Did we learn anything about American poverty prior to the Civil War?

YumYum

Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2009
Messages
6,185
Here is a summary and some thoughts on an article titled "Poverty", written by Michael B. Katz, history professor at the University of Pennsylvania. Both skilled and unskilled laborers suffered frequent periods of extreme hardships without government aid. Americans today don't realize how good they've got it compared to what their ancestors experienced.

“Poverty”

Michael B. Katz is a professor of History at the University of Pennsylvania, and an author of many books on the subject of poverty in America. His article titled “Poverty” examines poverty in America during the nineteenth-century; before there were government welfare programs. He discusses the reasons why there was poverty, the consequences of such hardships, and how Americans survived. With the birth of industrialization, and an ever increasing number of immigrants coming to America, poverty affected all levels of working class Americans; from the unskilled laborers to the highly skilled, at various times during the nineteenth-century. By contrasting the working class of America in the nineteenth-century with the middle class of today, this article should serve as an eye-opener for what America may be soon faced with: a severe depression with no government assistance.

During the early nineteenth-century, there were many reasons that the level of poverty increased in America. Prior to industrialization, Americans who were highly skilled craftsmen worked from their homes. They may have had an apprentice or two, and their excellent products were sold directly to appreciative customers. Before industrialization, both skilled and unskilled laborers could keep busy working year round, which provided either enough money to live in relative comfort, or at least survive. With the beginning of industrialization in the early 1800’s, innovations, machinery, and manufacturing on a large scale, forced skilled/unskilled/ laborers, and even women to take factory jobs. Manufacturing turned independent craftsmen into employees, and “they lost the flexibility that had marked artisan manufacture”, and new production methods “required less skill and less time to learn”, thus bombarding the labor pool with many young men. Mass immigration also created a glut of both highly skilled and unskilled laborers to pick from, and allowed employers to pay employees whatever they wanted to. Once an apprentice served his apprenticeship, he was fired by his employer, because the employer could pay new apprentices practically nothing, instead of having to pay full scale for a journeyman. Because transportation was limited, people walked to work. A fired laborer had to travel far away from home to find work. This created an America of transient laborers who were both broke and destitute; searching the country for work. Machinery created poverty for laborers working in agriculture.

Prior to the invention of threshing machines, farmers hired laborers during the winter months to thresh the wheat by hand. With the machines available, the laborers found themselves out of work during the winter months. This created incredible hardships. People lived on extremely tight budgets; so tight in fact, they could not afford to miss one day of work due to illness. And yet, illness was rampant, due to malnourishment and lack of proper health-care. Many farmers’ wives supplemented the family income by working at home as seamstresses, but with the increased number of factories producing clothing; the wives lost this valuable source of income. Adding to the problem of poverty for those in agriculture was crop failures due to drought and grasshoppers, and the pressure of the population increase on the availability of land. Farmers ran out of land to pass on to their children. All these scenarios helped to increase the demand for public assistance, which was very limited.

Without government assistance, people experiencing unbearable hardships found relief by turning to relatives who lived close by; to their church; to their friends, or to charities. During depressions, such as the “Panic of 1837”, even the well-to-do were reduced to being paupers; losing everything and fleeing the cities. People who were destitute experienced the hardships of disease and hunger, and the low wages of fifty cents per day, if one was fortunate enough to find work. The author makes it very clear: “The availability of work for every able-bodied person who really wants a job is one of the enduring myths of American history.” That same myth is being perpetuated by some today during America’s economic crisis. The truth is, with the banks contracting credit, unemployment is going to get worse before it gets better. The difference between the conditions of antebellum Americans suffering hardships, and Americans today suffering hardships, is that Americans today have both the federal and state governments to take care of their needs during a crisis. But that may change very soon.

The author does a good job of painting a picture of just how desperate the conditions were during the nineteenth-century for those who were poor. Because depressions and financial panics were frequent and severe, many people who were skilled at their craft and had saved a small nest egg could lose everything and end up destitute. So, it wasn’t always the unskilled laborers who suffered. Poverty was broad and all encompassing. This scenario sounds like experiences people have in third world countries; not America. Yet, this was in America that such suffering took place, and it is America today that is faced with the same hardships. Today, Americans have the cushion of government programs that provide food; unemployment benefits, and health-care. But with a national debt of over $14 trillion and growing, this may all change and the government assistance will end. Have Americans learned anything from their ancestors? I hope so.
 
