the clods to level the field, from a quarter to half an acre; trenching the drills, if on well prepared land, three quarters of an acre; sowing rice, from three to four half-acres; covering the drills, three quarters; the first hoeing, half an acre, or slightly less if the ground were lumpy and the drills hard to clear; second hoeing, half an acre, or slightly less or more according to the density of the grass; third hoeing with hand picking of the grass from the drills, twenty compasses; fourth hoeing, half an acre; reaping with the sickle, three quarters, or much less if the ground were new and cumbered or if the stalks were tangled; and threshing with the flail, six hundred sheaves for the men, five hundred for the women.[24] Much of the incidental work was also done by tasks, such as ditching, cutting cordwood, squaring timber, splitting rails, drawing staves and hoop poles, and making barrels.  The scale of the crop was commonly five acres of rice to each full hand, together with about half as much in provision crops for home consumption.

[Footnote 24:  Edmund Ruffin, Agricultural Survey of South Carolina (Columbia, 1843), p. 118.]

Under the task system, Olmsted wrote:  “most of the slaves work rapidly and well...Custom has settled the extent of the task, and it is difficult to increase it.  The driver who marks it out has to remain on the ground until it is finished, and has no interest in over-measuring it; and if it should be systematically increased very much there is the danger of a general stampede to the ’swamp’—­a danger a slave can always hold before his master’s cupidity...It is the driver’s duty to make the tasked hands do their work well.[25] If in their haste to finish it they neglect to do it properly he ‘sets them back,’ so that carelessness will hinder more than it hastens the completion of their tasks.”  But Olmsted’s view was for once rose colored.  A planter who lived in the regime wrote:  “The whole task system ... is one that I most unreservedly disapprove of, because it promotes idleness, and that is the parent of mischief."[26] Again the truth lies in the middle ground.  The virtue or vice of the system, as with the gang alternative, depended upon its use by a diligent master or its abuse by an excessive delegation of responsibility.

[Footnote 25:  Olmsted, Seaboard Slave States, pp. 435, 436.]

[Footnote 26:  J.A.  Turner, ed., Cotton Planter’s Manual, p. 34.]

That the tide when taken at the flood on the rice coast as elsewhere would lead to fortune is shown by the career of the greatest of all rice planters, Nathaniel Heyward.  At the time of his birth, in 1766, his father was a planter on an inland swamp near Port Royal.  Nathaniel himself after establishing a small plantation in his early manhood married Harriett Manigault, an heiress with some fifty thousand dollars.  With this, when both lands and slaves were cheap, Heyward bought a tide-land tract and erected four