ANIMAL ENERGY, a THREAD on the surprising history of industrial capitalism's core and periphery:
You'd think animals are a primitive power source quickly discarded once fossil fuels entered the picture. But you'd be wrong. Animal power concentrated in the 19c industrial core.
As Clay McShane showed long ago, urban growth in the US Northeast was fundamentally dependent on horses. Look at these incredible population figures. Even as rural migrants and int'l immigrants streamed into Boston, it's horse population grew even faster. jstor.org/stable/3185479
Horsepower increased on the intensive margin, too, as horses got much bigger. Look at the size of these enormous draft horses! Urban horses pulled streetcars and delivery wagons. Rural horses plowed fields and did other farm work. nj.com/bergen/2018/05…
Horses did all kinds of other work, too. This is a "horse boy" managing horses turning a capstan for lifting anchors and heavy cargo aboard a ship on the Great Lakes in the late 1800s. …ges.maritimehistoryofthegreatlakes.ca/121828/data
Animal power was less prevalent on the industrial periphery, where enslaved, enserfed and other coerced rural labor toiled to supply raw materials. Allen Mikhail's fantastic article, "Unleashing the Beast," tells the tale of how this happened in Egypt. ahr.oxfordjournals.org/content/118/2/…
Animals were wealth in 18c Ottoman Egypt. Allen details some of the sophisticated financial arrangements in which people owned shares of multiple animals. Infrastructure in the Nile Valley, especially the all important irrigation works, were literally geared to animal power.
But in the last decades of the 1700s, repeated environmental disaster produced drought, famine and epidemics. Animals died in droves, impoverishing the peasantry. Concomitantly, a complex political shift detached Egypt from Ottoman suzerainty and empowered landholding elites.
The result was that landholders gained leverage over peasants and worked them on newly assembled cotton plantations producing for Euro markets. Infrastructure designed for animals became useless; energy now came from human labor. Compare this pic from 1880s to previous.
This chart, from Sven Beckert's monumental Empire of Cotton: A Global History, suggests that rising cotton production was compatible with technological and energy decline, at least in some respects.
The diverging trajectories of North and South in the US suggest an interesting parallel. In a way, N and S lived Egypt's two futures: one with animal and industrial energy for domestic development, the other with mostly human-powered commodity production for global exports.
It's not that animal and steam power were entirely absent from the slave South, but enslaved human labor, under the full and coercive control of slave owners, was the key to the rise of US cotton capitalism. As @CC_Rosenthal and many others show in different ways...
...southern innovation revolved around getting the most out of enslaved labor. New kinds of cotton, management techniques, and attack dogs pressed enslaved people to produce more. Record keeping was key books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC…
Northern industrialization came with its own coercions and was deeply complicit in slavery. It also made more use of animal power alongside the rapid rise in the consumption of fossil fuels. Many came to see technology and new sources of energy as liberatory, compared to slavery
Here's an 1885 certificate of the PA State Ag Society. It contrasts slavery and technological backwardness on the bottom left with individual freedom and tech progress (in the form of a mechanical reaper) on the bottom right. Power source is a horse. digital.librarycompany.org/islandora/obje…
The internal combustion engine and electrification began to marginalize previously central animal, especially horse, power in the industrial core. But this didn't start to happen till the 1890s and wasn't complete until at least WWII.
/fin
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
People might be underestimating the Lincoln Project thing because of misunderstanding how messaging campaigns build over time. Ppl thought Occupy Wall Street was a failure b/c it didn't immediately change things, but it was an important moment in a trajectory 1/
OWS left a legacy of activists and a politically effective language for keeping inequality in the public mind (the 99% vs the 1%). Lincoln Project is different but it has some dedicated and well funded people working on messaging that might ultimately find an audience 2/
When I talk to my students, I hear a lot of disappointment and anger with the choices they've been given. Many are conservatives who dislike Trump but are unimpressed with Biden for various reasons. I doubt most of them have heard of the LP yet... 3/
Thread: 1/For folks interested in 19c US history of capitalism and pol econ, I cannot recommend enough @yuenyuenang's How China Escaped the Poverty Trap. It offers fresh thinking for reflecting on the US case. This thread raises one implication I took from the book @pseudoerasmus
2/The final chapter makes its own comparison to the 19c US, drawing on Wallis's work on public finance w/the "open access" framework he developed with North and Weingast and recently elaborates in an ed. volume with Lamoreaux. This is fine, but there's much more one could do
3/In ch. 4 Ang gives a fascinating account of how Chinese top leaders rewrote the rules for bureaucratic pay & promotion to focus on economic deliverables without micromanaging local methods. The result was a swarm of bureaucratic entrepreneurialism using personal social networks