Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
(snip) In the book he explains how the growth of the rice crops in the low country of South Carolina led to a need for more labor, as well as how the cotton gin's invention spread slavery because cotton could then be grown in places where before it was not possible to do so.
The South Carolina climate & soil was conducive to rice growing, but the original settlers didn't know how to take advantage of that. In fact, the slave traders catered to that situation by bringing in slaves from West African areas where they'd had experience growing rice (Sierra Leone area, esp). Those slaves brought a premium price for the Dutch traders, and was a thriving business for a long time before the colony even thought about independence. This was a cash crop, and South Carolina was among the wealthiest ... if not the richest ... of the colonies for a long time due to this product.
I don't follow your thinking that the cotton gin ... invented around 1800 ... spread slavery "because cotton could then be grown in places where before it was not possible to do so". The cotton gin did nothing to change how cotton was grown ... it simply made the task of separating the seeds from the fiber staple an easier, mechanized task. Instead of tedious hand labor producing a little amount of fiber per day, a cotton gin could crank out 50 lbs of cleaned cotton fiber every day. It was a tremendous labor saving device, and once the technique of making a gin was known, many copies (in violation of Whitney's patent) were homemade or manufactured by others. Whitney originally only leased his machines to cotton producers for a fee of 2/5 th's of the cotton produced by each machine, an expense that was considered exhorbitant by the cotton raisers ... and the incentive to replace his machines with ones they could build cheaply and operate for no big payment. Whitney ultimately only got about 1 year of patent protection for his invention, and by then ... there were lots of other machines in service.
The South Carolina climate & soil was conducive to rice growing, but the original settlers didn't know how to take advantage of that. In fact, the slave traders catered to that situation by bringing in slaves from West African areas where they'd had experience growing rice (Sierra Leone area, esp). Those slaves brought a premium price for the Dutch traders, and was a thriving business for a long time before the colony even thought about independence. This was a cash crop, and South Carolina was among the wealthiest ... if not the richest ... of the colonies for a long time due to this product.
I don't follow your thinking that the cotton gin ... invented around 1800 ... spread slavery "because cotton could then be grown in places where before it was not possible to do so". The cotton gin did nothing to change how cotton was grown ... it simply made the task of separating the seeds from the fiber staple an easier, mechanized task. Instead of tedious hand labor producing a little amount of fiber per day, a cotton gin could crank out 50 lbs of cleaned cotton fiber every day. It was a tremendous labor saving device, and once the technique of making a gin was known, many copies (in violation of Whitney's patent) were homemade or manufactured by others. Whitney originally only leased his machines to cotton producers for a fee of 2/5 th's of the cotton produced by each machine, an expense that was considered exhorbitant by the cotton raisers ... and the incentive to replace his machines with ones they could build cheaply and operate for no big payment. Whitney ultimately only got about 1 year of patent protection for his invention, and by then ... there were lots of other machines in service.
Not my thinking--Ball explains it in his book, which I don't have handy at the moment, so I'll try to explain from memory. It has to do with the TYPE of cotton that could be grown given the soil conditions and climate of certain areas. I think he used the terms "long-fiber" and "short-fiber".
One type was much easier than the other to separate the fiber from the seeds by hand but did not grow well everywhere. The separation of the seeds from the cotton fiber in the other type was so labor-intensive that it was not profitable to grow using only manual labor. The cotton gin, as you point out, mechanized the separation process, and therefore it became feasible to grow the short-fiber cotton in those areas where the long-fiber cotton grew poorly.
Not my thinking--Ball explains it in his book, which I don't have handy at the moment, so I'll try to explain from memory. It has to do with the TYPE of cotton that could be grown given the soil conditions and climate of certain areas. I think he used the terms "long-fiber" and "short-fiber".
One type was much easier than the other to separate the fiber from the seeds by hand but did not grow well everywhere. The separation of the seeds from the cotton fiber in the other type was so labor-intensive that it was not profitable to grow using only manual labor. The cotton gin, as you point out, mechanized the separation process, and therefore it became feasible to grow the short-fiber cotton in those areas where the long-fiber cotton grew poorly.
The assertion by Ball that the gin lead to increased slavery due to the larger growing area for inland grown short staple cotton vs long staple ("sea island") cotton has long been addressed by many others, in articles dating all the way back to agricultural analyses of the SC area published in the 1860's. At best, Ball's anecdotal assessment doesn't jibe with the overall SC slave population figures and dependency for it's ag export industry.
Essentially, SC was a long established slave owning area, with about 33% of the population being slaves as far back as the 1790's. That percentage of population didn't change by more than a percent or two through the 1860's, with some decades having a slightly lower percentage. The cotton gin was a substantial labor saving device, and given the cost of slave ownership ... was welcomed as a way to increase productivity without needing more laborers.
So Ball's premise that the cotton gin spawned a larger slave population is not well founded, in fact, it's well refuted. Slavery was well established by the 1770's colonial agriculture industry and would have remained so due to other agricultural demands ... such as the original indigo production of the area, or for other crops which the SC climate/soils were very productive. Some of those crops were replaced by cotton when the markets for them dissappeared ... like indigo for the English market after the War of 1812. The farmers of SC grew what they had to do to find cash crops to survive, and increased overhead expenses for more slaves wasn't a viable way to achieve profitability.
