h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Suppose Eli Whitney hadn't invented the cotton gin (and noone else had either). Slavery would have died out and been banned in most or all of the American south. Even if a few states didn't ban it, they wouldn't be a big enough block to easily stop the 13th Ammendment and if they succeeded, they wouldn't have been able to raise the military force needed to prolong the Civil War to four years.

And perhaps the US wouldn't have become as much of an industrial power without the Civil War. Or maybe the slave-less South would have industrialized just as much.

How would this have affected westward expantion? Would a US that didn't spend half the 19th century arguing about slavery have decided to take ALL of Mexico because noone had to worry if the new territory would be slave or free? Or would southerners not have moved to Texas, since they could move to northern Louisiana (forbidden to slavery by the Missouri Compromise of 1820), and thus never start the Mexican war? Would a less divided US have fought Britian over ALL of Oregon? Would it have won or lost? Would it have started imperialism earlier, or, without the post-Civil War industrial buildup never at all? If the US and Britain did get in a war over Oregon, would the result have been US intervention on the German side in World War I--and what would that do to the twentyeth century?

'any material conditional with a false antecedent is automatically true.' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterfactuals



If Eli Whitney hadn't invented the cotton gin and there hadn't been a Civil War certain armament improvements wouldn't have happened in the U.S., a Mexican would have invented the Gatling Gun and you'd all be speaking Spanish now.

(U.S. 'imperialism' began at least as early as 1801 with the war against the Barbary States.)

"If Eli Whitney hadn't invented the cotton gin and there hadn't been a Civil War certain armament improvements wouldn't have happened in the U.S., a Mexican would have invented the Gatling Gun and you'd all be speaking Spanish now."

Not if the US had decided at the end of the Mexican War to annex all of Mexico, since, without the slavery question, there would be no worry about whether the new territories would be slave or free. And if the US and Britain had fought over Oregon, that war might have led either nation to develop the Gatling Gun--both were more industrialized than Mexico and more likely to invent and mass-produce it. Or perhaps Gatling would have thought of the idea anyway realizing he could sell it to European powers for use as the divied up the rest of the world.



I don't think the Barbary Wars count as imperialism because the US didn't make any attempt to take over or rule the Barbary States, the US was just trying to protect it's shipping. Anyway, one could argue that seizing merchant shps and holding the crews for ransom is an act of war.

My point was actually philosophical rather than historical or political: 'any material conditional with a false antecedent is automatically true.' While it is in some ways amusing, an argument about the probabilities of a long series of hypothetical events which which are all dependent upon an initial event which did not occur (and so, had an apparent probability of zero) is likely never going to have anything approaching a resolution. A chain of "what ifs" is actually an ever branching tree which rapidly approaches an infinity of "maybes"

That is probably true--but discussing it may lead to a better understanding of why things actually happened the way they did.

Ah, alternate history. It's fast becoming a new passion for me.

However, I think there are better questions that can be asked. For one, the cotton gin wasn't exactly a great leap, and someone would have invented it if he hadn't. For another, slavery was already practiced long before the cotton gin arrived. There were other cash crops being raised in the South apart from cotton, like tobacco. Even though there wasn't much money in it, cotton plantations were already operating prior to the cotton gin, and they used slave labor to remove the seeds by hand.

Apart from that, India already had a machine that removed cotton seeds, but it didn't work for the type of cotton grown in the US. They had had their machine for centuries.

Anyway, the slave question had been in existence since the country first formed, and I doubt very much that that would have changed at all whether the cotton industry showed a profit or not. Nor should we make the mistake of thinking the Civil War was about slavery. It was about states' rights versus the authority of the federal government. The Civil War was inevitable. I don't think Eli Whitney's invention had much impact on the direction of US history.

"Anyway, the slave question had been in existence since the country first formed, and I doubt very much that that would have changed at all whether the cotton industry showed a profit or not. Nor should we make the mistake of thinking the Civil War was about slavery. It was about states' rights versus the authority of the federal government. The Civil War was inevitable. I don't think Eli Whitney's invention had much impact on the direction of US history."

Are you crazy?

The idea of states' rights was basically an excuse for the south to get what it wanted - which was to keep slavery and get tariffs that benefitted the production and trade of the slave-grown products. Without slavery, there wouldn't be much of a use for states' rights in the south.

The Civil War was about two things after the Emancipation Proclamation - both ending slavery and keeping the Union a union, which was only un-united because the south seceded over the threat of the loss of their slavery.

Now, the cotton gin. The founding fathers thought slavery was going to die out eventually, but the cotton gin definitely gave it new life. It led to a fierce defense of southern slavery and goods (the Missouri Compromise, the Nullification Crisis) and eventually the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which led to Abraham Lincoln being elected President which was the last straw for the south which led to secession which led to the Civil War.

"Are you crazy?" - I'm glad to see we're keeping in spirit with the founding principles of this society...

