Hostname: page-component-7b9c58cd5d-hpxsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-15T13:00:35.048Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Southeastern institutional change and biological variation: evidence from the 19th century Tennessee State Prison

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 October 2010

SCOTT ALAN CARSON*
Affiliation:
School of Business, University of Texas, Permian Basin, 4901 East University, Odessa, Texas 79762, USA and University of Munich, CESifo, Shackstrasse 4, 80539 Munich, Germany
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

The use of height data to measure living standards is now a well-established method in economics, and a number of core findings in the literature are widely agreed upon. There are still some populations, places, and times, however, for which anthropometric evidence remains thin. This paper introduces a new dataset from the Tennessee State Prison to track the heights of comparable black and white males born between 1820 and 1906. Shorter statures were associated with close proximity to the Mississippi River, and the largest share of the white–black stature gap was associated with nativity. Black and white statures declined throughout the 19th century, and farmers were taller than non-farmers.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The JOIE Foundation 2010

1. Introduction

A near consensus has emerged that while 19th century US economic growth and wealth increased, average free-white statures declined. Over the same period, enslaved African-American statures paradoxically increased, especially during the late antebellum period. This black stature pattern is typically attributed to slave material and biological conditions that were shielded from market development and reflected improved Southern material wealth created by the 1850s cotton boom. However, it is less clear how early US economic development was related with free-black statures. Free-blacks, after all, faced considerable degrees of racial discrimination throughout the 19th century USA and were likely to experience similar biological deterioration as that experienced by market-dependent whites. This paper, therefore, considers one Southern black population that did not experience the late antebellum stature increase experienced by other enslaved blacks (Komlos, Reference Komlos, Goldin and Rockoff1992; Komlos and Coclanis, Reference Komlos and Coclanis1997; Rees et al., Reference Rees, Komlos, Long and Woitek2003; Carson, Reference Carson2008, Reference Carson2009).

The use of height data to measure living standards is now a well-established method in economics (Fogel, Reference Fogel1994; Case and Paxson, Reference Case and Paxson2008; Deaton, Reference Deaton2008). A population's average stature reflects the cumulative interaction between nutrition, disease exposure, work, and the physical environment. By considering average versus individual stature, genetic differences are mitigated, leaving only the influence of economic and physical environments on stature. When diets, health, and physical environments improve, average stature increases and decreases when diets become less nutritious, disease environments deteriorate, or the physical environment places more stress on the body. The 19th century Tennessee Prison population is particularly interesting because Tennessee was a slave state with close proximity to major waterways, was agriculturally productive, and its population was racially polarized, where blacks faced varying degrees of racial discrimination from whites. Hence, stature provides significant insights into understanding historical processes and augments other 19th century welfare measures for blacks and whites in the American South.

It is against this backdrop that this paper considers three questions. First, 19th century Tennessee stature may have been related to proximity to water and market integration. Like several other stature studies, there was an inverse relationship between proximity to waterways, and proximity to trade routes was associated with shorter statures. Second, how did black and white Tennessee statures vary over the course of the 19th century, and how did they vary with respect to 19th century institutional change? Contrary to other 19th century Southern US samples, Tennessee black and white statures declined throughout the 19th century. Third, how did Tennessee black and white statures vary by ethnicity and occupation? Tennessee farmers were taller than non-farmers, and stature variation by socio-economic status was comparable between blacks and whites.

2. Human biology and institutional change

A theory for institutional change is vital in understanding 19th century Southern stature variation. Stature measures the difference between nutritional intake less work and other dietary claims of the physical environment, such as disease and inequality; when nutrition is restricted over prolonged periods, average stature is permanently stunted (Mamabolo et al., Reference Mamabolo, Alberts, Steyn, Delemarri-van de Waal and Leavitt2005). However, when environmental insults are short-run in nature, short-term fluctuations in harvest yields and food prices around a long-run equilibrium are not able to explain a prolonged decline in physical stature, and the human body has the capacity to make up for previous short-run privation once more bountiful times return, a process known as catch-up growth (Steckel, Reference Steckel1995). This phenomenon requires privation periods to be sufficiently long to permanently impair stature growth, making short-run disease and other biological disruptions less likely to cause permanent stature diminutions. Long-run institutional change is, therefore, a more likely candidate to explain stature variation than short-run biological disruptions.

