1988 MANUSCRIPT AWARD
Jan Richard Heier AUBURN UNIVERSITY AT MONTGOMERY

A CONTENT COMPARISON OF ANTEBELLUM PLANTATION RECORDS AND THOMAS AFFLECK’S ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLES

Abstract: During the antebellum period of United States history, the southern states generated an unprecedented amount of wealth through a well developed plantation system that produced vast quantities of cotton, sugar, and tobacco. To date, very little has been written on the methods used by the planters to account for this wealth. This paper reviews plantation accounting methods as outlined by the southern agricultural reformer Thomas Affleck in his book The Cotton Plantation Record and Account Book. The paper also presents a statistical study of surviving plantation records which determined that these very unique and sophisticated procedures of Affleck’s became widely used among planters.

INTRODUCTION AND HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

The decades 1820 to 1860 represented a period in United States history that was marked by economic growth amid growing sectional strife between the northern and southern states. During this period of time the North was growing into an urban and industrialized power with its textile and iron industries. This economic prosperity was matched in kind by the southern states which grew vast quantities of cotton, sugar and tobacco on a well developed plantation system manned by black slaves. These commodities grown by the southern states made up an average of eighty percent of all value exported from the United States. In 1860, cotton exports alone reached $192 million, or approximately sixty percent of all exports [derived from: U.S. Census Bureau 1970]. The cotton production from the southern plantations literally ran the textile mills of Great Britain and New England. “Cotton was King,” and was generating vast amounts of wealth for the antebellum plantaion owners of the southern United States.

Accounting for the wealth generated by the plantation system has been the subject of all to few studies performed by accounting historians. Major studies of accounting practices during this period include a review of records from a rice plantation in Georgia [Cooper, 1983], and a study of accounting practices on a sugar plantation in Louisiana [Razek 1985]. In addition, studies have been performed to determine the profitability of plantation slavery using plantation records as a basis for developing economic models for the antebellum South [Conrad and Meyer 1964; Fogel and Engerman 1974]. An article about human resource accounting in an antebellum Mississippi lumber mill detailed the problems of researching southern accounting methods:

Many peole tend to forget that the deep South was quite highly developed commercially prior to the Civil War [and] boasted of huge plantations . . . Because of the size and the scope of southern businesses, it is necessary that a sophisticated accounting system be utilized. To date [1981], these accounting records have largely been overlooked by accounting historians. The period of reconstruction following the [Civil War] resulted in a lagging economy throughout the South . . . For this reason, accounting in the antebellum south has been relatively ignored [Flescher and Flescher, 1981, p. 124].

The authors’ reasons for a lack of study into antebellum accounting methods are quite sound from an historical perspective. However, from a more practical standpoint, an accounting historian may see this historical period and geo-graphic region yielding only minimal research value. Such a view comes from the erroneous perception (which is disputed in the above quote) that the Southern plantations were crude business operations and probably did little record keeping. Antebellum writers such as Thomas Affleck also questioned whether the plantations were practicing proper record keeping procedures. Affleck voices this concern in an article about the necessity of buying his Plantation Record and Account Book:

. . . many planters go from year to year without keeping any records of their business [and be satis-fied] if there is enough left over to pay taxes, overseer wages . . . and a few hundred to meet expenses in New Orleans at Christmas . . . This is a true picture of the system pursued by too many who [do not] keep any records of their business . . . Under such neglect of all management, no business can possibly survive [Affleck, 1851b, p. 79].

Though the picture of accounting development in the south appears bleak, there are indications (by the author himself) that his account book became extensively used. In an advertisement run by Affleck in an 1852 issue of DeBow’s Review the author noted he had exhausted the first editions of the book and had many unfilled orders [DeBow, 1852, p. 114]. Even if Affleck’s claims of widespread usage of his book turn out to be exaggerated, the question remains as to how he developed the accounting procedures published in this manual, and were these procedures used uniformly throughout the plantation system? The remainder of this paper will attempt to answer these questions.

ABOUT THOMAS AFFLECK

Thomas Affleck was a noted southern agriculture reformer and writer who was born in Scotland and immigrated to the United States in 1832. He originially settled in the Cincinnati, Ohio area. In 1841 he moved to Mississippi to promote a new breed of hog. After meeting and marrying a local woman, Affleck settled on a plantation outside of Natchez, Mississippi which he named Engleside and where he lived until his death in 1876 [from Scarborough, 1973, pp. 310-351]. As a plantation owner, the author became concerned about the health of the Southern plantation system in terms of proper soil management. His books on soil conservation and horticulture management included The Western Farmer and Gardener and Affleck’s Southern Rural Almanac and Plantation and Garden Calendar.
Through the almanac, Affleck voiced his fears of an ag-ricultural tragedy due to the South’s heavy reliance on its three main crops: cotton, sugar, and tobacco; crops which wasted the land and decreased its value. Affleck also felt that the planta-tion business itself was being mismanaged through its reliance on cotton factors who acted as sales agents for marketing the cotton crop for the planters. These same factors often acted as suppliers to the plantations using crop proceeds to pay off related bills. This practice often left the planter in debt to the factor. Affleck also was concerned about the plantation overseer or manager who had a reputation for cruel treatment of the plantation slaves. In an effort to improve these management techniques and many others, Affleck published his first edition of The Cotton Plantation Record and Account Book. The preface of the book noted that its purpose was to provide, “a uniform system of plantation management and discipline [that would] contribute to successful and profitable planting, and to health, comfort, and happiness of Negroes [Affleck, 1851a, Preface].”

