The Standard of Living in
the Colonies and States of the Middle Atlantic Region Before 1800:
Evidence from a Sample of Widows’ Allowances
By
Thomas Weiss, University of Kansas and NBER
Joshua L. Rosenbloom, University of Kansas and NBER
Peter C. Mancall, University of Southern California
Revised: 27 March 2010
This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under
Grant No. 0317265. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations
expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the
views of the National Science Foundation.
1
ABSTRACT
We present new evidence on changes in the standard of living in the colonies and states
of the Middle Atlantic region between 1720 and 1800. Drawing on evidence from over
424 widow’s allowances collected from 10 counties in New York, Pennsylvania and
Delaware, we analyze changes in the composition and value of the allowances of food
these wills specified be provided to support the decedent’s wife. There is a relatively
high degree of dispersion in these values, making it difficult to draw strong conclusions
about changes over time. Nonetheless there is evidence of a substantial increase in the
value of allowances between the first half of the century and the early nineteenth century,
with most of the increase coming after 1790.
Introduction
There can be little doubt that those regions of North America that became the
United States experienced rapid extensive growth during the eighteenth century.
Endowed with abundant and fertile agricultural land, the European-American population
enjoyed a comparatively high standard of living. This in turn served to encourage both
high rates of natural increase and continued migration. As population grew, the area of
settlement expanded into the interior, bringing new land into production. Output grew
quickly as did both the volume of internal and external trade. With growing trade came
larger cities and increasingly lavish private homes and public buildings.
Clearly British North America was a prosperous and expanding economy. But
was this growth associated with rising standards of living among its inhabitants? The
conventional view, summarized by McCusker and Menard (1985, p. 55), is that “…the
colonial economy must have expanded at a faster rate than population. Both productivity
and the standard of living in the colonies got better…which argues forcefully for real per
2
capita growth in the economy.” Extrapolating from British experience, McCusker and
Menard postulated that the colonial economy grew at perhaps 0.6% per year in per capita
terms. Egnal (1998, pp. 42-43) similarly places the growth rate of per capita income in
the 60 years before American independence at around 0.6% per year for the White
population. For the entire population, including slaves, he reports a slightly lower rate of
0.5% per year. Egnal’s estimates are based on inference from a variety of different
indicators, including the growth of colonial imports from Britain, changes in probated
wealth and especially the growing value of exports.
Mancall and Weiss (1999) have challenged this account, however. They argued
that in the early nineteenth century the U.S. economy experienced per capita income
growth at rates of less than 0.3% per year, and it seems unlikely that growth was more
rapid in the eighteenth century than it was in these later years. Further, employing the
conjectural estimate framework introduced by David (1967), they concluded that per
capita GDP was essentially unchanged over the course of the eighteenth century.
In the face of these conflicting estimates, improving our understanding of the
history of living standards before 1800 in the territory that became the United States
requires finding more and better data. It also requires a shift in focus to the regional
level. Although the thirteen British North American colonies that became the United
States shared a common connection with Britain, differences in climate, natural resources
and the history of settlement resulted in divergent patterns of economic development.
Regional differences in economic structure also extend to differences in the types of
records that remain for scholars to use in reconstructing their histories.
3
In this paper we analyze newly collected data drawn from a sample of 424
widow’s allowances from the states and colonies of the Middle Atlantic region between
1712 and 1805. Widow’s allowances are present in only a fraction of the wills recorded
in this period. Nevertheless, the practice of specifying the annual quantities of food and
other items to be provided for the support of surviving widows was sufficiently common
in this period that wills offer a useful source of information about typical consumption
levels of key staples in the colonial diet.1 James Lemon (1967, p. 60), who pioneered in
the use of these data, speculated that wills were written by men of “average or better than
average economic status; the poor were less inclined to bother.” As such they may
present a somewhat biased picture of consumption standards at a point in time, but
changes over time should accurately reflect trends in consumption levels. Although the
language of the wills in which they appear follows fairly common patterns, the
specification of individual allowances is quite varied, suggesting that they accurately
reflect differences in accustomed living standards and circumstances of the couples
involved.2
A number of other scholars have used data on widow’s allowances to analyze
eighteenth century diets, perhaps most prominently James Lemon and Sarah F.