Last edited:
I hope they learned that the booms and busts of inflationary money that caused those depressions are the evil that they should be fighting. Luckily for them, when the busts happened, there was no big government and Federal Reserve to drag those recessions out for years. They suffered for a short time, which must be the snapshot the author above wrote about, but after a quick correction the economy was back to work. Right now it seems nice that the government is there to take care of people, but by printing money and incentivizing people not to work they prolong the suffering years longer than it should last. There are better ways to do it.

I'm not opposed to limited safety net programs that are paid for with some form of revenue be it taxes or whatever, but we should never have to borrow money or print money to pay for them. They also can't be directed into various sectors of the economy where they will cause distortion of prices. No food stamps. No health care. Just send them a check and they can spend it however they want. Or better yet would be to let the states handle their own safety net programs.
 
The nineteenth century, before there were welfare programs (except that's not even true)...
Also, before there was large scale farming, refrigeration, the automobile, electric lights, the computer, the polio vaccine, and countless other things that the free market produced that have made us better off.

But of all those things, the one that matters has to be welfare.

Are the authors aware that, measured by the standards of the 19th century, there was more poverty in the 18th century, and even more yet in the 17th century, and more yet in the 16th? And if you want to look at when the economy improved the most, and poverty fell the most, it's during that very period of capitalistic free-for-all they hate so much, the 19th century.

ETA: I also love how the author tries to say that the advent of threshing machines positively made people poorer. Good one.
 
Last edited:
Technological advances have created more modern creature comforts than wealth could ever provide. Prior to the Civil War, protecting oneself from the harsh elements was a formable challenge. Modern food production, buildings, clothes, transportation, insulation, heat, and refrigeration technologies have changed those struggles from luxury to necessity at greatly reduced efforts.

Paper money does not increase wealth. When the fiat currency collapses the world will still retain its wealth. The only thing that changes is who controls the wealth. Right now, it is in the hands of a few. Honest sound money ends up in the hands of the people who put forth effort.
 
Dr. Katz is a pretty good historian. I used his book In the Shadows of the Poorhouse once to get references for a paper I did on the 19th century almshouse experience.
 
I think people have short memories.

Catherin Austin Fitts makes a great case for communities working together. If people stay behind huge walls (psychological, cultural,geographical) we will obliterate each other. Evolution or extinction..this crisis will open people up spiritually I hope because, if not, we will be paranoid, isolated, hungry and dead.

The 'me first' cult has fallen down a great big Jackson Hole!
 
With the beginning of industrialization in the early 1800’s, innovations, machinery, and manufacturing on a large scale, forced skilled/unskilled/ laborers, and even women to take factory jobs.

I didn't know industrialization began that early...
 
Industrialization in Britain began in the late 1700s and spread to the US by the early 1800s.

But were women really working factory jobs? I thought that was the early 1900's...

-Edit- nvm... I was imagining mass production through an assembly line.
 
Last edited:
But were women really working factory jobs? I thought that was the early 1900's...

Some woman were, but not most.

They were not, however, "forced" into the factories. Factory jobs simply paid more money than farm jobs and this created incentive for woman to start working.

There was less poverty in the early 1800s then before it. Katz is taking the Marxist view of history from the looks of it.
 
The nineteenth century, before there were welfare programs (except that's not even true)...
Also, before there was large scale farming, refrigeration, the automobile, electric lights, the computer, the polio vaccine, and countless other things that the free market produced that have made us better off.

But of all those things, the one that matters has to be welfare.

Are the authors aware that, measured by the standards of the 19th century, there was more poverty in the 18th century, and even more yet in the 17th century, and more yet in the 16th? And if you want to look at when the economy improved the most, and poverty fell the most, it's during that very period of capitalistic free-for-all they hate so much, the 19th century.

ETA: I also love how the author tries to say that the advent of threshing machines positively made people poorer. Good one.