A REVIEW OF THE PLANTATION RECORD AND ACCOUNT BOOK

Affleck’s Cotton Plantation Record and Account Book, which was first published around 1850, was made up of ruled folio that was divided into fifteen types of records of pages A through P. The record keeping was to be completed by either the owner of the plantation or his overseer. The fifteen areas could be placed into four general categories dealing with a Daily Diary, Cotton Record Keeping, Overseer’s Record Keeping Responsibilities and Slave Accounting, and the Valuation of Property and Income Determination. The first page of the record book provided a set of directions and explanations about the book and how it was to be used.

Daily Diary

Textbooks on accounting from the period 1800 to 1865 began the accounting cycle with a daybook or daily log of financial transactions. The use of such a daybook specifically for farming was noted in a book on farm accounting published in England in 1851. This book directed that all cash transactions, receipts and payments, and other daily events of the farm be put in the day book for future entry in ledger [Farm Bookkeeping, 1851, pp. 15-18].

A daily record or log was also required by Affleck for plantation operations. Affleck’s daily log, though, did not focus on financial matters but rather documented daily events of the plantation such as weather conditions, crop progress, and work by the field hands. Such information was entered on the pages entitled: A DAILY RECORD OF PASSING EVENTS. The na-ture of the plantation business usually made daily financial record keeping unnecessary because the majority of transactions were completed only once a year when the crop was sold and the bills that had accumulated over the previous year were paid. This practice was noted in Colt’s 1838 book The Science of Double Entry Accounting. The example showed a ledger account for the Simmons’ Plantation where proceeds from the sale of the cotton crop were used to offset the plantation’s bills payable [Colt, 1838, p. 68]. Accounting on a daily basis would be required if the plantation had a business that operated throughout the year such as a lumber mill or grist mill.

To supplement the financial reporting of the plantation, Affleck did include a Page N which was entitled THE PLANTER’S STATEMENT OF THE EXPENSES OF [The] PLANTATION. One such entry that appears on this statement was the overseer’s wages. The Wade Plantation Papers from Mississippi provide an excellent example of such an accounting from the year 1861 [Wade, no page #]:

for overseer’s wages 1861, $400
By amount paid 9.13 paid Conrad and Cooking 4.90
money loaned 5.00 he gave me (Wade) 9.73
borrowed to pay sack .50 Paid to Bennet 385.37
paid Williamson’s note 336.00
cash paid 51.37
400.00 400.00
Note: Errors in addition are from the original manuscript.

Cotton Record Keeping

The primary record keeping for the plantation began with the cotton crop. In the daily log, there was a section for keeping records of the amount of cotton gathered on a daily basis per field hand and for each field. The amounts were usually noted in pounds. An example of record keeping procedures discussed by Affleck for harvesting cotton was found in an entry in the Doro Plantation Records from Mississippi [Doro, 1861, p. 68]:

DAILY RECORD OF COTTON PICKED during the week commencing 28 day of Oct. 1861

Name No. Mon. Tues. Wed. Thurs. Fri. Sat. Week
Lewis 41 255 245 265 266 270 1296
Tad 42 56 45 66 60 67 288
Levy 43 105 100 115 105 100 526

Note: Errors in addition are from the original manuscript.

The accounting of the crop yields and land usage was stressed in a book published in England in the 1850s entitled Statistical Bookkeeping. The records discussed in this book had a managerial accounting nature and were designed to show the comparative productivity of the land and field hands over a period of years [Krepp, 1858, pp. 167-168].

After harvesting the crop, the cotton was sent to the gin house where the seeds were removed and the cotton lint was baled, with each bale weighing between 400 and 500 pounds.