McMahon.3 Lemon (1964, 1967) collected 159 widow’s allowances recorded in Chester
1
We estimate that about10 percent of the wills specified allowances that could be
quantified, while a larger number prescribed maintenance in general terms. Lisa Wilson
puts the share of those that specified “House and Supplies” between 25 and 38 percent in
Chester county. (Wilson, 1992, p. 106, Table 4.1)
2
See Shammas, Salmon and Dahlin (1987) and Wilson (1992) for more extensive
discussions of colonial testamentary practices.
3
In addition to Lemon and McMahon, Ginsburg (1972) and Gross (1976) have made use
of evidence from widow’s allowances to produce estimates of subsistence consumption
levels.
4
and Lancaster counties in Pennsylvania between 1740 and 1790 to construct estimates of
average household consumption patterns. McMahon (1981, 1985) used widow’s
allowances from Middlesex County, Massachusetts to analyze changes in the
composition of diets from the mid-seventeenth century through the early nineteenth
century.
Our approach to using the data presented in widow’s allowances is somewhat
different from these previous studies. Whereas Lemon and McMahon were primarily
interested in describing the composition of the average diet, and therefore focused on the
quantities of individual commodities, we are more interested in how the quantity and
quality of food consumption standards changed over time.4 As a result we focus less on
the quantities of specific items and more on the overall value of the food specified in the
allowances. Our analysis suggests that living standards in the region changed little if at
all before 1790, but increased substantially in the 1790s.
A Sample of Widow’s Allowances from the Middle Atlantic Region
We have compiled data on widow’s allowances from wills recorded by courts in
New York, Pennsylvania and Delaware that are available on microfilm. To date we have
reviewed films from ten counties beginning in 1712 and ending in 1805. Many of the
wills do not contain provisions for a widow’s allowance and screening wills requires the
time-consuming task of reading through each one to determine whether it contains a
4
McMahon did provide data for different time periods as described below, whereas
Lemon provided only the average values for the entire period suggesting there were no
noticeable changes over time.
5
widow’s allowance. To date we have identified a total of 464 that contain some
instructions about support for the deceased’s widow either in terms of provisions or a
cash payment. Of these, 179 specify quantities of food to be provided on an annual basis,
while 245 specify an allowance in monetary terms.5
The widows’ allowances were specified in different ways: their composition
varied greatly from will to will, and varied noticeably in the amounts that were
bequeathed. In 1790, for example, Tobias Newcomb of Dutchess county, New York
specified simply that his spouse get “thirty pounds yearly as requested.”6 While John
Burnet also of Dutchess county specified in his 1793 will that his sons, William and
Thomas, would possess and work the farm, but they “… shall pay to my wife Amy
twelve pounds good and lawful money annually as long as she should live...” Other wills
delineated any number of specific items that should be provided, and in some cases that
included money as well as farm products.
Figure 1 reproduces a portion of the will of Oswald Dobs of York County,
Pennsylvania, recorded in 1766. Having left his farm to his son, Daniel, Dobs specified
in some detail the provisions that Daniel should provide for his mother, including twelve
bushels of wheat, 4 bushels of rye, 100 pounds of pork, 60 pounds of beef, 5 pounds of
wool, and a half acre of land sown in flax. A more complex allowance usually was
required when the sons were too young to inherit. In those cases, the farm was left to the
widow until one of the sons reached a certain age, at which time he would inherit the
farm and then provide his mother with a specified annual allowance.
5
In 57 cases the allowance includes both in-kind and monetary support.
He also left his wife the house and furniture. These were to be maintained by the
Executor, so the money bequest was for maintenance.
6
6
Table 1 summarizes the geographic and chronological distribution of the data we
have been able to collect. The top panel shows this information for all the allowances,
while the bottom panel is restricted to those enumerating food items. The bulk of our data
come from Pennsylvania, and the number of observations in the early parts of the century
is somewhat thin. Because the chronological coverage varies by county it is necessary to
take into account regional differences in the composition of the data in analyzing the
temporal trends that they reveal. Table 2 summarizes the contents of the allowances we
have collected for the entire sample, and for a variety of subsets of the data.
For the most part the quantitative descriptions contained in the wills are
straightforward. In a small number of cases, however, quantifying the instructions
requires a degree of imputation. For example, several wills indicate that a widow should
have the produce of a certain number of acres of land, or the quantity of meat is specified
in terms of a number of animals—for example “one fat hog”. Rather than discard the
data in these observations we have attempted to impute plausible values in these
instances based on data on typical yields per acre in Lemon (1967), and reasonable
estimates of slaughter weights.
