« Meta-recommendations | Main | Subprimes and the threat of lawsuit »
Would it have helped to give freed slaves land?
Melinda Miller says yes, based on a clever natural experiment:
Although over 140 years have passed since slaves were emancipated in the United States, African-Americans continue to lag behind the general population in terms of earnings and wealth. Both Reconstruction era policy makers and modern scholars have argued that racial inequality could have been reduced or eliminated if plans to allocate each freed slave family “forty acres and a mule” had been implemented following the Civil War. In this paper, I develop an empirical strategy that exploits a plausibly exogenous variation in policies of the Cherokee Nation and the southern United States to identify the impact of free land on the economic outcomes of former slaves. The Cherokee Nation, located in what is now the northeastern corner of Oklahoma, permitted the enslavement of people of African descent. After joining the Confederacy in 1861, the Cherokee Nation was forced during post-war negotiations to allow its former slaves to claim and improve any unused land in the Nation’s public domain. To examine this unique population of former slaves, I have digitized the entirety of the 1860 Cherokee Nation Slave Schedules and a 60 percent sample of the 1880 Cherokee Census. I find the racial gap in land ownership, farm size, and investment in long-term capital projects is smaller in the Cherokee Nation than in the southern United States. The advantages Cherokee freedmen experience in these areas translate into smaller racial wealth and income gaps in the Cherokee Nation than in the South. Additionally, the Cherokee freedmen had higher absolute levels of wealth and higher levels of income than southern freedmen. These results together suggest that access to free land had a considerable and positive benefit on former slaves.
Here is the paper, she is on the job market this year from University of Michigan. The abstract is vague on magnitudes, for more detail see pp.29-30, for instance:
The livestock calculations find that the difference in the wealth gaps was substantial, and ranged from 46% to 75%. For crop income measures, the difference in the gap was smaller, but still substantial. My estimates place it between 20 to 56%.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on December 11, 2007 at 07:16 AM in History | Permalink
Comments
I've often considered the differences between slavery and another forced labour system, namely convict labour in the early Australian colonies, which seemed to have far less long lasting repurcussions (both for the society at large and the forced labour and descendents).
Two reasons are relatively straight forward, one being the fact that nothing made a ex convict or the son of one look like one, whereas slaves had visual racial characteristics, and this enabled further discrimination. Another being convict labour persisted for a far shorter time, for a large number of reasons, including the fact that exploitative systems like this don't seem to be sustainable without a cash crop like cotton (or diamonds etc.).
But one further difference may be related to this, since emancipated convicts were very frequently given land grants, less for reasons of sharity and good will than for the fact that it was one of the few options for encouraging further settlement easily available. It would be strange if political desires for further settlement managed to avoid social inequalities many generations down the line (kooris notwithstanding).
Posted by: Richard Green at Dec 11, 2007 9:33:44 AM
I've always been curious what it would look like if we could plausibly measure the impact of this initial wealth on current African Americans.
Posted by: JasonL at Dec 11, 2007 10:04:07 AM
"Allowing former slaves to claim and improve unused land" is not quite the same thing as allocating existing, already-used land to emancipated slaves. It could be that marginal (free) land in the Cherokee Nation was unusually productive compared to the Southern US: if so, we're not really looking at an exogenous variation.
Posted by: guest at Dec 11, 2007 10:26:40 AM
I wonder if that is related to the vibrant black business community in Tulsa in the early 20th century. It was burned down in an infamous riot in 1921:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_Race_Riot
Posted by: kebko at Dec 11, 2007 10:34:23 AM
On the other hand, unclaimed (marginal) land could be less productive.
I would tend to think that the Cherokee Nation would be in possession of less productive land than non-natives to start with and that they would have already claimed and improved the best areas of their land first.
Posted by: R at Dec 11, 2007 10:46:54 AM
Fascinating. I'm printing it out now. Unlike JasonL, I've never wondered about this policy, and I now realize how obviously important such a resource transfer would've been for Blacks and their achievement.
To R's point - I think that is true. Wouldn't you still expect an increase in average labor productivity and wages even when marginally less productive land is transferred to Blacks, though? This is about margins, not averages, right? The ceteris paribus is no land ownership vs. some land ownership. It is interesting to wonder about the heterogeneity of the land and which land the Blacks received, though. Is that in the paper?
Posted by: jason voorhees at Dec 11, 2007 11:10:22 AM
guest,
I flip burgers down in Norman, OK, when I'm not dodging falling icicles and I can tell you that most of the most arable and valuable land did not go to the Cherokees or any other tribe. Indian territory became Indian territory primarily because it deemed bad enough to give away.
I can recommend a pretty good novel dealing with the process:
http://www.amazon.com/Okla-Hannali-R-Lafferty/dp/0806123494
So these freedmen were going through the table scraps left from a meal composed of table scraps.
Posted by: burger flipper at Dec 11, 2007 11:22:27 AM
Whoa whoa whoa, you mean that giving people free stuff, can make them better off????
Who knew?
Posted by: Person at Dec 11, 2007 11:29:30 AM
jason voorhies: "I now realize how obviously important such a resource transfer would've been for Blacks and their achievement."
