One would suppose that Cotton led the antebellum agricultural sector in the South, but that is not the case.
While occupying an almost mythic place in the literature of the period, cotton was responsible for the dramatic rise in fortunes for many large and small planters, both the total yield and the number of acres was actually far subordinate to other staple crops: namely corn and wheat. Let’s draw some comparisons from the following: In 1849, acreage devoted to Corn was 18,000,000 in the South, while that planted to Cotton was only 5,000,000. In 1855, the value of the Corn crop was $209 million, while Cotton amounted to $136 million. (1)
Throughout the South in places where overcropping of tobacco had led to depletion of soil nutrients, Corn and Wheat had gradually replaced the “noxious weed.” This had only happened reluctantly, for while increased demand for American grain and rising prices had actually made these staples an attractive alternative to tobacco, labor productivity and costs had fallen sharply. Everywhere, the concern was the same: output per slave.
In many cases the solution had been the same as it always had been: transfer the slaves to the frontier, where fresh land made either tobacco more feasible (as in Kentucky), or a switch to cotton cultivation attractive. Because land was so abundant and cheap in the trans-Appalachian west, agriculture had constantly been shifting westward. Thomas Jefferson’s frequently quoted response that it was cheaper to purchase new land than manure an existing acre is revealing of the period. Paul Gates details the increasing frequency by which articles appear in various practical farm journals during the period urging wise land management, crop rotation and the use of soil amendments.
Cotton’s profitability was very high, so in this sense it can be referred to as “king.” Some historians have argued that Cotton is a singular factor in causing a “revival” of slavery.
(1) Source: Paul Wallace Gates. The Farmer’s Age. Agriculture from 1815 to 1860. Harper: 1968.