Before proceeding, it is useful to compare the data we have collected with the
findings of previous studies that have made use of widow’s allowances. In Table 3, we
compare the frequency of occurrence and the quantity of selected commodities in our
data and in the allowances analyzed by Lemon (1967). Lemon’s data are reproduced in
the first two columns. The subsequent columns show comparable information for all the
allowances we have collected, all allowances we have collected from Pennsylvania, and
those Pennsylvania allowances from the same years covered by Lemon’s data.
7
While the frequency with which the various commodities were mentioned in our
sample of wills is generally lower than in Lemon’s sample, the average quantities in
those instances where they are mentioned are quite similar. Lemon does not explicitly
describe the process he used to calculate the average quantities he reported, but it appears
that for each commodity he analyzed he selected observations with positive amounts of
that commodity and calculated the average quantity specified for these non-zero
observations.
Lemon interprets the average quantities he derived as a reflection of average
consumption requirements for these commodities of a representative adult. Looking at
the entire bundle of commodities, we believe that such an approach is likely to overstate
total consumption. By calculating average quantities of each commodity only for those
cases in which it is mentioned Lemon ignores the possibility of substitution between
items within an allowance (for example some allowances might specify a higher quantity
of rye and no Indian corn; while others would specify Indian corn but no rye). Our later
analysis takes this possibility into consideration. Here, however, to facilitate
comparability we adopt Lemon’s approach.
Table 4 compares the data we have collected with those from Middlesex County,
Massachusetts analyzed by McMahon (1985). The overall quantities of grain specified in
the two regions are quite similar.7 But the composition of grains differs substantially.
Consistent with the more favorable soil and climate conditions in the Middle Atlantic,
allowances in this area specified a much greater quantity of wheat and far less Indian
7
Again, it appears that McMahon’s averages are calculated for observations containing
non-zero quantities of each particular item. And as in Table 3, we have replicated her
approach to facilitate comparisons across the data sets.
8
corn than was true in New England. Surprisingly, given the perception of the Middle
Atlantic region as more favorable to agriculture, the overall quantity of meat specified in
wills from the region was lower than in New England. This difference is at least partly
accounted for, however, when we consider the aggregate value of food specified in the
allowances in the different regions. Wheat was a more desirable and more valuable grain
than corn, and this difference compensates for the lower quantity of meat in the
allowances, so that the average value of these food items is slightly higher in the Middle
Atlantic allowances than in those from New England. This is consistent with the
argument of Bettye Hobbs Pruitt (1992, p. 348) that the widow was expected to sell some
wheat in order to purchase other consumption items.
Trends in the Value of Food in Widow’s Allowances
In our sample of allowances there are 55 different commodities that appear in at
least one allowance. The complete list includes items, such as spices, sugar, turnips and
potatoes, molasses, butter, cheese, livestock, fabrics, shoes, rum and cider, most of which
are listed in only a few allowances, and made up a small part of the value of food items
specified in those allowances. By far the most important items as far as their impact on
living standards are dietary staples—grain and meat. Consequently we focus our
attention and analysis on a subset of the most commonly mentioned grains (wheat, corn,
rye, buckwheat, barley, oats) and the most common sources of meat (beef and pork).
9
Because our goal is eventually to link our estimates to GDP estimates from the
nineteenth century we valued each of these items in prices of 1840.8 We then summed
the resulting values to construct an estimate of the aggregate value of the commodities
specified in each allowance. Figure 2 displays a scatter plot of the resulting values by
year. From this scatter it is difficult to tell if there is any trend in the average values of
allowances. There is some suggestion that the value of allowances prior to the 1730s was
lower than in later years, but the number of observations is so small that it is difficult to
have much confidence in this observation. Interpreting this chart is made more
complicated by the fact that the representation of different counties varies over time, and
the value of allowances seems to vary systematically across locations.
To address this problem we use OLS regression to measure changes over time
controlling for possible differences in the value of allowances across locations. In
addition, we include among the explanatory variables the value (expressed in 1840
dollars) of any annual cash allowance specified in the will. A priori, it is possible that the
effect of this variable will be either positive or negative. If providing cash allowances
acted as a substitute for food, then we would expect a negative coefficient on this
variable. On the other hand, if income effects dominate so that wealthier husbands
tended to specify that their widows be provided with both more currency and more food,
then we would expect to find a positive coefficient on this variable.
