised and unambitious. The mind-set of society was
such that those who undertake labour would be seen in a similar fashion. He claims that a

14 | P a g e
large portion of the free population were ‘too poor to keep slaves and too proud to work’ (p.
54), and estimates that more than five million individuals in the southern states found
themselves in this situation which he explains is similar to ‘savage life’ (p.54). This meant
that more than a sixth of the total free population of 27 million (Gov. census, 1860) actively
chose not to work as it was seen as degrading. Therefore, the economic potential of the US
was significantly reduced as a result of a partly inactive, idle workforce.
Cairnes puts forward a strong case to suggest that not only was slavery unprofitable, but also
negatively affected the wider economy, but it is likely that Cairnes carried a heavy bias.
Cairnes, writing from Galway, where slavery had been abolished for 40 years, gave little
respect to slave labour and generally only offered one point of view. It’s possible that Cairnes
exaggerated the impact of some of his arguments to reflect his abolitionist beliefs. It may also
have been difficult for Cairnes to fully evaluate the impact slavery had on the economy
because he wrote during the Civil War, when slavery was still legal and not yet in full
decline.
Ulrich Phillips (1905), also one of the most influential historians in the field, believed that
slave labour was, at least for a brief period, an endeavour that was not only highly influential
in early colonial life but also essential to the development of the US in the 17th and early 18th
century. Phillips believed this was because society was not of a similar nature to that of
Europe, but more like Asia, whereby individuals pursued their own aims and objectives via
agriculture or craft, rather than voluntary work. Phillips claimed that ‘men would not work as
voluntary wage-earners in other men’s employ when they might as readily work for
themselves in independence’ (1905 p.258). Consequently, slavery was essential for the US to
develop a strong agricultural sector as it was the only form of labour that owners of large
plantations could access. Black slaves were the only available labour force for the plantation
owners, agreeing with Cairnes (1862) that many whites refused to work, and as a result
demand for slave labour was inelastic, which caused significantly high values of slave
labourers. Slave prices continued to be bid up by slave holders, which led to slaves being
overvalued for their level of productivity. Slave-owners therefore overcapitalised slave
labour, which made it much more difficult to earn returns to their investment. In the northern
states, where individuals were more willing to work, market forces determined the value of
free labourers who would be paid as they worked. Phillips argued that due to the consistent
nature of slave upkeep, as opposed to the flexible cost of free labour in the north, it was very
difficult for plantation owners to earn profit, as earnings were ‘absorbed’ by the workforce

15 | P a g e
who needed to be constantly fed and clothed. Therefore, whilst slavery was an essential part
of the development of the early colonial era, this was due to the nature of the work ethic of
the white population, and that whilst slavery may have provided an opportunity to develop an
agricultural sector, in no way was this sector efficient in comparison to a flexible and free
economic system.
Phillips believed that the institution of slavery was becoming highly inefficient at an
increasing rate, such that, by the beginning of the Civil War, slavery was already dying out. It
was the decision of plantation owners to defend their constitutional rights to slave ownership,
which provided a fundamental tension which later led to the civil war. It was therefore a huge
unnecessary loss of economic potential, to wage war for a system of slavery that was
becoming increasingly uncompetitive against a more efficient free system in the north.
Phillips ultimately concluded that by the mid 1850’s, only the plantations within ‘the most
advantageous parts of the cotton and sugar districts and whose managerial ability was
exceptionally great were earning anything beyond what would cover their maintenance and
carrying charge’ (1918 p.391-92). Phillips was challenged by Herbert Weaver (1941) who
claims that ‘Phillips did not present any direct evidence on this problem but merely stated his
own belief that slavery probably was not profitable’ (p.519). Weaver explains that data
analysis all show that slavery was more likely profitable than not, which he believes is far
more important than theoretical analysis.
Eugene Genovese (1961) takes the view that plantation owners did not prioritise profit-
maximisation. Displays of wealth and the accumulation of slaves and land were far more
important to slave-owners than rational business decisions. Genovese (1979), agreed with the
theory that slave labour depleted soil quality, but this was something the plantation owners
were capable of managing and restoring, yet neglected to do so by rejecting the developments
in technology. Soil depletion was therefore not a result of poor slave work ethic, but by
complacent plantation owners with no ambition to improve their plantations via new
technology or farming techniques.
Ramsdell (1929) has similar themes to that of Phillips (1905) and argues that the economic
forces that led to the expansion of slavery in the southern states and then into further western
states had ‘reached their maximum effectiveness’ (p. 171) by 1860. Profits were only
available in rich land where huge plantations could benefit from economies of scale. Whilst
slave-produced crops may have been very reasonably priced, they had continued to lose