You're meaning for the achievement of those African-Americans in the 19th century who were actually slaves, right? Certainly you do not mean for their descendants born 100 years later, do you?
Of the 35 million African-Americans living in the U.S. today, how many do you think have household incomes above the median household income? Of those, how many do you think are descendants of slaves? If a resource transfer were so important to black achievement, then how did millions of blacks achieve economic success?
My ancestors were amoung the thousands of impoverished folks who settled Louisiana Acdiana. Some of my ancestors were expelled from Canada with nothing more than their clothes and a few household possessions. Some were Irish citizens who fled the famine of their native country. Somehow the thousands of residents in Cajun country managed to succeed without massive government transfers.
Are you sure that a resource transfer is necessary for economic achievement?
Posted by: John Dewey at Dec 11, 2007 11:38:40 AM
"Whoa whoa whoa, you mean that giving people free stuff, can make them better off???? Who knew?"
^^^Obviously Mr. Sarcastic, but she actually ascertains a magnitude..."free stuff" may help people, but the impact is not always significant.
And a more appropriate name for "free stuff" is "reparations"...when you say "free stuff" it sounds like the recipient is receiving free chocolate. Reparations are drastically different (if you were not aware).
Posted by: Samir Nurmohamed at Dec 11, 2007 12:14:19 PM
Samir_Nurmohamed: she actually ascertains a magnitude..."free stuff" may help people, but the impact is not always significant.
The magnitude is easy: it's equal to the market value of the land, because they always have the option to
sell the land and do something else with it.
And a more appropriate name for "free stuff" is "reparations"...when you say "free stuff" it sounds like the recipient is receiving free chocolate. Reparations are drastically different (if you were not aware).
Morally, they may be different. Economically, they are not. They are just a change in an individual's
endowment or "choice set".
Posted by: Person at Dec 11, 2007 12:19:03 PM
Samir_Nurmohamed: ""free stuff" it sounds like the recipient is receiving free chocolate. Reparations are drastically different (if you were not aware)."
So, Samir, help me understand the difference between "free stuff" and "reparations". Consider the several trillion dollars given to U.S. African-Americans the past century for:
- housing;
- food stamps;
- college and vocational education;
- medical care;
- welfare payments.
Should those trillions of dollars - a huge wealth transfer - be considered "free stuff" or "reparations"?
Posted by: John Dewey at Dec 11, 2007 12:39:04 PM
John Dewey,
Yes, it's true that your ancestors did not benefit from a resource transfer on the scale that we are talking about. But your ancestors did benefit from living and working in a climate in which a large portion of the population was essentially taken out of the running. White prosperity is not just the product of generations of hard work, but also the product of generations of hard work without competition from, and in many cases, directly benefiting from the oppression of, non-white Americans.
Posted by: Katie at Dec 11, 2007 1:07:21 PM
"White prosperity is not just the product of generations of hard work, but also the product of generations of hard work without competition from, and in many cases, directly benefiting from the oppression of, non-white Americans."
It does not seem John Dewey's ancestors oppressed anyone, and as for competition, there is no fixed pie to compete for. The was, and is, ample opportunity for people to create their own wealth.
Posted by: Tom at Dec 11, 2007 1:25:29 PM
It's been 150 Years. Get over it.
Posted by: skitzo at Dec 11, 2007 1:33:05 PM
katie: "White prosperity is not just the product of generations of hard work, but also the product of generations of hard work without competition from, and in many cases, directly benefiting from the oppression of, non-white Americans."
First, my ancestors in Louisiana did not oppress any non-white Americans. My close relatives in 20th century Louisiana:
- employed as farm workers three or four non-white Americans, two of whom were present at my grandfather's burial to tell me what a fine man he had been to them;
- administered a welfare assistance program that benefitted non-white Americans almost exclusively;
- gave years of their lives helping non-whites in America (VISTA) and Africa (Peace Corps and Methodist missions);
- married a non-white American and raised her children for 20 years;
- paid thousands and thousands of dollars in taxes that were directly transferred to non-white Americans.
But, of course, my family's "contribution" to the welfare of non-whites may be an exception. Quite frankly, I don't care any more, and neither do many members of my extended family. We're pretty much sick and tired of bullshit attempts to steal more from us by those who would try to assign guilt for actions of two centuries ago.
FYI, white prosperity and Asian-American prosperity and West Indies-American properity and Middle Eatern-American prosperity are all exactly the product of hard work.
Posted by: John Dewey at Dec 11, 2007 2:01:12 PM
I guess when you go around being white, it's hard to appreciate the impact that not being white has on all of your interactions, from employment to advancement to education to getting pulled over four times as often by the police, to having people cross the street or stare at you on the bus. Katie's point was that when you have a class of people who are not able to participate in the economy for a long period, and indeed contributed to other people's participation therein, that class of people is systematically disadvantaged as a result - and so are their kids, and their kids' kids.
When given the chance to participate as an owner of land, to have the power to affect the course of your family's life in a tangible way, to not be beholden, to be able to enter into contracts and not be turned away for small business loans because of your skin colour, to not have crosses burned on your lawn when you move into an area with a decent school-system for your kids (as happened not so long ago), to not have housing prices drop when you move into a white neighbourhood (still happens), etc, then maybe your income attainment outcomes might improve somewhat.