To summarize, our regression model is specified as:
8
We obtained 1840 prices of wheat, corn, pork and beef in Philadelphia from Cole
(1938) as the average of monthly prices for each commodity. Because Cole did not
report prices of rye, buckwheat and oats we used farm gate prices of these commodities
relative to wheat reported in Towne and Rasmussen (1960) to estimate values of these
commodities in Philadelphia.
10
(1)
Where Foodval is the total value of the meat and grain items specified in the allowance, i
indexes observations, Time stands for a set of indicator variables equal to one in a
specified time period (e.g., decade) denoted by subscript t and zero otherwise, and
County is a set of indicator variables that take the value one when the observation is in
county j and zero otherwise.
Because of the relatively small number of observations before 1750, our estimates
are sensitive to a few outliers in the data. Inspection of these outliers revealed that they
were among those for which we had imputed the quantities of one or more food items.
As a result we report here estimates based on a sample of observations that did not
require imputation. The effect of excluding the observations with imputed values is to
lower the estimated value of allowances before 1750 and to increase the estimated value
of allowances from Chester County. The other coefficients remain essentially
unchanged.
The first column in Table 5 reports estimates of equation (1) without controls for
location or the value of currency in the allowance. In the next two columns we add these
additional explanatory variables. Because of the small number of observations we have
been able to locate for the beginning of the century we pool data for the years before
1750 in a single time period. In this regression the excluded location is Lancaster
County, as a result all of the other location effects can be interpreted as indicating the
difference in value of allowances in the specified county relative to Lancaster County. In
models II and III where location effects are included, the time effects reflect the average
11
value of allowances in the specified period controlling for differences in the average
value of allowances by location.
In all three models the time effects imply an increase in the value of food items in
the allowances over time. In Model I, which does not control for differences in the value
of allowances across locations, the value of allowances fluctuated without trend prior to
1790, but ended at a relatively high level in the period 1790-1805. The average value of
allowances in this last period was about 44 percent higher than they had been before
1750. Adding controls for county changes the pattern of variation over time.9 In models
II and III the average value of allowances falls slightly in the 1750s and 1760s, and then
begins to rise. Values in the 1770s and 1780s are slightly higher than in the first half of
the century, and then there is a further and more substantial increase in the 1790-1805
period. Nonetheless the long-run growth in the value of allowances is quite similar to
that implied in model I. Depending on whether one includes the value of currency among
the explanatory variables allowances in 1790-1805 were either 44 (model II) or 46
(model III) percent higher than before 1750. Because of the small number of
observations before 1750 and the dispersion of the observations this difference is
marginally statistically significant.10
Although the combined county effects are only marginally significant, our
preferred specification is model II because at least some geographic differences appear to
be important. While the imprecision of our estimates of the time effects is disappointing,
9
Statistically, the only distinguishable location effect is that for Bucks County. Testing
the joint significance of the six county effects produces an F(6, 146) statistic of 1.61,
which is statistically significant at the 15 percent level.
10
In model II testing the equality of the time effects for 1790-1805 and the period before
1750 we obtain F(1, 148)=2.56 which is statistically significant at the 11% level. In
model III we obtain F(1, 147) = 2.77, which is statistically significant at the 10% level.
12
the point estimates suggests that the value of the diet fluctuated without trend before the
1770s, then began to rise, gradually at first, but then more quickly after 1790. Model III
differs from Model II in the inclusion of the amount of currency stipulated in allowances
as an additional explanatory variable. The coefficient on this variable is positive, but
relatively small quantitatively, implying an increase of only $0.04 in the value of food for
every dollar of cash income. The effect of this variable is statistically insignificant,
suggesting that there was at best a weak relationship between in-kind and cash
allowances.
Interpretation
Our goal in analyzing data from widow’s allowances is to introduce new evidence
about the history of the standard of living in the Middle Atlantic region before 1800.
Given the overwhelming importance of agriculture in the eighteenth century and
corresponding importance of food in household consumption bundles, changes in the
value of the diet are an important indicator of the standard of living. The changes in the
value of the diet implied by our sample of widow’s allowances is among the most direct
evidence available concerning the history of living standards in the Middle Atlantic
region before 1800.
