THE 1860 CENSUS OF AGRICULTURE
WAYNE COUNTY, TENNESSEE
By Gerald K. Moore
©2002 Gerald K. Moore - All Rights Reserved
Used With Permission

---

Introduction

In 1850, 1860, 1870, and 1880, a separate census of agriculture was made at the same time as the census of population. The agriculture census of 1860 is especially interesting because rural Tennessee was relatively prosperous just before the Civil War. This was the so-called "golden age of homespun." Things like salt and gunpowder were expensive, and most families were as self sufficient as possible. They clipped their own wool and milked their own cows to make butter, for example. A large majority of Wayne County farmers grew corn that was fed to livestock, and the sale of salted (cured) meat and live animals produced most farm income. Other income came from the sale of surplus crops and home manufactures. The markets for farm products included town dwellers, plantations in nearby counties, and shops or industries that fed their employees. The main shipping points, to which goods were carried by wagon, were Clifton and Columbia. Steamboat shipments from Clifton in the 1870’s included cotton, wheat, dried fruit, and feathers. Other possible exports from the County, as shown by relatively large quantities in the 1860 census of agriculture, were butter, syrup, honey, beeswax, wool, and tobacco. Also, some corn might have been shipped in the form of whiskey.

In the 1880's, railroads and the settlement of fertile lands on the Great Plains began to inundate eastern cities with cheap grain, and the prices of cotton and tobacco decreased because of overproduction. Wheat sold for $1/Bu. in 1860, and it sold for only $2.50/Bu. in 1999. Also, later mechanization meant that more work of all types was done by fewer, more highly paid people and that farm income was limited by acreage. The economic impact of these trends was delayed in isolated areas, but the income of small farms began a long decline.

A few names and numbers in the 1860 census of agriculture are incorrect, as was determined by comparison with the population census. It was common practice in the 1800’s for a census taker to make a clean copy of his records, to keep the original, and to mail his copy to the county. County officials then made one or more copies to send to the state, where at least one more copy was made and sent to the U.S. Census Bureau. Some errors seem to have occurred when one person read the names of land owners aloud and other people wrote down what they heard. Other errors apparently resulted from overlooking a few numbers or entering them in the wrong columns. The effect of the errors is that the amounts and values for an individual farm are not completely reliable. Nevertheless, statistical analyses show that these problems have little if any effect on the distributions of values and amounts.

In the data for the census of agriculture, there are significantly more values in the lower half of the range for each category than in the upper half, and a few numbers are very large. In technical terms, the data are log-normally distributed. For practical purposes, this simply means that the middle or median value is a more representative average value than is the mean and that unusually large numbers are not representative of most farms in the county.

 

UNDERSTANDING THE DATA

The agricultural census of 1860 was intended to record the farms that produced more than $100 of goods, but the census taker also included some farms with less income. For each farm, the census taker was told to record data in 48 separate categories on two pages. Columns for farm operator (col. 1) to wool production (col. 21) appeared on the first page, and columns for production of peas (col. 22) to income from slaughtered animals (col. 48) appeared on the second. On the microfilm for Wayne County, two of the second pages are poorly legible or illegible, as is noted in the comments (col. 49). Also, the numbers of some animals were not recorded, and there was no production for other crops; these columns have been omitted from the census data. One other column, the value of personal property, was not a part of the agricultural census, but it was copied from the population census of 1860; it follows the column showing land value because it might include the value of housing and other buildings. In any case, this information adds to the picture of economic conditions in the County. Finally, the columns labeled income and assets represent the sums of several other columns and are included as a summary of the farm economy in 1860. Column numbers and data explanations are as follows:

 

ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

Eighty one percent of the 1,124 farms listed in the 1860 census owned a total 52,580 ac of improved land. The median holding of improved land in 1860 was 40 ac, and two thirds of the farm operators owned 21-92 ac of improved land. The other farms had larger or smaller amounts. The agricultural census of 1997, for comparison, shows that 624 farms owned 59,980 ac of crop land in Wayne County, a mean of 96 ac per farm. The 1860 census shows that 61% of the farm operations owned a total 218,540 ac and a median 170 ac of unimproved or forested land. Two thirds of these farms included 69-528 ac of unimproved land. A total 271,110 ac of land were farm holdings in the 1860 census. This was 58% of the Wayne County total of 734 sq. mi. or 469,760 ac. The 1997 census of agriculture, for comparison, shows that 700 farms owned 130,000 ac of land; the median farm size was 127 ac. The remaining land in Wayne County is owned by timber companies and others.

