Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-pwrkn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-07T13:07:34.515Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Economic Growth of the Eighteenth-Century Chesapeake Colonies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2010

Allan Kulikoff
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Chesapeake economy failed to grow during the first half of the eighteenth century, but experienced rapid development during the third quarter of the century. Economic stagnation before 1750 resulted from the inability of tobacco planters either to increase productivity or to reduce costs of production, whereas an increase in grain exports and rising amounts of Scottish credit to planters explain growth during the pre-Revolutionary decades. Nonetheless, whites were able to purchase increasing quantities of consumer goods by exploiting the labor of the increasing numbers of black slaves who produced most of the region's tobacco.

Type
Papers Presented at the Thirty-Eighth Annual Meeting of the Economic History Association
Information
The Journal of Economic History , Volume 39 , Issue 1 , March 1979 , pp. 275 - 288
Copyright
Copyright © The Economic History Association 1979

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 Anderson, Terry L., “Wealth Estimates for the New England Colonies, 1650-1709,” Explorations in Economic History, 12 (04 1975), 151–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Shepherd, James F. and Walton, Gary M., Shipping, Maritime Trade, and the Economic Development of Colonial North America (London, 1972)Google Scholar, chs. Ball, Duane E. and Walton, Gary M., “Agricultural Productivity Change in Eighteenth-Century Pennsylvania,” this Journal, 36 (03 1976), 102–17Google Scholar; Russell R. Menard, “Comment on Paper by Ball and Walton,” Ibid., 118-25; Jones, Alice Hanson, Wealth of the Colonies on the Eve of the American Revolution (New York, forthcoming), ch. 4Google Scholar.

2 Baldwin, Robert E., “Patterns of Development in Newly Settled Regions,” Manchester School of Economic and Social Studies, 24 (05 1956), 161–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Watkins, Melville H., “A Staple Theory of Economic Growth,” Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science, 29 (05 1963), 141–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Rich ard E. Caves, “Export-Led Growth and the New Economic History,” in Bhagwati, Jagdish N., et at., eds., Trade, Balance of Payments and Growth: Papers in International Economics in Honor of P. Kindleberger (Amsterdam, 1971), 403–42Google Scholar; Shepherd and Walton, Shipping, Trade, and Develop ment, ch. 1.

3 Menard, Russell R., “The Tobacco Industry in the Chesapeake Colonies, 1617-1730: An Interpretation,” Research in Economic History, 4 (1978)Google Scholar.

4 Hogshead weights were collected by Russell Menard; freight rates are in Shepherd, and Walton, , Shipping, Trade and Development, pp. 191–92Google Scholar.

5 Deane, Phyllis and Cole, W. A., British Economic Growth, 1688-1959, 2nd ed., (Cambridge, 1967), pp. 77–82Google Scholar; Marczewski, Jan, “Some Aspects of the Economic Growth of France, 1660-1958,” Economic Development and Cultural Change, 9 (03 1961), 370–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 Jones, Alice Hanson, American Colonial Wealth: Documents and Methods, Vol. 1, (New York, 1977) pp. 1–24Google Scholar; Vol. 3, pp. 1703-59, 1847-59, 1863-1924; Jones, , Wealth of the Colonies, ch. 3Google Scholar; Main, Gloria L., “The Correction of Biases in Colonial American Probate Records,” Historical Methods Newsletter, 8 (03, 1974), 10–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 Menard, Russell R., el ai, “Opportunity and Inequality: The Distribution of Wealth on the Lower Western Shore of Maryland, 1638-1705,” Maryland Historical Magazine, 69 (Summer 1974), 170-74.Google Scholar

8 Coale, Ansley J. and Hoover, Edgar M., Population Growth and Economic Development in Low-Income Countries: A Case Study of India's Prospects (Princeton, 1958), ch. 2Google Scholar; Kuznets, Simon, Population, Capital and Growth: Selected Essays (New York, 1973), pp. 10–17Google Scholar.

9 Kulikoff, Allan, “Tobacco and Slaves: Population, Economy and Society in Eighteenth-Century Prince George's County, Maryland,” unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Brandeis University, 1976Google Scholar, ch. 3; Kulikoff, , “A ‘Prolifick’ People: Black Population Growth in the Chesapeake Colonies, 1700-1790,” Southern Studies, 16 (Winter 1977), 406–14Google ScholarPubMed.