Allowances provide one of the few sources of evidence of the levels of
consumption of ordinary individuals at the time. While the husbands who drew up wills
were likely wealthier than those who died intestate, and thus the levels of consumption
may not represent that for the entire population, changes in the provisions that were
13
specified in allowances drawn up at different times nevertheless seem likely to be a
reliable indicator of the rate and direction of change in normal living standards over time.
Although many scholars, including Lemon and McMahon, have implicitly
interpreted the allowances as a reflection of subsistence requirements, Pruitt (1984) has
criticized this view offering considerable evidence that the quantities specified in the
allowances were well above what was needed for subsistence. Based on contemporary
sources she estimates that and adult female would require between 4.7 to 6 bushels of
grain (pp. 344-45) per year. Some additional grain might have been used to feed
livestock, but, she argues, when husbands specified greater quantities of grain their
intention was to provide a surplus for sale and that that their intention was that this
surplus be sold as a source of income that could be used to purchase other commodities
that were not included in the allowances. Waciega (1987) echoes this view, arguing that
the intent those writing the wills was not simply to ensure that their wives were provided
with a minimum level of subsistence, but were afforded “…the wherewithal to live
comfortably….[b]y bequeathing to his wife generous amounts of agricultural goods, a
husband not only provided the means for her to arrange her material life according to her
own judgment but also afforded some defense against economic mischance…”
There is little disagreement in the literature that the region enjoyed a relatively
high standard of living for the time. From its settlement in the late seventeenth century,
favorable conditions encouraged the rapid growth of population, the spread of settlement
into the interior, a swelling volume of agricultural exports, and the growth of its major
ports—Philadelphia and New York—as the markets through which this external trade
was managed. James T. Lemon’s (1972) history of eighteenth century Pennsylvania is
14
typical of these accounts. “Many commentators,” writes Lemon (1972, xiii), “referred to
it as ‘the best poor man’s country in the world.’ Without a doubt the area was one of the
most affluent agricultural societies anywhere.” With the exception of the extensive
spread of settlement, however, Lemon describes an essentially static economy,
concluding that: “…the Pennsylvania mode of living had changed very little” (1972, p.
218).
Summing up the state of scholarship on the region’s economic history, McCusker
and Menard (1985) observed: “…the external commerce of the Middle Colonies, the flow
of goods to and from foreign markets, and the activities of merchants in New York and
Philadelphia can be described with some precision. The preeminent needs and
opportunities …lie elsewhere, in the agricultural hinterlands...” This judgment is
accurately reflected in the content of their chapter on the Middle Colonies. Fully half of
the chapter is devoted to a description of the region’s external trade patterns, while most
of the rest describes the growth of population and other indicators of extensive growth.
Egnal’s (1998) survey of colonial economic history similarly focuses on indicators of
aggregate growth and external trade.
One of the few studies to offer any quantitative evidence that bears directly on
living standards is Duane Ball and Gary Walton’s (1976) study of agricultural
productivity in Chester County. Based on data from probate inventories drawn from four
periods during the eighteenth century they reported a modest improvement, concluding
that total factor productivity in agriculture increased by 5% from 1717-1731 to 17751790. However, essentially all of this increase occurred before the middle of the century;
thereafter productivity was essentially stagnant. Moroeover, their results are crucially
15
dependent on an assumed reduction in the number of children per farm household.
Menard (1976, p. 120) notes that if the decline in labor input is somewhat more modest
the result would actually be nearly 10 percent decline in total factor productivity over the
course of the century.
Billy Smith (1981) has collected evidence on wages and prices from Philadelphia
that he uses to reconstruct trends in the real wages of urban workers after 1750. He found
that real wages followed an approximately U-shaped pattern, declining from the mid1760s to a low point in the 1780s, before recovering in the late 1790s. Wages at the end
of the period were no higher, and possibly slightly lower, than at the beginning of the
period covered. Similarly, there was no upward trend in the median values of probate
inventories in Chester County and Philadelphia reported by Waciega (1987, p. 57) prior
to the 1820s.