The Affleck record book required a strict accounting and number of the bales with the weights properly recorded before shipping. The accounting for the cotton crop was done on page H of the book which was titled THE AMOUNT OF THE WEIGHT OF EACH BALE OF COTTON MADE. The corresponding sale of the crop was accounted for on page M of the book which was entitled THE PLANTER’S RECORD OF SALES OF COTTON. The Dent Journals provided an example of a typical cotton transaction during the 1840s [Dent Journals, VOL. I, p. 37]:

Sales of 20 bales of cotton by Dodge Kolb and McKay for the account of J.H. Dent: Bale number and weight

#27 514 #42 468 #29 540 #14 420 #24 406
#43 470 #22 518 #44 498 #15 495 #25 527
#17 528 #28 539 #23 505 #26 560 #19 500
#21 518 #18 519 #20 500 #16 485 #40 454
9925 – 40 = 9888 lbs at 77/8 cts/lb 778.68
Note: Errors in addition are from the original manuscript.
Freight $2 a bale $40.00
Wharfage $1.25 weighing $2 3.25
Labor removing on wharf 2.00
Commission for selling 50 cts a bale 10.00 55,25
723.43 Dodge, Kolb, and McKay per L. Emmons, Apalachicola, Fla.
Storage pdf Rives for 18 bales $ 4.00
Dray age pd Gurkey 20 bales 2.50
Wharfage a 8 cts 1.60 8.10
Net Proceeds $715.33

Note: The Dent Journals did not use the Affleck manual, however the procedures in the entry were typical of Affleck’s requirements.

Affleck noted on his instruction page that an accurate accounting of both the amounts of cotton picked and the dates of heavy harvesting activity would help the planning of cotton shipments to major port cities such as New Orleans, Louisiana and Mobile, Alabama so that problems with storage and ship-ping dates would be minimized. An accurate record of the bale weights also helped to keep the factor “Honest” and allowed for a true reconciliation of the factor’s charges, (both commissions and sales of provisions), with revenue earned from the crop. Affleck did not much like the factorage system, however, in an article that was published in a later edition of his almanac he indicated his record book had received high praise from “factors for his efforts to make accounting more uniform [Affleck, 1860, pp 2-10]. The structure record book page relating to cotton sales shows the influence of the factorage system on crop accounting practices by requiring the weight of the cotton sold, to whom it was sold, price per pound and charges.

Overseer’s Record Keeping Responsibilities and Slave Accounting

The Affleck record book required an inventory of the plantation owner’s stock (both farm implements and livestock) to be performed on a quarterly basis by the overseer in order to, according to the author, act as, “the overseer’s receipts for property placed in his charge [Affleck, 1851, p.l].” Affleck stated that in his instructions published with the book: “Much vexation and loss will be spared the non-resident planter, and very often the undeserved blame to the overseer, if the correct keeping of these inventories is enforced.” The overseer, however, only made a count of the property and left any valuation to the owner. This inventory count was enumerated by the overseer and entered on the QUARTERLY INVENTORY OF STOCK AND IMPLEMENTS.

In addition to the inventories, the overseer was then required to keep proper records for Negro slaves. The overseer had a three-fold duty with regards to record keeping for the plantation slaves. First, the overseer needed to keep account of the provisions delivered to him for the plantation. He was instructed to date all deliveries and match the contents of the shipment with the bill of lading. This was accomplished on page E: THE OVERSEER’S ENTRY OF RECEIPT FOR SUPPLIES UPON THE PLANTATION. Secondly, there was an accounting for all of the provisions that were distributed to the Negroes. These distributions were recorded on Page D of the record book, RECORD OF CLOTHING AND TOOLS GIVEN OUT TO NEGROES UPON PLANTATION. These records provided the planter with a receipt for the goods to verify the faithfulness of the overseer. An example of the distribution of clothing to slaves comes from the Dent Journals from about 1845 [Dent Journals, VOL. I, p. 11]:

Nov. 27 cloth 3 yds each to all women Israel Paul and Sam jute suits jackets to Zack and Nat
Dec. 18 To the Men as follows: of Kensey’s (the overseer) purchase of L.L. Wackley (store keeper) as 40cts per yd.
John 6 Alfred 6 …. Bob 5% Jamy 5%

Women’s twilled cotton 25 cts per yd Betty 3V2 Rachel 21/2

The final record keeping responsibility for the plantation overseer focused on the health and well being of the plantation’s slave population. Problems with the slaves behavior were noted in the daily log, with any entries about the status of the slave population made on Page F: OVERSEER’S RECORD OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS OF [THE] NEGROES. An 1859 entry in the Newstead Plantation Record Book probably was typical, and showed quite graphically the problem of infant mortality on the plantation [Newstead, 1861, p. 134]:

Mother’s NameDate Name Name Date Disease

Male Female
Ely Aug 3 Died Elvira Sept 12
Litty Gum May Liz Litty’s child
Molly Aug 16 Died Molly’s twins Jaundice
Big Lizzy Jan 24 Joshua Rose Oct 7 Congestion

In addition to recording births and deaths, Page G of the account book was used to record PHYSICIAN’S VISITS, which the owner used to note whether the overseer was concerned for the health of the slaves. With such a large amount of capital tied up in slave ownership, it was very important for the owner to keep his wards healthy in order to protect his investment.