The author focuses on the early 1800's prior to the Civil War. In his article "Poverty" he does a good job of contrasting American laborers prior to the start of industrialization in the early 1820's. One can see that the craftsmanship of silversmiths and furniture makers from the 1700's is a lost art, and as things became mass produced they were inferior in quality, even though they were less expensive. Up until the 1820's a highly skilled craftsman was in great demand and made a good wage for his work. By the late 1830's many were homeless transits, searching for work at any wage. While certain sectors recovered quickly from the panics of 1837 and 1857, highly skilled laborers did not; unemployment always remained high.

The author talks about laborers in agriculture worked all year round before the threshing machines were invented because the threshing was done in the winter months by hand. The threshing machine put them out of work in the winter months, and those three months of not working turned a poor family who was barely making it into paupers.

The observation made at the end of the OP is the same raiha makes: if Americans are not prepared to accept what is coming, we are all doomed. Our ancestors may have suffered, but many survived because people helped one another. Are we ready to help our fellow man?

A side note: The Progressive Era was possible because Grover Cleveland forced the railroads to cut their rates for the rural small farmer. This extra profit that the farmers earned in the 1890's gave them the money to send at least one child to college. These young adults became the backbone of what would become America's Middle Class, and once they had succeeded in their careers, they never forgot their roots, and they vowed to help the poor. They embraced socialism and began promoting it.

Another note: Griffin claims in his book "Creature" that America's most prosperous time was during the Colonial period from 1751 to 1765. The invention of the steam engine, which was in 1763, was the seed of the Industrial Revolution. So, the American colonists enjoyed better times before all the modern inventions came on the scene.
 
Last edited:
trusting trust

>>Both skilled and unskilled laborers suffered frequent periods of extreme hardships without government aid.

Skilled laborers?
Exterme hardship?
No aid other than goverment?


“Poverty”

>>He discusses the reasons why there was poverty, the consequences of such hardships, and how Americans survived.
Poverty?
Poverty existed?
Hardship existed?

>>there were many reasons that the level of poverty increased in America.
Poverty (undefined) increased?


too much trust required...
 
The author talks about laborers in agriculture worked all year round before the threshing machines were invented because the threshing was done in the winter months by hand. The threshing machine put them out of work in the winter months, and those three months of not working turned a poor family who was barely making it into paupers.

But the notion that this technological development made people poorer is impossible. Sure, it meant there was less of a need for people to thresh grain. But all that did was free up those people to do other things, and make the world even better yet.

Imagine a population of 100 people, dividing their labor up among with 10 of them threshing, and the other 90 doing other farming jobs, tailoring, blacksmithing, and carperntry. And imagine that population produces 1,000 bushels of grain, 1,000 articles of clothing, 100 carriages, and shoe 1,000 horses every year. Then the threshing machine comes along, and it only takes 1 person to do the threshing that 10 did before. Now those 9 people can go do those other jobs, and with the same amount of labor, they would get 1,000 bushels of grain, 1,100 articles of clothing, 110 carriages, and shoe 1,100 horses in a year. Or, if the demand is greater, they could do some job that no laborers were available to do before, like scooping up horse droppings, or carrying peoples' umbrellas for them, or anything that other people consider a service worth paying for. But whatever they did, it would be the case that, overall, the entire population will have become wealthier thanks to the threshing machine.
 
Damn! I've already repped you.

Good economics in this post!


But the notion that this technological development made people poorer is impossible. Sure, it meant there was less of a need for people to thresh grain. But all that did was free up those people to do other things, and make the world even better yet.

Imagine a population of 100 people, dividing their labor up among with 10 of them threshing, and the other 90 doing other farming jobs, tailoring, blacksmithing, and carperntry. And imagine that population produces 1,000 bushels of grain, 1,000 articles of clothing, 100 carriages, and shoe 1,000 horses every year. Then the threshing machine comes along, and it only takes 1 person to do the threshing that 10 did before. Now those 9 people can go do those other jobs, and with the same amount of labor, they would get 1,000 bushels of grain, 1,100 articles of clothing, 110 carriages, and shoe 1,100 horses in a year. Or, if the demand is greater, they could do some job that no laborers were available to do before, like scooping up horse droppings, or carrying peoples' umbrellas for them, or anything that other people consider a service worth paying for. But whatever they did, it would be the case that, overall, the entire population will have become wealthier thanks to the threshing machine.
 
erowe1,

There is a saturation point in any economic example. I am sure that if it was that simple to go find something else to do when laid off, the people who threshed by hand and then were laid off would have easily gone out and found one of the million job opportunities waiting for them. But, that didn't happen according to historical records. If your philosophy is what works in the real world, why is unemployment so high at this moment? Why would people be unemployed who diligently look for work?