Our sample of widow’s allowances thus augments the documentary record on
living standards in the Middle Atlantic prior to 1800. They offer a somewhat different
perspective on the trend in regional living standards, but one that is not entirely
inconsistent with these other studies. In particular, they suggest that improvements in the
standard of living were relatively modest between 1750 and 1790. But that beginning in
the early national period there was an acceleration in the improvements in living
standards.
16
Conclusion
Discussion of the history of living standards before 1800 in what became the
United States has relied largely on inferences drawn from limited and indirect data.
These differences have contributed to a relatively wide range of estimates of growth rates
of living standards and little way to resolve these differences. This paper offers new
evidence that pertains directly to an important element of the standard of living, by
documenting expectations about normal levels of food consumption in the Middle
Atlantic region.
We find that the value of food items specified in widow’s allowances increased
by the end of the eighteenth century. Most of this increase appears to have come toward
the end of the century, however, rather than occurring continuously. Based on data from
widow’s allowances, the value of the diet had increased by perhaps 20 percent between
the first half of the century and the 1780s. But this increase doubled in the 1790s and
early 1800s.
It seems likely that there may have been improvements in the diet and standard of
living in the early years of settlement as settlers discovered what crops would grow in the
region, and developed a stock of knowledge about the best techniques for growing them.
But it appears that living standards did not grow quickly thereafter until late in the
century. All of this is quite consistent with the abundant evidence of the region’s
extensive growth. High living standards served to attract settlers and encourage natural
increase in the population. A growing population spread out into the interior and
17
produced more crops, which in turn contributed to a rising volume of exports. Larger
population, and more exports encouraged the growth of trade and hence port cities.
18
References
Ball, Duane and Gary Walton (1976). “Agricultural Productivity Change in EighteenthCentury Pennsylvania.” Journal of Economic History 36, no. 1 (March), 102-17.
Cole, Arthur Harrison (1938). Wholesale Commodity Prices in the United States, 17001861. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
David, Paul A. (1967). “The Growth of Real Product in the United States Before 1840:
New Evidence, Controlled Conjectures.” Journal of Economic History 27, no. 2
(June), 151-97.
Egnal, Marc (1998). New World Economies: The Groth of the Thirteen Colonies and
Early Canada. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ginsburg, Arlin I. (1972). “Ipsiwch, Massachusetts, During the Revolution, 1763-1791.
Ph. D. dissertation, University of California, Riverside.
Gross, Robert A. (1976). The Minutemen and their World. New York: Hill and Wang,
1976.
Lemon, James T. (1964). “A Rural Geography of Southeastern Pennsylvania in the
Eighteenth Century: The Contributions of Cultural Inheritance, Social Structure,
Economic Conditions and Physical Resources.” Ph. D. Diss. University of
Wisconsin.
Lemon, James T. (1967). “Household Consumption in Eighteenth-Century America and
its Relationship to Production and Trade: The Situation among Farmers in
Southeastern Pennsylvania.” Agricultural History 41, no. 1 (January), 59-70.
Lemon, James (1972). The Best Poor Man’s Country (Baltimore).
19
Mancall, Peter C. and Thomas Weiss (1999). “Was Economic Growth Likely in Colonial
British North America?” Journal of Economic History 59, no. 1 (March), 17-40.
McCusker, John J. and Russell R. Menard (1985). The Economy of British America,
1607-1789: Needs and Opportunities for Study. Institute of Early American
History and Culture. Chapel Hill and London: University of North Carolina Press.
McMahon, Sarah F. (1981). “A Comfortable Subsistence: A History of Diet in New
England, 1630-1850.” Ph. D. Diss. Brandeis University.
McMahon, Sarah F. (1985), “A Comfortable Subsistence: The Changing Composition of
Diet in Rural New England, 1620-1840.” William and Mary Quarterly 3rd serr.,
42, no. 1 (January), 26-65
Menard, Russell R. (1976). “Comments on Paper by Ball and Walton.” Journal of
Economic History 36, no. 1 (March), 118-25.
Pruitt, Bettye Hobbs (1984). “Self-Sufficiency and the Agricultural Economy of
Eighteenth-Century Massachusetts.” William and Mary Quarterly 3rd serr., 41,
no. 3 (July), 334-64.
Shammas, Carole, Marylynn Salmon and Michael Dahlin (1987). Inheritance in
America: From Colonial Times to the Present. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers
University Press.
Smith, Billy G. (1981). “The Material Lives of Laboring Philadelphians, 1750 to 1800.”
