WI: Earlier Cotton Gin, Stronger America

[Kerguelen]

The cotton gin is widely regarded as one of the most transformative industrial inventions in agriculture, by making a minor crop into one of the forefronts of American industrialisation. Invented in 1794, Eli Whitney's machine was renowned for being able to remove the seeds from over 50 pounds of cotton in a single day, creating a massive boom in the cotton industry now that there was a much easier way to manufacture the plant into textile clothing. However, Whitney unintentionally started a massive boom in another industry, slavery.

Before the machine's invention, slaves were used more in domestic and household work, but the invention of cotton gin changed all that. Now, plantation owners were able to justify the slave trade as a means to farm a valuable crop, changing history forever. Now, I've seen many scenarios where the cotton gin is invented much later, which allows slavery, another unprofitable business to fade away and eventually become illegal, but this isn't what we're discussing.

What if the cotton gin was invented three decades earlier, a year before the American Revolution in 1765. Will the development of mass industrialisation be affected by a massive influx of cotton from the south, creating a larger amount of textile mills? Would Britain try harder to maintain control over the Thirteen Colonies and the valuable cotton market? And how would the Founding Fathers, who viewed slavery as a minor issue on its way out, react to the growing slave population owned by powerful plantation owners?

 

[DominusNovus]

I’m not sure of the answers, but it is fascinating to consider them.

So, first, this would predate the British industrial revolution by quite a bit more, which could actually lead to a slightly earlier revolution in the first place. Also possible is that, without such a dominant buyer in the British textile industry, the flood of cotton onto the market means that the revolution is more dispersed; perhaps New Englanders beat their countrymen across the sea and start exporting textiles. This would play havoc with the mercantalist policies of the time, as textiles are such a bulk good.

On the other hand, this might encourage Britain to adopt free trade policies earlier on (especially if they are the ones with all the factories). When they were the workshop of the world, they quickly realized just how much better Free Trade was for the economy. If they realize that a few decades earlier, that will likely lead to a gentler rule over the colonies, and could forestall the American Revolution entirely.

Lots of moving parts.

 

[unprincipled peter]

the US textile industry started with knowledge gained from the earlier British industry. The British industry was given a huge boost by the invention of the spinning jenny in Britain roughly the same time as this proposed POD.

For the US to leapfrog the Brits, you need the earlier cotton gin, an american jenny, and primarily an earlier independent US so that the american craftsman can adopt the trade regulations necessary to allow the industry and foster it.

Whitney didn't really invent the concept of the gin, he merely adapted existing ideas, so an earlier 'invention' is easily doable. an american jenny is doable. the really important part of the equation, though, isn't going to change.

The earlier gin is going to feed British textiles. American cotton comes from the south, and the south was a bit hesitant to jump into the revolution. here, they might decide that sticking with Britain is economically preferable, there being no northern factories to feed. Alternatively, a big military revolution right in the middle of the industrial revolution means cotton supplies from America are cut off. Alternative sources will be found (India? Portuguese Brazil?).

Also, I thought the notion of slavery as a dying institution has been thoroughly disproved? The founding fathers sidestepped the issue, not because they thought it was dying, but because it was a powerful industry they couldn't afford to tackle.

 

[DominusNovus]

the US textile industry started with knowledge gained from the earlier British industry. The British industry was given a huge boost by the invention of the spinning jenny in Britain roughly the same time as this proposed POD.

For the US to leapfrog the Brits, you need the earlier cotton gin, an american jenny, and primarily an earlier independent US so that the american craftsman can adopt the trade regulations necessary to allow the industry and foster it.

Whitney didn't really invent the concept of the gin, he merely adapted existing ideas, so an earlier 'invention' is easily doable. an american jenny is doable. the really important part of the equation, though, isn't going to change.

The earlier gin is going to feed British textiles. American cotton comes from the south, and the south was a bit hesitant to jump into the revolution. here, they might decide that sticking with Britain is economically preferable, there being no northern factories to feed. Alternatively, a big military revolution right in the middle of the industrial revolution means cotton supplies from America are cut off. Alternative sources will be found (India? Portuguese Brazil?).

Also, I thought the notion of slavery as a dying institution has been thoroughly disproved? The founding fathers sidestepped the issue, not because they thought it was dying, but because it was a powerful industry they couldn't afford to tackle.

I'd like to push back a bit on some of your specifics regarding the leapfrog aspect. I don't think such trade regulations are necessary to succeed, thats usually just a protectionist talking point, historically speaking. A legal framework that strongly protects property rights is important, definitely, but overall, I don't think there's anything in particular regarding the American colonies that would be any less suited to industrializing earlier than Britain did. I also don't think we'd necessarily need an American spinning jenny or water frame. All we'd need is for the British not to be protective of those innovations of their own.