This stuff is cumulative, you must understand. The reason that generations have been able to improve on previous generations is in large part because of the social support that they have had. Blacks in the US haven't had that, and are still fighting for that. Nurses still refuse to treat black patients in some hospitals, for crying out loud. Giving money to help fix the problem (as you characterize it, "steal more") only goes so far to relieve the social problems that have led to the situation at hand; it does nothing to help fix the disconnect that happened when Blacks were not allowed to be functioning members of society, like your ancestors were (and it sounds like they were excellent functioning members of society. But the point is that they could be).
Just sayin'.
Posted by: Renee at Dec 11, 2007 2:21:53 PM
As a fellow Cajun, I feel it necessary to point out to "John Dewey" above that the reason our mutual ancestors came to south Louisiana was not an innate love of crawfish. It was that the Spanish colonial government was willing to give them land grants, at first along the Mississippi north of New Orleans, and later in the Attakapas territory. In effect, we got our 40 acres. No word on the mule.
Posted by: josh at Dec 11, 2007 2:53:14 PM
White prosperity is not just the product of generations of hard work, but also the product of generations of hard work without competition from, and in many cases, directly benefiting from the oppression of, non-white Americans.
Canadians seem white and prosperous to me, but I don't think they ever had slavery. The northern United States were also more prosperous than the southern ones.
I agree with Person on the answer to the question being obvious from an Econ 101 perspective and with others on the quality of the land not being controlled for.
Posted by: TGGP at Dec 11, 2007 2:56:47 PM
One might inquire, how can I make reparations without making things worse. Also how much reparation is enough? Do we all have to do this together or is a large donation to habitat for humanity directed to an African American family sufficient? After making such a donation can one rest on his laurels guilt free? Also who owes the reparations my ancestors cam from Ireland and Sicily in the 1920s. Perhaps we give a lump sum to each African American who descended from people who were slaves in the USA not as reparation but to make the world better for us, so that we can end destructive policies born of guilt that seem to do so little good. It would be like a year of jubilee.
Posted by: Floccina at Dec 11, 2007 3:28:33 PM
I guess when you go around being white, it's hard to appreciate the impact that not being white has on all of your interactions, from employment to advancement to education to getting pulled over four times as often by the police, to having people cross the street or stare at you on the bus.
As a white person, I don't think this is all that hard. If you are actually interested, you can figure it out pretty easily. And if you're actually commenting on one of these sites, it suggests you have that level of interest.
It's been 150 Years. Get over it.
Attitudes like this suggest that you feel like its not all of our fault collectively that more african americans than whites reside in prison, even when you take income level into account. But here's the thing: black people are about 10 percent of the population. Over those 150 years, its been white people setting government policy which drive social arrangements. Not to mention all the extra-government action in the south. So if you maintain that this is not due to historical conditions driving current social conditions and culture, you're suggesting its genetic. Basically, you're committing yourself to the viewpoint that African-Americans go to jail in greater numbers because they're more genetically predisposed to commit crimes. This is the only logical conclusion of the highlighted outlook. And I think we know what that attitude represents.
Posted by: mpowell at Dec 11, 2007 3:30:41 PM
I want to add that at this point reparations would be pointless. The best thing we could do for African Americans would be to end the War on Drugs.
Posted by: mpowell at Dec 11, 2007 3:33:27 PM
jason voorhees and burger flipper, I'm not disputing that the land these Black slaves were getting was low-quality. However, it is an economic truism that the level of productivity on the "best freely available land" sets a wage floor across the economy. If freely-accessible land was available in the Cherokee Nation while completely monopolized in the Southern U.S., it's not surprising that economic outcomes for unskilled African-Americans would differ between the two. It's not clear that simply allocating some land to emancipated slaves would lead to the same outcome.
Posted by: guest at Dec 11, 2007 3:55:07 PM
mpowell,
You seem to be saying that lack of black progress must be explained by either white-imposed government or by genetics. Here's the thing: I strongly disagree.
In "Race and Culture", Thomas Sowell showed how cultural factors played the largest role in economic development of ethnic groups.
Of course, Professor Sowell has also pointed out that some supposedly non-oppressive government actions have held back blacks economically since the 1960's:
- an urban education system that benefits unions at the expense of students Thomas Sowell home Page;
- a criminal justice system that inhibits the apprehension of criminals in low income neighborhoods.
Posted by: John Dewey at Dec 11, 2007 4:11:40 PM
MPowell, I was being facitious in my first sentence. I'm white, and I try pretty damn hard to appreciate what it's like not being white, too.
TGGP, you're committing a logical fallacy here. Just because Canadians are prosperous without slavery doesn't mean they wouldn't have been more prosperous with it; it doesn't even mean that Americans wouldn't have been just as propserous without it. It simply means that, in Canada, we didn't systematically disenfranchise black peoples (we did it, just not systematically) for profit. We used Chinese people instead.
Posted by: Renee at Dec 11, 2007 4:12:13 PM