16 | P a g e
competitiveness against their free counterparts, and in the absence of the civil war, wouldn’t
have lasted any longer than a generation more. Ramsdell believes that the abolition of slavery
as a result of the Civil War came at a frightful cost and plunged the economy into poverty for
40 years, arguably an unnecessary war given the direction that slavery was heading.
Robert Paul Thomas and Richard Nelson Bean (1974) deny arguments that the slave trade
was excessively profitable, and compare the profits available in the procurement of slavery to
that of fishing. They believe that slavery was a highly beneficial custom, but explain that the
main beneficiaries of slavery were the European consumers of slave crops such as cotton and
sugar (p912).
The nominal value of land in the US was approximately $4.05 per acre in 1805, and $7.68 in
1850, it was therefore easy for an individual to set up his own plantation and begin to grow
cotton and sugar, and credit was readily available for entrepreneurs who wanted to purchase
slaves to work on their plantations (Lindert, 1988). As a result, there were little or no barriers
to entry for a European migrant wanting to begin a plantation enterprise and purchase slaves
to do so. Similarly, capital was easily available for entrepreneurs wanting to navigate to West
Africa in order to procure slaves to trade. Other than the time taken to travel the Atlantic,
which Bean and Thomas approximate to be anywhere between five to sixteen weeks each
way (Bean & Thomas, 1974 p.896), it was undemanding to procure slaves, who were unable
to defend themselves against superior weapon technology. Bean and Thomas compare the
industries of both slave procurement, transport, and plantation management to that of perfect
competition. There were low barriers to entry, goods in both product and factor markets were
homogenous, and firms were price takers with a relatively small market share. Bean and
Thomas therefore believe that at best, assuming a highly efficient system, any economic rents
earned were only short term, as in the long term any rents previously earned were received by
the efforts of new fisherman, or kidnappers. Assuming a system described by Cairnes (1862),
or Phillips (1905), it would have been impossible to have achieved any economic profit as
any earnings were eroded away by the inefficiencies of the firms. As a result, there were little
long term gains to be made in slavery. The only true beneficiary were the consumers of the
finished goods where consumer surplus was maximised. This was later challenged by Daudin
(2004), who suggested that the slave trade provided opportunity for safe capital investment
for wealthy individuals within France and the rest of Europe. Walvin (2007) also argued
against this believing that the ‘economic value of the slave trade was visible and
unavoidable’, citing ship building and banking as external beneficiaries.

17 | P a g e
Bean and Thomas believe it may have been possible for plantations to earn economic profit
after the slave trade was abolished in 1807, as this created a barrier to entry for potential new
plantations, and the supply of slaves was no longer in abundance. It was at this point where
breeding slaves became much more profitable, something that incumbent plantation owners
were able to successfully capitalise on. No slave trade meant the only opportunity to acquire
slaves was through reproduction. More profitable industries emerged that were purely for
breeding. Industries also emerged where slaves could be bought at a young age, and then sold
at maturity, earning economic profit much like the holding of a commodity.
Wright (2006) argues against Fogel and Engerman (1974) claiming that data in the 1860
census is skewed due to slaves not being considered as part of the population. Black slaves
were part of the living population within the antebellum south and should have been
appropriately considered in the 1860 census data. However, it was the accounting convention
to include slave labourers as capital, external from the population data, treated as personal
property of the slave-owners. Wright believed that cotton was allocated to southern
plantations due to the unpleasant nature of cotton picking, and therefore labour was
reallocated to match slaves with the most unpleasant tasks.
Fogel and Engerman (1974) point to the reduction in output per capita following the abolition
of slavery in 1865, but Wright (1979) believes this is more reflective on the stagnation of
demand for cotton from British colonies. Demand for cotton fell in the years following
abolition, this trend continued for 18 years which led to a 30% decrease in per capita cotton
earnings. Fogel and Engerman (1974 p.292) believe that this was due to a lack of efficiency
from free labourers, but Wright argues that once demand had stabilised, prices remained at
1865 levels, whereas they would be expected to rise supposing a reduction in efficiency
(1979 p.225).
Wright secondly challenges the work of Conrad and Meyer (1958), believing that whilst it is
accepted that returns to female field workers may have been higher than other forms of
labour, this was due not to increased efficiency, but instead an increase in labour
participation. Wright describes other fallacies in slave efficiency made by previous authors as
having made wrong assumptions, such as the assumption that free labourers work equal hours
to slaves, or that slaves worked with higher intensity. These views were ‘not based on direct
evidence’ (1979, p. 226), but poor, unrealistic assumptions.

18 | P a g e
Robert Gallman (1979), believed that the business behind owning a plantation operated by
slaves was a significantly more complicated enterprise than a free-run plantation. Free
labourers on northern plantations and factories were handed their compensation for working
and then were sent home to buy food, feed themselves, and live their own private lives. In
southern slave plantations, costs were constant, slaves had to be fed, clothed, given medical
treatment, housed, and given security to ensure that slaves could not escape captivity. Free
labourers were much more independent, and as a result had significantly more flexibility
surrounding the terms of their contract. During economic downturn, where demand for goods
were low, or during a poor season with low agricultural yields, northern plantations were able
to reduce their labour force in line with their production or income stream, and then increase
their labour force again once the climate readjusted. Southern plantations on the other hand,
had no other option but to endure the fixed costs of their labour force. During an economic
downturn, or poor harvest, southern plantations were unable to lay off workers when they
needed to like northern plantations could. There was little opportunity to sell their slaves
either, as the price of slaves was determined by a derived demand for crops, and therefore the
chances were that if a plantation owner needed to sell slaves to lower costs and maximise
efficiency, so did other plantation owners, so slave prices would be low. Similarly, when a
plantation owner would need to increase his labour force following an increase in production,
again, so would other plantation owners, and therefore the price for slaves would be high.
Thus, it was in the best interests of a plantation owner to hold onto their slaves and bare the
impact of the poor climate, whether economic or agricultural.
Gallman believe that the need to retain slaves irrespective of current climate affected the
strategies of plantations owners, and how they managed their plantations. Slavery led to a
certain vulnerability which forced plantation owners to diversify their production to have
different revenue streams, so that if the plantation received low orders for one product, it
wouldn’t have such a negative impact on the organisation a whole. Gallman therefore
believed that plantations were unable to specialise as Fogel and Engerman (1974) had
suggested. This was something that Northern plantations were perfectly capable of doing, and
so were able to capitalize on economies of scale in a way that southern plantations simply
couldn’t risk.
Ralph Anderson and Gallman (1977) believe that diversification was inevitable due to the
available skillset of the slaves. Acquiring a large volume of slaves all with a similar set of
skills that could be put to work in one production line was difficult. Northern organisations