Institutions influence economic arrangements, and political agents serve an important role in institutional change (Bush, Reference Bush1987: 1099–1103; North, Reference North1990; Hodgson, Reference Hodgson2009). Institutional change, in turn, is influenced by innovative agents who change the structure by which economic interaction is conducted, and 19th century agents for institutional change – Abraham Lincoln, Charles Sumner and Frederick Douglass–were essential agents in changing the structure of 19th century US labor markets. A theory for the process of how institutional change related to African-American biology is presented by Rees et al. (Reference Rees, Komlos, Long and Woitek2003), who propose a model for 19th century food and health resources to slaves. According to the Komlos–Rees model, when the price of cotton and other Southern crops increased, the optimal lifetime course of food and health resources increased (Komlos, Reference Komlos1998; Rees et al., Reference Rees, Komlos, Long and Woitek2003). However, once slavery was removed and slaveholders’ accumulated knowledge regarding proper health treatment over their slaves was eliminated, black statures would have temporarily decreased, only to recover once freed slaves adjusted to life beyond the paternalistic institution of slavery (Carson, Reference Carson2009). Therefore, long-run, prolonged institutional change was more likely than short-run economic and biological disruptions to be associated with stature variation.

3. Nineteenth century Tennessee

Tennessee's most distinctive 19th century features were its physical environment, central location in the South, politics, and culture. Tennessee's physical location and proximity to the Mississippi River were central to its economic development, transporting goods and peoples. The Mississippi River also represents access to trade, and individuals with close proximity to the Mississippi may have had been taller because close proximity to trade routes decreased transportation costs, increasing access to nutrition because net-trade imported more nutritious diets. If the Mississippi decreased transportation costs and facilitated a net-nutrition export, proximity to the river was associated with shorter statures because close proximity to the river allowed more agricultural surplus to be exported.

Tennessee's economic environment and biological conditions were influenced by its geographic features, and the geographic variation within the state represents promising proving grounds to test the effects of market integration with biological welfare. Tennessee's geographic areas were the Alluvial and Inner Coastal Plains, Highland Rim, Nashville Basin, Cumberland Plateau, Ridge and Valley, and Smoky Mountains regions (Figure 1), which had different income levels, economic development, and wealth. Tennessee's far western frontier was part of the Mississippi Alluvial Plain, which is the lowest part of the state and was formed by the Mississippi River. The Alluvial Plain averages less than 300 feet (90 m) above sea level and during the 19th century was the region within Tennessee that produced various agricultural crops with the use of a plantation gang labor system (Cochrane, Reference Cochrane1979: 70). The Inner Coastal Plain is also part of the Mississippi Alluvial Plain but does not border the Mississippi River, is higher above sea level, and is marked by small streams and rolling hills. The eastern border of the Inner Coastal Plain is the elevated region that surrounds the Nashville Basin, which lies within the Highland Rim. Like the Inner Coastal Plain, the Nashville Basin had rich farmland that sustained large-scale 19th century farming and cattle grazing. To the east of the Highland Rim is the Cumberland Plateau, where the elevation increases and is composed of rocky cliffs that are capable of sustaining large-scale mineral extraction. Between Tennessee's ridges are valleys sufficiently fertile to sustain small household farming. In Tennessee's far east are the Smoky Mountains, which rise to an elevation of 5000 feet (1520 m) and have abundant timber reserves but have land less conducive to agriculture. These regional comparisons create a unique opportunity to assess whether Tennessee fertile farmlands dominated the opposing conditions associated with the deleterious effects of disease that were prominent in low-lying regions that bordered large bodies of slow-moving water (Haines et al., Reference Haines, Craig and Weiss2003: 406–407; Carson, Reference Carson2008).

Figure 1. Nineteenth century Tennessee regions

Note: Tennessee's Alluvial Plain consists of Lake, Dyer, Lauderdale, Tipton, and Shelby counties. The Inner Coastal Plain consists of Henry, Obion, Gibson, Crockett, Haywood, Fayette, Hardeman, Madison, Carroll, Weakley, Henderson, Chester, and McNairy counties. The Highland Rim includes Stewart, Benton, Houston, Humphreys, Decatur, Hardin, Perry, Wayne, Lawrence, Lewis, Hickman, Dickson, Montgomery, Robertson, Cheatham, Giles, Lincoln, Moore, Coffee, Warren, Cannon, Dekalb, Smith, White, Putnam, Jackson, Clay, Overton, Macon, Sumner, Franklin, and Campbell counties. The Nashville Basin includes Bedford, Maury, Williamson, Davidson, Wilson, Rutherford, and Marshall counties. The Cumberland Plateau includes Fentress, Cumberland, Morgan, Scott, Van Buren, Bledsoe, Pickett, Sequatchie, Grundy, and Marion counties. Ridge and Valley include Claiborne, Hancock, Hawkins, Sullivan, Washington, Greene, Hamblin, Jefferson, Grainger, Union, Anderson, Union, Knox, Roane, London, Rhea, Meigs, Mcminn, Bradley, and Hamilton counties. Smoky Mountains include Johnson, Carter, Unicoi, Cocke, Sevier, Blount, Monroe, and Polk counties.

