For much of the 21st century it was believed that slavery caused the economy of the Antebellum South to stagnate. Many historians took issue with the profitability of slavery and thought that its demise was inevitable, regardless of the Civil War. Some even consider the Antebellum South’s economy to be backwards in the sense that slave labour rates were so competitive that it resulted in the wages of other free workers to drop below the subsistence level (Conrad & Meyer 1971, 341). This created a deficit of skilled white labourers in the market and prevented a sustainable perfectly competitive labour market. In addition to this, slavery was criticized as being preventative to long-term economic growth. Slavery required capital outlays which
…show more content…
In fact, during the period 1840-1860, the per capita income of those in the South grew more rapidly than in the North. To put into perspective just how prosperous the South was on the eve of the Civil War, many countries have never achieved per capita income growth as large as the South had. The country of Italy, for example, did not achieve the same level of per capita income until the beginning of World War …show more content…
In his essay, titled The Profitability and Viability of Plantation Slavery in the United States, he analyzes the slave system using the “amount of the capitalized rent in the market price of slaves” in order to determine whether or not the system was sustainable. Much of his quantitative analysis is derived from the model of plantation economy originally presented by Conrad and Meyer in their original 1958 paper The Economics of Slavery in the Ante-Bellum South. Conrad and Meyer investigated the rate of return on costs inclusive of rent to test the hypothesis that “slavery in the South would have fallen before very long because it was unprofitable.” Using data on values reflecting the life expectancy and price of slaves from the period 1830-1860, they were able to “compute the marginal efficiency of slave capital, valuing slaves at the market price.” They determined that the marginal efficiency was high enough to reject the above
In fact, during the period 1840-1860, the per capita income of those in the South grew more rapidly than in the North. To put into perspective just how prosperous the South was on the eve of the Civil War, many countries have never achieved per capita income growth as large as the South had. The country of Italy, for example, did not achieve the same level of per capita income until the beginning of World War …show more content…
In his essay, titled The Profitability and Viability of Plantation Slavery in the United States, he analyzes the slave system using the “amount of the capitalized rent in the market price of slaves” in order to determine whether or not the system was sustainable. Much of his quantitative analysis is derived from the model of plantation economy originally presented by Conrad and Meyer in their original 1958 paper The Economics of Slavery in the Ante-Bellum South. Conrad and Meyer investigated the rate of return on costs inclusive of rent to test the hypothesis that “slavery in the South would have fallen before very long because it was unprofitable.” Using data on values reflecting the life expectancy and price of slaves from the period 1830-1860, they were able to “compute the marginal efficiency of slave capital, valuing slaves at the market price.” They determined that the marginal efficiency was high enough to reject the above