19 | P a g e
could easily hire the appropriate labour with all the relevant skills, whereas southern
plantations had to tailor their economic activity to the skills of their labour force. As a result,
plantation owners were further unable to specialise in production of particular goods.
Moreover, Anderson and Gallman argue that due to the versatility of northern plantations and
ability to specialise and maximise efficiency, new farming techniques and technology were
adopted which modernised enterprise in not only agriculture but also infrastructure in the
community. Towns and cities in the north were therefore more modern and comprised of
better living conditions. In the long run, towards the end of slavery, the incomes of the
northern population were significantly higher than that of the south as the gains from northern
plantations spilled over into the local economy. Modernisation and trade allowed the north to
develop a manufacturing sector as new technologies and machinery needed to be identified
and developed. Southern plantations, where newer technology was not embraced, were able
to manufacture all the basic tools they required within the plantations themselves.
Consequently, the north developed a large manufacturing industry using technology that was
previously unavailable, improving their economic growth, and expanding much faster than
the south.
3.1.2 Wider Implications
Plantation owner’s profits may not have been the primary factor in determining whether
slavery was economically lucrative. Eric Williams, who became the first prime minister of
Trinidad and Tobago, wrote in Capitalism and Slavery (1944) that the slave trade initially
strengthened trade ties between Europe and the Americas. Slaves provided the antebellum
south with the necessary labour to farm goods in high quantities such as sugar, tobacco and
cotton, which could be traded with England and the rest of Europe for textile and industrial
goods. Williams claimed this allowed southern plantations to specialise in more commercial
crops instead of having to diversify. By mass producing profitable crops, the antebellum
south gained access via trade with Europe to tools and industrial equipment that were
unavailable domestically.
Viewing slavery as a purely economic investment, Williams explains how slavery imploded
as a result of the increasingly thriving British industrial revolution and American
independence. The British economy benefitted significantly from abundant American

20 | P a g e
imports, and also provided export markets for British firms. The capital raised was used to
fund railway networks that strengthened the British economy further. Britain successfully
developed new technologies, new farming techniques and promoted domestic production,
which put pressure on US competitiveness. Similarly, America gained independence, this
subjected the US to being a foreign country from the perspective of the UK (1944, p.120).
Given the UK’s mercantilist policies, the US now found it extremely difficult to export to the
UK, as it was no longer one of its colonies. Plantations now struggling to export their supply
therefore struggled to pay for imported goods. This combined with plantation rebellion
becoming more common, made it extremely difficult to maintain a profitable plantation.
Ultimately, calls for abolition were not purely for humanitarian reasons but also economic
ones. Whilst slavery had been rewarding in the early stages to both plantations and the wider
society, its benefits could only reach so far, and eventually was overtaken by a much more
advanced modern society.
Richard Wade (1964) believes that slavery became more difficult to maintain as the
landscape became more urban. As the number of cities and towns increased towards the
1850s and 1860s, slave labour was brought in to work within them. Due to the compact
environment of the cities compared to the spaced out plantations, escape became much easier
for slaves working in the urban setting, and thus, costs of maintaining discipline and
preventing escape significantly increased. It may have been the urbanisation of the landscape
that led to the end of slavery.
Peter Lindert and Oscar Mendez (2013) compare incomes five years either side of the Civil
War to try and give an explanation of the impact that an overreliance of slave labour had on
the southern states. Lindert and Mendez show that real average household income in the
south Atlantic fell from $929 to $622 between 1860 and 1870. Meanwhile, the real average
household income for a slave/non-white increased from $132 to $219 over the same period.
These figures may point to a reliance on slave labour which could not be replaced by free
workers after abolition. After abolition, the southern states were left susceptible to market
forces where previously slave labour had left prices constantly low. The significant reduction
in incomes show that southern plantations struggled to compete like they had previously,
most likely because southern plantations previously had an abundance of labour which
compensated for a lack of capital, and so after abolition, southern plantations didn’t have the
modern technology which would allow then to compete in a free market. The key difficulty
with Lindert and Mendez’s work is that data and statistics can be skewed by the events of the

21 | P a g e
Civil War. The Civil War caused a large loss of economic potential which isn’t reflected in
the data, although it has to be mentioned that in the same period of time, northern incomes
increased, this may be due to the negative effects of the Civil War being much less in the
north than the south.
3.1.3 WidespreadInequality
The level to which slavery benefitted or harmed the antebellum south may not be measurable
purely on the revenues generated or the way that the capital was spent. Peter Lindert and
Jeffrey Williamson (2011) attempt to measure the impact of slavery by examining the
changes in income inequality and growth rates between 1774 and 1860. Lindert and
Williamson collect income data on four dates, 1774, 1800, 1840 and 1860 to attempt to show
a pattern in the direction of incomes in various regions within the US. Lindert and
Williamson’s results show that in 1774, the Southern Atlantic states had significantly higher
real product per capita in 1840s dollars with $105.70 compared to $61.83 and $73.81 in New
England and the Middle Atlantic states (2011, p.29). This dominance of the southern states
fades over the following 86 years. Between 1774 and 1800, the real product per capita falls in
all three regions, but most significantly in the South Atlantic, where real product per capita
falls by 30%, far worse than 7% in the mid-Atlantic and 8% in New England. Between 1800
and 1840, the real product per capita rises in all three regions, but least significantly in the
South Atlantic with 15%, compared to 74% in the mid-Atlantic and 127% in New England
(p.29). This trend continues up to 1860. Lindert and Williamson show that whilst real product
per capita was significantly higher in 1774, by 1860 the South Atlantic fell well behind other
regions within the US, falling behind regions such as the mid-west and the pacific coast,
regions that in 1774 hadn’t even been settled.
They also show that there were significant income inequality changes within the south
between 1774 and 1860. The Gini coefficient amongst the southern Atlantic states increased
from 0.464 to 0.6 over the 86-year period, the highest amongst all US regions (p.32). The
Southern Atlantic states also have the lowest percentage of wealth amongst the poorest 40%
of the population, with the bottom group owning just 7.6% of the wealth, ‘a level of
inequality hard to find anywhere in Europe’ (p.24).