Valuation of Property and Income Determination

Though the overseer had primary responsibility of the plantation’s day to day record keeping, the planter was to take the responsibility of performing a full inventory and valuation of the Negroes that he owned at the end of the year. The inventory was entered on Page I, THE PLANTER’S ANNUAL RECORD OF HIS NEGROES. The annual inventory and valua-tion process was also completed for land livestock and farm implements on Page J, THE PLANTER’S ANNUAL RECORD OF [LIVE] STOCK and Page K; THE PLANTER’S INVEN-TORY OF IMPLEMENTS AND TOOLS. The beginning and ending values for slaves, livestock and implements were then entered into the PLANTER’S ANNUAL BALANCE SHEET (shown in Exhibit 1) to determine the capital investment of the plantation.

The PLANTER’S ANNUAL BALANCE SHEET represented an inventory of the business’s assets with adjustments for

PAGE O

PAGE P

DR

SHOWING THE RESULTS OF THE SEASON’S OPERATIONS: THE LOSS

Record Book Page

OR PROFIT UPON THE CROP OF THE PLANTATION AT THE CLOSE OF 185

CR
Record Book Page

TO Acres of land, with improvements, forming BY Acres of Land, with improvements
the plantation at $ per acre forming plantation at $
per acre
Interest on same at 6%
TO Negroes as per Inventory I BY Negroes as per Inventory at
close of year I
Interest on same at 6%
TO Stock purchased during the year J BY Stock sold during the year as per J
TO Implements and Utensils as per Inventory K BY Stock on hand at close of the
year as per J
Interest on same at 6% BY Implements and Utensils on
hand at close of the year as per K
TO Implements and Utensils purchased
during the year as per K BY Produce of the Plantation sold
as per L
TO Produce on hand at the commencement of
year as per L BY Produce of the plantation on hand L
at the close of the year
TO Plantation expenses per statement N

current transactions and valuations. The purpose of the state-ment was to determine the profitability of the plantation. The methodology presented by Affleck was similar to the inventory method of income determination as discussed by Brief in his study on nineteenth century capital accounting. According to this methodology, profit was determined by the change in net capital of the business defined as asset value minus liabilities, with adjustments for appreciation, depreciation and related income from business operations [Brief, 1976, p. 35].

Affleck also determined profits of the plantation using the changes in the asset’s total cash value. However, Affleck had any adjustments for revenue and expenses taken directly into the valuation process on the PLANTER’S ANNUAL BALANCE SHEET rather than an adjustment to a Net worth account as modern accounting rules prescribe. Finally, the author excluded the plantation’s liabilities from the valuation process. Affleck states his position on this matter as follows:
Planters will generally keep private statements of their accounts, their liabilities, the expenses of their families, and so no, which would, moreover, be entirely out of place here [Affleck, 1851a, p.l].

The non-recognition of liabilities causes problems with Affleck’s methodology because a true picture of the business’s net asset value is never shown. With this problem noted, Affleck determined the plantation’s profit by comparing the value at the beginning of the year with the value at year end. If the right side (Credit) is greater than the left (Debit) the plantation had a profit and of course the opposite case produced a loss.

The use of current cash values to account for assets and corresponding plantation income may have its origins in the property tax laws enacted in Alabama and Mississippi during the 1850s. To finance state government, both Alabama and Mississippi instituted an AD VALOREM property tax which was based on the estimated value of both real and personal property. For example, land was taxed at a rate of sixteen cents on every one hundred dollars of assessed value [Mississippi Code of 1857, Chap. 3, Section III, Article 10]. Alabama had similar laws during this period which included both assessed value and rate structrue for the amount of slaves held in each age category [Code of Alabama 1852, Chap. 3, Article II, Para. 391, Sec. 7].

According to the tax laws of Mississippi, the taxpayer was required to deliver a list of taxable property with corresponding values to the county assessor between May and September. The code went on to state that:

Lands shall be assessed once every four years, ac-cording to the intrinsic value, to be judged by the owner … on oath, taking into consideration the improvements, also the proximity to any town, city, village, or road, and any other circumstance that may tend to enhance the value [Mississippi Code 1857, Chap. 3, Section V, Art. 18].

The Code of Mississippi clearly indicated that it was the property owner’s responsibility to inventory and value the assets in his possession. The systematic fashion in which Affleck gathered all the assets on an annual basis for purposes of valuation gave the plantation owner legitimate records from which to determine his tax liability. The accounting methodology implied by the tax codes from the antebellum period seems to diminish the need for the planter to determine income on a revenue less expense basis, thus leading to the development of Affleck’s CURRENT VALUE or CAPITAL ACCOUNTING system. An example of such a tax inventory comes from the Whitmore Family papers [Whitmore, no page #].

