S&S Quarterly, Inc.
Guilford Press
The "Agricultural Revolution" in the United States: The Development of Capitalism and the
Adoption of the Reaper in the Antebellum U. S. North
Author(s): Charles Post
Source: Science & Society, Vol. 61, No. 2 (Summer, 1997), pp. 216-228
Published by: Guilford Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40403620 .
Accessed: 05/05/2011 13:46
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=guilford. .
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
S&S Quarterly, Inc. and Guilford Press are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Science & Society.
http://www.jstor.org
Vol. 61, No. 2, Summer1997, 216-228
Scienceàf Society,
/'
v
The "Agricultural
Revolution"
in theUnitedStates:The Development
of Capitalismand theAdoptionof theReaper
in theAntebellumU. S. North
CHARLES POST*
ABSTRACT: The social and economic rootsof the rapid mechanization of wheat harvestingin the U. S. midwestin the 1850s
has been the subject of a long debate among economic and
social historians.While the participantsin thisdebate make ima varietyofissues,theirreliance
portantcontributions,
clarifying
on familyfarmers'subjectivemotivations("utility"vs. "profitmaximization")to explain theadoption of the reaperultimately
underminestheirexplanatorypower.An alternative
explanation,
based on a more realisticconception of competitionand a recognition of the naturalbarriersto capitalistsocial relationsin
agriculture,is offered.
(BRENNER,1977;1985;HILTON,1976;LENIN,
withMarxhimself(1976,Ch. 30), have
1956),beginning
ofclassrelations
longrecognizedthatthetransformation
and thelaborprocessin agriculture
is a necessary
for
precondition
thedevelopment
ofindustrial
The
mechanization
capitalism. rapid
ofmidwestern
U. S. agriculture
the
duringthetwodecadespreceding
CivilWar,in particular
thewidespread
adoptionofthemechanical
ofwheatinthe1850s,createdtheconditions
reaperintheharvesting
forcapitalist
industrialization
intheUnitedStates(Post,1982;Pudup,
* I would liketo thank
MaryC. Malloy,RobertP. Brennerand theeditorsofScienceà? Soäety
fortheirhelpfulcommentson earlierdraftsof thisessay.A special thanksto Dr. Malloy
forher help in calculatingwheatpricesin the 1850s.
216
"AGRICULTURAL REVOLUTION " AND CAPITALISM
217
ofhumanlaborwithma1983).Ontheone hand,thereplacement
theproductivity
of
raised
of
foodstuffs
in
the
chinery
production
a portionof therural
labor,simultaneously
"freeing"
agricultural
cenurban-industrial
the
labor
in
for
burgeoning
population wage
class.
thenewindustrial
thecostsoffeeding
tersandlowering
working
ofthe1840sand 1850s
revolution"
On theother,the"agricultural
createda massive"homemarket"forindustrially
producedfarm
of the
the
transformation
and
promoting
machinery implements,
economic
Not
industries.
and
steel
iron,
surprisingly,
metalworking
haveengagedin a
fromvarioustheoretical
historians
perspectives
thatshaped
debateon thesocialand economicconditions
vigorous
midwest.
theadoptionofthereaperin theantebellum
ofthereaperbegan
ofthediffusion
discussion
Thecontemporary
of
Mechanization
'The
A.
David's
Paul
with
ReapingintheAnteessay
farmers'
bellumMidwest"
(David,1966).ForDavid,thefamily
adoptionofthereaperbecamea rationaleconomicdecisionwhenthey
At35 acres,
35 ormoreacresofwheatorothersmallgrains.
cultivated
more
in
cradles"
"hand
inwagesforworkers
thesavings
harvesting
using
to
the
of
cost
theincreased
thanoffset
purchasing reaper.According
intheOhioValleyand
farmers
ofthefamily
David,a largeproportion
inthelater1850s,whentheaverGreatPlainsreachedthis"threshold"
midage acreagein wheatand similargrainsin Illinois(a "typical"
and
extensive
The
35
acres.
reached
western
state)
adoptionof
rapid
costa
inthelate1850swas rational,
thereaperinthe"oldnorthwest"
farmers.
decisionforthe"profit-maximizing"
efficient
family
Alan Olmstead(1975) subjectedDavid's thesisto a rigorous
David'scalculations
andcriticism.