22 | P a g e
Lindert and Williamson argue that whilst income inequality is severe in the antebellum south,
it was not the black slaves at the bottom of the income ladder, it was in fact the white, idle
individuals who John Elliot Cairnes earlier described as ‘too proud to work’ (Cairnes, 1862
p.54). Over the course of 1800 to 1840, where many economists believe slavery’s major
downfall took place, southern growth was 0.35% per year, significantly lower than the 1.89%
average amongst the original thirteen colonies (p.29). It has to be said that this poor growth
may not be completely due to slavery, however growth was significantly higher in other
regions, where labour was given freely. This trend that may have been a further contribution
to the fall of slavery.
3.2 Literature supporting the economic value of slavery
3.2.1 TheoreticalArgument
One of the most famous books regarding the economics of slavery in the antebellum south is
‘Time on the Cross’ (1974) by Robert Fogel and Stanley Engerman.
Fogel and Engerman (1974) provide perhaps the most compelling view that slavery was an
institution which benefitted all involved. Much of the literature on slavery prior to ‘Time on
the cross’ held the traditional view that slavery was an inefficient system which caused
extensive economic damage with the exception of Conrad & Meyer (1958), and Stampp
(1956), who viewed slavery as harsh, but profitable.
Fogel and Engerman believe that at the time, slavery was one of the most profitable
investments available, more profitable than investment opportunities in manufacturing in the
north. This was due to the high quality of agriculture which came with slave labour.
Generally, slaves were harder working, more productive, and more efficient than free
labourers, and plantations were able to benefit from economies of scale as a result of large
plantations with high quantities of workers – something that family run northern farms
couldn’t do. Fogel and Engerman agree with Phillips (1905) when he wrote that upkeep of
slaves exceeded the wage of free labourers, but argues that this suggests that slaves enjoyed a
better quality of life and better living conditions. Not only did slaves enjoy better living
conditions, but also better medical care and family stability, something that became important

23 | P a g e
to slave-owners, as this encouraged productivity. Slaves were often bought and sold as a
family, and children were seldom sold before the age of 18, a natural age for leaving the
family, anyway. Fogel and Engerman explain whilst many literatures suggest that abuse and
whipping were common on plantations, there is a lack of reliable data to reinforce this. They
accept that physical abuse was present in some plantations, but it was very rare claiming that
“although some masters were brutal, even sadistic, most were not” (p. 146). This theory came
under a lot of criticism from Gutman (1975) who argued that slaves didn’t work hard because
of relationships with their masters, but due to the threat of negative incentives such as
physical abuse.
Fogel and Engerman further disagree with Phillips and Ramsdell (1929) that slavery would
have concluded in the absence of the civil war. They believe that there is no evidence to
suggest such a scenario, and that slave-owners themselves were optimistic about the future,
anticipating a period of success similar to the previous 20 years where the south had enjoyed
significant growth rates of 2.41% (Lindert, 2011; Gray & Thompson 1933).
James Walvin (2007), sees further than the immediate profits of the plantation owners,
believing that a huge merchant industry emerged as a result of slavery. Thousands of ships
travelled continuously between the US, Europe, and West Africa, transporting both slaves,
and goods such as cotton and sugar. Due to the extreme lengths of the voyages travelling
between all three destinations, there was a huge demand for credit and investment from the
merchants, and Walvin attributes the industries developed from slavery and the credit
required to run them as the foundation which developed the London banking system. He
believed that the exploitation of black slaves in the antebellum south had huge benefits to
many white entrepreneurs such as merchants, plantation owners, kidnappers, and breeders,
but acknowledges that slavery also ‘created poverty and misery on an epic scale’. Walvin
refers to the sizeable luxurious homes of the merchants and planters that resulted from slave
related activities as proof that slavery was in fact a highly profitable organisation.
It is mentioned earlier in the chapter that Ulrich Phillips claimed that slavery was inefficient,
but he did concede that slaves were treated rather well. Slaves were awarded with good
quality health care and were well fed, and were treated with loyalty and respect (Phillips
1918, chapter 6). He argues that slavery may have been a necessary means of fitting the black
population into modern society, whom he felt were unsophisticated and not used to civilised
life (1905, p.207). It was therefore vital to contain the slaves into a productive environment