Nineteenth century Tennessee is also politically unique in the American South in that it was the last Confederate state to secede from the Union and the first Southern state to rejoin the Union after the Civil War ended. While Tennessee was a slave-holding state, views toward slavery varied widely within Tennessee, and slave conditions reflected geographic variation associated with the slave economy. The Eastern mountainous region had few plantations that sustained large-scale plantation agriculture. Most slaves in Eastern Tennessee lived on small farms and were in direct contact with their owners, forming personal relationships, which may have led to better slave treatment and biological welfare in Eastern Tennessee (Cochrane, Reference Cochrane1979: 70). The western Alluvial Delta had many plantations that sustained large slave concentrations. Slaves on large Western Tennessee plantations had less direct contact with their owners, and therefore, may not have benefited from close relationships with their slave masters as experienced in Eastern Tennessee and disproportionately bore the costs of net food export to counties bordering the Mississippi. Tennessee's early legal codes toward slave ownership also guaranteed slaves food, shelter, clothing, and medical attention, suggesting that as Tennessee's markets developed, Tennessee's black statures may have varied similarly with white statures, because black treatment and material conditions were legally protected and were integrated with white biological conditions (Wahl, Reference Wahl1996). Nevertheless, Nashville had a thriving slave market, and Memphis was a slave-trading capital of the Southwest, suggesting that black material and biological conditions may have been comparatively lower in Western than Eastern Tennessee.

4. Nineteenth century Tennessee Prison data

The Tennessee State Penitentiary at Nashville opened on 21 September 1831. A then western frontier community, Tennessee lacked a permanent correctional facility, and residents in Nashville donated $2500 to purchase property in Davidson County for a state prison; building construction expenses were then covered by the Tennessee state legislature.

All historical height data have selection biases. The prison data likely selected many of the materially poorest individuals, although there were skilled and agricultural workers in the sample. While prison records are not random, the selectivity they represent has its own advantages in stature studies, such as being drawn from lower socio-economic groups, that segment of society most vulnerable to economic change (Bogin, Reference Bogin1991: 288; Cutler, Reference Cutler2004: 110).Footnote 1 Together, over 30000 American-born male inmates from the Tennessee prisons were incarcerated between 1865 and 1922.Footnote 2 Prison guards routinely recorded the dates that inmates were received, age at incarceration, complexion, nativity, stature, pre-incarceration occupation, inmate crimes, and the county in which inmates were originally incarcerated. However, like other Southern penitentiaries, enumerators did not record whether or not black inmates were slaves.Footnote 3 Because the purpose of this study is to consider US black and white male stature variation, females and immigrants are excluded from the analysis. All records with complete age, stature, occupations, and nativity were collected.

Fortunately, prison enumerators were quite thorough when recording inmate complexion and occupation. For instance, enumerators recorded African-American complexions as black, copper, and various shades of mulatto, from which race and ethnicity are inferred. Enumerators recorded white inmate complexions as light, fair, dark, and sallow. The white inmate complexion classification is further supported by the complexion of European immigrants, who were always of fair complexion and were also recorded as light, medium, and dark. While mulatto inmates possessed genetic traits from both black and white ancestry, they were treated as blacks throughout 19th century America and, when appropriate, are grouped here with black inmates.

Enumerators recorded a broad continuum of occupations and defined them narrowly, recording over 200 different occupations. These occupations are classified here into four categories. Workers who were merchants and highly skilled workers are classified as white-collar workers; manufacturers, carpenters, and craft workers are classified as skilled workers; workers in the agricultural sector are classified as farmers; laborers are classified as unskilled workers. Unfortunately, prison enumerators did not distinguish between farm and common laborers. Since common laborers may have come to maturity under less favorable biological conditions than farm laborers, this potentially overestimates the biological benefits of being a common laborer and underestimates the advantages of being a farm laborer.

Table 1 presents average heights and percentages for black and white males incarcerated in the 19th century Tennessee Prison by birth year, occupation, and nativity. Although average statures are included, they may be sensitive to compositional effects, which are accounted for in the regression models that follow. Blacks were a larger proportion of the prison sample than whites; 67% of the Tennessee Prison population was black. Occupations reflect socio-economic status, and while prison inmates typically came from the lower working class, there was a sizable share of inmates from white-collar and skilled occupations. White inmates were 150 and 174% more likely than blacks to occupy white-collar and skilled occupations, respectively. Even in agriculture, whites were more likely than blacks to come from planting and stock-raising occupations. Blacks were 21% more likely than whites to occupy unskilled occupations. Nativity within the prison was mostly from Southeastern states, which include Tennessee.