reexamination
Adjusting
empirical
on loansto purrates
costsofthereaper(interest
ofthelong-term
lifespanofthemachinery)
chasethemachinery,
, Olmsteadfound
wascloserto60 acresinwheatand
threshold
the"profit-maximizing"
of35acres.TheoverwhelmthanDavid'sestimate
rather
smallgrains,
and
otherpartsofthemidwest
Illinois
in
farmers
of
ingmajority family
thatwaslessthanoptiadoptedthereaperat a scaleofproduction
thatthefarmers'
claimed
Olmstead
effective.
cost
However,
mally
of
the
use
and
the
to
share
reaperallowedthemto
purchase
ability
theuse ofreapera
made
that
of
achievethescale grainproduction
in the 1850s,
decision.Technicalrefinements
maximizing"
"profit
and
more
reliable
the
efficient,
explainedthetiming
making reaper
massiveadoption.
ofthenewtechnology's
218
SCIENCE àf SOCIETY
ofthe
an alternative
HaywoodFleisig(1976) offers
explanation
massiveemployment
ofthereaperon thefamily
farmsofthe"old
the
northwest"
in the 1850s.For Fleisig,thekeyto understanding
ofnorthern
mechanization
the
technical
(and
stagnation
agriculture
ofsouthern
wastherelative
oflaborinthenorth
scarcity
agriculture)
in thesouth).Hark(and itsrelativeabundance,thanksto slavery,
of
ofthemechanization
ingbacktoearly20thcentury
explanations
northern
in
the
and
1850s
1925,
Falconer,
(Bidwell
grainharvesting
ofland (to either
281-294),Fleisigarguedthattheeasyavailability
or
in
the
oflaboravailmidwest
limited
the
amount
purchase rent)
able on themarket.Facedwitha constraint
on themarket
supplyof
to
farmers
labor,"profit
family
maximizing"
responded risinggrain
ofwheatand
theharvesting
pricesin thelate1850sbymechanizing
othersmallgrains.
data
use ofnewand comprehensive
Combiningthesystematic
sourceswitha conceptualframework
influenced
bythedebateson
theEuropeantransition
to capitalism,
Sue Headlee's work(1991)
marksa significant
advancein thediscussionoftheforcesshaping
thediffusion
ofthereaperin the1850s.Embracing
theworkofsuch
Marxisteconomichistorians
as MauriceDobb (1963) and Robert
Brenner(1977;1985),Headlee is thefirst
in thisdebate
participant
to arguethatagrarianclassrelationsare thekeyto understanding
technicalchangeand economicdevelopment.
Onlyspecificforms
ofruralclassrelations
thatfree
revolutions"
engender"agricultural
laborforindustry
and providea growing"homemarket"
forindustrialcapitalism.
Thoseruralsocialinstitutions
andslavery)
(serfdom
whichprevent
mechanization
areobstaclestothedevelagricultural
of
opment capitalism.
In theUnitedStates,Headlee argues,thedevelopment
and exof
in
the
north
in
the
1840s
and
1850s
was
pansion family
farming
thecentral
for
the
of
This
"famprecondition
development capitalism.
stimulated
thedevelopment
ofwhat
ilyfarmformof production"
Headlee and others(Post,1982,42-44; Pudup,1983,Ch. 1) have
calledan "agro-industrial"
industries
complexofcapitalist
providing
and
tools
to
the
northern
farmers
and
their
machinery
processing
meat
.
Headlee
output(flourmilling,
processing)However,
rejects
theargument
thatthefamily
farmers
had becomedependentupon
themarket
fortheireconomicsurvival
inthetwodecadesbeforethe
CivilWar(Post,1982,38-44). The factthatnorthern
farmers
family
"AGRICULTURAL REVOLUTION" AND CAPITALISM
219
didnotpurchaselabor-power
on themarket
and
(hirewageworkers)
continuedto consumeapproximately
of
their
as
use40%
output
valuesmeantthatfarmers
werenotsubjectto the"lawofvalue"werenotcompelledto successfully
in
competein themarketplace
orderto maintaintheirlandedproperty.
The family
farmers
were
neitherpettycommodity
producerscompelledtocutcoststhrough
mechanization
so theycouldsuccessfully
in themarket
and
compete*
maintain
of
their
landed
nor
were
possession
property;
they"profit
maximizers"
who adaptedthereaperas a rationalcost-cutting
reto
in
the
scale
of
alterations
in
the
sponse changes
production,
reapers'
design,or a tightrurallabormarket.