24 | P a g e
where they could enjoy a reasonable standard of living, something they could not have
achieved as a free member of society. Overall, Phillips believed that whilst slaves enjoyed a
reasonable quality of life, slavery was highly inefficient, which made profits at its early
stages, but failed to be economically viable in its adolescence, and made no progress between
its foundation and its termination.
Douglas North (1961) believed that high cotton demand from Britain caused export-led
growth in the southern states, and that the benefits from southern exports trickled down into
the northern and western regions. High quantities of slaves were required to satisfy British
cotton demand, and therefore high quantities of food were needed to feed the slaves working
on the plantations. Food was imported from the western regions into the southern states to
meet the needs of the working population. Similarly, the northern states also benefitted, as
southern plantations had no means of producing manufactured goods. As a result, southern
states imported goods from the northern factories. North (1961) therefore concludes that the
benefits from the exports of cotton were passed onto the western and northern regions,
through demand for food and manufactured goods.
3.2.2 StatisticalMeasurement
Alfred Conrad and John Meyer (1958) also disagreed with Phillips and Ramsdell about
slavery’s decline leading up to the civil war stating that ‘this is a romantic hypothesis that
will not stand against the facts’ (p. 121). They argue that slavery was so profitable, and
therefore in such high demand, that industries were created purely by breeding slaves after
the transatlantic slave trade was abolished in 1807. Southern agriculture struggled in the post-
civil war period but Conrad and Meyer don’t attribute that to over reliance in slave labour or
inefficiencies of the plantations, but the elimination of the slave-breeding industries which up
until abolition were so lucrative. They suggest that the future of slavery would have been
continued geographical expansion, as the total number of acres used in slave plantations had
continued to increase substantially in recent years, and that the institution of slavery was
dependant on this expansion. It is for this reason that the southern states Seceded from the
Union and fought so relentlessly against the government led by Abraham Lincoln. Conrad
and Meyer conclude that there was no reason or possibility that slavery could have ended as
previous contributions suggest unless severe political measures were taken, and ultimately,
slavery ended as a result of political and humanitarian pressure, not economic pressure.

25 | P a g e
Conrad and Meyer create a model which calculates the nominal profitability of a female
prime field hand over the course of her life on a plantation, taking into account initial
purchasing costs, revenues from field work from both herself and her children, future selling
value of the children, and personal upkeep (food, clothes and shelter) of both herself and her
children. It could be assumed that prime field slaves, bought at the age of 18, could have on
average anywhere between 5-10 children, spaced 2 years apart due to unsuccessful
pregnancies which were common due to high mortality rates. Conrad and Meyer take into
consideration the lost productivity of a female field worker due to pregnancy and childcare
needs, which they calculate to be between 40-50%. They also assume that a slave incurs an
annual cost to the master of $20 per year, and given that any children of the female begin
work in the field aged six, a male slave can begin to earn revenues to cover his costs at age
nine, and females aged thirteen.
Conrad and Meyer calculate that an investment on a female field hand can take up to 21 years
simply to break even, because only 20 years after the original purchase is made do returns to
breeding begin to appear as the children reach 18. Even up to 8 years after the slave leaves
service (most likely through death), there were revenues still being received as a result of the
earnings from the children being sold. Conrad and Meyer explain that while a less
reproductive slave may not have been as lucrative an investment, fewer losses were made in
the period shortly after purchase, and so were still highly profitable. By mapping out 12
models that calculate the productivity, cost, and reproduction of slaves in different
environments and conditions, they believe that in a worst case scenario, the annual rate of
return to a slave investment would be 4.5%. Assuming a highly reproductive female field
hand, approximate return could be as high as 13%, even at a starting present value of $1,700.
The use of cliometrics in determining the profitability of slavery has been called into
question, with Frank Knight (1930-35) arguing that profitability has any number of meanings,
and that just because slavery may have been profitable, does not mean it benefitted the
economy as a whole.
Conrad and Meyer use the highly rewarding industry of slave reproduction in response to
previous work that suggest that slavery was an inefficient institution. They quote Ulrich
Phillips and John Elliot Cairnes and challenge their work. They believe that the idea that
slaves were inefficient is most untestable, and that advancements in agricultural techniques
were essential to northern plantations due to the scarcity of labour relative to plantation land.
Any argument that slaves had to be cared for both prior and post working age, is

26 | P a g e
compensated for in their model, an issue which they believe is offset by the ability to employ
the children at a young age. Conrad and Meyer directly contest Phillips’ hypothesis that slave
plantation owners overcapitalised their labour force and that slave prices rocketed whilst
cotton prices remained stable, arguing that slaves were a much more cost-effective
investment than other forms of capital investment of the era such as railway.
Samuel Williamson and Louis Cain (2011) attempt to measure the value of a slave in modern
dollars in order to add perspective to the worth of a slave. They estimate that buying a slave
in 1860 would cost roughly $20,000 in modern day dollars, up to 55% more if the slave was
skilled such a blacksmith or a carpenter, and up to 60% less if the slave was known to be a
runaway or physically impaired. Between 1843 and 1861, Williamson and Cain believe that
the value of slaves tripled from just under $300 to $800. They attribute this increase to the
improvements in productivity of the slaves, as well as better managed soil quality. This
contradicts many of the arguments put forwards by the like of John Elliot Cairnes (1862) and
Eugene Genovese (1961), who explained that plantation owners were ignorant to the
decreasing soil quality as a result of slave labour. Whilst purchasing a slave may have come
at a considerable cost, Williamson and Cain believe that the labour income from owning a
slave in 1860 was approximately $130,000 in 2011 dollars, significantly higher than the
$20,000 cost. They therefore concluded that the purchase of slaves was a highly profitable
investment that had a significant impact on the economy. They do appreciate however that
the profits from slavery were very focused amongst the richer individuals in society and
explain that income inequality in the south was significantly higher than in the north.
Engerman, Sutch and Wright (2003) look at trends in quantity of slaves and also the value of
slaves over time, in order to give an understanding of the profitability of slavery. They argue
that the patterns in the quantity of slaves will reflect the demand for slave labour at the time.
If both the supply and price of slaves continued to increase over time, then there must have
been a strong increase in demand to account for such a change. After the slave trade was
abolished in 1807, any increases in slave population had to be purely natural. The authors
believe that the slave population grew 2% per year from 1807 until the beginning of the civil
war, although grew significantly faster in some western states, with slave populations in
Mississippi increasing from 17,088 to 463,631 between 1810 and 1860. Slavery had to have
been economically profitable if slaves were in such high demand. Slave prices reached all
time high levels during the 1850s of approximately $1500 for a top quality field worker.