The agricultural census of 1860 showed a total land value of $1,530,000 in Wayne County. This was a median $600 for each of 907 farms. Two thirds of these farms had a land value of $200-3,000. Some of the land values were apparently determined by multi-plying the improved land by $10/ac and unimproved land by $1-3/ac, and, as explained previously, land values apparently do not include buildings. In the population census for the same year, real estate data show a total value of $1,508,000 and a median value of $1,100. The larger average value for real estate in the population census is probably an artifact of the compilation process. The real estate column is blank for some of the smaller farms in the population census, as reflected in the smaller total amount for real estate than for land value, and calculated numbers might have been used to fill in these blanks on the agricultural census. The 1997 census of agriculture, for comparison, shows the average market value of farmland and buildings in Wayne County to be about $1,000 per acre and about $178,000 per farm.

The total value of personal property for Wayne County in 1860 was $2,153,000. The median for 1,115 reporting farms was $545, and two thirds of these farms reported $200-2,200 of personal property. It is likely, as described previously, that these data include the value of housing and other buildings. The total value of farm equipment and machinery on the 1860 census was $56,500, the median for 1010 farms was $30, and two thirds of those farms had $10-100 of equipment. For comparison, the average value of machinery and equipment in the 1997 census of agriculture was about $20,600 per farm.

A total 2,145 horses were reported by 918 farms in the 1860 census of agriculture; the median for these farms was 2 horses. Only 33 percent of the farms owned more than 2 horses, and only 6.5 percent owned more than 4 horses. A total 255 farms owned 455 mules, but only 29 farms owned mules but no horses. The median among mule owners was 1 animal, and only 45 farms owned more than 2 mules. A total 618 farms owned working oxen; the median was 2 animals, and only 1.5 percent of the farms with oxen had more than 4 animals. One reason for owning oxen might have been that land clearing was still underway or had only recently been completed. Oxen are the best animals for pulling stumps and for plowing ground filled with tree roots.

A total livestock value of $603,700 was reported by 1096 farms in 1860. The median value was $310, and two thirds of these farms had livestock with a value of $110-900. A comparison of the numbers of animals and the reported values for livestock on individual farms in the agricultural censuses of 1860 and 1870 shows that animal values were about $2 for a sheep, $4 for a hog, $10 for a steer, $25 for a milk cow, $75 for a pair of oxen, and $90 for a horse or mule. If so, the 2,145 horses in the 1860 census of Wayne County were worth about $193,000, the 455 mules were worth $41,000, and the 1,555 oxen were worth $58,000; working animals had a total value of about $292,000. Almost the same amount of butter was produced in 1860 as in 1870 when Wayne County farmers owned 2900 milk cows worth about $72,000. The remaining $249,000 of animal value in 1860 consisted almost entirely of sheep, swine, and other cattle. The 1870 census showed 2.4 times more sheep and 6.2 times more swine than cattle in Wayne County. Reasonable estimates for 1860 are 6300 cattle, 15,000 sheep, and 39,000 swine.

About 670 farms in Wayne County raised wheat in 1860, and 60 farms raised wheat but not corn. The median production of wheat was 31 Bu., and two thirds of the producers raised 13-70 Bu. Only 12 farms raised more than 150 Bu. of wheat, and only two farms raised more than 300 Bu. About 110 farms raised rye, but the median harvest was only 9 Bu. Only four farms raised more than 50 Bu. of rye. Eighty two percent of the farms raised a total 470,600 Bu. of corn in 1860. The median was 350 Bu. of corn, and two thirds of the producers raised 150-770 Bu. The largest producer raised 3,500 Bu. of corn. Only 37 farms in Wayne County raised oats. The median was 25 Bu., and two thirds of the producers raised 8-55 Bu. of oats. In 1997, for comparison, 51 farms in Wayne County raised a total 317,500 Bu. of corn, an average 6,200 Bu. per farm. In 1992, an average 1800 Bu. of wheat were raised on each of nine farms, but there were only two producers in 1997. There was little or no Wayne County production of rye or oats in 1997.

Twenty two farms raised nearly 3,900 lb. of tobacco in 1860. Among the producers, the median was 67 lb., and two thirds raised 30-220 lb. Only two farms produced more than 250 lb. of tobacco, but one raised 1,700 lb. and the other raised

600 lb. Only 73 farms raised cotton, a total 297 bales of 400 lb. each. The median was two bales, and two thirds of the producers raised 1-5 bales. One farm harvested 80 bales of cotton, but only five farms produced more than 7 bales. Almost half of the Wayne County farms in 1860 produced a total 13,650 lb. of wool. The median was 20 lb., which represented the annual production of about four sheep; two thirds of the producers reported 8-48 lb. of wool. For comparison, little or no cotton was produced by Wayne County farms in 1997, and only two farms raised tobacco. Nine farms reported owning 127 sheep in 1997, but wool production, if any, was not shown by the census.

