Table 31

Land Ownership by Southern Appalachian Farm Operators, 1860

A. By State Subregion

______

Proportion of Households Operating Farms

Method # 1 Method # 2

All Landless With Adjustment for

AppalachianOperators Counted Kin of Farm Owners

Counties of: Owner Landless Owner Landless

______

Alabama .619 .381 .699.301

Georgia .575.425 .648.352

Kentucky .622.378 .738.262

Maryland .735.265 .781.219

North Carolina .666.334 .765.235

South Carolina .560.440 .652.348

Tennessee .588.412 .700.300

Virginia .698.302 .774.236

West Virginia .686.314 .788.212

Region .632.368 .732.268

______

B. By Terrain Type

______

Mountains .633 .367 .731 .269

Hills-Plateaus .652.348 .737 .263

Ridge-Valleys .628.372 .721 .279

Region .632 .368 .732 .268

______

Source: Derived from analysis of farm sample (n =3,447). Here "landless" farm operators include cash renters. For methods, see the website.

Table 32

Increased Wealth Inequality, 1810-1860 ______

% Total Wealth Owned by

Appalachian Top 10% of Households

Counties of: 1790-1810 1860

______

AlabamaNA 74.9

Georgia NA 63.7

Kentucky56.1 69.8

Maryland43.7 76.3

North Carolina 53.2 70.1

South Carolina 65.8 76.8

Tennessee 44.7 75.4

Virginia62.0 76.8

West Virginia64.9 81.9

Region 56.2 71.6

______

Sources: Frontier wealth estimates were derived from analysis of the 1790-1810 tax list samples (n = 10,264); see Appendix for sampling techniques and methodology. 1860 wealth estimates derived from analysis of sample of households (n = 3,056) drawn from the 1860 Census of Population enumerator manuscripts. For methods, see the website.

Table 33

Occupations of Free Appalachian Laborers, 1860

Part A. Agricultural Occupations

______

Tenants &

AppalachianFarmShare-Farm

Counties ofOwnerscroppers Laborers Total

______

Alabama46.1 16.5 17.0 79.6

Georgia &

South Carolina35.715.9 14.1 65.7

Kentucky51.615.6 13.1 80.3

Maryland17.5 4.9 12.6 35.0

North Carolina36.512.4 18.7 67.6

Tennessee40.613.1 21.7 75.4

Virginia19.6 7.8 5.9 33.3

West Virginia21.420.9 6.1 48.4

Region 29.9 13.5 12.7 56.1

______

Part B. Nonagricultural Occupations

______

Appalachian Commerce Domestic Manufacturing Informal

Counties of & Trade Professions Servants & Extractive Economy Total

______

Alabama5.90.91.3 7.2 5.1 20.4

Georgia &

South Carolina5.11.41.9 16.1 9.8 34.3

Kentucky2.90.80.4 6.9 5.7 16.7

Maryland8.42.23.0 27.9 23.5 65.0

North Carolina2.91.32.0 10.2 16.0 32.4

Tennessee2.71.62.1 8.6 9.6 24.6

Virginia11.32.84.0 28.4 20.2 66.7

West Virginia12.41.21.3 21.0 15.7 51.6

Region8.71.31.8 17.8 14.3 43.9

______

Source: Analysis of a systematic probability sample of 3,056 households drawn from the 1860 Census

of Population enumerator manuscripts.

Table 34

Semiproletarianized Farm Women in Nonagricultural Occupations, 1860

______

% Wives Listing

% Wives in Waged Nonwaged

Occupations Informal Sector

AppalachianOwner LandlessOwner Landless

Counties ofHshlds. Hshlds.Hshlds. Hshlds.

______

Alabama12.6 27.8 8.3 37.5

Georgia &

South Carolina18.4 31.419.4 42.4

Kentucky 25.2 21.711.7 26.7

Maryland 14.8 42.728.1 50.0

North Carolina 17.1 27.716.7 33.3

Tennessee12.8 34.717.5 40.0

Virginia 25.8 35.724.1 46.2

West Virginia 18.3 38.914.8 48.7

Region18.5 33.415.1 42.5

______

Source: Derived by cross-checking my systematic probability sample of 3,447 farms against the 1860 Census of Population enumerator manuscripts

This is a copyrighted document from the electronic archive for Wilma A. Dunaway, Southern Laboring Women: The Gendered Boundaries of Race, Ethnicity, and Class in Antebellum Appalachia, 1700-1860, Virginia Tech Library.