July 15, 1850 gave a list of taxes to J.B. Miggintous (county tax collector)
Land 1000 acres at $2.00/ac $2000.00
Carriage 50.00
Watch 25.00
Clock 25.00
Cattle 21, Slaves 7, male Polls 1, male white child 2
Bales of Cotton 85 in 1849
State tax on land Vs of 1% (of value) 5.00
County tax on land Vs of 14% 2.00
Carriage 14 of 1% .25
Watch 14 of 1% 1214 cts
Clock 14 of 1% .02
21 head of cattle 14 cts each 1014 cts
74 slaves 30 cts each 22.50
1 Poll .25
Total state taxes 27.95
County Tax 14 of state 13.9714
Bridge Tax 50% of state 13.9714

The structure of the PLANTER’S ANNUAL BALANCE SHEET developed by Affleck showed two unique concepts dealing with income recognition. First is an apparent assump-tion made by Affleck about change in the value of assets on the plantation during the course of the year. With no direct recog-nition of plantation net profit (revenue less expenses) in his income determination methods, the author appears to make an assumption that all of the value of the assets at the beginning of the year is used up and all new assets are “purchased” with the proceeds of their usage thus arriving at the value for the end of the year. This concept is shown when Affleck denotes the value at the beginning of the year (the debits) as a loss to the plantation and the ending year’s value (the credits) as the plantation’s profit. In addition, the Planter’s Balance Sheet also clouds the distinction between revenue and capital (asset value) by showing both the inventory of cotton on hand at year end and the annual sales of cotton as direct influences on profitability.

The second unique practice was the addition of capital usage as an expense, or more closely the booking of opportunity costs for the beginning value of land, slaves or farm implements. Affleck states:

The plantation is justifiably chargeable with its own fair cash value at the commencement of the year, and with one year’s interest on the same. No course of farming can be profitable which will not pay a fair value of interest upon the value of land [or other fixed assets] employed [Affleck, 1851a, p.l].
The plantation owner is basically paying himself a fixed return before he finds out how much profit is made from the sale of the cotton. This same practice was outlined by Syndor in his book Slavery in Mississippi. [Syndor, 1965, pp. 196-197]. In the example presented by Syndor, the opportunity cost was used as a direct expense against the plantation’s revenue, whereas Affleck more or less took them as a reduction in capital value at the beginning of the year. This is similar to a modern concept of depreciation but represents an adjustment in value used rather than an expense matched with a revenue. An English text on farm bookkeeping gave a more theoretical view of the practice. Accoring to this book the farmer:

was entitled to interest on his capital . . . being part of his property that could have been employed elsewhere . . . [for example] . . . the interest on [total capital] should be stated at 5% to defray uses, and one half should be charged with 10% to repay wear and tear on the livestock [valued at the beginning of the year] . . . [Farm Bookkeeping, 1851, p. 31].

This practice was also noted in an agricultural bookkeeping text that was published in the United States in the following excerpt:

Property Accounts are debited with their value and interest, and credited with what they produce. As money invested in property would yield interest if loaned, these accounts are justly charged with it, and no strict calculation of profit or loss arising from the use of the property can otherwise be made . . . the profit is merely the result of these operations, after the farmer has realized a fair percentage on his investment, and the usual rate of wages for his labor, and labor of his family [Cochran, 1858, pp. 40-41],

These two quotes show that Affleck’s accounting proce-dures regarding revenue and expense determination may have had their origins in the accounting literature published in the 1840s and 1850s on the subject of agricultural accounting practices. He stated in the 1853 edition of his almanac that farm accounts similar to those outlined in his book had been in general use in Great Britain for a number of years [Affleck, 1853, p. 62]. In addition, the Balance Sheet concept did show that Affleck had a rudimentary understanding of double entry bookkeeping with expense items as a debit and revenue items as a credit. This double entry concept did not however imply a general system of integrated accounts. Strictly speaking his accounting system was primarily a set of single entry enumerations.
As the previous discussion indicated, Thomas Affleck’s ac-counting procedures for southern cotton plantations have a variety of conceptual flaws relative to modern accounting prinicples. However, even with these flaws taken into account, Affleck’s The Cotton Plantation Record and Account Book provides a unique view of accounting practices and plantation management methods that could have been in widespread use throughout the southern cotton districts just prior to the Civil War. Thus the question remains: Did the plantations use this system of accounting as outlined by Thomas Affleck?

USAGE OF THOMAS AFFLECK’S ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLES

Thomas Affleck published Affleck’s Southern Rural Almanac From 1850 through the Civil War years. In these volumes, the author advertised his record and account book in the following fashion:

These works have been in the hands of the most experienced and methodical planters of the South-west, for several years. The demand has been stead-ily on the increase, exhausting the first two editions and leaving large orders unfilled [Affleck, 1851b, p. 1].

The amount of demand noted by the author may be exagerated because a sample of fifty-two sets of plantation record manu-scripts revealed only the following six examples of his book in use:

Elley Plantation Account Book Hinds County, MS
Clark Family Papers Whalack, MS
Helms Plantation Record Book
Panther Burn Plantaion Account BK Vicksburg, MS
Newstead Plantation Book Washington County, MS
Phanor Prudhome Papers Natchitoches, LA

All six of the plantations listed were in the Natchez, Mis-sissippi area, where Affleck had a plantation. This lends more evidence to the theory that the book did not receive widespread distribution among plantation owners. Even though the usage level of Affleck’s book may not match the author’s claims, there is strong evidence that the usage of the principles outlined in the book represented standard accounting practices for plantations in Alabama and Mississippi. Such evidence comes from a study of fifty-two plantation manuscripts that were housed in archives in Mississippi and Alabama.

