Hi,
Yes, cleaning cotton (the technical term is 'carding', IIRC) became much faster with the gin. Because of the large number of people it took to pick the cotton and then card it, cotton was a minor crop. When the carding bottleneck was broken, cotton became 'king', large plantations become profitable, and slavery became 'necessary'.
England had a near insatiable appetite for cotton, and in turn had an almost unlimited supply of manufactured products. The industrializing North wanted both the cotton and the markets. That led to a dispute over tariffs between the North and the South. To the leaders (but not to the general population) this dispute was as much a reason for secession as was slavery. The South actually expected England to join them in the war. Given that England was strongly abolitionist, that would have been a foolish expectation if the war had been just about slavery. As it was, it was a near thing, with principle barely beating out profits.
Of course, there were yet other reasons, not the least of which was religion. Whole books could be (and have been) written about it. But nobody reads them.
Unfortunately, what we teach fifth graders has to be simple enough for them to understand, and that often makes it wrong. Once that misinformation has taken root, it is almost impossible to eradicate.
--Pete
(05-10-2010, 04:19 AM)LavCat Wrote: I had always thought (and probably had been taught) that the invention of the cotton gin made slavery *less* profitable, due to much less labor required for cleaning cotton.
Yes, cleaning cotton (the technical term is 'carding', IIRC) became much faster with the gin. Because of the large number of people it took to pick the cotton and then card it, cotton was a minor crop. When the carding bottleneck was broken, cotton became 'king', large plantations become profitable, and slavery became 'necessary'.
England had a near insatiable appetite for cotton, and in turn had an almost unlimited supply of manufactured products. The industrializing North wanted both the cotton and the markets. That led to a dispute over tariffs between the North and the South. To the leaders (but not to the general population) this dispute was as much a reason for secession as was slavery. The South actually expected England to join them in the war. Given that England was strongly abolitionist, that would have been a foolish expectation if the war had been just about slavery. As it was, it was a near thing, with principle barely beating out profits.
Of course, there were yet other reasons, not the least of which was religion. Whole books could be (and have been) written about it. But nobody reads them.
Unfortunately, what we teach fifth graders has to be simple enough for them to understand, and that often makes it wrong. Once that misinformation has taken root, it is almost impossible to eradicate.
--Pete
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?