Social Insurance and Public Assistance

724 Series Bf28–33 Bf SOCIAL INSURANCE AND PUBLIC ASSISTANCE
TABLE Bf 28–33 Pauper support, by state: 1850–1870
Contributed by Stephen T. Ziliak
Average pauper support
Pauper support as a ratio to
income of common laborer
1850 1860 1870 1850 1860 1870
Bf28 Bf29 Bf30 Bf31 Bf32 Bf33
State Dollars Dollars Dollars Percent Percent Percent
United States 59 87 119 21.6 26.4 24.0
Alabama 56 87 119 25.7 29.1 31.6
Arkansas 103 94 139 44.2 29.1 32.2
California — 388 276 — 41.3 38.4
Colorado — — 601 — — 77.2
Connecticut 55 56 111 23.3 17.1 22.0
Delaware 65 51 91 26.7 18.8 18.8
District of Columbia — 89 94 — 28.6 —
Florida 15 43 67 4.7 11.9 18.0
Georgia 33 38 88 14.7 13.7 26.0
Illinois 104 106 235 53.9 32.4 47.2
Indiana 99 96 110 57.9 31.5 22.7
Iowa 122 123 205 47.3 39.9 39.0
Kansas — 20 138 — 5.3 23.7
Kentucky 74 80 90 34.4 26.5 20.8
Louisiana — 1 70 105 — 1 16.2 19.8
Maine 43 49 101 18.2 15.0 21.1
Maryland 36 104 101 16.7 39.8 21.1
Massachusetts 71 89 194 27.2 28.1 39.0
Michigan 66 80 132 32.2 24.8 27.0
Minnesota — — 69 — 46.1 12.7
Mississippi 71 89 120 24.1 22.7 26.6
Missouri 105 90 103 45.1 29.5 22.4
Montana — — 742 — — 39.8
Nebraska — — 2 121 — — 2 18.3
Nevada — — 439 — — 47.1
New Hampshire 72 67 110 36.7 22.9 27.2
New Jersey 59 71 119 29.2 21.3 23.3
New York 64 75 189 30.8 23.7 40.5
North Carolina 38 58 83 22.6 24.3 32.5
Ohio 57 — 3 154 32.8 — 3 30.9
Oregon — 526 306 — — 46.4
Pennsylvania 61 86 143 38.4 24.9 27.9
Rhode Island 66 70 154 29.5 21.4 33.0
South Carolina 40 45 109 19.5 17.6 34.7
Tennessee 53 69 75 29.4 26.4 20.9
Texas — 2 105 105 — 2 27.0 26.6
Utah — 344 122 — 57.0 —
Vermont 64 65 100 28.6 20.1 22.3
Virginia 34 46 92 16.8 18.3 29.3
Washington — 935 264 — 103.0 33.9
West Virginia — — 81 — — 20.5
Wisconsin 62 64 134 28.1 19.6 28.0
1 Aggregate expenditures greater than in 1860.
2 Fewer than 10 persons enumerated.
3 June 1 count above yearly total.
Source
Stanley Lebergott, The American Economy: Income, Wealth, and Want (Princeton
University Press, 1976), pp. 64–5. Notes on pp. 61–4. Data for daily wages
of common labor are taken from Lebergott, Manpower in Economic Growth
(McGraw-Hill, 1964), p. 541, and multiplied by 311 to give an annual rate
(Lebergott 1976, p. 63).
Documentation
The estimates for relief payments were computed from data in A Compendium
of the Ninth Census (U.S. Census Office, 1872, pp. 533–4). According to Lebergott,
“the estimates ...were computed . . . by dividing the count of paupers
as of June 1 into the ‘annual cost of support’ for an entire year. The June 1
count is probably below a yearly average so far as seasonality is concerned.
But the peak of immigrant flows in the spring would tend to bring it above average.
Because 40 percent of the June 1 count was in New York, Pennsylvania,
and Massachusetts – centers for immigrant arrival – the importance of this
latter factor is probably substantial. We therefore accept the June 1 count as
afair annual average” (Lebergott 1976, p. 61).
Lebergott’s data for New York State cannot be replicated with Hannon’s
county-level data from New York State. The reason for the discrepancy is
unresolved. L. Lynne Kiesling and Robert Margo have examined the census
manuscripts for the antebellum period, 1850 and 1860. They have found that
some of Lebergott’s other state totals cannot be replicated by aggregating
to the county-level data (L. Lynne Kiesling and Robert A. Margo, “Explaining
the Rise in Antebellum Pauperism, 1850–1860: New Evidence,” Quarterly
Review of Economics and Finance 37 (2) (1997): 405–17). Margo points out
(in correspondence to Ziliak) that the numerator (the pauper expenditures)
and the denominator (the average wage) of Lebergott’s “generosity” figure
are unweighted, even in cases where census agents performed the arithmetic
correctly. Margo suggests that it would be better to produce a generosity figure
built up from the county-level data, and then weighted by, for example,
the number of paupers in each county.