27 | P a g e
Engerman et al (2003) correlate the demand for slave labour with their price, concluding that
high demand for slave labour reflects their high profitability.
The demand for slave labour was so high, that in 1859, human capital in terms of slaves
accounted for 44% of all the wealth in cotton growing southern states (Ransom and Sutch
1988). Consequently, slave labour was highly profitable to the plantation owners who utilised
them. Engerman et al. (2003) do acknowledge that the high earnings of the plantation owners
had little or no positive impact on other members within society, and that whilst slavery may
have been highly profitable to the wealthy owners, the free white population suffered to
compete in product markets where slave goods were cheaply available. They therefore
conclude that in the absence of the civil war, it is difficult to determine the course that the
institution of slavery would take, but given the high prices of slave labour in the 1850’s and
1860s, it is right to assume that the slave-owners had confidence in the future of slavery.
However, the wider society had been pushing towards the abolition of slavery for a century,
and during the civil war, rebellion became more and more frequent, Engerman et al. (2003)
argue that this ‘may have masked an underlying vulnerability that could not have been
suppressed indefinitely’ (p. 11). Therefore, whilst the civil war did speed up the decline of
slavery, it seems unlikely that the institution of slavery would have lasted much longer.

28 | P a g e
Chapter 4: Discussion
It’s fair to say that the issue surrounding the economics of slavery is one with many different
viewpoints. Now that we have a good overview of all the theories, further discussion is
required to relate some of the ideas to economic factors, and explain how slavery impacted
those factors. The following chapter will attempt to consider how the points raised in the
previous chapter can begin to answer the key question, of whether slavery had a positive
impact on the economy.
4.1 Consumer Spending
One key factor behind economic development is consumer spending. To a degree, plantations
were partly self-sufficient. Whilst some imports were required, plantations tried to produce
themselves what they could. Northern plantations were much more focused on specialised
production rather than self-sufficiency, and therefore were required to buy more goods to
support themselves. As a result, there may have been less spending in the southern economy,
as a result of more independent southern plantations. Secondly, slaves, who were not granted
a wage but instead received their compensation through food and shelter, had no freedom to
spend money in the local economy. As a result, slaves made no direct contribution to
aggregate demand as they may have as free workers. Therefore, slavery may have had a
negative impact on consumer spending in the southern states.
4.2 Employment
Whilst large quantities of labourers were required to work on southern plantations, these
workers were brought from overseas, rejecting the white population of readily available
workers. Southern plantations often had more workers than northern plantations, this was
mostly due to having less capital per capita. The workers were imported, which meant the
plantations had little impact on southern employment statistics, with exception to those who
were employed to manage and secure slaves on plantations with a high labour force. As
Cairnes (1862) strongly argued, slavery forced much of the white population into a way of
life that resembles a limbo. Any opportunity for work would be taken by the slaves, but they
were not wealthy enough to buy slaves of their own. Slavery may have therefore had a direct
negative effect on the employment levels of the south. However, there may have been other

29 | P a g e
opportunities created as a result of slavery. Individuals were required to discipline the slaves
and ensure their captivity. Individuals were also required to both procure and transport slaves
across the Atlantic and to plantations. Opportunities may have arisen in the merchant industry
as a result of increased cotton exports, as buying cotton to sell into Europe became a large
industry. The finance industry thrived as a result of need for credit from both slave-owners
and merchant sailors. There may have been employment effects in Europe and especially the
UK as a result of cheap cotton imports. The manufacturing of clothes in particular, became an
important part of the industrial revolution. British consumers benefited from the availability
of cheap clothes, and workers were required to produce them. Northern manufacturers also
benefited from the available cotton. New York became a large exporter of cotton related
goods, and by the 1820’s, half of New York’s exports were cotton related (NYD). As a result,
slavery may have indirectly created jobs in industries related to both slaves and cotton.
4.3 Balance of payments
The United States was able to produce cotton, tobacco and sugar on an extremely large scale
and export it to Europe. As a result, the US gained a balance of payments surplus. One of the
major themes that looms over this dissertation is the level of efficiency that the plantations
worked at, it is possible that under a free system, plantations could have been more efficient
and more productive. Plantations would have been able to supply cotton at an even cheaper
rate if this was the case, and therefore it could be argued that slavery limited the exports of
the southern plantations.
4.4 Gross Domestic Product
The impact slavery had on GDP is one of the most debated areas. In the absence of slave
labour, plantations would have still existed, only instead been run by free workers. There are
many arguments to suggest that antebellum plantations would have been both more efficient
and cheaper under a free society than in a society where slavery existed. On one hand, slaves
depleted soil quality, limited scientific agriculture, discouraged profit maximising decisions,
and were demotivated to work. On the other hand, slaves were often well treated, and so
worked hard, provided cotton and sugar to be exported in large quantities, and forged new
trade routes. The impact that slavery had on GDP is largely ambiguous amongst economists
and historians. An increase in GDP does not necessarily mean that slavery benefited the
economy, especially if all of the gains were received by the wealthy plantation owners whilst

30 | P a g e
the poorer slaves and white population struggled. As previously mentioned, slaves could not
contribute to consumer spending as workers in the free northern states could. Real GDP
growth in the South Atlantic was only 0.31% between 1776 and 1860, this reveals that the
economy as a whole failed to grow at a rate that kept up with the rest of the country (Lindert
& Williamson, 2011). It would be fair to say that the economy was hampered by the
institution of slavery.
4.5 Wages
This subcategory requires little discussion. Slaves weren’t paid wages, but more relevantly
put downward pressure on the wages of the free workers. Free workers were in low demand
given the availability of slave labour, and as a result their wages suffered. Real product per
capita in the South Atlantic was $137.75 in 1860 (1840’s dollars), significantly less than
$181.39 and $186.65 in New England and the Mid Atlantic respectively (Lindert &
Williamson, 2011). It is likely that the low real product per capita was reflected in the wage
rate.