The rootcauseofthefamily
farmers'
adoptionofthereaperin
the1850sis tobe foundin theuniquerelations
and dynamics
ofthe
farm
The
farm"
was
a
medium-sized
"family system." "family
productionunit(40 to 160totalacres)largeenoughto supportthefamily,
butnotso largeas torequirehiring
labor(withtheexcepnon-family
tionofharvest
farms
marketed
time). The family
onlytheir"surplus,"
theoutputoverandabovewhatwasrequiredtomeetthesubsistence
needsofthefamily,
theirindependence
frommarket
forces.
ensuring
The family
farmers
were"riskadverseutility
maximizers"
who "denotonlyfromconsumption
butalsofromthebenefits
of
rivedutility
andfamily
controlofthefarm"(Headlee,1991,48)
farmownership
andcontroloverthelaboroffemaleand
suchas socialindependence
ofthefarmhousehold.These"utility
maximizing"
juvenilemembers
theirsurplusproductinordertosecureconsumer
farmers
marketed
couldnotproduce,topaymortgages,
goodstheyor theirneighbors
landformaleheirs.While
debtsandtaxes,andtopurchaseadditional
notdependenton themarketfortheirsurvival,
farmers
did
family
to increasetheiroutputofcommodities
in responseto risattempt
to
avoid
to
laborers,
ingprices.Theysought
hiringwage
preferring
members
who
and
on
worked
more
hours
whose
rely family
many
thanthatof"hiredhands."The adoplaborwasofhigher"quality"
tionofthereaperwasa rationaldecisionbythese"riskadverseutilwhodesiredsimultaneously
toexpandgrainproducitymaximizers,"
tioninresponsetorisingpricesandavoidthehazardsassociated
with
labor.
hiringnon-family
minesFred Batemanand JamesFoust's
Headlee thoroughly
and ruralhouse(1976) samplingofthe1860censusofagriculture
farm"
thesis.Headleepresents
a comprehenholdstotestthe"family
220
SCIENCE àf SOCIETY
UnitedStates,
intheantebellum
offamily
sivestatistical
farming
portrait
for
the
threshold
the
that
adoptionofthe
finding
"profit-maximizing"
thanOlmstead'sestimate
reaperwas78 acresinwheatin 1860,rather
of
a newestimate
of60 acresin smallgrains.Headleealsoconstructs
varitheirdistribution
thetotalstockofreapersinthemidwest,
among
acres
oftotalacresandimproved
oushouseholds,
andthedistribution
inwheatamongthehouseholds
adoptingthereaper.
ofDavid,only5.2% ofthefarmers
to
the
Contrary
expectations
more
thanthe78 acresin wheatthat
the
adopting reaperplanted
decision
wouldhavemadethemachine'suse a "profit-maximizing"
claims
about
farmers
in 1860.Headlee also findsthatOlmstead's
thresholdare
maximizing"
sharingreapersto achievethe "profit
withoutempiricalfoundation.Finally,she presentsevidencethat
challenges
Fleisig'sclaimthattheadoptionofthereaperwasa "profitlabormarket,
decisionin a "tight"
findingthatFleisig
maximizing"
in theregionand underestioverestimated
thenumberof"farmers"
landtosupaccesstosufficient
matedthenumberofpeoplewithout
the
farmers'
concludes
that
themselves.
Headlee
"self-imposed
port
laborin northern
laborconstraint"
led torelianceon family
agriculfarmers'
ture(Headlee,1991,Chs.2-3). Themidwestern
family
adopscaleofwheat
tionofthereaper,despitethelessthancost-effective
and theavailability
oflaborto hire,supportsHeadlee's
cultivation
thesisthatthemedium-sized
farmers
were"riskaverseutility
family
maximizers."
the
Headleeassertsthatthefederallandsystem,
whichgoverned
distribution
ofthehuge"publicdomain"seizedfromNativeAmerilowprices.Easy
cans,allowedeasyaccessto land through
relatively
accessproduceda relatively
of
landamonga
distribution
equitable
whoweresecurein theposseslargeclassofmediumlandholders,
sionofland. Free to be "utility
in theOhio
farmers
maximizers,"
and
Great
Plains
the
and
other
Valley
labor-saving
adopted reaper
farmimplements
in the 1850s.Thishugemarketforcapitalgoods
thereorganization
stimulated
and expansionof the capitalgoods
industries(includingironand steelproduction),whileincreased
foodto thegrowing
agricultural
productivity
providedinexpensive
urbanpopulation.
