Social Structure of Revolutionary America

Main, Jackson Turner

doi:10.1515/9781400879045

Cited by 109 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We have no 1800 data, or even guesses, about farm operators' pure residual profits, as distinct from their asset returns or the implicit value of their own physical labor. For 1774, we were able to use a few testimonies unearthed by Main (1965) to guesstimate that the farm profit residual was 18.9 percent of all farm operators' income in New England, 21.1 percent in the Middle Atlantic, 34 percent in the South, and 28.8 percent for the 13 colonies as a whole. We cannot apply these ratios to 1800, however, since we lack any delineation between farm operators and free farm laborers in the census or in the Weiss labor force estimates on which we rely.…”

Section: B the Income Level Estimates For 1800mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For lesser cities and small towns, the occupational distributions for New England are based on the following: 1765-1788 "frontier towns and subsistence communities", "more commercial towns with access to markets", and "lesser urban centers" (Main 1965); and small towns in Lancaster County (PA) 1800 plus the Chester County (PA) c1774 rural non-farm mix Marietta 1995). For towns in the Middle Colonies, the occupational mix is based on that in Lancaster Borough 1773.…”

Section: Occupational Distribution Of the Labor Force In 1774mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Similarly, there are no lawyer observations for NH, so we used CT; there are no common labor observations for RI, so we use MA; there are no school master observations for PA, so we use MD; there are no lawyer observations for NY, so we use PA; there are no common labor observations for GA, so we use NC; there are no school master observations for VA, so we use MD; there are no minister observations for SC, so we use GA; and so on. The main sources are Bureau of Labor Statistics (1929), Main (1965), and Wright (1885).…”

Section: Occupational Distribution Of the Labor Force In 1800mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Rural non-farm: While guided by Main (1965) and what we know about small towns (see above), the evidence for rural non-farm occupations is the thinnest for our 1774 wage sources. See the rural non-farm worksheet in "Wage data 1774".…”

Section: Occupational Distribution Of the Labor Force In 1800mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Farm laborers' wage rates: Monthly nominal wages for the three regions are taken mainly from Donald , T.M. , Main (1965), andWright (1885). For more detail, see the farm labor worksheets of "Wage data 1774" and "Wage data 1800".…”

Section: Occupational Distribution Of the Labor Force In 1800mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

American Incomes before and after the Revolution

Lindert

Williamson

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Building social tables in the tradition of Gregory King, we develop new estimates suggesting that between 1774 and 1800 American incomes fell in real per capita terms. The colonial South was richer than the North at the start, but was already beginning to lose its income lead by 1800. We also find that free American colonists had much more equal incomes than did households in England and Wales. The colonists also had greater purchasing power than their English counterparts over all of the income ranks except in the top few percent. I. Early American Growth and Inequality DebatesAmerican economic historians need fresh information on the income levels that prevailed at the end of the colonial era and the dawn of independence in order to understand this country's growth process and its evolving social structure. This need keeps arising whenever we try to cast back from today to the late colonial period, or to project ahead from early colonial years, or to view American incomes in trans-Atlantic perspective.The debate that tries to back-cast American growth from 1840 has centered around Paul David's classic 1967 article on "New Estimates, Controlled Conjectures", a descriptive label that should apply to this paper as well. David, Robert Gallman, Thomas Weiss, and others centered their plausible conjectures on the division of the economy into large sectors, each with its own labor force and labor productivity growth. All of these competing estimates have been Economic growth across the colonial era defines more contested territory. Some have seen only extensive growth: that is, stagnant productivity, with only population growth and land settlement, and without gains in average living standards. Others have seen evidence of intensive growth: that is, considerable productivity growth, some emphasizing seventeenthcentury emergence from initial hardship and mortality, and others emphasizing gains across the middle of the eighteenth century. This debate has also been hampered by lack of knowledge about labor inputs and occupational structure, and by the roughness of any estimates of productivity growth within such sectors as agriculture or shipping. Maddison's beliefs need to be reconciled with the fact that North America attracted a significant net emigration from the Mother Country and that colonial and republican population growth was much faster here. In the light of current research on the Great Divergence, on the history of European incomes, and on the continued use of the Maddison world income estimates, we think the time is ripe to add data from the American side to compare with the new estimates for Europe.We can now offer new estimates based on more archival data than were available to earlier researchers. The harvest is offered as an "open-source" presentation of our detailed data and procedures on the internet, for both negative and positive reasons. The negative reason is that many scholars might resist accepting some new estimates based on vulnerable primary data, wishing to offer their own estimate...

show abstract

Section: B the Income Level Estimates For 1800mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Occupational Distribution Of the Labor Force In 1774mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Occupational Distribution Of the Labor Force In 1800mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Occupational Distribution Of the Labor Force In 1800mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Occupational Distribution Of the Labor Force In 1800mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

American Incomes before and after the Revolution

Lindert

Williamson

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Frequency and chronological distribution of linear enamel hypoplasia in a North American colonial skeletal sample

Wood

1996

Am. J. Phys. Anthropol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A skeletal sample of 44 individuals born and raised in early 18th century frontier settlements of Northeastern United States is examined for the frequency and chronological distribution of linear enamel hypoplasia (LEH) on the maxillary and mandibular incisors and canines. The prevalence of LEH ranged from 31% on the I2 to 66% on the mandibular C and the mean number of defects ranged from .59 on the I2 to 1.08 on the mandibular C. These frequencies were generally lower than those reported for two later samples; the Monroe County Poorhouse sample and the Hammon-Todd sample. Individuals in these latter two samples were derived from the lowest socioeconomic stratum of their respective populations. Frequency differences are explained within the context of the changing availability of resources that resulted from the rise of industrialization, urbanization, and wage labor which took place during the 18th and 19th centuries. The frequency of LEH was low prior to 1.5 years of age and may result from attrition and/or decreased susceptibility in the relevant area of the crown or from low morbidity or high mortality. Peak frequencies are observed in all age categories ranging from 2.5 to 3.0 years up to 4.0 to 4.5 years and are too late to result from weaning. Instead, they may reflect the susceptibility of nonimmune children to diseases that were common in colonial North America. As the majority of these diseases were not fatal, most victims who survived may have had one or more LEHs as visible proof of their earlier encounter(s).

show abstract

Class

Nobles¹

2006

A Companion to Colonial America

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Social Structure of Revolutionary America

Cited by 109 publications

References 0 publications

American Incomes before and after the Revolution

American Incomes before and after the Revolution

Frequency and chronological distribution of linear enamel hypoplasia in a North American colonial skeletal sample

Class

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About