Table 1. Tennessee adult stature by birth, occupation and nativity

Source: Date used to study black and white anthropometrics is a subset of a much larger 19th century prison sample. All available records from American state repositories have been acquired and entered into a master file. These records include Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Tennessee, New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and Washington. Only prison records for inmates incarcerated in the Tennessee Prison are used in this project.

Note: Stature is measured in cm. Adult age is between 23 and 55 years. The occupation classification scheme is consistent with Ferrie (Reference Ferrie and 1997). The following geographic classification scheme is consistent with Carlino and Sill (Reference Carlino and Sill2001): New England = CT, ME, MA, NH, RI and VT; Middle Atlantic = DE, DC, MD, NJ, NY and PA; Great Lakes = IL, IN, MI, OH and WI; Plains = IA, KS, MN, MO, NE, ND and SD; South East = AL, AR, FL, GA, KY, LA, MS, NC, SC, TN, VA and WV; South West = AZ, NM, OK and TX; Far West = CA, CO, ID, MT, NV, OR, UT, WA and WY. Stature difference is average white stature less average black stature. Proportion difference is white proportion less black proportion.

5. The comparative effects of 19th century Tennessee demographics, residence, and socio-economic characteristics on black and white stature

Black and white statures were related to age, socio-economic status, and birth cohorts; they were also related to nativity, residence within Tennessee and proximity to the Mississippi River. We test which of these variables were associated with 19th century Tennessee stature. To start, the stature of the ith individual is assumed to be related to race, age, birth period, occupation, nativity, and residence.

\begin{equation}
Centimeters_i = \alpha + \sum\limits_{i = 1}^2 \beta _i Race_i + \sum\limits_{j = 14}^{70} \beta _j Age_{i,j} + \sum\limits_{t = 1820}^{1900} \beta_t Birth_{i,t} \end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\qquad + \sum\limits_{l = 1}^3 {\beta _l Occupation_{i,l} } + \beta {}_{SE}Southeast_i + \sum\limits_{r = 1}^7 {\beta _r {\mathop{\it Residence}\nolimits} _{i,r} + } \varepsilon _i\end{equation}

Dummy variables are included to account for how black, mulatto, and white statures varied by race. Age dummy variables are included for individual youth ages 14 through 22 years; adult age dummies are included for 10-year intervals from the 1930s through 1970s. Birth decade dummies are in 10-year intervals from 1820 through 1906. Occupation dummy variables are for white-collar, skilled, farming, and unskilled occupations. A Southeast nativity dummy variable is included to test the effects of Southeastern nativity on stature. Tennessee residence dummy variables are included to determine how statures were associated with residence within Tennessee and nativity.

Table 2 presents statures regressed on 19th century observable black and white characteristics. Table 2's model 1 presents stature regressions for the combined black and white samples. To compare how Tennessee biological conditions varied by nativity and race, model 2 reports regression results for only Tennessee-born males. Model 3 reports stature regression estimates for only white male characteristics, while model 4 does the same for blacks.

Table 2. Tennessee stature by age, birth, occupation and nativity

Source: See Table 1.

Notes: The US geographic classification scheme is consistent with Carlino and Sill (Reference Carlino and Sill2001). See Table 1 notes for classification scheme. Each regression model is estimated using robust standard errors. *Significant at 10%, **significant at 5%, ***significant at 1%.

Three general patterns emerge when comparing 19th century Tennessee statures. First, 19th century proximity to water may have been related to stature in at least one of two ways. If agricultural output was more easily imported in counties with close proximity to major waterways, access to trade routes had a positive relationship with stature. Alternatively, proximity to rivers can be a drain on local resources because agricultural products can be more easily exported, thereby increasing the relative price of food and nutrition in food-producing counties, which is likely the case with Tennessee's agriculture during economic development. In this case, access to rivers would have a negative relationship with stature (Haines et al., Reference Haines, Craig and Weiss2003: 406–407; Cuff, Reference Cuff2005: 217). Tennessee black and white statures in the Alluvial Delta that shared a border with the Mississippi River were consistently smaller than those of individuals from elsewhere within the state and indicate that black and white statures were inversely related to market development (Craig and Weiss, Reference Craig, Weiss, Komlos and Baten1998; Wilson and Pope, Reference Wilson, Pope and Costa2003).

Second, using Table 2 birth decade coefficients, black and white statures declined throughout the 19th century (Fig. 2), indicating that black and white Tennessee statures declined with Southern institutional change from slave agriculture to a free labor force (Higgs, Reference Higgs1977). Rees et al. (Reference Rees, Komlos, Long and Woitek2003) hypothesize that Southern slave owners and overseers consciously controlled slave food and health allocations to maximize slave-owners’ wealth, and throughout the 19th century, Tennessee black statures decreased by over 2 cm. Failure of Tennessee black statures to increase during the late antebellum period suggests that Tennessee black statures were not as shielded from the deleterious effects of market integration as other blacks under slavery and is consistent with results presented by Carson (Reference Carson2008), and Haines et al. (Reference Haines, Craig and Weiss2010) who find that market-dependent free-blacks also experienced stature declines similar to those of whites. On the other hand, throughout the 19th century, white statures decreased by nearly 5 cm.

