We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 May 2010
In a recent article in this journal we presented an analysis of productivity change of steamboats on western rivers, 1815–60. Although the steamboat dominated river commerce during this period, other transportation technologies had been and were available. Prior to the steamboat era, keelboats and flatboats were the primary means by which the agricultural surpluses of the trans-Appalachian regions reached outside markets (especially through New Orleans). Although flatboating persisted, keelboating was quickly eclipsed with the introduction of the steamboat. This contrast is explained in part by the differential impact of the steamboat on upstream and downstream rates. Successful keelboat operations depended primarily on upstream revenues, and it was on the upstream rates that the steamboat had its most dramatic effects. One study indicates that by the early 1820's, keelboat revenues on the Mississippi had fallen below or very near to average variable costs, and keelboating was maintained only on shallower waters off the main trunk routes. Alternatively, flatboating not only survived but even expanded in the face of the stiff competition generated by the newer technology. For instance, in 1816, the year before the first successful steamboat navigation of the western rivers, 1287 flatboats arrived in New Orleans. By the commercial year 1846–47, the number of arrivals had increased to a peak of 2792. This persistence of flatboating occurred despite the fact that flatboats underwent no changes in their physical characteristics. Neither were there any apparent technical advances in their handling or navigation.
1 Mak, James and Walton,, Gary M.“Steamboats and the Great Productivity Surge in River Transportation,” The Journal Of Economic History, XXXI (September 1972), pp. 619–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2 Flatboats were large oblong boxes which were floated downstream during high water. Typically they were broken up at the journey's end and sold for lumber. Keelboats were considerably more sophisticated, being built on a keel with plank-covered ribs and with a hull shaped somewhat like those of ocean going vessels of the time. They operated with a large crew that sailed, rowed, poled, or pulled the vessel upstream.
3 See Haites, Erik F. and Mak,, James “Ohio and Mississippi River Transportation 1810–1860,” Explorations in Economic History, VIII (Winter 1970), p. 171.Google Scholar
4 U.S. Congress, House, Report on the Internal Commerce of the U.S., 1887, House Exec. Doc. 6, Part II, 50 Cong., 1 Sess. (1888), pp. 191 and 222.
5 Mak and Walton, “Steamboats.”
6 The selection of base year weights inevitably adds biases to our measures. To illustrate the sensitivity of the selection of weights, moving weights slightly change the above rates of 1.5 percent and 1.4 percent to 1.7 percent and 1.2 percent respectively; 1815–1819 base year weights give rates of 1.7 percent and 1.3 percent respectively. On the basis of these small differences we feel fairly confident that the rate of change was close to 1.5 percent. Weights for other base year decades are available from the authors upon request.
7 See for example, Taylor,, George R.The Transportation Revolution 1815–1860 (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1962), pp. 64–65Google Scholar; Scheiber,, Harry N. “The Ohio-Mississippi Flatboat Trade: Some Reconsiderations,” in The Frontier in American Development, Essays in Honor of Paul Wallace Gates, Ellis, David M. (ed.) (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1970), pp. 286–87Google Scholar; Berry,, Thomas S.Western Prices Before 1861 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1943), p. 23Google Scholar; Report on the Internal Commerce of the U.S. 1887, p. 198; and Haites and Mak, “River Transportation,” p. 170, n. 36; and Baldwin,, Leland D.The Keelboat Age on Western Waters (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1941), pp. 180–82.Google Scholar
8 See Mak and Walton, “Steamboats,” Table 2; and for a discussion of the return routes, see Baldwin, Keelboat Age, pp. 124–25.
9 It is noteworthy that between 1815 and 1860, while money wages for steamboat deckhands rose by 25 percent, money wages for flatboat crewmen remained unchanged (see Haites, Erik F. and Mak,, James “Steamboating on the Mississippi, 1810–1860: A Purely Competitive Industry,” Business History Review, XLV (Spring 1971), pp. 72–73Google Scholar; and Baldwin, Keelboat Age, p. 89, for examples). Although the average supply price of steamboat labor (an average of 19 crewmen and 7 officers) increased by more than one half (see Mak and Walton, “Steamboats,” Table A-2), when the opportunity costs of labor are included in flatboat labor costs, these fell almost by one half over the period (see Table II, the Appendix).
