Steel and Lumber in Postbellum: 1865-1900; An Economic Comparison

 

 Steel and Lumber in Postbellum: 1865-1900; An Economic Comparison

 

In the years between 1865-1900, there were many changes that took place in some of America’s industries that became evident to the many who examined these industries closely for an economic comparison.   They can look at two of these industries, steel and lumber, for this evidence of economic growth. They will review articles and publications, along with data provided by US Government agencies and industry records. They can determine from this data that both of these industries showed 7 to 10 times economic growth during the Postbellum period from 1865-1900.[1] These increases in steel and lumber outputs can be reviewed in graphs found in this blog. They will be able to do a comparison analysis between the steel industry and the lumber industry.

The methodology used in this research was reviewing articles and journals that were related to this topic. Government agency publications and private industry publications will be reviewed for a closer look at the two industries by agencies and companies that monitor their economics on a closer level. There were many articles and government publications that covered this period of time in US history.

After the Civil War and during the Postbellum period, the northern states and the southern states were in two different places when it came to their economies. The south had pretty much decimated their agricultural economy due to over use of the land and depletion of nutrients from the soil.[2]  However, the availability of timber was greater in the southern states than the rest of the states in the union.[3]  After the Civil War more rail lines were reopened in the south and as this happened Southern forests became more accessible and more valuable. This fact was reflected in increases in both the number and the size of sawmills in operation after 1865. Between 1860 and 1890 the number of mills increased from 3,969 to 5,304; the number of workers increased from 16,677 to 63,298.[4]  The same output in the lumber industry was not happening in the northern states. In many areas during this time period, “Northern Forest stands neared exhaustion by ravaging exploitation.”[5]

Even with the downturn in lumber output from the northern states, the overall economy of the lumber industry in the United States was increasing. According to the 1900 United States census, “the lumber industry of the United States, taken as a whole, was in 1900 the fourth among the great manufacturing industries of the country, being exceeded in value of products only by the iron and steel, the textile, and the slaughtering and meat packing industries.”[6]

   [7]

 United States Forest Service. The Lumber Cut of the United States .1907. Government Printing Office.

 

During this Postbellum period, where lumber in the south was adding tremendous economic gains to the United States economy, steel production, especially in the northern states, was starting to also make significant economic gains in the United States.

Steel became the engine driving American industrialization in the late nineteenth century. In 1860 the country produced only 13,000 tons. Ten years later output had risen to 77,000 tons, and, just a decade after that, to 1,397,000 tons. By the end of the century, the United States was turning out 11,227,000 tons, more than Britain and Germany combined. [8]

t[9]

According to American Heritage Magazine, another reason for the success of the American steel industry were men like Scottish born Andrew Carnegie.  After the Civil War, he saw opportunity in the burgeoning steel business in Pittsburgh. Within two decades, the Carnegie Steel Company was the largest in the world.[10]   According to an article by National Material, “a strong technological foundation was the primary driving force behind the tremendous growth in the steel industry. Steel supply was crucial for rapid expansion of cities and urban infrastructure.” [11].

According to UnitConverters.net, the lumber industry’s 35 million board feet produced in 1890 can be converted to 29,000 tons of lumber.[12] At the same time period the steel industry produced 11 million tons of steel.[13]  A comparison of the two industries’ tonnage numbers shows that at the end of the Postbellum period, the lumber industry was producing more tons than the steel industry. The lumber industry in the United States after the Civil War was able to experience a significant increase in their profits and revenue as compared to the steel industry in the same Postbellum period. However, the steel industry would go on to bigger profits and revenues as the two industries moved into the 20^th century as consolidation of the steel industry began to take place.[14] The results of this economical comparison were to show that there were facts and data to allow this comparison to take place and the key was interpreting the data and then being able to present it in a manner that makes the results believable and project what the comparison was trying to achieve.

In conclusion, when business historians and lay people review the data and the historic analysis of an economical comparison between the lumber industry and the steel industry in the Postbellum period from 1865-1900, they can deduct from the information provided by US Government documents how the two industries compared economically to each other

They will be able to surmise that, as Popp and Fellman stated a piece they wrote for Business History, “in putting together an economical comparison some business historians do grapple with how to write analytical narratives and the relationship between their research, the texts they write and what it is they hope to claim.”[15]  There are probably  times where data is used to make sure the end results are what the historian wanted. David A. Freedman concludes in his article, “Statistical Models and Shoe Leather,” one fairly common way to attack a problem involves collecting data and then making a set of statistical assumptions about the process that generated the data,”[16] In doing an economical comparison between the lumber and steel industries from the Postbellum time period, a time of rebuilding and gathering of records,  it is assumed that the data is valid and can be used in such a comparison.

 

 

 

 

---

[1] The Steel and Lumber Industries during Postbellum 1865-1900,” The US History Blog, August 29, 2022

[2] Amy Bickel. “Ness County Still celebrates its Most Famous Resident: George Washington Carver,” The Hutchinson News, February 22, 2016

[3] “Southern Forest for the Future,” See Southern Forests A World Resources Institute website. https://www.seesouthernforests.org/southern-forests-for-the-future  

[4] Thomas D. Clark, “The Impact of the Timber Industry on the South.” The Mississippi Quarterly 25, no. 2 (1972): 141–64.

[5] Ibid

[6] US Census 1900, Volume 9, Manufacturers Part 3, “Special reports on Selected Industries; Lumber.” https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/decennial/1900/volume-9/volume-9-p9.pdf

[7] United States Forest Service. “The Lumber Cut of the United States. 1907.” Government Printing Office. 1908. p. 7.

[8] “The Age of Steel.” American Heritage Magazine. Vol 52, no. 1 (2001):1. https://www.americanheritage.com/age-steel.

[9] Ibid

[10] American Heritage Magazine. “The Age of Steel.” Vol 52, no. 1 (2001):1. https://www.americanheritage.com/age-steel.

[11] “A Brief History of the American Steel Industry.” National Material Company Brochure https://www.nationalmaterial.com/brief-history-american-steel-industry

[12] United States Forest Service. “The Lumber Cut of the United States. 1907.” Government Printing Office. 1908. p. 7.

[13] American Heritage Magazine. “The Age of Steel.” Vol 52, no. 1 (2001):1. https://www.americanheritage.com/age-steel.

[14] “Morgan Assembles the World's Largest Corporation,” EBSCO https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/history/morgan-assembles-worlds-largest-corporation

[15] Andrew Popp and Susanna Fellman.” Writing business history: Creating narratives”. Business History, 59 no. 8 (2016): 1242–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/00076791.2016.1250742

[16] David A. Freedman, “Statistical Models and Shoe Leather.” Sociological Methodology 21 (1991): 291–313.