Figure 2. Tennessee 19th century black and white stature Source: See Table 2, models 3 and 4. Note: Time represents birth year.

Third, 19th century farmers were taller than white-collar, skilled, and unskilled workers, due partly to the nearness of nutrients. Farmers traditionally had access to superior diets and nutrition, and 19th century farmers were taller than workers in other occupations (Sokoloff and Villaflor, Reference Sokoloff and Villaflor1982: 463; Margo and Steckel, Reference Margo and Steckel1983: 171–172; Komlos, Reference Komlos1987: 902; Steckel and Haurin, Reference Steckel, Haurin and Komlos1994: 170; Komlos and Coclanis, Reference Komlos and Coclanis1997: 441).Footnote 4 Farmer stature advantages were also similar in magnitude between blacks and whites to their counterparts in other occupations. That unskilled workers were also tall suggests that many unskilled workers were probably agricultural workers, who received more abundant calorie and nutrition allocations, and worked in environments conducive to stature growth.

Other patterns are consistent with expectations. After controlling for age, whites were nearly 2 cm taller than blacks, which is significant because modern black and white statures are comparable when brought to maturity under optimal biological conditions (Eveleth and Tanner, Reference Eveleth and Tanner1976; Tanner, Reference Tanner, Harrison, Weiner, Tanner and Barnicot1977; Margo and Steckel, Reference Margo and Steckel1982: 519; Nelson et al., Reference Nelson, Kleerekoper, Peterson and Parfitt1993: 18–20; Steckel, Reference Steckel1995: 1910; Barondess et al., Reference Barondess, Nelson and Schlaen1997: 968; Komlos and Baur, Reference Komlos and Baur2004: 64, 69; Godoy et al., Reference Godoy, Goodman, Levins and Leonard2005: 472–473; Komlos and Lauderdale, Reference Komlos and Lauderdale2005). Moreover, compositional effects cannot explain the black–white stature differential, which was due, in part, to whites’ access to meat and better nutrition (Margo and Steckel, Reference Margo and Steckel1982: 514–515, 517 and 519). Margo and Steckel (Reference Margo and Steckel1982) and Sunder (Reference Sunder2004) demonstrate that antebellum Southern whites were nearly 2 inches (5 cm) taller than Southern blacks, and adult male slaves were shorter than free Northern whites (Margo and Steckel, Reference Margo and Steckel1982: 519). Because the Southern social apparatus placed disproportional weight on fairer complexions, mulattos were also taller than darker pigmented blacks. Part of the black–white stature differential may, therefore, be attributable to racial disparity before and after slavery (Steckel, Reference Steckel1979: 374–376; Bodenhorn, Reference Bodenhorn1999; Carson, Reference Carson2008, Reference Carson2009).

Southern black and white statures varied considerably by nativity, and Southeastern males were consistently taller than individuals from elsewhere within the USA. Stature is positively related to nutrition, and the 19th century opening of the New South to agriculture increased Southern agricultural productivity (Higgs, Reference Higgs1977: 24; Cochrane, Reference Cochrane1979: 69–71). Before the War the South was self-sufficient in food production but became a net food importer after the War (Ransom and Sutch, Reference Ransom and Sutch1977). Blacks from the Great Lakes had access to dairy products and calcium and were taller than blacks from the Northeast and Middle Atlantic. Northeastern blacks, especially youths, encountered adverse biological environments and rickets may have contributed to shorter Northeastern black and white statures (Kiple and Kiple, Reference Kiple and Kiple1977: 293–294; Tortolani et al., Reference Tortolani, McCarthy and Sponseller2002: 62).

6. Accounting for the white–black Tennessee stature differential

To more fully account for the source of the white–black stature differential, a Oaxaca decomposition is imposed on the white–black stature differential (Oaxaca, Reference Oaxaca1973). Let Sw and S b represent the statures of whites and blacks, respectively; α w and α b are the autonomous stature components that accrue to whites and blacks; β w and β b are the white and black stature returns associated with specific stature-enhancing characteristics, such as age and occupation. X w and X b are white and black characteristic matrices, and white statures are assumed to be the base structure.

\begin{equation}
\Delta S = S_w - S_b = \left( {\alpha _w - \alpha _b } \right) + \left( {\beta _w - \beta _b } \right)X_b + \beta _w \left( {X_w - X_b } \right)\end{equation}

The second right-hand-side element is that component of the stature differential due to differences in stature returns and for most characteristics was likely positive. The third right-hand-side element is the stature differential component due to differences in characteristics and is undetermined because whites probably had characteristics associated with taller statures. Hence, if white stature advantages were due to inferior black biological conditions, the stature returns to whites, β w, will be larger than stature returns to blacks, β b.