You can check out an analysis of the SC ag industry/slave ownership on the Economic History website. A more recent paper, citing many references from the time frame, was published by William H. Phillips, USC professor. "eh.net/encyclopedia/article/phillips.cottongin" addresses the slavery/ag production and links to the cotton gin impact on SC cotton growing/processing industry in detail.
Interesting to see that SC cotton production rose from 3,000 bales exported to over 3 million bales exported in just a few years after the cotton gin was introduced, without a corresponding increase in production labor slaves. The machinery simply made it more efficient to process a crop that would replace other, less economically efficient crops. Coincidental to the development of the gin was the mechanization of spinning the fiber into yarn and mills to weave that into fabric ... big customers for the SC product in America's North industrialized areas as well as the English market.
As for importing Old World forms of slavery into the Americas, one must not forget that until the 18th century or so, slavery was never associated with a specific color.
In fact the different European tribes, city-states & kingdoms would regularly enslave rival Europeans as well as their own people.
Other than indigenous American slaves, there were many European slaves as well before the use of African slaves became popular.
The vast majority of whom were the descendants of Andalusis refugees from Iberia (even if they had Arabian & Berber ancestry, many of them were indistinguishable from Meditteranean Euros), along with some Turks (many were actually Albanian, Greeks and other Ottoman subjects) and European renegades.
These European descent Muslims would join forces with African & Arabian Muslims to enslave other Europeans.
If you want to see black people in America, you have to go to USA , Jamaica,and Brazil, basically. Besides, if you want to see native american people, you have to go to X-Spanish colonies,.......Its easy
PD: the Caribe had a lot of traffic of slaves so you cant talk about nation, but Islands like JAmaica can help you, in fact , if you read the JAmaic´s history you can see the differences between spaniards and brits
The assertion by Ball that the gin lead to increased slavery due to the larger growing area for inland grown short staple cotton vs long staple ("sea island") cotton has long been addressed by many others, in articles dating all the way back to agricultural analyses of the SC area published in the 1860's. At best, Ball's anecdotal assessment doesn't jibe with the overall SC slave population figures and dependency for it's ag export industry.
Essentially, SC was a long established slave owning area, with about 33% of the population being slaves as far back as the 1790's. That percentage of population didn't change by more than a percent or two through the 1860's, with some decades having a slightly lower percentage. The cotton gin was a substantial labor saving device, and given the cost of slave ownership ... was welcomed as a way to increase productivity without needing more laborers.
So Ball's premise that the cotton gin spawned a larger slave population is not well founded, in fact, it's well refuted. Slavery was well established by the 1770's colonial agriculture industry and would have remained so due to other agricultural demands ... such as the original indigo production of the area, or for other crops which the SC climate/soils were very productive. Some of those crops were replaced by cotton when the markets for them dissappeared ... like indigo for the English market after the War of 1812. The farmers of SC grew what they had to do to find cash crops to survive, and increased overhead expenses for more slaves wasn't a viable way to achieve profitability.
You can check out an analysis of the SC ag industry/slave ownership on the Economic History website. A more recent paper, citing many references from the time frame, was published by William H. Phillips, USC professor. "eh.net/encyclopedia/article/phillips.cottongin" addresses the slavery/ag production and links to the cotton gin impact on SC cotton growing/processing industry in detail.
Interesting to see that SC cotton production rose from 3,000 bales exported to over 3 million bales exported in just a few years after the cotton gin was introduced, without a corresponding increase in production labor slaves. The machinery simply made it more efficient to process a crop that would replace other, less economically efficient crops. Coincidental to the development of the gin was the mechanization of spinning the fiber into yarn and mills to weave that into fabric ... big customers for the SC product in America's North industrialized areas as well as the English market.
Good info, thanks!
"Anecdotal assessment" is a good way to put it. It was presented just as a sort of sidebar to the larger story of his family and their slaves.
And thanks, too, for the "long-staple/short-staple" term that I couldn't recall correctly.
The Arabs are the ones that started it all in terms of mass slavery and importation and exportation of African slaves around the globe they even funded, traded, and exchanged and bought and sold slaves with Europeans. There were also many European Jews and Arab Jews involved as well.
At the same time black people and black Africans were very involved in trading other black Africans into slavery and they even travelled and enslaved people of other races and ethnic groups as well, so no one is innocent.
As for importing Old World forms of slavery into the Americas, one must not forget that until the 18th century or so, slavery was never associated with a specific color.
In fact the different European tribes, city-states & kingdoms would regularly enslave rival Europeans as well as their own people.
Other than indigenous American slaves, there were many European slaves as well before the use of African slaves became popular.
The vast majority of whom were the descendants of Andalusis refugees from Iberia (even if they had Arabian & Berber ancestry, many of them were indistinguishable from Meditteranean Euros), along with some Turks (many were actually Albanian, Greeks and other Ottoman subjects) and European renegades.
These European descent Muslims would join forces with African & Arabian Muslims to enslave other Europeans.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