Other crops in 1860 included field peas, potatoes, sweet potatoes, and orchard fruit. About 190 farms raised 3,580 Bu. of field peas; the median was 10 Bu., and only 12 farms raised more than 40 Bu. About 500 farms in the census raised Irish potatoes. The median harvest was 10 Bu. and only 9 farms produced more than 50 Bu. More than half of the farm operators raised a total 18,800 Bu. of sweet potatoes. The median harvest was 20 Bu., and only 11 farms raised more than 100 Bu. of sweet potatoes A relatively few operators (133 farms) reported selling $2-150 of orchard fruit. The median was $25, and two thirds of the producers sold $10-50 of fruit. For comparison, there was little or no production of dry beans, potatoes, or orchard fruit in Wayne County during 1997; sweet potatoes were not included in this census.

Eighty seven percent of the farms reported making 5-500 lb. of butter in 1860. Total butter production was 106,900 lb., the median was 100 lb., and two thirds of the producers made 50-200 lb. of butter. The rest made smaller or larger amounts. In the same year, only 8 producers made 10-50 lb. of cheese, a total 240 lb. In 1997, except for home use, there was no farm production of butter or cheese.

Minor crops in 1860 included hay, grass seed, and flax. Only 31 farmers reported raising 1-15 tons of hay. The median was 3 tons , and only three farmers harvested more than 6 tons of hay. Animals were usually not fenced at this time; they found their own winter feed instead of having hay brought to them. In contrast, the 1997 census of agriculture for Wayne County shows that 460 farms raised about 31,300 tons of hay on 16,500 acres of land. The 1860 census also reported that 11 farms harvested 4-60 lb. of grass seed and that two farms produced 10 and 60 lb. of flax fiber (for linen) and 1 and 21 Bu. of seed (for linseed oil). Grass seed and flax were not included in the 1997 census of agriculture.

The principal local sweeteners of 1860 were maple sugar (or syrup), sorghum molasses, and honey; most beekeepers also harvested beeswax. Twenty farmers in Wayne County reported making a total 1,230 lb. of maple sugar (or syrup); the median was 35 lb., and only one producer made more than 150 lb. The 1860 census also shows that about 200 farms made a total 5,100 lb. of sorghum syrup, whereas fewer than 150 farms produced a total 17,000 lb. of honey. The median production of sorghum was about 20 lb. (slightly less than 2 gal). This small average amount of sorghum syrup seems unlikely because the average yield in 1860 was about 40 gal/ac. A half acre of sorghum stalks would therefore have produced about 20 gal or 220 lb. of syrup. If the units in the 1860 census were actually gallons, total production was 56,000 lb., and only two farms made more than 80 gal of sorghum syrup. The median production of beeswax on 93 farms was 10 lb., and only four farms produced more than 30 lb. The median production of honey on 142 farms was 80 lb., and two thirds of the producers reported 30-200 lb. of honey. Maple syrup, sorghum syrup, honey, and beeswax were not included in the 1997 census of agriculture for Wayne County.

Eighty seven percent of the farm operations in 1860 reported $5-1,000 of income from homemade items. Two thirds of these farms reported an income of $25-100 from this source, and the median was $57. It is impossible to determine the items and activities that were categorized as home manufacturing by the census taker. Farms with a larger than average land value, livestock value, and crop production also had a somewhat larger than average income from homemade items. However, this category probably did not include the sale of crops. The evidence is that 69 butter producers, 39 growers of sweet potatoes, 17 wool producers, 8 honey producers, 5 sorghum makers, 4 cotton growers, 3 tobacco growers, and 3 farms with fruit orchards reported a zero value for homemade items. Internet sources suggest that this column represented mostly the value of homemade cloth. In Wayne County, however, there were 57 farms with no wool production among the 100 farms with the highest values for homemade items in 1860. The only good correlation for homemade manufactures is with the value of personal property. The farms that had the highest 100 incomes from homemade manufacturing (an average four times larger than the median) had an average personal property value of $6,900, which is 12 times larger than the median. If the highest values of personal property included investments in mills and workshops, the largest incomes for home-made items may have resulted from the associated activities.

