Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T16:58:31.407Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Mule, the South, and Economic Progress

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 January 2016

Larry Sawers
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article examines the choice of draft animal in Southern agriculture in the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century and shows that the preference for the mule over the horse reflected the South’s geography. The mule was well suited to the crops that dominated the region. The long, hot summers favored the heat-tolerant mule. The region’s geography made it difficult to produce good pastures and encouraged mule breeding to locate at considerable distances from Southern farms. The consequent variation in the price of mules relative to the price of horses across the South shaped the choice of work stock. Also important were the forms of labor organization on Southern farms. This research shows that the choice of the mule over the horse represented an important and progressive step for Southern agriculture.

Type
Articles
Information
Social Science History , Volume 28 , Issue 4 , Winter 2004 , pp. 667 - 690
Copyright
Copyright © Social Science History Association 2004 

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

Alston, Lee J., and Higgs, Robert (1982) “Contractual mix in Southern agriculture since the Civil War: Facts, hypotheses, and tests.” Journal of Economic History 42: 327–53.Google Scholar
Bradley, Melvin (1998) The Missouri Mule: His Origin and Times. Vols. 1 and 2. Columbia: University of Missouri-Columbia and Missouri Mule Skinners Society.Google Scholar
Bradley, Melvin (1999) Private communication (letter), 17 June (copy available).Google Scholar
Campen, James T., and Mayhew, Anne (1988) “The national banking system and Southern economic growth: Evidence from one Southern city, 1870–1900.” Journal of Economic History 48: 127–37.Google Scholar
Cooley, Thomas F., and DeCanio, Stephen J. (1977) “Rational expectations in American agriculture, 1967–1914.”Review of Economics and Statistics 59: 9–17.Google Scholar
Coşgel, Metin M. (1993) “Religious culture and economic performance: Agricultural productivity of the Amish, 1850–80.” Journal of Economic History 53: 319–31.Google Scholar
DeCanio, Stephen (1973) “Cotton ‘overproduction’ in late nineteenth-century Southern agriculture.” Journal of Economic History 33 608–33.Google Scholar
Ellenberg, George B. (1998) “African Americans, mules, and the Southern mindscape, 1850–1950.” Agricultural History 72: 381–98.Google Scholar
Environmental Data Service, U.S. Department of Commerce (1975 [1968]) Weather Atlas of the United States. Detroit, MI: Gale Research Co.Google Scholar
Fishback, Price V. (1989) “Debt peonage in postbellum Georgia.” Explorations in Economic History 26: 219–36.Google Scholar
Fraser, Alexander G. (1917) “The draft mule in the field in Mexico.” American Veterinary Medical Association Journal 52: 357–61.Google Scholar
Galassi, Francesco L., and Kauffman, Kyle D. (n.d.) “Institutions and the environment in draft animal choice: A panel study of the Italian countryside, 1908 to 1931.” Unpublished ms. Wellesley, MA, and Leicester, U.K.: University of Leicester and Wellesley College.Google Scholar
Garrett, Martin A. Jr. (1990) “The mule in Southern agriculture: A requiem.” Journal of Economic History 50: 925–30.Google Scholar
Garrett, Martin A. Jr. (1998) “Evidence on the use of oxen in the postbellum South.” Social Science History 22: 223–49.Google Scholar
Garrett, Martin A. Jr. (2001) “Mules in Southern agriculture: Revisited.” Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 33: 583–90.Google Scholar
Harris, J. William (1994) “Crop choices in the Piedmont before and after the Civil War.” Journal of Economic History 54: 526–42.Google Scholar
Harris, J. William (2001) Deep Souths: Delta, Piedmont, and Sea Island Society in the Age of Segregation. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Heinicke, Craig (1999) “Southern tenancy, machines, and production scale on the eve of the cotton picker’s arrival.” Social Science History 23: 435–58.Google Scholar
Higgs, Robert (1982) “Accumulation of property by Southern blacks before World War I.” American Economic Review 72: 725–37.Google Scholar
Hostetler, John A. (1980) Amish Society. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Kantor, Shawn E. (1991) “Razorbacks, ticky cows, and the closing of the Georgia open range: The dynamics of institutional change uncovered.” Journal of Economic History 51: 861–86.Google Scholar