Table 35

Appalachian Women in Manufacturing and Industry, 1860, by Sector ______

Industrial Total Total % Labor Force

Category Females Workers Females

______

Textiles 1,002 1,57163.8

Calico Printing 1 333.3

Cotton Milling 431 60771.0

Clothing 333 46471.8

Gloves & Mittens 40 5967.8

Hats & Caps 11 4027.5

Millinery 67 7293.1

Wool Milling 110 31534.9

Household Goods 212 1,72312.3

Baskets, Brooms,

Carpets, Pottery 46 5682.1

Mattresses 3 475.0

Shoes & Boots 65 695 9.4

Soap & Candles 14 2360.9

Food Processing 26 2892.9

Agricultural Byproducts 806 6,84410.8

Meatpacking 67 13450.0

Tobacco Manufacturing 222 1,20218.5

Extractive Industry 2,336 15,54915.0

Iron Manufacturing 2,072 6,21633.3

Coal Mining 13 199 6.5

Tools & Hardware 0 1,632

Construction &

Building Materials 1 2,990 0.3

Industrial Machinery & Equipment 0 585

Paper Manufacturing 39 15028.5

Printing 7 2133.3

All 4,429 31,093 14.2

______

Source and Notes: I have not listed all subcategories under each major category of commodities. heading. Statistics were derived from analysis of Appalachian county totals in U.S. Census Office, Manufactures in 1860 and from Dunaway, First American Frontier, Tables 6.4, 6.5, and 6.6, pp. 171, 179, 176.

This is a copyrighted document from the electronic archive for Wilma A. Dunaway, Southern Laboring Women: The Gendered Boundaries of Race, Ethnicity, and Class in Antebellum Appalachia, 1700-1860, Virginia Tech Library.

Table 36

Commercially Finished Clothing and Household Textiles Proto-Industrialization

Part A. Commercial/Industrial Production of Clothing vs. Textile Home Manufactures

______

No. 1860 Artisan Shops 1860 No. 1860 Per Capita $ Value

AppalachianMilliner or Gloves Hats Clothing All Finished Textile Home

Counties ofDressmaker & Mittens & Caps Factories Clothing Manufactures

______

Alabama 0 0 0 1 0.14 4.38

Georgia 0 0 0 1 0.23 2.27

Kentucky 0 0 1 1 0.06 3.15

Maryland 12 5 3 11 1.24 0.11

North Carolina 0 0 0 3 0.27 4.12

South Carolina 0 0 0 0 0 3.23

Tennessee 0 0 0 10 0.43 3.60

Virginia 3 4 7 22 0.66 1.55

West Virginia 2 0 3 23 0.43 1.40

Region17 9 14 72 0.43 2.65

______

Part B. Impact of Textiles Factories on Household Textile Proto-industrialization

______

Per Capita $ Value of Textiles Home Manufactures

In CountiesIn Counties

with Carding,with Finished

AppalachianThread, ClothClothing 1840-1860

Counties ofFactories OnlyFactories % Change

______

Alabama 4.94 3.19 + 21.8%

Georgia 2.40 1.17 + 43.2%

Kentucky 3.23 2.50 + 90.1%

Maryland na 0.11 - 85.9%

North Carolina 4.62 3.15 + 47.4%

South Carolina na na + 28.5%

Tennessee 3.79 2.42 - 27.5%

Virginia 1.84 1.12 - 57.3%

West Virginia 1.49 1.04 - 29.7%

Region 2.82 1.57 + 6.7%

______

Sources: Calculated using Appalachian county totals in U.S. Census Office, Compendium of 1840, U.S. Census Office, Population in 1860, and U.S. Census Office, Manufactures in 1860. Finished clothing are clothing, gloves, mittens hats, and caps produced in factories or in small artisan shops. Home manufactures are the value of textiles marketed by free households; slave outputs and sales were not counted. The antebellum censuses were taken and enumerated by dwelling or building, so artisans producing textiles in their own households were not counted among the commercial artisan shops.

This is a copyrighted document from the electronic archive for Wilma A. Dunaway, Southern Laboring Women: The Gendered Boundaries of Race, Ethnicity, and Class in Antebellum Appalachia, 1700-1860, Virginia Tech Library.

Table 37

Textiles Production by White Appalachian Women as Represented in Oral Histories

______

% women who engaged in this form of textiles production

Flax Wool Sewed

Processing Carding Spinning Weaving Knitting Clothing Quilting

______

Poor Women (n = 290) 50.3 100.0 100.0 50.3 80.3 100.0 100.0

Middle-Class

Women (n = 258) 9.7 9.7 100.0 100.0 25.6

Wealthy Women (n = 31) 48.4 38.7

Only Supervised Slaves or

Servants to Do Tasks

Middle-Class Women 50.0 50.0 74.8 74.8 24.8

Wealthy Women 74.2 74.2 74.2 74.2 51.6 61.3 100.0

All Women (n = 579) 42.6 86.3 86.3 42.6 83.3 100.0 88.7

______

Sources: Analysis of 109 transcripts from the Appalachian Oral History Project and 470 transcripts from the Tennessee Civil War Veterans Questionnaires.

This is a copyrighted document from the electronic archive for Wilma A. Dunaway, Southern Laboring Women: The Gendered Boundaries of Race, Ethnicity, and Class in Antebellum Appalachia, 1700-1860, Virginia Tech Library.