10 Computed from data in Greene, Evarts B. and Harrington, Virginia D., American Population Before the Federal Census of 1790 (New York, 1932), pp. 150–51Google Scholar and Gentleman's Magazine, 34 (1764), 261Google Scholar.

11 Kulikoff, , “A ‘Prolifick’ People,” pp. 393–96Google Scholar; tobacco prices from Bureau of the Census, Historical Statistics of the United States: Colonial Times to 1970 (Washington D. C., 1976), p. 1198Google Scholar, adjusted prices collected by the St. Mary's City Commission and multiplied by a consumer price index. Growth rates based upon beginning and end-year values of linear regressions on time, 1706-32, 1732-55, and 1755-74, each a price trough to trough.

12 Carr, Lois Green and Walsh, Lorena S., “Changing Life Styles in Colonial St. Mary's County,” Working Papersfrom the Regional Economic History Center: Economic Change in the Chesapeake Colonies (1978), pp. 73–118Google Scholar.

13 Calculated from Prince George's Inventories, 1731-34, Maryland Hall of Records, Annapolis (hereafter MHR); this group rose from 9 to 13 percent of the living population between 1733 and 1755.

14 Kulikoff, , “Tobacco and Slaves,” pp. 119–20Google Scholar; Earle, Carville, The Evolution of a Tidewater Settlement System All Hallows Parish, Maryland, 1650-1783, University of Chicago Department of Geography Research Paper No. 170 (Chicago, 1975), pp. 28–29Google Scholar. Prince George's Land Records, MHR, 1755-58 and 1772-76.

16 Kulikoff, , ”Tobacco and Slaves,” pp. 110–11Google Scholar.

17 Jones, Alice Hanson, “Wealth Estimates for the Southern Colonies about 1770,” Claremont Economic Papers, 86 (1973), p. 35Google Scholar.

18 Slave prices for Southern Maryland reported in Kulikoff, “Tobacco and Slaves,” pp. 485-88, adjusted by a Maryland CPI. Growth rates based upon 1705, 1733, 1755, and 1776 values computed from linear regressions. Africa supplied Maryland with only a small number of slaves, and African slave prices (still of some importance in the Chesapeake) reflected the world market. “Earle, Tidewater Settlement System, pp. 209-12; Nicholls, Michael, “Origins of the Virginia Southside, 1703-1753,” unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, College of William and Mary, 1972, chs. 2-3Google Scholar; Prince George's Land Records; Lunenberg County Deeds, Virginia State Library. The annual growth rate in Lunenberg (established in 1746) was 5.5 percent, 1746-75.

20 Data from Naval Office Records (CO 5 and Customs 16/1, Public Record Office, film at Colonial Williamsburg Research Library) and Soltow, James H., The Economic Role of Williamsburg (Charlottesville, 1965)Google Scholar, Table III following p. 22 for South Potomac, Rappahannock, York, and Upper James Naval Districts, were adjusted for missing quarters and divided by the number of taxables found in Greene and Harrington, , American Population, pp. 150–151Google Scholar and in county court order books, Virginia State Library. The decline in tobacco exported per worker was estimated by dividing the highest rate before 1731 by the highest rate after 1731 and assumes no change in participation rates. Earle, , Tidewater Settlement System, pp. 24–27Google Scholar contends that production per worker declined 47 percent after the passage of the inspection acts.

21 The correlation between pounds of tobacco and bushels of grain exported per worker was 0.105 before 1760 and 0.663 after 1760.

22 Total agricultural output rose 0.3 percent a year in France from 1700 to 1750; total real output in England rose between 0.2 and 0.4 percent annually from 1695 to 1745. Marczewski, , “Economic Growth of France,” p. 375Google Scholar; Deane, and Cole, , British Economic Growth, pp. 78–80Google Scholar; Historical Statistics, p. 1168; Helleiner, Karl F., “The Population of Europe from the Black Death to the Eve of the Vital Revolution,” in Rich, E. E. and Wilson, C. H., eds., Cambridge Economic History of Europe, 4 (Cambridge, 1967), 63–67Google Scholar.