Headlee'sstudy
issues
helpsclarify
manyofthecentralempirical
in thedebateon thediffusion
of thereaperbeforetheCivilWar.
of economic
motivations
However,her relianceon the subjective
"AGRICULTURAL REVOLUTION" AND CAPITALISM
221
actorstoexplaineconomicdevelopment,
thedistinction
specifically
between"profit
maximizers"
and "utility
is
maximizers,"problematic.
the
First,the notionthatculture(normsand values) determines
actionsofindividualsocialactorsis thefoundation
forall ofmainstreamsocialscience,fromWeberiansociologyto neoclassicaleconomics.Despiteherdesiretoescapethestultifying
graspofconventionaleconomics,Headlee remainstrappedwithinitsunderlying
thesamegoalsand motivaSecond,and moreimportant,
paradigm.
tionsmaylead toverydifferent
outcomesdependingon thestructural
constraints
on economicbehavior.These constraints
are setnotby
relations:
valuesand norms,butbysocialproperty
therelations
people
enterintowithone anotherand withnature,as mediatedbythe
and possessionofobjectsandinstruments
ofproduction,
ownership
for
human
toproducegoodsand services
survival
and renecessary
ruralhouseofmidwestern
production.Specifically,thechangedrelation
in the20 yearsbefore
theCivilWar
holdstothepossession
oflanded
property
u
revolution"
in theUnitedStates
theconditions
created
forthe agricultural
the
and
the
of reaperspecifically.
diffusion
generally,
offarmownership
"thebenefits
andfamThe goalofpreserving
ilycontroloffarms"has been commonto smalland mediumlandtheworldformostofthelast400years.Dependownersthroughout
relationsin agriculture,
the
social
particularly
property
ingupon
or notruralhouseholdscan obtainand keeplandedpropwhether
incommodity
atcostslowenoughtoavoidengaging
erty
production,
socialand economicdynamics.
In
thisgoal producesverydifferent
Francein the17thcentury
1985,54-62),or theU. S. mid(Brenner,
wereable to securelandat a
westbefore1840 (Post,1995),farmers
in
their
Secure
low
cost.
landholding(i.e.,withoutlarge
relatively
wereable tomarket
debtsand taxes), thesefarmers
only
mortgages,
anddevotethebulkoftheirhouseholds'labor
theirsurplusproducts
Whenlandis "free"or "cheap,"
toproducingitemsofconsumption.
the
Statesbeforethe1830s,
of
United
as itwasin different
regions
tointroduce
techforfarmers
therewasno compulsion
labor-saving
household
a
As
result,
(Friedproduction"
"independent
nology.
thedevelopment
ofcapitalism,
blockmann,1980,176-177)hindered
for
a
rural
home
market
industrial
of
the
capital
development
ing
and allowinglargeportionsofthepopulationto escapewagelabor.
forobtaining
and maintaining
Whenthesocialconditions
posbetween1830and
sessionoflandchange,as theydidin themidwest
222
SCIENCE & SOCIETY
"thebenefits
offarmowner1840,pursuingthegoal ofpreserving
different
results.
and
control
of
the
farm"
family
ship
producedvery
farmers
In orderto paygrowing
debtsand taxes,family
mortgages,
werecompelledto specializeproductiontowardcashcropsand to
untiltheywereno longerable
market
moreandmoreoftheiroutput,
to producemostor all oftheirconsumption
needs.Familyfarmers
inthemidwest
marketed
60% oftheiroutputin 1860,
approximately
dewelloverthe40% ofoutputthatwouldhavemadethemmarket
the
for
means
of
subsistence
When
their
(Danhoff,
1979).
pendent
ofland becamedependentupon successful
continuedownership
farmers
wereobligedto search
on themarket,
family
competition
comforwaystoincreaseproductivity
mechanization.
through
"Petty
of
to
the
"law
(householdproductionsubject
modityproduction1'
and
value")promotedcapitalist
development,
creating deepeninga
homemarket
ofthepopuforindustrial
capitalandfreeing
portions
lationforwagelabor.