All of that said, we're not dealing with much time here. We have a decade for the economies - and policies related to them - to re-orient before the Revolution is likely in 1775. Historically, after the cotton gin was adopted, cotton production in the US increased by roughly 6-7% annually, with plenty of hiccups early on. Is that enough to change things before tensions reach their breaking point? I don't know. That said, the South might not necessarily feel so dependent on Britain if the North is able to industrialize at least as quick as Britain does, now that the order of events have been thrown out of whack. Lets suppose, for example, that New England is able to become a major consumer of cotton as the South ramps up its production (perhaps Britain doesn't like it, perhaps they don't really care). That would mean their economies are more interconnected than historically, and both sides would look unfavorably on disruptions of their trade, overall. Say the Brits start impounding cloth that 'legitimate merchants' in Boston are selling to other countries, which lowers the profitability of the Northern mills, which lowers how much cotton they can buy...
https://www.sailsinc.org/durfee/earl2.pdf

 

[Wolttaire]

Well the founding father believed that slavery was dying it out so that why they didn’t address this but now they will try to come up with some permant solution to the problem

 

[unprincipled peter]

I'd like to push back a bit on some of your specifics regarding the leapfrog aspect. I don't think such trade regulations are necessary to succeed, thats usually just a protectionist talking point, historically speaking. A legal framework that strongly protects property rights is important, definitely, but overall, I don't think there's anything in particular regarding the American colonies that would be any less suited to industrializing earlier than Britain did. I also don't think we'd necessarily need an American spinning jenny or water frame. All we'd need is for the British not to be protective of those innovations of their own.

All of that said, we're not dealing with much time here. We have a decade for the economies - and policies related to them - to re-orient before the Revolution is likely in 1775. Historically, after the cotton gin was adopted, cotton production in the US increased by roughly 6-7% annually, with plenty of hiccups early on. Is that enough to change things before tensions reach their breaking point? I don't know. That said, the South might not necessarily feel so dependent on Britain if the North is able to industrialize at least as quick as Britain does, now that the order of events have been thrown out of whack. Lets suppose, for example, that New England is able to become a major consumer of cotton as the South ramps up its production (perhaps Britain doesn't like it, perhaps they don't really care). That would mean their economies are more interconnected than historically, and both sides would look unfavorably on disruptions of their trade, overall. Say the Brits start impounding cloth that 'legitimate merchants' in Boston are selling to other countries, which lowers the profitability of the Northern mills, which lowers how much cotton they can buy...
https://www.sailsinc.org/durfee/earl2.pdf

Britain was actively passing laws and setting policy to minimize the amount of manufacture that could occur in the colonies. It is part of what set off the revolution. The colonies are not free to industrialize unfettered. Policy, industrial laws, and trade laws are not just 'talking points'

 

[DominusNovus]

Britain was actively passing laws and setting policy to minimize the amount of manufacture that could occur in the colonies. It is part of what set off the revolution. The colonies are not free to industrialize unfettered. Policy, industrial laws, and trade laws are not just 'talking points'

The idea that protectionism is needed for industrialization is the talking point to which I was referring.

 

[FillyofDelphi]

I'd like to push back a bit on some of your specifics regarding the leapfrog aspect. I don't think such trade regulations are necessary to succeed, thats usually just a protectionist talking point, historically speaking. A legal framework that strongly protects property rights is important, definitely, but overall, I don't think there's anything in particular regarding the American colonies that would be any less suited to industrializing earlier than Britain did. I also don't think we'd necessarily need an American spinning jenny or water frame. All we'd need is for the British not to be protective of those innovations of their own.

All of that said, we're not dealing with much time here. We have a decade for the economies - and policies related to them - to re-orient before the Revolution is likely in 1775. Historically, after the cotton gin was adopted, cotton production in the US increased by roughly 6-7% annually, with plenty of hiccups early on. Is that enough to change things before tensions reach their breaking point? I don't know. That said, the South might not necessarily feel so dependent on Britain if the North is able to industrialize at least as quick as Britain does, now that the order of events have been thrown out of whack. Lets suppose, for example, that New England is able to become a major consumer of cotton as the South ramps up its production (perhaps Britain doesn't like it, perhaps they don't really care). That would mean their economies are more interconnected than historically, and both sides would look unfavorably on disruptions of their trade, overall. Say the Brits start impounding cloth that 'legitimate merchants' in Boston are selling to other countries, which lowers the profitability of the Northern mills, which lowers how much cotton they can buy...
https://www.sailsinc.org/durfee/earl2.pdf