Using coefficients from the stature regressions (Table 2, models 3 and 4), the stature decomposition indicates that the majority of the white stature advantage arose from non-identifiable characteristics, such as better nutrition and higher socio-economic status that disproportionately favored whites (Table 3); however, the majority of the observable stature differential due to characteristics is associated with nativity, which also supports the market integration hypothesis. Observable characteristics beyond nativity, birth period and nativity contributed little to the white–black stature differential. Therefore, at North American latitudes, stature returns associated with nativity were the primary source of the white–black stature differential.

Table 3. Nineteenth century Tennessee Prison stature Oaxaca decomposition

Source: See Table 2, models 3 and 4.

7. Conclusion

The timing and extent of stature variation not only reflects the cumulative relationship between diet and disease, but also the distribution of wealth, population density, urbanization, and industrialization. The Tennessee Prison sample confirms several patterns observed in other 19th century American samples. First, stature was sensitive to proximity to water and individuals in counties sharing a border with the Mississippi River were consistently shorter than those who did not, indicating that statures were inversely related to access to water routes and market integration. Second, Tennessee black stature variation did not conform to the established pattern where enslaved black statures increased during the late-antebellum period, indicating that rather than conforming to enslaved black statures, Tennessee black statures were more like free Northern black statures where the law gave slaves and former slaves greater legal recognition. Third, Tennessee farmers were taller than non-farmers, and stature variation by socio-economic status was comparable between blacks and whites. Therefore, 19th century Southern black and white statures reflected a complex set of economic, social, and biological factors that corresponded to 19th century economic development and institutional change.

Footnotes

1 Data used to study black and white anthropometrics are a subset of a much larger 19th century prison sample. All available records from American state repositories have been acquired and entered into a master file. These records include Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Missouri, New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah and Washington.

2 Birth years were from 1820 through 1906.

3 Only the Maryland early prison listed whether of not blacks were slaves.

4 Islam et al. (Reference Islam, Gauderman, Cozen and Mack2007: 383–388) demonstrate that children exposed to more direct sunlight produce more vitamin D, and if there is little movement away from parental occupation, 19th century occupations may also be a good indicator for the occupational environment in which individuals came to maturity (Margo and Steckel, Reference Margo, Steckel, Fogel and Engerman1992: 520; Costa, Reference Costa1993: 367; Nyström-Peck and Lundberg, Reference Nyström-Peck and Lundberg1995: 724–737; Wannamethee et al., Reference Wannamethee, Whincup, Shaper and Walker1996: 1256–1262).