farmers
Headlee presentsimportant
evidencethatmidwestern
weresubjectto the"dictates
ofthemarket"
in the1850s.She argues
thatgrowing
debtsledtothecommercialization
ofthemedium-sized
farmsystem
correlation
between
(1991,104),citingthestrong
family
and
the
farms'
in
reaperadaptation
increasing
specialization wheat
Her
confusion
stems
from
a
fundamental
misunderstandproduction.
of
the
of
the
federal
land
Headlee's
claimthat
ing
workings
system.
federalland policymadetheacquisitionoflandrelatively
easyand
createda relatively
ofland (1991,110-114)
distribution
egalitarian
is notsupportedbymostofthehistorical
researchon thedistributionofthepublicdomainin the19thcentury
(Atackand Bateman,
Ch.
Chs.
1987,
8; Bogue,1963,
2-3; Opie, 1991;Swierenga,
1968).
Federallandlawinthe19thcentury
forthesaleofmost
provided
of thepublicdomainat publicauctionto thehigherbidder.No
maximum
thespeculative
pricesor lotswereeverset,encouraging
of
blocks
of
land.
Actual
settlers
were
forcedto buy
purchase large
landfromlandspeculators,
at pricesconsiderably
abovethefederal
minimum
of
acre.
to
one
.25
$1
estimate,
price
per
According
approxifarmers
in Iowain the20yearsbeforethe
80% ofprospective
mately
CivilWarboughttheirland fromspeculators,
ratherthandirectly
fromthefederalgovernment
1968,48-50).By1860,im(Swierenga,
farm
land
in
the
midwest
proved
averaged$27.94peracre,whileunfarm
land
improved
averaged$3.39,almostthreetimesthefederal
"AGRICULTURAL REVOLUTION" AND CAPITALISM
223
minimum
land,
price(Atackand Bateman,1987,138). Unimproved
tremendous
than
less
improvedland,required
though expensive
landoftheOhio
ofhumanlabor(clearingtheforested
investments
ofthePrairies)
ofgrasslands
therootsystems
Valleyand "breaking"
before
and thepurchaseoffencing,
seed,animalsand implements
could
begin.
production
land and "farmbuilding"led theproThe costsofpurchasing
land speculators
intodebt.Frequently,
provided
spectivefarmers
forthepurchaseoflandatveryhighratesofinterloansto "settlers"
est.The mostcommonformofcreditforthepurchaseoflandbeinwhich"themoneyforetheCivilWarwasthe"timeentry"
system,
a bond
thesettler
lenderpurchasedthelandinhisownname,giving
todeed all ora portionofthe
fora deed thatobligatedthecapitalist
claimbackto himifhe paid thepurchasepriceand subsquatter's
sixmonthsor a year"(Bogue,1963,171). Eswithin
interest
stantial
loansvaryfrom20% to40%
rateson "timeentry"
ofinterest
timates
1850s
and
1840s
the
in
(Bogue,1963,170-173;Swierenga,
peryear
on theirland
took
often
Farmers
mortgages
1968,11-12).
five-year
oftenpaying
other
and
topurchaselivestock,
tools,fencing
supplies,
between5% and 10% annualinterest(Bogue,1963,173-179).
zenith
reacheditsantebellum
in themidwest
Land speculation
in the1830s,withtensofmillionsofacresofpubliclandsoldatpubbubbleburstwiththedepression
lic auction.Whenthespeculative
forthepurwithlargemortgages
faced
were
of1837-1841,farmers
and equipment,and
chaseof theirland,heavydebtsforlivestock
taxesthatcould onlybe paid byspecializing
risingstateproperty
theportionofoutputsoldas commodiand
production increasing
landintoa commodland
ties.The federal
bytransforming
system,
farmers
midwestern
the
made
land speculation,
ityand stimulating
dependentupon themarketforthecontinuedpossessionof their
famin thetwodecadesbeforetheCivilWar.The midwestern
farms
relasocial
their
of
the
were
property
ilyfarmers compelled,by logic
costs.
cut
and
of
labor
tions,toseekwaystoincreasetheproductivity
with"dead"laborthroughtheadoptionof the
Replacing"living"
inthe1850s.
