On 2/16/2011 6:13 AM, Jurriaan Bendien wrote:
...
> In 1849, a census of the cotton production of Texas reported 58,073
> "bales" (500 pounds each). In 1852, Texas was in eighth place among
> the top ten cotton-producing states of the US. The 1859 census
> credited Texas with a yield of 431,645 bales.
Very interesting data -- what is the source, Jurriaan?
> The total output volume of cotton therefore must have increased by
> more than seven times in one decade, and the amount of land under
> cultivation must have increased proportionally. But how much of
> this expansion of production was attributable specifically to slave
> labour is a moot point. Cotton production continued to grow also after
> the abolition of slavery; by the early 20th century Texas was the
> leading cotton producer in the US.
That is a related question that Marx states but doesn't really explain
to my satisfaction. That is, I don't understand the argument that
slavery itself was required for the crops grown in the South - which
indeed seems to be what Marx was arguing. He seemed to be saying more
than that slavery was 'consistent' with the nature of agriculture
production in the South.
Thanks, Paul
_______________________________________________
ope mailing list
ope@lists.csuchico.edu
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
Received on Wed Feb 16 22:36:14 2011
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Feb 28 2011 - 00:00:02 EST