"The idea of states' rights was basically an excuse for the south to get what it wanted - which was to keep slavery and get tariffs that benefitted the production and trade of the slave-grown products." - You're wrong about the slavery. But you're right about the tariffs. The much more heavily populated North wanted high tariffs to protect their developing industries, since better products could be imported from Europe. That would have caused Europe to raise their tariffs in turn, which would have been ruinous to Southern exports.

However... whether the cotton gin existed or not, the South was still very much an agrarian area. And it wasn't going to change anytime soon. The difference between industrialists and farmers would have been maintained regardless, and they would have had the same difference on trade tariffs.

As to why you're wrong about slavery... during the election, the newspapers made much of the fact that Lincoln had spoken against slavery. It was much the same as today's attacks on Kerry for speaking out against the war in Vietnam... a character assassination to galvanize certain voters. Slavery was not the key issue in 1860, any more than Vietnam is the key issue in 2004. During the election, Lincoln said, "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." The Republican platform downplayed abolition and slavery, focusing on economics (the tariff) and railroad development.

"The Civil War was about two things after the Emancipation Proclamation - both ending slavery and keeping the Union a union, which was only un-united because the south seceded over the threat of the loss of their slavery." - Key words: "after the Emancipation Proclamation." Lincoln entered the war to preserve the union, and that is all. Lincoln issued the Proclamation as a political move to keep Britain and France out of the war. If abolition were his goal, then why did the Emancipation Proclamation not affect slave states still in the union? Missouri, Delaware, Kentucky, and Maryland continued slavery as before, until the war ended and the 13th Amendment was passed.

Britain and France were eager to help the South, both as a check against the growing US and to protect their access to Southern goods, but they had reservations about helping a slave nation. The Brits smuggled weapons to the South in the early part of the war. Lincoln knew he had to keep them out of the war, and so he drafted the Proclamation to make slavery become a central issue... ensuring the British and French people would not support their governments' support of the South. He would have delivered the Proclamation months earlier, but without a major US victory as a backdrop, it would have been hollow words.

"The founding fathers thought slavery was going to die out eventually, but the cotton gin definitely gave it new life." - The Founding Fathers may have believed that, but what evidence do we have to suggest slavery was on the decline?

Let's also keep in mind that slavery was a huge issue during the Second Continental Congress. Georgia and the Carolinas demanded a paragraph in the Declaration of Independence be stricken that dealt with slavery. The resolution for independence would have been defeated if it had not been stricken.

"I'm glad to see we're keeping in spirit with the founding principles of this society... "

It was just a good lead in to what I had to say I'm pretty sure you're not crazy. It's always an honor disagreeing with you.

"However... whether the cotton gin existed or not, the South was still very much an agrarian area. And it wasn't going to change anytime soon. The difference between industrialists and farmers would have been maintained regardless, and they would have had the same difference on trade tariffs."

I very much doubt that the south would have seceded over tariffs. These people weren't stupid. They knew that the south seceding would have cost a lot of lives (probably didn't expect that many...) and they weren't without compassion.

And do you expect that without slave labor to produce cotton and other products the south would have their entire economy based on those products? I don't think so. And if they weren't so worried about agricultural products they wouldn't worry about tariffs enough to become defensive enough to start a civil war.

""The Civil War was about two things after the Emancipation Proclamation - both ending slavery and keeping the Union a union, which was only un-united because the south seceded over the threat of the loss of their slavery." - Key words: "after the Emancipation Proclamation." Lincoln entered the war to preserve the union, and that is all. Lincoln issued the Proclamation as a political move to keep Britain and France out of the war. If abolition were his goal, then why did the Emancipation Proclamation not affect slave states still in the union? Missouri, Delaware, Kentucky, and Maryland continued slavery as before, until the war ended and the 13th Amendment was passed. "

You're right, but he couldn't emancipate slaves in the border states because he would risk them seceding and ignoring him anyway. The emancipation proclamation didn't free any slaves, but it wasn't in Lincoln's power to free any slaves at that time. If he freed the border state slaves - which he didn't believe he had the constitutional right to do anyway, whereas freeing rebel state slaves was within his war powers - the states might have seceded and kept on whipping their slaves.

"During the election, Lincoln said, "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." The Republican platform downplayed abolition and slavery, focusing on economics (the tariff) and railroad development."

The Republican platform was to limit the expansion of slavery, which was still a big issue. The whole party was formed because, with a divided Whig party, there wasn't a party with the platform of preventing the expansion of slavery. The Republicans (I think, I might be wrong) inherited their economics at first from the Whigs. I know Lincoln did.

"Britain and France were eager to help the South, both as a check against the growing US and to protect their access to Southern goods, but they had reservations about helping a slave nation. The Brits smuggled weapons to the South in the early part of the war. Lincoln knew he had to keep them out of the war, and so he drafted the Proclamation to make slavery become a central issue... ensuring the British and French people would not support their governments' support of the South. He would have delivered the Proclamation months earlier, but without a major US victory as a backdrop, it would have been hollow words."