23 Kulikoff, , “Tobacco and Slaves,” pp. 105–106Google Scholar.

24 While English consumption stagnated, Continental consumption rapidly increased in the eighteenth century. Rive, Alfred, “The Consumption of Tobacco Since 1600,” Economic History, 1 (1926–1929), 71Google Scholar; Historical Statistics, pp. 1190-91 (cf. imports and re-exports); Price, Jacob, France and the Chesapeake: A History of the French Tobacco Monopoly, 1674-1791 and of its Relationship to the British and American Tobacco Trades, (Ann Arbor, 1973)Google Scholar.

25 Price, , France and the Chesapeake, p. 852Google Scholar; Shepherd, and Walton, , Shipping, Trade and Development, pp. 101–92Google Scholar. Growth rates from linear regressions.

26 Total agricultural products in France rose 1.3 percent a year 1725/45-1745/65 and 0.7 percent 1745/65-1765/85. European population rose about 0.9 percent a year in the second half of the century and tobacco-growing areas of the Chesapeake increased 2.4 percent. Marczewski, , “Aspects of Economic Growth of France,” p. 375Google Scholar; Deane, and Cole, , British Economic Growth, 78–80Google Scholar; Helleiner, , “Population of Europe,” pp. 63–67Google Scholar; Greene, and Harrington, , American Population, pp. 150–51Google Scholar com pared with Virginia tithables.

27 Price, , France and the Chesapeake, p. 852Google Scholar.

28 Computations from data in Historical Statistics, pp. 1184-91, 1198; a Virginia tobacco price series collected by Harold Gill; and Naval Office Records for Virginia; details available from author.

29 Export data on tobacco, corn, wheat, and flour from Naval Office Records; price data collected by Harold Gill; computation details available from author.

30 Saladino, Gaspar John, “The Maryland and Virginia Wheat Trade from its Beginnings to the American Revolution,” unpublished M.A. dissertation, University of Wisconsin, 1960, pp. 92–104Google Scholar.

31 Klingaman's, David figures in “The Significance of Grain in the Development of the Tobacco Colonies,” this Journal, 29 (06 1969)Google Scholar are much higher, for he includes the Lower James Naval District, an area that I excluded because it exported little tobacco.

32 Earle, Carville and Hoffman, Ronald, “Urban Development in the Eighteenth-Century South,” Perspectives in American History, 10 (1976), 7–78Google Scholar.

33 Price, Jacob M., “Capital and Credit in the British-Chesapeake Trade, 1750-1775,” in Platt, Virginia B. and Skaggs, David C., eds., Of Mother Country and Plantations: Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh Conference in Early American History (Bowling Green, Ohio, 1971), pp. 6–41Google Scholar; Soltow, , Economic Role of Williamsburg, Table VI, following p. 50Google Scholar; Sheridan, Richard B., “The British Debt Crisis of 1772 and the American Colonies,” this Journal, 20 (07 1960), 162–86Google Scholar; Papenfuse, Edward C., In Pursuit of Profit: The Annapolis Merchants in the Era of the American Revolution, 1763-1805, (Baltimore, 1975), pp. 40–41Google Scholar.

34 Calculated from data in Price, , “Capital and Credit,” pp. 8–9Google Scholar; Sheridan, , “British Debt Crisis,” 167Google Scholar; and Papenfuse, , Pursuit of Profit, pp. 40–41Google Scholar.

35 Walsh, Lorena S., “Charles County, Maryland, 1658-1705: A Study of Chesapeake Social and Political Structure,” unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1977, pp. 203–06Google Scholar; Kulikoff, Al-lan, “The Origins of Afro-American Society in Tidewater Maryland and Virginia, 1700 to 1790,” William and Mary Quarterly, 3d Ser., 35 (03 1978), 246–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

36 Distributions of wealth (movables, land, slaves) among tenant nonslaveholders, tenant slave-holders, slaveless landowners, men who owned both slaves and land, and merchants can be calculated for 1733, 1755, 1776. Gini coefficients for these data were 0.536 in 1733, 0.525 in 1755, and 0.591 in 1776.

37 Kulikoff, , “Tobacco and Slaves,” pp. 136–39, 146-55Google Scholar.

38 Sheridan, , “British Debt Crisis,” p. 167Google Scholar; exact totals were 53 percent under £100, 11 percent to merchants, and 36 percent to gentlemen.