You'd need the discovery to happen even earlier than 1775 for it to proliferate enough and the Northern production facilities to reorient to processing the newly increased supply for it to impact the Revolution. With the strain and disruption of the war, adoption of the new technology is going to be slowed down due to lack of capital and the shriviling of international trade (Though that gives time for the kinks of the design to be worked out and some earlier experimentation in methoids of its usage, likely allowing for quicker/better implimentation when the time actually does roll around) but you're still going to have the limits on available investment post-war and the problems with access to markets/consumption that will act as a limiter on how quickly everything can move along.

One impact you likely would see is a quicker move away from wool in the North, which opens up land for other kinds of production (Even if you're not able to mass produce cloth on an industrial scale yet, you're crashing the price on material for piecework and so the demand for more expensive woolens is probably going to shrink). Might that establish a stronger base for cattle rearing or some other livestock in the North?

 

[History Learner]

From about the time listed of 1765 to 1800, very little importation of slaves were occurring and then between 1800-1807 it rapidly shot up as a result of the Cotton gin being dispersed and adopted. Here, you'd see this likely begin in the 1760s, which has a lot of long term demographic effects as well as raises the possibility of a wider dispersion of slavery.

 

[PuffyClouds]

Also, I thought the notion of slavery as a dying institution has been thoroughly disproved? The founding fathers sidestepped the issue, not because they thought it was dying, but because it was a powerful industry they couldn't afford to tackle.

I would say it was dying and they couldn't afford the distraction of abolition at that point. I would also say that the bolster slavery got from the cotton gin was starting to go out. Unfortunately it would have made a comeback when Virginia and Georgia began to industrialize.

 

[DominusNovus]

You'd need the discovery to happen even earlier than 1775 for it to proliferate enough and the Northern production facilities to reorient to processing the newly increased supply for it to impact the Revolution. With the strain and disruption of the war, adoption of the new technology is going to be slowed down due to lack of capital and the shriviling of international trade (Though that gives time for the kinks of the design to be worked out and some earlier experimentation in methoids of its usage, likely allowing for quicker/better implimentation when the time actually does roll around) but you're still going to have the limits on available investment post-war and the problems with access to markets/consumption that will act as a limiter on how quickly everything can move along.

One impact you likely would see is a quicker move away from wool in the North, which opens up land for other kinds of production (Even if you're not able to mass produce cloth on an industrial scale yet, you're crashing the price on material for piecework and so the demand for more expensive woolens is probably going to shrink). Might that establish a stronger base for cattle rearing or some other livestock in the North?

Are we talking 1765 or 1775? The OP suggested 1765, but also described it as the year before the ARW, so there's some ambiguity there.

 

[David T]

It would have little effect. The Cotton Kingdom could not arise until the Indians were cleared out of what became Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, etc., and that took decades. Tobacco would still be more profitable in Virginia and Maryland, and rice in the South Carolina lowlands. Cotton might get a somewhat earlier start in the rest of South Carolina and in Georgia, but that's about it. As I stated elsewhere:

***
"It is a myth that slavery was dying out before the cotton gin. Too many people assume that slavery equals the Southern plantation system equals cotton. That was actually not true until *many* years after the invention of the cotton gin. As late as 1800 only about 11 percent of all slaves lived on cotton plantations. (By 1850, with greatly increased world demand for cotton, that had risen to 64 percent.) Tobacco made a considerable recovery after the Revolution, and spread to new regions in South Carolina, Georgia, Kentucky, and Tennessee. Slaves were also used in the production of rice, sugar (after Louisiana was annexed) and grains.

"Of course, there *were* some areas of the South that were much better suited for cotton than for any other crop--above all the black belt of Alabama and the alluvial areas of Mississippi. But these areas were not opened up to the plantation system until many years after the cotton gin...." https://www.alternatehistory.com/Discussion/showpost.php?p=9363591&postcount=15

 

[PuffyClouds]

big pictures in the spoiler

Spoiler

The Louisiana Parishes of West Florida will have extra settlement, and there will be increased demands to exceed the the Proclamation Line of 1763.

 

[phx1138]

I'm not seeing this making the U.S. stronger, but it seems likely to provoke an earlier Civil War.

More wealth in the South for longer suggests a tougher ACW, too: longer by a year? Two?

Am I overestimating the influx of slaves to suggest this may bring California into the U.S. as a slave state? Or divided in two? Before the Gold Rush?