Just because slavery wasn't a central issue in the Civil War until Lincoln decided to make it one doesn't mean that it wasn't the cause of the Civil War. Look at World War One. Were they all fighting to keep Franz Ferdinand alive or dead by the end? They were forced into war, as the Union was by slavery.

""The founding fathers thought slavery was going to die out eventually, but the cotton gin definitely gave it new life." - The Founding Fathers may have believed that, but what evidence do we have to suggest slavery was on the decline?"

Are we supposed to have been using evidence?
Well, cotton wasn't very profitable before the Cotton Gin, and the south was beginning to shift to other areas, I believe.

"Let's also keep in mind that slavery was a huge issue during the Second Continental Congress."
Let us also keep in mind that according to Lincoln in his Cooper Union Speech (or one of 'em) a majority of the signers of the Declaration of Independence agreed with the Republicans on limiting the expansion of slavery. So they agreed with Lincoln's moderate principles.

"I very much doubt that the south would have seceded over tariffs. These people weren't stupid. They knew that the south seceding would have cost a lot of lives (probably didn't expect that many...) and they weren't without compassion."

It would be stupid to secede over tariffs? Then how does it make sense to fight for the right to own people? Especially when only a small minority of Southerners actually owned slaves?

Tariffs and slavery were both considered to be integral parts of the Southern economy. The South raised crops that required international markets. They believed they needed the cheap labor of slaves to make a profit. If the underpinnings of the economy collapse, people starve. There is nothing worth fighting for more than the right to eat. High trade tariffs would have ruined Southern exports.

"Well, cotton wasn't very profitable before the Cotton Gin, and the south was beginning to shift to other areas, I believe"

Cotton is just one cash crop. The South was making great profits in cash crops of tobacco and indigo, which also required slave labor. The South was also heavily involved in the production of food crops. In fact, once Whitney's invention really took off, so many people started producing cotton in the South that there were food shortages.

But whether they were raising tobacco or cotton or corn, the South was still an agrarian area, and they still needed to sell their excess to Europe, where it brought excellent prices. No matter what crop they were growing, high tariffs would have had the same effect.

"Let us also keep in mind that according to Lincoln in his Cooper Union Speech (or one of 'em) a majority of the signers of the Declaration of Independence agreed with the Republicans on limiting the expansion of slavery."

Agreed. Lincoln made that point again at his inauguration. But let's remember that limiting the expansion of slavery is not the same as abolition. The Republicans guaranteed that any states who had slavery would continue to have slavery for as long as they chose. Thus, the election of 1860 had nothing to do with abolition.

"It would be stupid to secede over tariffs? Then how does it make sense to fight for the right to own people? Especially when only a small minority of Southerners actually owned slaves?"

Well, they were fighting to save their way of life and their economy. Without slavery, I doubt there would be enough willing white works to man the plantations of one state. With high tariffs, the rich plantation owners wouldn't have as much money, and the south would be worse off, but better than if there was no slavery.

The south went with slavery because it benefitted the south as a whole, and southerners always had the dream of owning slaves like the rich plantation owners.

"Cotton is just one cash crop. The South was making great profits in cash crops of tobacco and indigo, which also required slave labor. The South was also heavily involved in the production of food crops. In fact, once Whitney's invention really took off, so many people started producing cotton in the South that there were food shortages."

Well, cotton was definitely the most important crop. They called it King Cotton after all.

"But whether they were raising tobacco or cotton or corn, the South was still an agrarian area, and they still needed to sell their excess to Europe, where it brought excellent prices. No matter what crop they were growing, high tariffs would have had the same effect."

They could certainly sell some of it to the North. The North had plenty of textile mills and a demand for tobacco and corn. They were just stuborn. Civilizations have to be able to adapt and change with time. All civilizations adapt and the south could have as well.

"Thus, the election of 1860 had nothing to do with abolition."

Well, even Frederick Douglass supported Lincoln because the more moderate anti-slavery candidate would have a better chance to succeed.

The southerners recognized that limiting the expansion of slavery would turn over control of the Congress to anti-slavery people, and eventually they would change their platform to abolition when the southerners weren't able to mount an defense. Act as soon as Lincoln was elected was the smart thing politically to defend slavery.

Hey up!
Did you know there are still 27 million slaves in the world today?


I'm not counting the economic slaves of global imperialism who tote barges, pick cotton, rice or bananas, assemble car parts and TV sets or flip burgers for wages far below poverty lines. Nope, there are 27 million real honest to god physically bound slaves whose lives have been as surely stolen as if they had been murdered. They are primarily producers of raw materials that enter all our lives in finished goods but also several million are sex slaves who are disposed of before they reach maturity.

I didn't realise until recently that genuine slavery is still so rampant. I'm not online much lately but I had to mention this and I encourage you all to inform yourselves. You will be startled by the facts and impressed by the level-headed insight and analysis of the problem and the solutions to which we can all contribute.

http://www.freetheslaves.net


~jwf~

I'd heard about it, but I didn't realize the numbers were so high.