31 | P a g e
Chapter 5: Conclusion
The following chapter aims to use all of the available arguments and resulting discussion in
order to answer the four key questions recognised in the introduction, and make a valid
judgement on the implications that slavery had on the economy.
Given the difficulty in comparing agricultural yields between the two regions as they
specialised in separate crops, statistical analysis cannot be used to give a reliable comparison
of northern and southern productivity. In 1860, the US produced 2.15 billion pounds of
cotton, none of which was produced in the northern states (US Census, 1860 pg. 94). The
north developed its own manufacturing industry and its plantations embraced modern
technology growing different crops. The idea first put forward by Cairnes (1862) regarding
soil depletion is widely accepted within the field, and has a huge bearing on the outcome.
Poor quality soil led to lower yields, which meant plantations couldn’t support town and
cities where real economic progress was made. Generally, slave plantations were harder to
manage, and plantation owners often didn’t optimise their production, as they were
complacent with the profits they were making. Slaves might have been demotivated to work
as a result of their captivity, but on the other hand they may have worked hard whether it be
as a result of force or loyalty to their masters. Cairnes’ theory of soil depletion, combined
with the statistics put forward by Lindert and Williamson (2011) that show significantly
higher growth in the northern states, lead me to believe that whilst southern slave-run farms
may have been profitable, the high level of inefficiency resulting from slave labour lagged
productivity and agricultural yields, and therefore, plantations in a free society were more
productive.
Cairnes (1862) believed that slavery encouraged a backwards way of life for many of the
unemployed members of the southern population. Working was depicted as a slave’s job, yet
these individuals were too poor to own slaves, and so instead lived a poor quality of life, one
which may have been worse than that of the slaves themselves. Whilst slavery might had
have created some opportunities, they weren’t necessarily focused in the southern states.
Slaves put a downward pressure of wages, which lowered the per capita income of the white
population. This happened gradually over the course of the slavery, and it is likely that the
free members of society were made considerably worse off, as a result of an abundant slave
labour force.

32 | P a g e
Fogel & Engerman (1974) and Wright (1979) contest the impact abolition had on plantation
productivity, with the former referring to the loss in per capita income and the latter referring
to price stability as a result of free labour. In reality, no fair conclusion can be made, as the
Civil War, which resulted in abolition, cost many lives and destroyed a lot of capital. The
Civil War caused a huge loss of economic potential in the southern states, and so no accurate
deduction can be made as to the impact that abolition had on the productivity of plantations,
as any data is affected by the destruction caused by the Civil War. It is likely that further
study is required in order to separate the impact of both the Civil War and abolition on
southern incomes and productivity.
James Walvin (2007) believed that the merchant industry developed as a result of the exports
of the southern states. Merchants were required to buy and sell slaves, cotton, and sugar and
transport them across the Atlantic. Both the northern states and Britain developed a
manufacturing industry as a result of the cotton surplus from the south, and were able to
make clothes. He also believes that modern banking developed from credit required to
finance the slave trade. Overall, it is very likely that opportunities arose in other areas of the
globe as a result of slavery. It is doubtful however that the increased opportunities from
slavery were significant enough to compensate for the loss of jobs that the free population of
the southern states suffered.
In the light of all the relevant arguments, it’s fair to say that slavery had a mixed effect on the
economy of the United States. Slavery was profitable, this is showcased by the large manors
and plantations that were owned by the rich slave-owners, though it is more than likely that
slave-run plantations were not as efficient as northern plantations. Northern plantations were
often family run, and so did not accumulate large areas of land as the southern plantations
did. As a result the wealth was more evenly spread rather than focused amongst the fewer
rich slave-owners in the south. Had southern plantations used free labour, who according to
Gallman (1979), were relatively cheaper, and also incorporated modern farming techniques
and technology, they would have been more efficient and wealthier. Slavery also resulted in
extensive income inequality, something that the northern states weren’t subject to at such a
high level. In conclusion, whilst slavery was hugely profitable for a small selection of
wealthy plantation owners, slavery as a whole not only subjected the south to widespread
income inequality, but also restricted the economic growth of the southern states which
resulted in the southern economy lagging behind the rest of the country.

33 | P a g e
Bibliography
13Th Amendment. 1865. United States Constitution.
Anderson, Ralph V. and Robert E. Gallman. "Slaves As Fixed Capital: Slave Labor And
Southern Economic Development". The Journal of American History 64.1 (1977): 24.
Web.
Berry, Diana Ramey. "Slavery In America: Back In The Headlines". Notevenpast.org. N.p.,
2014. Web. 20 Apr. 2016.
C.W, and A.J.K.D. "Did Slavery Make Economic Sense?". The Economist. N.p., 2013. Web.
20 Apr. 2016.
Cairnes, John Elliott. The Slave Power: Its Character, Career, And Probable Designs. New
York: Negro Universities Press, 1962. Print.
Conrad, Alfred H and John Robert Meyer. The Economics Of Slavery In The Ante Bellum
South. [Chicago]: N.p., 1958. Print.
Daudin, Guillaume. "Profitability Of Slave And Long-Distance Trading In Context: The Case
Of Eighteenth-Century France". The Journal of Economic History 64.01 (2004): n. pag.
Web.
Davis, Ronald. "Slavery In America: Historical Overview". (2008): n. pag. Print.
Direction of the Secretary of the Interior,. ,. Agriculture Of The United States In 1860
Compiled From The Eighth Census.. Washington: Washington: Government Printing
Office, 1864. Print.
Donoghue, John. "Out Of The Land Of Bondage": The English Revolution And The Atlantic
Origins Of Abolition". (2010): n. pag. Print.
Engerman, Stanley, Gavin Wright, and Richard Sutch. "SLAVERY For Historical Statistics
Of The United States Millennial Edition". (2003): n. pag. Print.
Fogel, Robert W and Stanley L Engerman. Explaining The Relative Efficiency Of Slave
Agriculture In The Antebellum South 1977. Print.
Fogel, Robert William and Stanley L Engerman. Time On The Cross. Boston: Little, Brown
& Co., 1974. Print.
Gallman, Robert E. "Slavery And Southern Economic Growth". Southern Economic
Journal 45.4 (1979):