The farms in the 1860 census of agriculture reported a total value of $107,000 for slaughtered animals, a large majority of which were probably cattle and hogs. The median value was $75, and two thirds of these farms reported a value of $40-200 for slaughtered animals. An average family today eats the meat from one steer and two hogs each year. If this was the case in 1860, the meat for on-farm consumption would have been worth about $17,000; the other $90,000 worth of animals were sold locally or in nearby counties.

The assets for Wayne County farms in 1860 were calculated by summing the values of land, personal property, farm machinery, and livestock. The median for 1,123 farms was $1,420, and two thirds of these farms reported assets of $440-5,600. Income was calculated by summing the sales from homemade items, slaughtered animals, and fruit orchards. No income was reported by a few farms and some data are illegible for others. Among the remaining 975 farms, the median income was $150, and two thirds of these farms reported annual sales of $62-300. There was almost certainly additional income from the sale of crops and things not included in the census, such as cattle hides (worth $3.30 each in the manufacturing census), eggs, and feathers. Also, many farms earned money from the sale of fence rails, charcoal, tanbark, barrel staves, wheel spokes, wood shingles, or firewood. Crop production costs are unknown, but, before the days of machinery and commercial fertilizers, these costs were low. Large farms used paid or slave labor, but small farms depended upon family labor. Considering all of these factors and ignoring the value of family labor, average farm profit might have been a little more than the median income ($150/yr) shown by the census.

Ignoring the value of family labor, the median ratio of assets/profit on 975 farms in the census of agriculture for 1860 might be about 9.5. If so, the investment represented by the farm assets was earning an average annual profit of 10% in 1860. If family labor was worth $10-20/mo, on the other hand, the average investment return was minimal or negative. Nevertheless, the farm families in 1860 had earned and saved enough to buy their land and to accumulate the other assets in the census. And one history says that many families spent no more than $50/year for supplies. The agricultural census of 1997, shows that average sales were about $11,700 for each of 700 farms in Wayne County, but average production expenses were $11,500 per farm.

 

EVALUATION

The crop and livestock harvests shown in the 1860 census of agriculture are not impressive because most farms did not produce a large excess of things for sale. Both local and distant markets were limited, and shipping costs were high. The homespun era was characterized by rural self-sufficiency and by subsistence farming rather than by production for distant markets. (Large tobacco and cotton farms near shipping centers were exceptions). Nevertheless, the land and labor resources of Wayne County were not wasted, and almost every farm produced an excess of one or more agricultural products with sales in mind.

It is difficult to compare incomes and living costs in 1860 with those of today, but one factor is the effect of inflation over more than 140 years. The Internet site of the Economic History Society shows that about $21 today would be needed to buy what $1 would buy in 1860. The History Society also notes that a given amount of money today would buy a better quality of life than an equivalent, smaller amount in 1860 because many products have been improved. On the other hand, our ancestors didn’t have to pay income or sales taxes; they didn’t have utility costs; insurance was uncommon; and they didn’t have to afford the purchase and maintenance of a farm tractor, automobile, hot-water heater, air conditioner, television, or computer. Also, doctor bills, prescription drugs, and health insurance costs made up 20% of an average family’s expenses in 1993. Because the number of necessities and their costs have increased greatly over the years, a ratio of $21 today to $1 in 1860 seems unrealistically small. The poverty line for a family of four in 2000 (U.S. Census Bureau) was an annual income of $17,500/year, and the poverty line in 1860 probably was a family income of about $100/year. Therefore, it takes about $175 today to buy a lifestyle with the same amount of respect and dignity that $1 bought in 1860.

It is also important that shelter, food, fuel, and clothing could be produced with family land and labor in 1860; there was no need to depend on money or other people for these essentials. It may be enough to conclude that most farm families in Wayne County were not wealthy in 1860, but their lives were comfortable and secure, until disrupted by the War. Before mechanization, farming was never an easy life, however. As remembered and quoted in Foxfire 3 (pp. 83 and 231): "We used to plow with horses, plant with our hands, put manure out [on the crops], work the corn, hoe it about three times with all of the kids out in the fields, and [cultivate] it three or four times with an old, slow mule. How I hated that hoeing the worst of anything. Right out in the hot sun, one row at a time, and just go along as slow as you have to. Hoe all day. . . and just think about the days and
days. . . to get to the upper end of that field. And it had to be done. Every stalk of it had to be hoed and cleaned up around."

---

Go To Name Index Page

Go To Data Index Page

Return To Census Page