Table 38

Farm Women=s Household Contributions to the Economy, 1860

Part A. Value of Economic Sectors

______

$ Value$ Value $ Value

Women=sManufacturing Agricultural

Appalachian Householdand Industrial Crops and

Counties ofOutputsCommodities Livestock

______

Alabama 895,721 1,517,850 6,760,407

Georgia 762,207 1,043,997 4,126,924

Kentucky1,332,828 2,049,084 6,291,810

Maryland 160,736 5,830,589 2,265,097

North Carolina 808,151 641,202 4,705,450

South Carolina 70,644 36,085 336,675

Tennessee1,823,810 5,664,644 13,599,710

Virginia1,684,673 8,947,721 8,800,853

West Virginia1,881,310 8,948,751 3,059,869

Region9,420,08034,679,923 49,946,795

______

Part B. Per Capita Economic Outputs

______

$ Women=s

Output per

AppalachianFarm 1.00 Women=s Outputs to Every:

Counties ofHousehold$ Manufacturing $ Agricultural

______

Alabama66.10 1.70 7.55

Georgia68.39 1.37 5.42

Kentucky75.57 1.54 4.72

Maryland34.50 36.27 4.10

North Carolina66.02 0.79 5.82

South Carolina54.30 0.51 4.77

Tennessee66.75 3.11 7.46

Virginia 62.03 5.31 5.22

West Virginia66.22 4.76 1.63

Region62.91 3.68 5.30

United States47.12 40.06 NA

______

Sources: Women=s outputs aggregated from county totals in U.S. Census Office, Agriculture in 1860 for butter, cheese, beeswax, orchard products, home manufactures, and market produce. Since the 1860 census did not report poultry or ginseng, I utilized the 1840 aggregated values reported in U.S. Census, Compendium for 1840 and converted those values to 1860 dollars using the ratio in David and Solar, AHistory,@ pp. 16-17. Manufacturing aggregated from county totals in U.S. Census Office, Manufacturing in 1860. Agricultural values from Dunaway, AIncorporation,@ Table 9.19, p. 1130. Commodity prices for butter, beeswax, and cheese were obtained from Cole, Commodity Prices. Per capita estimates were calculated using population totals in U.S. Census Office, Population in 1860.

This is a copyrighted document from the electronic archive for Wilma A. Dunaway, Southern Laboring Women: The Gendered Boundaries of Race, Ethnicity, and Class in Antebellum Appalachia, 1700-1860, Virginia Tech Library.

Table 39

Farm Women=s Outputs as a Percentage of Household Income, 1860

______

% AllAverage Women=s Outputs

House-HouseholdAvg. $ % Hshld.

Farm TenureholdsIncomeValue Income

______

Tenants/Sharecroppers26.1 $57 42.80 75.1

Small Farm Owner38.2 $563104.09 18.5

Middling Farm Owner28.2$1,761 38.20 2.2

Large Farm Owner 7.5$4,350 13.05 0.3

______

Source: Household income and farm data drawn from Dunaway, First American Frontier, pp. 79 and Dunaway, AIncorporation,@ p. 1107. Average value of women=s outputs derived from analysis of a systematic probability sample of 3,474 farm households drawn from the enumerator manuscripts of the 1860 Census of Agriculture. For methods, see website. Small farm owners held less than 100 acres and no slaves.

This is a copyrighted document from the electronic archive for Wilma A. Dunaway, Southern Laboring Women: The Gendered Boundaries of Race, Ethnicity, and Class in Antebellum Appalachia, 1700-1860, Virginia Tech Library.

Table 40

Women=s Work by Household Types

______

Percentage of Households in which Women Did This Type of Labor

Impoverished Households Middle-Class Households Wealthy Households

Small Slave- Business Business

Type of Landless Farm Town Farm Holding or Profes- Slave- or Profes-

Labor Farm Owner Lbr. Owner Farm sional holder sional

______

Farm or business

management * * * * * * * *

Field labor 100 100 25

Tending livestock 100 100 25

Milking cows 100 100 25

Family garden 100 100 50 100 100 40 33 20

Selling produce 100 100 10 50 50

Selling milk,

butter, cheese 50 75 75

Selling crafts 100 100 25 100 100

Boarders 50 33 65 25 33 33

Housework only 70 100 100 100 100

______

Source: Analysis of 470 questionnaire responses from Appalachian counties in Tennessee Civil War Veterans Questionnaires. Only eleven of the Appalachian veterans supplied no information about their mothers= work. An asterik [*] indicates that women did this work only after illnesses or deaths of their husbands or when the household had a female head.

This is a copyrighted document from the electronic archive for Wilma A. Dunaway, Southern Laboring Women: The Gendered Boundaries of Race, Ethnicity, and Class in Antebellum Appalachia, 1700-1860, Virginia Tech Library.