The Methodology of the Study

The general methodology for the study of these records is related to the concept of CONTENT ANALYSIS. According to one author, the purpose of content analysis is to, “illustrate the ways in which an individual [or] organization participates in the process of social change [Neimark, 1983, p. 19].” In the case of this study, the plantation records were reviewed and tested to determine if they contained evidence that Thomas Affleck’s accounting principles influenced the way plantation owners kept their business records.

The study was completed in three phases. First, eight accounting procedures were synthesized from Affleck’s record book for testing among the fifty-two manuscripts. The eight were as follows:
Procedure

A — Annual Physical Inventory of Possessions Procedure
B — Annual Inventory of Slaves Procedure
C — Record Keeping For Slave Expenses

Procedure

D — Record Keeping for Other Plantation Expenses Procedure
E — Accounting for Cotton Production Procedure
F — Annual Financial Presentation Procedure
G — Accounting for Assets at Cash Value Procedure
H — Daily Log of Plantation Operations

Next the manuscripts were reviewed and data collected to determine if a given procedure from the Affleck manual had been used by the individual planter. If the procedure was noted in the manuscript, a one was entered for data collection. On the other hand, if the procedure was not found in the manuscript, a zero was entered.

The last phase of the study was to test the Affleck Proce-dures statistically for usage among the plantation manuscripts. The study used a Proportions Test to analyze the data. Such a test analyzes the proportion of positive responses in a popula-tion, and is similar in nature to a political poll. Exhibit 2 shows the results of the study by indicating the proportion of usage found for each procedure, the calculated Z-Score of each pro-cedure, and whether or not the null hypothesis that 50 percent or more of the plantations used the Affleck’s Procedures could be accepted.

The Findings of the Study

The analysis of the data indicates that the Affleck planta-tion record keeping procedures were found in at least fifty percent of the sample of plantation records reviewed for the study. Record keeping for Slave Expenses, Plantation Expenses, and Cotton Accounting were the most widely used procedures found in the manuscripts. On a statistical basis, this data translates into evidence that these procedures represented a more or less uniform accounting system that was employed by antebellum cotton plantations in Alabama and Mississippi during the period from about 1825 through 1865. In each case the Z-Score calculated from the proportion of usage exceeds the Critical Z-Score (derived from a normal curve table) at all levels of significance, thus there is a failure to reject the null hypothesis that 50 percent or more of these antebellum plantations used the Affleck plantation record keeping procedures. To preface this statement, the sample of fifty-two manuscripts was assumed to be a random sample of the plantations that existed in Alabama and Mississippi during the antebellum period. In actuality, the sample represents nearly one hundred percent of the plantation records from

AN ANALYSIS OF THE PROPORTION OF AFFLECK’S PROCEDURES CONTAINED IN THE MANUSCRIPT SAMPLE
ACCOUNTING PROCEDURE B

27 52
30 52
38 52
THE NUMBER THAT USED THE ATTRIBUTE THE NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS THE PROPORTION OF USAGE CALCULATED Z-SCORE
SIGNIFICANCE LEVEL .10
CRITICAL Z = -1.2850
SIGNIFICANCE LEVEL .05
CRITICAL Z = -1.6450
SIGNIFICANCE LEVEL .01
CRITICAL Z = -2.3300

34 24 26 31
52 52 52 52
538 4615 .5000 .5962
19 -.555 .0000 1.387
42 52
.5192 .5769 .7308 .8077
.127 1.109 3.328 4.438 2.219
ACCEPT ACCEPT ACCEPT ACCEPT ACCEPT ACCEPT ACCEPT ACCEPT
ACCEPT ACCEPT ACCEPT ACCEPT ACCEPT ACCEPT ACCEPT ACCEPT
ACCEPT ACCEPT ACCEPT ACCEPT ACCEPT ACCEPT ACCEPT ACCEPT

Legend:

Procedure A Procedure B Procedure C R Procedure D Procedure E Procedure F Procedure G Procedure H

Annual Physical Inventory of Possessions
Annual Inventory of Slaves
Record Keeping For Slave Expenses
Record Keeping for Other Plantation Expenses
Accounting for Cotton Production
Annual Financial Presentation
Accounting for Assets at Cash Value
Daily Log of Plantation Operations

Note: The plantation manuscripts used in the study are listed at the end of this paper in Appendix A.