34 | P a g e
Genovese, Eugene D. From Rebellion To Revolution. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State
University Press, 1979. Print.
Genovese, Eugene D. Roll, Jordan, Roll. New York: Pantheon Books, 1974. Print.
Genovese, Eugene. "The Slave South: An Interpretation". Science and Society (1961): n. pag.
Print.
Govan, Thomas P. "Was Plantation Slavery Profitable?". The Journal of Southern History 8.4
(1942): 513. Web.
Gray, L. C and Esther Katherine Thompson. History Of Agriculture In The Southern United
States To 1860. Washington: The Carnegie Institution of Washington, 1933. Print.
Gutman, Herbert G. Slavery And The Numbers Game. Urbana: University of Illinois Press,
1975. Print.
Jr., James E. Lewis and Roger G. Kennedy. "Mr. Jefferson's Lost Cause: Land, Farmers,
Slavery, And The Louisiana Purchase". Journal of the Early Republic 23.2 (2003): 283.
Web.
Knight, Frank. "Profit". Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences (1930): n. pag. Print.
Lindert, Peter and Jeffrey Williamson. "'American Incomes, 1774-1860'". Journal of
Economic History (2011): pag. Print.
Lindert, Peter and Oscar Mendez. "Summery Of Regional Incomes 1860 Versus
1870". Journal of Economic History (2013): pag. Print.
Lindert, Peter H. Long-Run Trends In American Farmland Values. Davis, Calif.: Agricultural
History Center, University of California, 1988. Print.
Majewski, John D. A House Dividing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
Print.
"New York Divided". Nydivided.org. Web. 20 Apr. 2016.
North, Douglas. "The Economic Growth Of The United States, 1790-1860". (1961): n. pag.
Print.
Phillips, Ulrich Bonnell. American Negro Slavery. New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1918.
Print.
Phillips, Ulrich Bonnell. The Economic Cost Of Slaveholding In The Cotton Belt. [Place of
publication not identified]: N.p., 1905. Print.

35 | P a g e
Phillips, Ulrich Bonnell. Transportation In The Ante-Bellum South. [New York?]: [Publisher
not identified], 1905. Print.
Ramsdell, Charles W. The Natural Limits Of Slavery Expansion. [Place of publication not
identified]: Mississippi Valley Historical Association, 1929. Print.
Ransom, Roger L and Richard Sutch. Capitalists Without Capital. Berkeley, CA (156
Barrows Hall, University of California, Berkeley 94720): Institute of Business and
Economic Research, 1988. Print.
Scarborough, William K. and Julia Floyd Smith. "Slavery And Plantation Growth In
Antebellum Florida, 1821-1860". The American Historical Review 80.2 (1975): 44-46.
Web.
Sowell, Thomas. Black Rednecks And White Liberals. San Francisco, Calif.: Encounter
Books, 2005. Print.
Stampp, Kenneth M. The Peculiar Institution. New York: Knopf, 1956. Print.
Sutch, Richard. "The Profitability Of Ante Bellum Slavery: Revisited". Southern Economic
Journal31.4 (1965): 365. Web.
The Direction of the Secretary of the Interior,. Ninth Census-Volume III 1870. Washington:
Washington Government Printing Office, 1872. Print.
Thomas, Robert Paul and Richard Nelson Bean. "The Fishers Of Men: The Profits Of The
Slave Trade".J. Eco. History 34.04 (1974): 885-914. Web.
Wade, Richard C. Slavery In The Cities. New York: Oxford University Press, 1964. Print.
Walvin, James. "Abolishing The Slave Trade". History.ac.uk. N.p., 2007. Web. 20 Apr. 2016.
Walvin, James. The Trader, The Owner, The Slave. London: Jonathan Cape, 2007. Print.
Weaver, Herbert. ""The Agricultural Population Of Mississippi, 1850-1860". Vanderbilt
University, 1941. Print.
Williamson, Samuel and Louis Cain. "Measuring Worth - Measuring The Value Of A
Slave".Measuringworth.com. N.p., 2011. Web. 20 Apr. 2016.
Williams, Eric Eustace. Capitalism & Slavery. New York: Russell & Russell, 1944. Print.
Wright, Gavin. "Comment On Papers By Reid, Ransom And Sutch, And Higgs". J. Eco.
History 33.01 (1973): 170-176. Web.

36 | P a g e
Wright, Gavin. "Slavery And American Agricultural History". Agricultural History 77.4
(2003): 527-552. Web.
Wright, Gavin. "Slavery And American Economic Development". The Journal of Economic
History67.01 (2006): n. pag. Print.
Wright, Gavin. "The Efficiency Of Slavery: Another Interpretation". The American Economic
Review69.1 (1979): 219-226. Print.

Dissertation

More Related Content

What's hot (10)

Viewers also liked (9)

Similar to Dissertation (20)

Dissertation