tobecomeorremaincompetitive
farmers
allowed
reaper
1850swere
and
1840s
the
of
farmers
If themidwestern
family
unassailHeadlee's
howdo weexplain
compelledto"selltosurvive,"
that95% ofthefarmers
able empirical
adoptingthereaper
finding
farlessthanthe78 acresofwheatthatwouldmakethe
cultivated
224
SCIENCE àf SOCIETY
decision?First,
a "profit
mechanization
of harvesting
maximizing"
we have to recognizethatcompetition
amongcapitalistor pettyof conditionsof procommodity
producersgivesriseto a variety
duction(and different
ratesofreturn)amongproducersin a given
idebranchofproduction.
to theneoclassicaleconomists'
Contrary
alizedworldof "perfect
the
turnover
periodsof
competition," long
and thecostsofobtainfixedcapitalin industrial
existing
capitalism
in agrarland
or
ingcontiguous
(throughpurchase improvement)
in
a
ian petty-commodity
all
prevent producers market
production
fromrapidlyadoptingthesametechniqueor scale of production.
Whileproducerswithlessthanthe"stateoftheart"techniqueand
sharesanddeclinscaleofproduction
arefacedwitherodingmarket
to
are
able
survive,
revenues,
they
duringperiods
ing
particularly
whenthemarketfortheircommodity
is growing(Botwinick,
1993,
124-133;Shaikh,1980).
The 1850swereyearsof rapidlyrisingwheatprices(the resultsofnumerouscropfailures
inEurope,theCrimeanWarandthe
farmers.
Beof
the
U.
S.
urban
growth
population)formidwestern
tween1850 and 1854,real (inflationadjusted) pricesforwheat
jumpednearly60%. Despitea sharpdropafter1855,therealprice
ofwheatremainedover$1.50perbushelthrough
thedecade (U. S.
SeriesE53,201).
of
Series
E123,
209;
Commerce,
1975,
Department
to
Paul
wheat
Gates
"with
(1960,287),
According
priceswellabove
thedollarmarkfrom1853 to 1858,Illinois,Wisconsin,
Iowa and
Minnesota
farmers
andwerein a positionto
enjoyedrealprosperity
and
for
the
buy pay reapers."
Specifically, highpriceofwheatallowed
thosefarmers
whoadoptedthereaperat lessthanthecost-efficient
threshold
of78 acresinwheattopaytheirmortgages
anddebts,and
to purchaseor improveadditionalland forwheatproduction.In
otherwords,thegrowing
marketforwheatenabledfarmers
whose
conditions
ofproduction
werenot"stateoftheart"(reaperadopted,
with78 acresormoreinwheat)tosurvive
thecompetitive
battleand
scale of productionin the
possiblyachievea "profit
maximizing"
future.
Whilethegrowing
ofthereaper
wheatmarket
madethediffusion
farmers
less
with
than
78
in
the
acres
wheat
by
possible, naturalobstaclestocapitalist
inagriculture
madetheadoption
socialrelations
ofthereapernecessary.
AsSusanMann(1990,28-46) pointsout,the
natural
features
ofagriculture
makethewidespread
useofwagelabor
"AGRICULTURAL REVOLUTION" AND CAPITALISM
225
thedisjunction
and risky.
betweenlabortime
difficult
Specifically,
and
and
time"
de(thenaturally
(planting harvesting) "production
where"laboris forced
termined
season)createsa situation
growing
timeoverlabortime"which
tobe idleduringtheexcessofproduction
(Mann,
problems"
"givesrisetoseriouslaborsupplyandrecruitment
theplant1990,39). The longerthe"slackseason"and theshorter
ingand harvestseasons,thegreatertheproblemsin securingadeas potential
times,
wageworkers
migrate
quatelaboratthenecessary
ismoresteady(urban-industrial
toareaswhereemployment
centers,
and
farmers
for
construction,
etc.)
competefiercely
transportation,
and
harvest
briefplanting
a finitepool oflaborduringtherelatively
evenwhencompelled"tosellin order
seasons.As a result,
farmers,
tendto avoidtheuse ofwagelabor.
to survive,"
betweenlaborand productiontimeis particuThe disjunction
Wheathasone ofthelongest
larlyconspicuousinwheatcultivation.