The conclusions of the quantitative portion of the study also show that Affleck was not the individual that developed the plantation accounting system but rather synthesized practices that had developed over twenty-five or so years and made them more uniform. This conclusion was arrived at when Affleck’s practices were noted in manuscript that were dated well before the first edition of the book in 1850. The earliest examples of these procedures were found in the Anonymous Plantation Diary dated at about 1828 and the Dent Journals which mirrored Affleck’s practices during the 1830s and 1840s.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

A review of Thomas Affleck’s Cotton Plantation Record and Account Book was the focus of the study discussed in this paper. This book was used to explain proper record keeping procedures of an antebellum cotton plantation, and what the origins of these procedures may have been. The study revealed that the procedures discussed in the book were a consolidation of those procedures that had been developed by cotton planters over a period of twenty-five to thirty years prior to the book’s publication, especially the practices dealing with cotton crop accounting and record keeping for slaves.
Affleck’s procedures also had external sources from which they may have developed. The review of Affleck’s book indi-cated the tax laws of Mississippi during this period were the catalyst that helped develop Affleck’s cash value accounting. In addition, farm accounting texts published in England and the United States during the 1840s and 1850s may have been the origin for the PLANTER’S ANNUAL BALANCE SHEET and the practice of booking opportunity costs to derive the income of the plantation.

Finally, the data collected from the manuscript study showed statistically that the accounting system discussed by Affleck reflected procedures that were standard throughout Alabama and Mississippi during the antebellum period, and possibly standard throughout the cotton growing districts of the southern states. The use of statistical analysis to test Affleck’s practices for usage among antebellum plantations also shows that such methodology is viable and brings to the study of accounting history a new tool for determining if practices were isolated to one set of account books or were, in general, accepted by the business community.

REFERENCES

Affleck, Thomas. The Cotton Plantation Record and Account Book. New Orleans:
Weld and Company, 1851.
. Southern Rural Almanac and Plantation and Garden Calendar for
1851. New Orleans: Picayune, 1851.
. Southern Rural Almanac and Plantation and Garden Calendar for
1853. New Orleans: Picayune, 1853.
. Southern Rural Almanac and Plantation and Garden Calender for
1860. New York: David Felt and H.G. Stetson and Co., 1860.
Alabama, State of. The Code of Alabama. Prepared by J.S. Ormond, A.P. Bagby. Montgomery, AL: Brittan & DeWolf, State Printers, 1852.
An Improved System of Farm Bookkeeping. London: Longman, Brown et al. 1851.
Brief, Richard P. Nineteenth Century Capital Accounting and Business Investment. New York University Ph.D Dissertation, May 1964. Reprinted by Arno Press, New York, 1976.
Cochran, William. D. Agricultural Bookkeeping . . . Keeping Farm Accounts. Detroit, Michigan: Daily Advertiser Steam Presses, 1858.
Conrad, Alfred. H. and Meyer, John R. Studies in Economic History (Chapman and Hall, Ltd, 1964).
Cooper, William. “The Manigault Plantation Records 1833 to 1889,” Proceedings of the 1983 Southeast American Accounting Association Meetings. Virginia Beach, Virginia (SEAAA, 1983).
Colt, John. C. The Science of Double Entry Bookkeeping. Cincinnati: N.G. Burgess and Co., 1838.
DeBow, J.D.D. editor. DeBow’s Review of the Southern and Western States. Vol. 1 (1852) P. 114.
“Dent Journals”. Microfilm collection of the Chattahochee Commission, Auburn University at Montgomery Library. Montgomery, Alabama.
“Doro Plantation Book”. Clark Family Papers, Manuscript Collection at the Mississippi Department of Archives and History, Jackson, Mississippi.
Flescher, Dale L., and Flescher, Tonya K. “Human Resource Accounting in Mississippi Before 1865.” Journal of Accounting and Business Research 10 (Supplement 1981): 124-129.
Fogel, Robert W., and Engerman, Stanley L. Time on the Cross: The Economics of American Negro Slavery. New York: Little Brown and Co., 1974.
Krepp, Frederick. C. Statistical Bookkeeping. London: Longman, Brown, 1858.
Mississippi, State of. The Revised Code and Statutes of the State of Mississippi, (Mississippi Code of 1857. Jackson, Mississippi: E. Barksdale, State Printer, 1857.
Neimark, Marilyn. “How to use Content Analysis in Historical Research.” The Accounting Historians Notebook 6. (Fall, 1983): 1.
“Newstead Plantation Papers.” Manuscript Collection at the Southern Collection, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Razek, Joseph. R., “Accounting on the Old Plantation,” Accounting Historians Journal 12 (Spring 1985): 19-36.
Scarborough, William. K. “Heartland of the Cotton Kingdom. Presented in: A History of Mississippi, Vol. 1. Edited by R.A. McLemore, Hattiesburg, Mississippi: University and College Press of Mississippi.
Syndor, Charles. S. Slavery in Mississippi. Gloucester, Massachusetts: Peter Smith.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. Historical Statistics of the United States from Colonial Times to 1970. Bicentennial Edition, Parts One and Two. Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1975.
U.S. Census Office 1864. Eighth Census, 1860: Agriculture in the United States in 1860, Vol. 2. Washington D.C.: GPO, 1864.
“Wade Plantation Papers” Manuscript at the Mississippi Department of Archives and History. Jackson, Mississippi.
“Whitmore Plantation Collection.” Southern Collection, University of North Carolina. Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
OTHER MANUSCRIPTS REFERRED TO
Mississippi Department of Archives and History
Anonymous Plantation Diary
Elley Plantation Account Book
Helms Plantation Account Book
Panther Burn Plantation Account Books Southern Collection University of North Carolina Phanor Prudhome Papers

