Introduction
Eli Whitney, an American-born inventor, patented the cotton gin in 1794, revolutionizing cotton production by wildly accelerating the tiresome procedure of removing husks and seeds from cotton fiber. Like today’s massive machines, Whitney’s cotton gin used hooks to pull unrefined cotton through a tiny screen that isolated the fiber from the seeds and husks (Wright 353). The cotton gin, one of many inventions made in the American Industrial Revolution, hugely impacted the cotton industry and the American economy, particularly in the South. Regrettably, it also transformed the nature of the slave trade for the worse. While his cotton gin scaled back the number of workers required to extract the seeds from the fiber, it certainly upped the number of enslaved people needed to work on the plantation. Cotton farming became so profitable that plantation owners constantly required more land and enslaved laborers to satisfy the growing demand. Between 1790 and 1860, the number of states in the United States where the institution of slavery was legal increased from six to fifteen (Wright 358). The South shipped over 80,000 Africans from 1790 until Congress outlawed the import and sale of enslaved people in the South in 1808 (Wright 372). Thus, the invention of the cotton gin contributed to slavery, as more labor was required to work on the cotton plantations.
Justification of Slavery by Southerners
The invention of the cotton gin contributed to slavery and the slave trade, as cheap labor was necessary to make huge profits; as such, the Southerners enslaved workers for their plantations. In his 1837 speech, then-Senator John C. Calhoun vehemently attempted to defend the slave system (Sudo 102). He professed the significance of this significant intellectual safeguard of the establishment by stating that the Southerners should quit making excuses for slavery (Sudo 104). On the other hand, Calhoun insisted that slavery was a “positive good.” He argued that the Constitution protects states’ rights to keep slavery (Sudo 112). Calhoun then provided a moral defense of slavery, claiming that it was a more humane way of organizing the workforce than the circumstances wage laborers faced in European and northern American industrial cities.
Attacks on slavery by abolitionists elicited a strong reaction from white southerners. They criticized cheap labor in the North in their defense of slavery. They contended that the Industrial Revolution had resulted in a new type of slavery—wage slavery—far more harmful than the slave labor used on southern plantations (Sudo 114). George Fitzhugh, a southern social treatises writer, was a firm advocate of enslavement (Sudo 115). In the southern colonies, slavery was commonly proclaimed a necessity.
Who Enslaved People?
Generally, slaves were owned by white planters and toiled on the plantations day and night in exchange for food. Among the enslavers in the history of America were Alexander Barrow, a U.S. senator and a planter, and William Beckford, a politician who inherited about 3000 enslaved people from his brother Peter (Spatzek 535). Other enslavers in American history include Benjamin Belcher, Adelicia Ackley, and William Aiken, who owned large plantations (Spatzek 537). The primary purpose of the slaves they owned was to work in the cotton and rice fields.
Why Did the Common Southern Whites Support Slavery?
The common Southerners supported slavery to get cheap labor for their plantation to make huge profits. The South was home to over 4 million enslaved people, who influenced every element of the region’s social, ideological, and economic life (Plath 1333). Moreover, the enslaved people also cleaned the streets and worked as bricklayers, carpenters, metalworkers, bakers, and laborers in cities like Charleston for free or a little compensation compared to the whites (Rigby and Seguin 215). As Southerners became more isolated, they became more strident in their defense of slavery. The institution was a worthwhile goal, a moral and practical necessity, not just a means to an end.
Why Open Slave Rebellion was not Common
African resistance to subjugation and captives’ rebellion against slavery’s conditions were natural responses to the transatlantic slave trade. According to enslavers, slaves were integrally indolent and ill-inclined to labor, demonstrating the pervasiveness of daily resistance (Locke and Wright). However, open rebellions were not common because the slaves were given heavy tasks and slaves found to form rebellious movements were tortured, killed, or punished (Locke and Wright). As such, these punishments instilled fear in enslaved people, and they could not organize open rebellions. Thus, each enslaved person had the motivation to benefit from the efforts of others to achieve freedom.
Slave Culture
Slave living conditions within the antebellum American South were among the worst in human history. They had no rights as the legal property of their superiors and fared considerably worse than Roman enslaved people or ancient serfs. Perhaps only enslaved people on Caribbean sugar cane plantations fared worse (Pierre 229). Africans auctioned as enslaved people in the Americas had to depend on their owners for housing or building materials, cooking and eating pots and pans, food, and clothing. Many enslaved people did their best with the resources they were given. Most did not dare to grumble about their living conditions due to the fear of being whipped or punished. Moreover, enslaved people were assigned plantation sections to live in. While enslaved people were provided housing on some plantations, others were required to construct their own houses. Thus, slaves had a poor living standard compared to the owners.
Conclusion
The invention of the cotton gin allowed the planters to increase production, which led to a dramatic increase in the number of slaves working in the fields. While the slaves struggled with unsurmountable labor and inhumane living conditions, the white owners justified their actions as an inevitable necessity. Despite the cruel treatment of the slaves, open rebellions were not common due to brutal punishments. Therefore, the invention of the cotton gin had an unfortunate effect on slavery, enabling the persecution of millions in order to maximize profits.
Works Cited
Locke, Joseph, and Ben Wright. “The American Yawp.” Americanyawp.com, 2019. Web.
Pierre, Jemima. “Slavery, Anthropological Knowledge, and the Racialization of Africans.” Current Anthropology, vol. 61, no. 22, 2020, pp. 220–31, doi.org/10.1086/709844.
Plath, Lydia J. “Litigating across the Color Line: Civil Cases between Black and White Southerners from the End of Slavery to Civil Rights, by Melissa Milewski.” The English Historical Review, vol. 134, no. 570, 2019, pp. 1332–33, doi.org/10.1093/ehr/cez260.
Rigby, David, and Charles Seguin. “Capital Punishment and the Legacies of Slavery and Lynching in the United States.” The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, vol. 694, no. 1, 2021, pp. 205–19, doi.org/10.1177/00027162211016277.
Spatzek, S. “Stephanie E. Jones-Rogers, ‘They Were Her Property: White Women as Slave Owners in the American South’ (New Haven, CT: Yale UP, 2019), 296 Pp.” Amerikastudien/American Studies, vol. 66, no. 3, 2021, pp. 535–37, doi.org/10.33675/amst/2021/3/8.
Sudo, Jonathan K. “The Accumulation of People: Slavery and Capitalism in Southern Thought.” Swarthmore Undergraduate History Journal, vol. 2, no. 2, 2021, pp. 102–15, doi.org/10.24968/2693-244x.2.2.6.
Wright, Gavin. “Slavery and Anglo‐American Capitalism Revisited.” The Economic History Review, vol. 73, no. 2, 2020, pp. 353–83, doi.org/10.1111/ehr.12962.