growing("slack")seasonsof anycrop,averaging40-44 weeksfor
in wheat
wheat.Mostofthelaborrequirements
winter
midwestern
tenin
a
to
twelve-week
are
concentrated
and
planting harvesting
period,SeptemberforplantingandJulyor Augustforharvesting
(Mann,1990,56-58). The harvesting
periodforwheatis especially
whenripe,couldnot
toGates(1960,287), "wheat,
short.According
standforlongbeforeitbegantosheditsgrain,ithadtobe harvested
at therighttimeor thelosswouldbe heavy."
tensofthousandsofpoorerfarmers
In Augustand September,
urbanworkers
andunemployed
manyrecentimmigrants
(including
to buildthecanalsand railroads)would
whocame to themidwest
theripentothe"upper"midwest,
travelfromthe"lower"
following
midwestern
labor
this
seasonal
wheat.
system,
migrant
Despite
ing
of"hands"durwheatfarmers
continually
complainedofshortages
whichall
of
"window
two-week
the
crucial,
during
opportunity"
ing
orthecropwouldbe lost(Schob,1975,
thewheatmustbe harvested
78-92). Whilethesupplyoflabor-power
mightswellin Augustand
in a locationwouldcompeteforthe
all ofthefarmers
September,
If thegrain
to bringin theirharvest.
availablepool oflabor-power
toolongand spoiled,thefarmers'
wasleftstanding
majorsourceof
and debtsand tobuyor clearadditionalland
cashtopaymortgages
disappeared.
less
The adoptionofthereaper,evenbythosefarmers
cultivating
thantheoptimal78 acresormoreofwheat,reducedtherisksassoci-
226
SCIENCE & SOCIETY
Withthereaper,
atedwiththeuse ofwagelaborduringtheharvest.
wheatfarmers
couldexpandtheiracreagebeyondwhattheirfamily
thefearthan
totakeadvantage
ofrising
couldharvest
prices,without
an entireyear'slaborwouldbe wastedbecausetheywereunableto
at theprecisetimetheirwheatcropriphiresufficient
labor-power
ofsuccessful
ened.In sum,thesocialrequirements
commodity
pronotthe
ofwheatproduction,
ductionand thenaturalrequirements
and goalsoftheproducers,
compelledfarmsubjective
preferences
scaleof78 acresofwheat
ersproducing
atlessthanthecost-efficient
toadoptthereaperin the1850s.
in northern
relations
ofsocialproperty
The transformation
agofthe1840s
riculture
setthestageforthe"agricultural
revolution"
farmand 1850s.Asrisingdebtsand taxesforcedmidwestern
family
to
maintain
their
in
order
ersto competeas commodity
producers
to
increase
to
seek
various
were
ways
they
landholding,
compelled
wheatprices
theproductivity
oflaborthrough
mechanization.
Rising
madepossible,and thenaturalobstaclestousingwagelaborin agriwhose
culturemadenecessary,
theadoptionofthereaperbyfarmers
did notmakethisdecisionimmediately
scaleofproduction
"profit
inthe
ofthenorthern
The transformation
countryside
maximizing."
for
twodecadesbeforetheCivilWarwasthecentralprecondition
States.
In
in
the
United
thedevelopment
ofindustrial
sum,
capitalism
is
thesourceof technological
changeand economicdevelopment
rather
foundin theobjectivestructure
ofsocialproperty
relations,
thanin thesubjective
ofeconomicactors.
motivations
Departmentof Social Science
BoroughofManhattan CommunityCollege/CUNY
199 ChambersStreet
New York,NY 10007
REFERENCES
in theAntebelAtack,Jeremyand Fred Bateman. 1987. To TheirOwnSoil:Agriculture
lumNorth.
Press.
Ames,Iowa:The IowaStateUniversity
andDemographic
Records
Bateman,Fred andJamesFoust. 1976. Agricultural
forRural
Households
in theNorth,
Consor1860.AnnArbor,Michigan:Inter-University
tiumforPoliticaland SocialResearch/Computer
Tape No. 7420.
intheNorthBidwell,
PercyW. andJohnI. Falconer.1925.TheHistory
ofAgriculture
ernUnited
VolumeI. Washington,
D. C: CarnegieInstitution.
States,
"AGRICULTURAL REVOLUTION" AND CAPITALISM
227
Bogue, Allan G. 1963. FromPrairiestoCornBelt:Farmingon theIllinoisand IowaPraiof Chicago Press.
riesin the19thCentury.