APPENDIX A

Manuscript Collections Used to Test Affleck’s Principles Among Antebellum Alabama and Mississippi Plantations

Manuscript Place Dates County
Name Collected From – To Or City
Boiling Hall Papers ALARC 1796-1898 Montgomery AL
Chappel Plantation Diary ALARC 1860-1862 Lowndes Cty AL
Edward Portis Collection ALARC 1850-1878 Gospt Landing
G.A.B. Plantation Diary ALARC 1835-1837 Dallas Cty AL
Jones Collection ALARC 1830-1866 Montgomery AL
McAlpine Collection ALARC 1938-1838 Greene AL
Pickens Plantation ALARC 1820-1833 Selma AL
James Mallory Plantation
Journal AU 1840-1880 Talladega AL
John Hory Dent Collection AU 1841-1865 Barbour Cty AL
Tait Collection AU 1835-1859 Wilcox Cty AL
Alexander Diary and Account
Ledger MISARC 1854-1877 Happy Hill AL
Allen Plantation Book MISARC 1860-1863 Warren MS
Anonymous Plantation Diary MISARC 1828-1832
Aventine Plantation Diary MISARC 1857-1859 Adams Cty MS
Birdsong Plantation Journal MISARC 1836-1859 Hinds Cty MS
Clark Papers MISARC 1855-1862 Whalak MS
Elley Plantation Account Book MISARC 1855-1856 Hinds Cty MS
Helms Plantation Record Book MISARC 1855-1855
Hill Plantation Journal MISARC 1851-1855 Jackson LA
Killona Plantation Diary MISARC 1836-1886 Holmes Cty MS
Nicholson Papers MISARC 1851-1887 Whalak AL
No Mistake Plantation MISARC 1850-1865 Yazoo Cty MS
Manuscript Place Dates County
Name Collected From – To Or City
Panther Burn Plantation
Account Bk MISARC 1859-1883 Vicksburg MS
Quipman Family Papers MISARC 1812-1860 Natchez MS
Roseland Plantation Records MISARC 1829-1865 Natchez MS
Unidentified Plantation Journal MISARC 1859-1860 Marshall MS
Wade Plantation Papers MISARC 1834-1854 Port Gibson MS
Wallace Plantation Account Book MISARC 1837-1843 Como MS
Billups Plantation Journal MSU 1847-1859 Lowndes Cty MS
Clark Family Papers MSU 1857-1886 Grenada MS
Darden Family Collection MSU 1849-1858 Fayette MS
Erwin Day Books MSU 1843-1854 Lowndes Cty MS
Hobbs Family Papers MSU 1835-1865 Hinds Cty MS
J.W. Rice Estate Books MSU 1852-1866 Oktibeha Cty MS
Neilson Family Papers MSU 1831-1854 Lowndes Cty MS
Rambo Family Papers MSU 1834-1866 Columbus MS
Ross Family Papers MSU 1843-1866 Claiborne MS
Rufus Ward Collection (Sykes) MSU 1837-1865 Lowndes Cty MS
Smith Oaks Collection MSU 1859-1860 Artesia, MS
Stone Plantation diary MSU 1848-1859 Meridian MS
Zenas Preston Plantation Book MSU 1850-1852 Natchez MS
Allen Family Papers UAL 1840-1865 Merengo Cty AL
Curtis Family Papers UAL 1840-1865 Merengo Cty AL
George Skinner Collection UAL 1829-1872 Gallian AL
Joshua Hill Foster Collection UAL 1854-1865 Tuscaloosa AL
Nelson Clayton Papers UAL 1854-1857 Lecal AL
Watkins Family Papers UAL 1827-1865 Merengo Cty AL
Flynn Plantation Book UNC 1840-1840 Adams Cty MS
Kelvin Grove Plantation Book UNC 1838-1857
Newstead Plantation Book UNC 1857-1859 Washington Cty
Phanor Prudhome Papers UNC 1861-1862 Natchitoches LA
Whitmore Collection UNC 1835-1862 Adams Cty MS

LEGEND:

ALARC = Alabama Department of Archives and History
AU = Auburn University Archives
MISARC = Mississippi Department of Archives and History
MSU = Mississippi State University Library — Special Collections
UAL = University of Alabama Library — Special Collections
UNC = University of North Carolina — Southern Collection