If thousands of people are laid off because they have been replaced by a threshing machine, what makes you think that other people are not already performing the other services that you cited? For your scenario to be true, that would mean that when these people were laid off, there were thousands of jobs waiting to be filled that nobody was doing. While there may be temporary moments where there are more jobs than there are workers (like what we have currently in North Dakota), this is only temporary and will level out. Then the pendulum swings the other way and then there are more workers than there are jobs.

The gentleman who wrote the original article is a professor in history and a respected author. While he may not be a hundred per cent accurate in what he presented, that doesn't mean that before the creation of the Federal Reserve System, America lived in the Free Market Utopia. Are you saying that with a glut of apprentices and skilled journeymen out of work, that an employer would not break precedent and fire his apprentice once he became a journeyman, and hire a talented apprentice in his place, who he can pay practically nothing? Why wouldn't he? That is the Free Market at its finest. Now, because they didn't have transportation like they do today, most people walked to work, but that skilled journeyman would have to leave his home and travel the countryside looking for work. At some point he is traveling broke and destitute, and will take any job he can get at any pay, even shoveling manure, just like you mentioned. Unfortunately, his cost of taking care of himself leaves nothing for him to send home to his family, so they starve.

I can understand Free Market Utopiats dreaming of the day when we will have a truly free market (I am waiting myself with eagerness), but I don't understand why they persist in re-writing history to make every thing prior to 1913 to look like the American Dream World of Free Market Utopia.

If things were so wonderful prior to 1913, why did the majority of the population demand that the federal government take action and make changes and regulations regarding prescription drugs, the environment, labor laws, etc.,?...and the list goes on.
 
erowe1,

There is a saturation point in any economic example. I am sure that if it was that simple to go find something else to do when laid off, the people who threshed by hand and then were laid off would have easily gone out and found one of the million job opportunities waiting for them. But, that didn't happen according to historical records. If your philosophy is what works in the real world, why is unemployment so high at this moment? Why would people be unemployed who diligently look for work?

1) Is it possible that, despite those people without jobs, there was less poverty overall in the early 18th century than it was in the late 17th century? If it was, the insinuation that the threshing machine made people poorer is false.
2) Is it possible that there were other factors to blame for those people not having jobs, factors that involved government violating their rights?
3) Consider this. Even without the division of labor, a single household could provide for its own needs just by being self-sufficient on their own land. They wouldn't have time left for much recreation. But they'd be doing something humans have survived doing throughout all of history. For people to willingly give up that opportunity in order to specialize in some job, from which they would get money to buy all their necessities, it would have to be the case that that income could buy more stuff for themselves in less time spent working than their self-sufficient homesteading could. Therefore, if people lost an opportunity to do some specialized job, like threshing grain, the worst case scenario ought to be the drudgery of self-sufficient living. If they didn't even have that to fall back on, then whatever the reason for that was, it wasn't the advent of the threshing machine. More likely some anti-free market force (i.e. the government) created conditions that made land artificially scarce and prevented them from being able to offer their labor on the market for an income that exceeded homesteading.

If things were so wonderful prior to 1913, why did the majority of the population demand that the federal government take action and make changes and regulations regarding prescription drugs, the environment, labor laws, etc.,?...and the list goes on.
I'm not certain that the majority did demand those things from the government. But if they did, it could be that they did not understand how much worse off the government's provision of those things would make them.

And if you're interested in the historical record as a way of correcting our philosophical utopian visions, then at least recognize that the economic boom experience in America between the Civil War and 1913 was the best we've ever had, not just for robber barons, but for everyone.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top