References

Barondess, D. A., Nelson, D. A., and Schlaen, S. E. (1997), ‘Whole Body Bone, Fat and Lean Mass in Black and White Men’, Journal of Bone and Mineral Research, 12: 967971.Google Scholar
Bodenhorn, H. (1999), ‘A Troublesome Caste: Height and Nutrition of Antebellum Virginia's Rural Free Blacks’, Journal of Economic History, 59: 972996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bogin, B. (1991), ‘Measurement of Growth Variability and Environmental Quality in Guatemalan Children’, Annals of Human Biology, 18: 285294.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bush, P. (1987), ‘The Theory of Institutional Change’, Journal of Economic Issues, 21: 10751116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlino, G. and Sill, K. (2001), ‘Regional Income Fluctuations: Common Trends and Common Cycles’, Review of Economics and Statistics, 83: 446456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carson, S. A. (2008), ‘The Effect of Geography and Vitamin D on African-American Stature in the 19th Century: Evidence from Prison Records’, Journal of Economic History, 68: 812830.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carson, S. A. (2009), ‘Geography, Insolation, and Vitamin D in 19th Century US African-American and White Statures’, Explorations in Economic History, 46: 149159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Case, A. and Paxson, C. (2008), ‘Height, Health, and Cognitive Function at Older Ages’, American Economic Review, 98: 463467.Google Scholar
Cochrane, W. W. (1979), The Development of American Agriculture, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Costa, D. (1993), ‘Height, Wealth, and Disease Among Native Born in the Rural Antebellum North’, Social Science History, 17: 355383.Google Scholar
Craig, L. and Weiss, T. (1998), ‘Nutritional Status and Agricultural Surpluses in the Antebellum United States’, in Komlos, J. and Baten, J. (eds.), The Biological Standard of Living in Comparative Perspective, Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, pp. 190207.Google Scholar
Cuff, T. (2005), The Hidden Cost of Economic Development: The Biological Standard of Living in Antebellum Pennsylvania, Vermont: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Cutler, D. (2004), Your Money of Your Life, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Deaton, A. (2008), ‘Height, Health, and Inequality: The Distribution of Adult Heights in India’, American Economic Review, 98: 468474.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eveleth, P. and Tanner, J. (1976), Worldwide Variation in Human Growth, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ferrie, J., P. (1997), ‘The Entry into the U.S. Labor Market or Antebellum European Immigrants, 1840–1860’, Explorations in Economic History, 34: 295333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fogel, R. W. (1994), ‘Economic Growth, Population Theory and Physiology: The Bearing of Long-Term Processes on the Making of Economic Policy’, American Economic Review, 84: 369395.Google Scholar
Godoy, R., Goodman, E., Levins, R., and Leonard, W. R. (2005), ‘Anthropometric Variability in the USA’, Annals of Human Biology, 32: 469485.Google Scholar
Haines, M., Craig, L., and Weiss, T. (2003), ‘Short and The Dead: Nutrition, Mortality and the ‘Antebellum Paradox’ in the United States’, Journal of Economic History, 63: 382413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haines, M., Craig, L., and Weiss, T. (2010), ‘Did African Americans Experience the ‘Antebellum Puzzle’? Evidence from the United States Colored Troops During the Civil War’, Economics and Human Biology, Online 16 August 2010, doi: 10.1016/j.ehb.2010.06.001.Google ScholarPubMed
Higgs, R. (1977), Competition and Coercion: Blacks in the American Economy, 1865–1914. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodgson, G. (2009), ‘On the Institutional Foundations of Law: The Insufficiency of Custom and Private Ordering’, Journal of Economic Issues, 43: 143166.Google Scholar
Islam, T., Gauderman, W. J., Cozen, W., and Mack, T. (2007), ‘Childhood Sun Exposure Influences Risk of Multiple Sclerosis in Monozygotic Twins’, Neurology, 69: 381388.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kiple, K. and Kiple, V. (1977), ‘Slave Child Mortality: Some Nutritional Answers to a Perennial Puzzle’, Journal of Social History, 10: 284309.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Komlos, J. (1987), ‘The Height and Weight of West Point Cadets: Dietary Change in Antebellum America’, Journal of Economic History, 47: 897927.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Komlos, J. (1992), ‘Toward an Anthropometric History of African-Americans: The Case of the Free Blacks in Antebellum Maryland’, in Goldin, C. and Rockoff, H. (eds.), Strategic Factors in Nineteenth Century American Economic History: A Volume to Honor Robert W. Fogel, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 297329.Google Scholar
Komlos, J. (1998), ‘Shrinking in a Growing Economy? The Mystery of Physical Stature during the Industrial Revolution’, Journal of Economic History, 58: 779802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Komlos, J. and Coclanis, P. (1997), ‘On the Puzzling Cycle in the Biological Standard of Living: The Case of Antebellum Georgia’, Explorations in Economic History, 34: 433459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Komlos, J. and Baur, M. (2004), ‘From Tallest to (one of) the Fattest: the Enigmatic Fate of the American Population in the 20th Century’, Economics and Human Biology, 2: 5774.Google Scholar
Komlos, J. and Lauderdale, B. (2005), ‘Underperformance in Affluence: The Remarkable Relative Decline in the U.S. Heights in the Second Half of the 20th Century’, Social Science Quarterly, 2: 283305.Google Scholar
Mamabolo, R., Alberts, M., Steyn, N., Delemarri-van de Waal, H., and Leavitt, N. (2005), ‘Prevalence and Determinants of Stunting and Overweight in 3-year-old Black South African Children Residing in the Central Region of Limpopo Province, South Africa’, Public Health Nutrition, 8: 501508.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Margo, R. and Steckel, R. (1982), ‘Heights of American Slaves: New Evidence on Nutrition and Health’, Social Science History, 6: 516538.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Margo, R. and Steckel, R. (1983), ‘Heights of Native Born Northern Whites during the Antebellum Era’, Journal of Economic History, 43: 167174.Google Scholar
Margo, R. and Steckel, R. (1992), ‘Nutrition and Health of Slaves and Antebellum Southern Whites’, in Fogel, R. W. and Engerman, S. E. (eds.), Without Consent or Contract: the Rise and Fall of American Slavery, Conditions of Slave Life and the Transition to Freedom, Technical Papers, vol. 2, New York: W. W. Norton, pp. 508521.Google Scholar
Nelson, D., Kleerekoper, M., Peterson, E., and Parfitt, A. M. (1993), ‘Skin Color and Body Size as Risk Factors for Osteoporosis’, Osteoporosis International, 3: 1823.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
North, D. (1990), Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nyström-Peck, M. and Lundberg, O. (1995), ‘Short Stature as an Effect and Social Conditions in Childhood’, Social Science Medicine, 41: 733738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oaxaca, R. L. (1973), ‘Male Female Wage Differentials in Urban Labor Markets’, International Economic Review, 14: 693709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ransom, R. and Sutch, R. (1977), One Kind of Freedom: the Economic Consequences of Emancipation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rees, R., Komlos, J., Long, N., and Woitek, U. (2003), ‘Optimal Food Allocation in a Slave Economy’, Journal of Population Economics, 16: 2136.Google Scholar
Sokoloff, K. and Villaflor, G. (1982), ‘Early Achievement of Modern Stature in America’, Social Science History, 6: 453481.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Steckel, R. (1979), ‘Slave Height Profiles from Coastwise Manifests’, Explorations in Economic History, 16: 363380.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Steckel, R. (1995), ‘Stature and the Standard of Living’, Journal of Economic Literature, 33: 19031940.Google Scholar
Steckel, R. and Haurin, D. (1994), ‘Health and Nutrition in the American Midwest: Evidence from the Height of Ohio National Guardsman 1850–1910’, in Komlos, J. (ed.), Stature, Living Standards and Economic Development, Chicago: University Press of Chicago, pp. 117128.Google Scholar
Sunder, M. (2004), ‘The Height of Tennessee Convicts: Another Piece of the Antebellum Puzzle’, Economics and Human Biology, 2: 7586.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tanner, J. M. (1977), ‘Hormonal, Genetic and Environmental Factors Controlling Growth’, in Harrison, G. A., Weiner, J. S., Tanner, J. M. and Barnicot, N. A. (eds.), Human Biology: an Introduction to Human Evolution, Variation, Growth and Ecology, 2nd edn, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 335351.Google Scholar
Tortolani, J., McCarthy, E., and Sponseller, P. (2002), ‘Bone Mineral Density Deficiency in Children’, Journal of the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons, 10: 5766.Google Scholar
Wahl, J. B. (1996), ‘The Jurisprudence of American Slave Sales’, Journal of Economic History, 56: 143169.Google Scholar
Wannamethee, S. G., Whincup, P., Shaper, G., and Walker, M. (1996), ‘Influence of Father's Social Class on Cardiovascular Disease in Middle-Aged Men’, The Lancet, 348: 12591263.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilson, S. E. and Pope, C. L. (2003), ‘The Height of Union Army Recruits: Family and Community Efforts’, in Costa, D. (ed.), Health and Labor Force Participation over the Life Cycle: Evidence from the Past, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 113145.Google Scholar
Figure 0