10 See Scheiber, “Flatboat Trades,” pp. 290–96.
11 It should be emphasized that the sharp increase in vessel size after 1830 closely follows the period of greatest expenditures for river improvements, 1825–38 (see Haites,, Erik F. Ohio and Mississippi River Transportation, 1810–1860 (Unpublished doctorial dissertation, Purdue University, 1969)Google Scholar, Table 19). We suggest that the reduction of river hazards, coupled with the increased skills of flatboatmen, explain the shift to larger flats. Consequently, the labor savings apparently due to economies of scale are really the effect of externalities.
12 A total factor productivity measure from the social point of view should include the resources used for river improvements in the input index. However, an appropriate way to include them has eluded us. According to Lippincott,, Isaac in his “A History of River Improvement,” The Journal of Political Economy, XXII (1914), p. 648Google Scholar, the total amount devoted to the Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, and Arkansas Rivers from 1824 to 1860 was about $3,130,000. Calculations made from the “Lytle List” of Lytle,, William M.Merchant Steam Vessels of the United States, 1807–1868, Publication No. 6 (Mystic, Conn.: The Steamship Historical Society of America, 1952)Google Scholar, and Supplements No. 2 and No. 3, indicate that over this same period, the average annual number of steamboats operating on these rivers was 464 vessels (rising from 67 in 1824 to 817 in 1860). They averaged 204 tons each (rising from 156 tons in 1824 to 238 tons in 1860). The number of flatboats operating in these waters is unknown. Contemporary sources give estimates for the 1840's at over 4000 flatboats each year [U. S. Congress, Senate, Memorials Asking Congress to Make an Appropriation to Improve the Navigation of the Mississippi River and Its Principal Tributaries, Senate Doc. No. 137, 27 Cong., 3 Sess. (1843)]. If we may conjecture a possible average of 2000 flatboats per annum at 90 tons each, the share per flatboat of the total outlay for river improvements, after adjusting for differences in the size and the number of trips made between steam and flatboats, would have been only a few dollars and at most only one of two percent of the annual costs of operating a flatboat during the antebellum period. Consequently our industry productivity measures probably are not significantly biased by the exclusion of these resources from our input index.
13 Hunter,, Louis C.Steamboats on the Western Rivers (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1949), p. 194.Google Scholar
14 Internal Commerce of the U.S., 1887, p. 198.
15 From notes graciously supplied to us by Thomas Berry, and according to Hunter, Steamboats, p. 56 and Baldwin, Keelboat Age, p. 67; the decline was from 30 to 35 days during the early 1800's to 18 to 24 days in the 1840's.
16 U. S. Congress, House, “Annual Report of the Work Done in Improving the Navigation of the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers,” Message from the President to the Two Houses of Congress, House Doc. No. 2, 22 Cong., 1 Sess. (1831), p. 92.
17 See Haites and Mak, “Steamboating on the Mississippi, 1810–1860; A Purely Competitive Industry,” Table A-3, p. 74; and fn. 15 above. The percentage reduction is calculated by holding flatboat passage time constant.
18 For an excellent discussion of this and other reasons for the persistence of old technologies (with illustrations) see Nathan Rosenberg, “Factors Affecting the Diffusion of Technology,” Explorations in Economic History (Fall 1972), pp. 3–33. A classic example of this point is sail versus steam in ocean shipping, during the nineteenth century, a topic which has been the subject of recent debate. See for examples, Graham,, Gerald S.“The Ascendency of the Sailing Ship 1850–85,” The Economic History Review, 2nd Series, IX (August 1956), pp. 74–88Google Scholar; North,, Douglass C.“Ocean Freight Rates and Economic Development, 1750–1913,” The Journal Of Economic History, XVIII (December 1958), pp. 537–55Google Scholar; Knaurhase,, Ramon“The Compound Steam Engine and Productivity Changes, in the German Merchant Marine Fleet, 1871–1887,” The Journal Of Economic History, XXVIII (September 1968), pp. 390–403Google Scholar; and Walton,, Gary M.“Productivity Change in Ocean Shipping after 1870: A Comment,” The Journal Of Economic History, XXX (June 1970), pp. 435–41.Google Scholar