Chicago, Illinois:University
Botwinick,Howard. 1993. Persistent
Inequalities:WageDisparityUnderCapitalistComPrinceton,NewJersey:PrincetonUniversityPress.
petition.
Brenner,Robert P. 1977. "The Origins of CapitalistDevelopment: A Critiqueof
No. 104.
Neo-SmithianMarxism."NewLeftReview,
. 1985. "AgrarianClass Structureand Economic Developmentin Pre-IndusDebate:AgrartrialEurope." In T. H. Astonand C. H. E. Philpin,ed., TheBrenner
striaiEurope.Cambridge,
inPre-Indu
andEconomic
ian ClassStructure
Development
Press.
England: CambridgeUniversity
Danhof,Clarence. 1979. "The FarmEnterprise:The NorthernUnited States,18204.
1860s." Researchin EconomicHistory,
David,Paul. 1966. "The MechanizationofReaping in theAntebellumMidwest."In
in TwoSystems:
ed., Industrialization
Essaysin HonorofAlexander
HenryRosovsky,
Gerschenkron.
New York:JohnWileyand Sons.
NewYork:International
Dobb, Maurice. 1963. Studiesin theDevelopment
ofCapitalism.
Publishers.
Fleisig,Heywood. 1976. "Slavery,the Supplyof AgriculturalLabor and the Indus36:3.
trializationof the South."JournalofEconomic
History,
Friedmann,Harriet.1980. "Household Productionand theNationalEconomy:Conn
7.
ceptsfortheAnalysisofAgrarianFormations.JournalofPeasantStudies,
NewYork:Holt,Rinehart
1815-1860.
Gates,Paul W. 1960. TheFarmer's
Age:Agriculture
and Winston.
Headlee, Sue E. 1991. ThePoliticalEconomy
oftheFamilyFarm:TheAgrarianRootsof
AmericanCapitalism.
Westport,Connecticut:Praegei Publishers.
London: New
FeudalismtoCapitalism.
Hilton,Rodney,ed. 1976. TheTransition
from
LeftBooks.
in Russia: TheProcessoftheFormation
Lenin,V. I. 1956. TheDevelopment
ofCapitalism
Moscow: ProgressPublishers.
Industry.
forLarge-Scale
ofa HomeMarket
in Theory
and Practice.
Mann, Susan A. 1990. AgrarianCapitalism
Chapel Hill, North
of NorthCarolina Press.
Carolina: University
Volume I. Harmondsworth,
Marx,Karl. 1976. Capital:A Critique
ofPoliticalEconomy,
England: Penguin Books.
Olmstead,Alan L. 1975. "The Mechanizationof Reaping and Mowingin Ameri35:2.
can Agriculture,1833-1870."JournalofEconomic
History,
FarmlandPolicy.
Opie,John.1991. TheLaw oftheLand: TwoHundredYearsofAmerican
of NebraskaPress.
Lincoln, Nebraska: University
No. 133.
Post,Charles. 1982. "The AmericanRoad to Capitalism.' NewLeftReview,
. 1995. "The AgrarianOriginsof U. S. Capitalism:The Transformationof
NorthernAgricultureBeforethe CivilWar."JournalofPeasantStudies,22:3.
Pudup, MaryBeth. 1983. "Packersand Reapers, Merchantsand Manufacturers:
IndustrialStructuringand Location in an Era of EmergentCapitalism."M. A.
of California-Berkeley.
Thesis, University
1815-1860.
FarmLaborin theMidwest,
Schob, David. 1975. HiredHands and Plowboys:
of Illinois Press.
Urbana, Illinois: University
Shaikh,Anwar.1980. "MarxianCompetitionVersusPerfectCompetition:Further
SCIENCE àf SOCIETY
228
Comments
on theSo-CalledChoiceofTechnique."Cambridge
Journal
ofEco-
4.
nomics,
on theIowaFrontier.
P. 1968. Pioneersand Profits:
Land Speculation
Robert
Swierenga,
Press.
Ames,Iowa:The IowaStateUniversity
Statistics
U. S. Department
ofCommerce,
BureauoftheCensus.1975.Historical
of
theUnitedStates:ColonialTimesto1970,PartI. Washington,D. C: Government
Office.
Printing