Kantor, Shawn E. (1993) “Common sense or commonwealth? The fence law and institutional change in the postbellum South.”Journal of Southern History 59: 201–66.Google Scholar
Kauffman, Kyle Dean (1992) “A note on technology choice in a principal-agent frame-work: The case of mules and horses in American Southern agriculture.” Economic Letters 38: 233–35.Google Scholar
Kauffman, Kyle Dean (1993a) “The use of draft animals in America: Economic factors in the choice of an early motive power.”Ph.D. diss., University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.Google Scholar
Kauffman, Kyle Dean (1993b) “Why was the mule used in Southern agriculture? Empirical evidence of principal-agent solutions.”Explorations in Economic History 30: 336–51.Google Scholar
Kauffman, Kyle Dean (1996a) “The U.S. Army as a rational economic agent: The choice of draft animals during the Civil War.”Eastern Economic Journal 22: 333–43.Google Scholar
Kauffman, Kyle Dean (1996b) “Why was the mining mule not a horse? The control of agency problems in American mines.”Research in Economic History 16: 85–102.Google Scholar
Kauffman, Kyle Dean (2000) “Economic factors in the choice of an early form of capital: Draught animals in early-twentieth-century South Africa.” Applied Economic Letters 7: 69–71.Google Scholar
Kauffman, Kyle D., and Liebowitz, Jonathan J. (1997) “Draft animals on the United States frontier.” Overland Journal 15(2): 13–26.Google Scholar
Kirby, Jack T. (1987) Rural Worlds Lost: The American South, 1920–1960. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press.Google Scholar
Kraybill, Donald B. (1989) The Riddle of Amish Culture. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Lamb, Robert Byron (1963) The Mule in Southern Agriculture. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Mandel, Jay (1978) The Roots of Black Poverty: The Southern Plantation Economy after the Civil War. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
McGuire, Robert, and Higgs, Robert (1977) “Cotton, corn, and risk in the nineteenth century: Another view.”Explorations in Economic History 14: 167–82.Google Scholar
Nelson, Lawrence J. (1984) “Welfare capitalism on a Mississippi plantation in the Great Depression.” Journal of Southern History 50: 225–50.Google Scholar
Parker, William N. (1980) “The South in the national economy, 1865–1970.” Southern Economic Journal 46: 1019–48.Google Scholar
Ransom, Roger L., and Sutch, Richard (1971)Economic Regions of the South in 1880. Southern Economic History Project, Working Paper No. 3. Berkeley: Institute of Business and Economic Research, University of California.Google Scholar
Ransom, Roger L., and Sutch, Richard (2001) One Kind of Freedom: The Economic Consequences of Emancipation. 2d ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ransom, Roger L., Sutch, Richard, and Sobek, Matthew (1999) A Sample of Southern Farms, 1880. CD-ROM data file, Version 1.1. Riverside: Southern Economic History Project Redux, Center for Social and Economic Policy, University of California.Google Scholar
Reid, Joseph D. Jr., (1979) “White land, black labor, and agricultural stagnation.” Explorations in Economic History 16: 31–55.Google Scholar
Sawers, Larry (2002) “Econometric problems in analyzing the mule in Southern agriculture. ”Unpublished ms. Washington, DC: Department of Economics, American University.Google Scholar
Sawers, Larry (2003) “U.S. Army procurement of draft and pack animals.” Eastern Economic Journal 29: 59–67.Google Scholar
U.S. Bureau of the Census (1922) Fourteenth Census of the United States: 1920. Vol. 6, Agriculture. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
U.S. Bureau of the Census (1923) Abstract of the Fourteenth Census of the United States, 1920. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Virts, Nancy (1987) “Estimating the importance of the plantation system to Southern agriculture in 1880.”Journal of Economic History 47: 984–88.Google Scholar
Virts, Nancy (1991) “The efficiency of Southern tenant plantations, 1900–1945.” Journal of Economic History 51: 385–95.Google Scholar
Winters, Donald L. (1987) “The agricultural ladder in Southern agriculture: Tennessee, 1850–1870.”Agricultural History 61: 36–52.Google Scholar
Williams, J. O. (1923) Mule Production. Farmers’ Bulletin No. 1341. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture.Google Scholar
Wright, Gavin (1979) “Freedom in the Southern economy.” Explorations in Economic History 16: 98–108.Google Scholar
Wright, Gavin (1986) Old South, New South: Revolutions in the Southern Economy since the Civil War. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Wright, Gavin, and Kunreuther, Howard (1975) “Cotton, corn, and risk in the nineteenth century” Journal of Economic History 35 526–51.Google Scholar