The Southwestern Historical Quarterly, Volume 88, July 1984 - April, 1985 Page: 391
476 p. : ill. (some col.), maps, ports. ; 23 cm.View a full description of this periodical.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Slavery without Cotton
clude James Hooker, an original slaveholder and by this time a judge
who also ran a highly successful mill on the Sabine River, and Parson
Wiley J. SoRelle, who, for at least a part of the period, employed an
overseer to mind his 1,ooo-acre farm and twelve slaves while he concen-
trated on his duties as pastor of the First Primitive Baptist Church ten
miles east of Greenville. Both men listed themselves in the census as
farmers.' 0
Although in many ways the slaveholders resembled people who did
not own slaves, there are some striking differences-particularly eco-
nomic differences. As a group, slaveholders dominated the county fi-
nancially. The agricultural schedule of the 186o census enumerated
412 farms, 87 of which belonged to slaveholders. The farms were di-
vided on the census schedule according to the number of improved
acres they contained. Slaveholders owned only 21 percent of farms
enumerated, but they owned 75 percent of farms containing too to 500
improved acres and 42 percent of farms with 50 or more improved
acres (see table 3).
In 1860, when only twenty-two bales of cotton were produced, only
four of the eighty-seven farms belonging to slaveholders were reported
as growing any cotton. Slaveholders reported twelve bales (55 percent
of the county total). Corn was the largest single crop reported, and
slaveholders grew 32,960 bushels of it (31 percent of the total for
the county). As a whole, in every agricultural category save molasses,
(which was the same for all farms), the average farm with slaves con-
tained more land, grew more, and was worth more (see table 4)."
On the tax rolls, the same differences can be seen. In 186o the
slaveholders, 14 percent of the population, controlled 46 percent of the
taxable wealth of the county. If slaves are taken out of the tax base the
figure drops, but the slaveholders still controlled 32 percent of the total
taxable wealth (see table 5).
Some of the reasons for this difference in wealth have nothing to do
with slavery per se but, generally speaking, with the fact that only a
relatively prosperous man could afford a slave. Slaves in themselves
could also provide the owners with some distinct advantages; one ad-
vantage was the labor of the slaves. Land was the single most valuable
commodity on the tax rolls in Hunt County, but raw, unimproved land
was cheap and easily obtainable, while cleared, improved land was not
10 Eighth Census (1860), Schedule 4: Productions of Agriculture, "A Little History of Hunt
County," Bowman Papers.
SU S , Department of the Interior, Census Office, Agriculture of the United States in 786o; Com-
pzled from the Origznal Returns of the Ezghth Census (Washington, D.C, 1864), 144-147; Eighth
Census (186o), Schedule 4- Productions of Agriculture391
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Periodical.
Texas State Historical Association. The Southwestern Historical Quarterly, Volume 88, July 1984 - April, 1985, periodical, 1984/1985; Austin, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth101210/m1/457/: accessed April 27, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting Texas State Historical Association.