William and Mary Quarterly 3rd serr., 38, no. 2 (April), 164-202.
Towne, Marvin and Wayne Rasmussen, “Farm Gross Produce and Gross Investment in
the Nineteenth Century.” In Trends in the American Economy in the Nineteenth
Century. Conference n Research in Income and Wealth. NBER, 1960.
20
Waciega, Lisa Wilson (1987). “A ‘Man of Business’: the Widow of Means in
Southeastern Pennsylvania, 1750-1850.” William and Mary Quarterly 3rd ser.,
44, no. 1 (Jan.), 40-64.
Wilson, Lisa (1992). Life after Death: Widows in Pennsylvania, 1750-1850.
Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
21
Figure 1: Will of Oswald Dobs
22
Figure 2: Value of Meat and Grain in Middle Colony/State Allowances, 1712-1805
Notes and Sources: All values in prices of 1840. Source Mancall, Rosenbloom, Weiss Widow’s Allowance sample.
23
Table 1: Distribution of Widow's Allowances by County and Decade
County
171219
172029
173039
1740-49
Albany
Bucks
Chester
Dutchess
Kent
Lancaster
New Castle
Northumberland
Philadelphia
York
Total
0
1
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
4
0
2
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
12
3
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
17
1
25
7
0
2
3
2
0
0
0
40
Bucks
Chester
Dutchess
Lancaster
New Castle
Northumberland
York
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
2
1
3
1750-59
176069
1770-79
All Observations
0
1
20
21
0
0
0
0
0
0
25
34
0
2
0
0
0
0
9
16
54
74
Observations with food
2
6
0
0
0
0
3
19
22
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
8
14
7
29
43
Source: Mancall, Rosenbloom, Weiss Widow's Allowance Sample. See text for
details
1780-89
0
52
0
0
0
21
6
8
1
4
92
1
18
0
2
0
0
0
15
0
0
36
15
0
0
16
1
1
2
35
12
0
1
0
0
7
0
20
1790-1805
1
Total
0
11
0
0
0
90
0
0
102
4
151
15
13
2
85
11
113
1
29
424
0
5
0
0
36
0
41
36
5
6
62
2
44
24
179
24
Table 2: Number of allowances containing specified items and average amounts per allowance
Variable
Moneya
wheat
corn
rye
buckwheat
barley
oats
grain
pork
beef
a
Obs
423
422
420
422
422
424
424
414
419
422
All
Mean Std. Dev.
23.3
4.6
0.6
1.4
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.1
32.5
9.9
112.6
7.6
2.0
3.7
1.5
0.5
1.6
1.1
64.6
26.5
Observations with grain
and/or meat only
Obs
Mean
Std. Dev.
Observations with
money only
Obs Mean Std. Dev.
201
122
118
120
120
122
122
119
120
121
11.1
1.3
3.5
0.5
0.2
0.6
0.0
70.1
19.7
7.6
2.9
5.7
1.7
0.8
2.8
0.0
70.4
35.0
44.2
160.2
Observations with
money and food
Obs Mean
Std. Dev.
57
56
57
57
57
57
57
56
57
57
17.4
10.6
1.4
2.7
1.3
0.1
0.3
0.5
91.3
31.3
24.2
9.3
2.8
3.8
2.9
0.5
1.3
3.1
97.4
39.6
Monetary values in colony/state currency.
Note: The total number of observations differs for specific items because of missing values the result when it is not possible to
quantify the information. The number of observations in the last three columns does not add to the total of all observations
because some observations included food items that we did not price.
Source: See Table 1.
25
Table 3: Comparison of Allowances in Lemon with Mancall, Rosenbloom, Weiss Widow's Allowance Sample
Pork
Beef
Wheat
Rye
Barley
Oats
Buckwheat
Indian Corn
Money, annual
Number
Lemon
average
allotment
Freq
84
101.8
58
51.3
116
13.2
58
5.4
17
3.8
11
9
6
4.8
13
6.3
59
7.7
159
All obs.
average
Freq
allotment
118
115.4
72
57.9
158
12.3
86
6.6
10
2.8
10
8.9
24
5.8
44
5.4
258
38.3
422
PA obs.
average
Freq
allotment
113
114.6
68
55.4
150
12.4
85
6.7
10
2.8
10
8.9
24
5.8
38
5.2
231
39.5
391
Note: Average quantities are computed for cases with non-zero values only.
