Many of us have heard of the horrors of slavery, but not as much attention is paid to the why. What could drive people to travel thousands of miles across the ocean for the sole purpose of kidnapping people and selling them as a commodity? The finger can be pointed at cotton: through the use of slaves, it's safe to say that this cash crop singlehandedly built the South.
At the start of the civil war, if the Confederacy was (recognized) as its own nation, it would have been the 4th richest in the world. The region produced a whopping 75% of the world's cotton, and there were more millionaires per capita in the Mississippi River Valley than anywhere else in the United States.
The history of cotton is a fascinating one. Grown since ancient times, for many millennia it had been considered a luxury item in Europe, being only sold as a finished good. However, that all changed with the invention of the Cotton Gin in 1793. Now the previously laborious task of picking the seed out of cotton could now be done much more efficiently. It could be produced more cheaply, making it available to more people, thus causing huge demand for it. At the same time, the Industrial revolution that was happening in Britain led to the opening of many textile factories there, all which would need huge amounts of cotton. Back in the U.S, tobacco looked less and less appealing, as the crop depleted soil of its nutrients, and was dropping in value, which encouraged many landowners to switch to farming cotton. And huge portions of land in the South had just been opened up. With its warm climate, it was perfect for cotton cultivation. A combination of these things created the perfect storm for the South to become the "King of Cotton".
This economic success wasn't just limited to the South. The North benefited greatly from importing large amounts of raw material and turning them into finished product. In 1860, New England consumed 283.7 million pounds of cotton, which was 67% of U.S production at the time. This is kind of ironical; the North's economy depended on the thing they heavily opposed: slavery.
Many of the Worlds great powers and Empires obtained their wealth and through the trade of raw materials, and America is no different. Through the mass production of this simple crop, it set the stage for America to become an economical superpower.
Sources
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/african-americans-many-rivers-to-cross/history/why-was-cotton-king/
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/african-americans-many-rivers-to-cross/video/the-cotton-economy-and-slavery/
I love your introduction as your imagery totally had me hooked. I also found it very interesting that even though many northerners were strongly against slave-labour, they still depended on it (like a necessary evil). Also kudos for remembering your sources.
ReplyDeleteI found your post very informative about the South. Specifically, I found the fact that if the Confederacy it would have been the 4th richest nation in the world very interesting. Also, I didn't realize how much of the world's cotton came from the south, which you said was 75%.
ReplyDeleteI think it's very interesting how you point out the North, among other nations, was so greedy when it came to getting cotton. The book touched on how people in the North were involved in the cotton business, but I didn't realize how big of a business it was and how they depended on it so much. I think it's very interesting to see how rich and powerful the cotton industry was.
ReplyDeleteI liked that you focused on the why of slavery and why cotton was so important to the South. I also liked that you mentioned the effect of cotton in the North, even though it was mainly made in the South.
ReplyDeleteI was surprised to hear that the Confederacy would have been the 4th richest nation in the world at the time due to cotton. I always thought as cotton as a cash crop which was extremely profitable, but not to that extent. Also even though the south was very rich, wasn't most of the wealth consolidated into a few people which grew cotton? I mean most people did not own slaves and even those that did often owned fewer than 5.
ReplyDelete