Figure 1. Nineteenth century Tennessee regionsNote: Tennessee's Alluvial Plain consists of Lake, Dyer, Lauderdale, Tipton, and Shelby counties. The Inner Coastal Plain consists of Henry, Obion, Gibson, Crockett, Haywood, Fayette, Hardeman, Madison, Carroll, Weakley, Henderson, Chester, and McNairy counties. The Highland Rim includes Stewart, Benton, Houston, Humphreys, Decatur, Hardin, Perry, Wayne, Lawrence, Lewis, Hickman, Dickson, Montgomery, Robertson, Cheatham, Giles, Lincoln, Moore, Coffee, Warren, Cannon, Dekalb, Smith, White, Putnam, Jackson, Clay, Overton, Macon, Sumner, Franklin, and Campbell counties. The Nashville Basin includes Bedford, Maury, Williamson, Davidson, Wilson, Rutherford, and Marshall counties. The Cumberland Plateau includes Fentress, Cumberland, Morgan, Scott, Van Buren, Bledsoe, Pickett, Sequatchie, Grundy, and Marion counties. Ridge and Valley include Claiborne, Hancock, Hawkins, Sullivan, Washington, Greene, Hamblin, Jefferson, Grainger, Union, Anderson, Union, Knox, Roane, London, Rhea, Meigs, Mcminn, Bradley, and Hamilton counties. Smoky Mountains include Johnson, Carter, Unicoi, Cocke, Sevier, Blount, Monroe, and Polk counties.

Figure 1

Table 1. Tennessee adult stature by birth, occupation and nativity

Figure 2

Table 2. Tennessee stature by age, birth, occupation and nativity

Figure 3

Figure 2. Tennessee 19th century black and white stature Source: See Table 2, models 3 and 4. Note: Time represents birth year.

Figure 4

Table 3. Nineteenth century Tennessee Prison stature Oaxaca decomposition