Source: Lemon (1967, p. 62); Mancall, Rosenbloom Weiss Widow's Allowance Sample.
PA obs., 1740-1790
average
Freq
allotment
87
102.5
53
57.5
123
12.1
66
5.9
7
2.7
8
9.8
11
5.3
24
6.3
172
18.4
282
422
26
Table 4: Comparison of Allowances in McMahon with Mancall, Rosenbloom, Weiss
Widow's Allowance Sample
New England
Average allowance of
Indian Corn
Rye
Wheat
All Grain
Pork
Beef
All Meat
Value of Grain
Value of Meat
Value of both items
Number of wills
Middle Atlantic
Average allowance of
Indian Corn
Rye
Wheat
All Grain
Pork
Beef
All Meat
Value of Grain
Value of Meat
Value of both items
Number of wills
a
1720-39
1740-59
1780-1799a
1760-79
9.5
3.7
1.6
13.3
11.8
4.4
1.4
16.3
10.6
5.3
1.3
16.1
10.9
6.3
1.5
17.1
103.4
64.4
145.2
122.9
72.8
168.2
128
82
183.5
118.5
75.3
178
$9.49
$10.89
$20.38
$11.39
$12.62
$24.01
$11.73
$13.76
$25.50
$12.77
$13.35
$26.12
33
81
51
49
0.0
5.0
13.0
14.3
7.8
5.6
14.4
18.0
6.1
5.4
11.4
15.2
4.5
9.0
12.2
20.5
110.0
110.0
111.2
56.8
125.1
99.5
60.1
128.4
136.1
55.5
165.6
$14.86
$8.80
$19.26
$18.13
$9.71
$24.17
$15.30
$9.91
$22.09
$20.17
$12.93
$25.63
4
32
75
57
1780-1805 for Middle Atlantic Allowances.
Note: For the New England wills the value of grain was calculated by multiplying an
average price per bushel by the quantity reported by McMahon. For each period the
average price was calculated as a weighted average of prices of corn, rye and wheat in
1840, where the weights were the relative quantities of the three grains reported by
McMahon. In 1840 prices of pork and beef were quite similar, so an unweighted average
of these prices was used to value the quantity of meat reported in the New England
wills.
Source: McMahon (1985, pp. 54, 56) and Mancall, Rosenbloom, Weiss Widow's
Allowance Sample.
27
Table 5: Regression Estimates of Time Trends in the Value of Food in Middle Atlantic Widow's Allowances
Model I
Model II
Model III
Explanatory
Variable
TIME EFFECTS
1720-49
1750-59
1760-69
1770-79
1780-89
1790-1805
Coeff.
19.62
24.23
21.59
24.08
20.90
27.67
LOCATION EFFECTS
Bucks CTY
Chester CTY
Northumberland CTY
York CTY
New Castle CTY
Dutchess CTY
Std. Err.
t-stat
4.15
2.68
2.10
2.36
3.01
2.16
4.73
9.04
10.27
10.21
6.94
12.82
Coeff.
160
t-stat
Coeff.
Std.
Err.
t-stat
24.35
23.50
21.59
27.39
28.33
35.08
5.87
2.85
2.53
2.86
5.04
6.83
4.15
8.26
8.54
9.57
5.62
5.14
24.11
23.13
21.31
27.11
28.03
35.13
5.85
2.85
2.53
2.86
5.03
6.81
4.12
8.11
8.43
9.48
5.58
5.16
-7.45
-7.98
-7.63
3.57
-5.98
-12.53
3.63
8.26
6.51
3.36
8.23
9.44
-2.05
-0.97
-1.17
1.06
-0.73
-1.33
-7.48
-7.73
-8.96
3.61
-6.27
-15.24
3.62
8.24
6.56
3.35
8.20
9.61
-2.07
-0.94
-1.36
1.08
-0.76
-1.58
0.04
0.03
1.38
Currency
Intercept
Std.
Err.
160
160.00
Observations
185
185
185
R-Sq
0.059
0.098
0.129
Adj R-Sq
0.032
0.04
0.068
Notes: Excluded category is Lancaster County.
Source: Mancall, Rosenbloom, Weiss Widow's Allowance Sample, observations with no imputed values.