About that Indian Cotton used to Replace Southern Cotton.

Norm53

Corporal
Joined
Feb 13, 2019
Messages
325
Location
Cape May, NJ
#41
`

Agree:
American cotton in 1850 and even today is a superior product.

In 1820 Gosspium babadense-or Gulf cotton was discovered in Mississippi.
Gulf cotton slid through the cotton gins easier, produced more useable cotton,
grew faster, and was cheaper to plant.

1833 Petit Gulf cotton was developed...even producing a greater yield!

Georgia cotton in 1860 was yielding 900 pounds per acre (at 7 harvest per year), but Gulf cotton was yielding 1200 pounds per acre.
Also, increased was the concentration of slave population along the Mississippi River.

With the Indian removal act of 1830, the invention of the steamboat around 1812, the development of Gulf Cotton, and Slavery....the "Southern Cotton Belt" was born along the Mississippi River. India nor Egypt couldn't compete with such an efficient production.
Uncle, uncle! Each one of your statements involves months of study.
 

(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)

O' Be Joyful

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 6, 2015
Messages
2,796
Location
Use-ta be: Zinn-zä-nätti o-HI-o The BIG city.
#43
Georgia cotton in 1860 was yielding 900 pounds per acre (at 7 harvest per year), but Gulf cotton was yielding 1200 pounds per acre.
I am far from being an expert here and would welcome correction. But, as noted my bolded above, my understanding is that with an average of 7 pickings over the same stand of cotton during the same harvest year, this would be another major reason that the often expressed panacea that mechanization*-- i.e., the mechanical cotton-picker--would have sped slavery to its demise w/o the war... is complete and utter Bunk.

*The #1 reason why I have kept this source handy for almost 3 years. :wink:

https://eh.net/encyclopedia/mechanical-cotton-picker/
 

Norm53

Corporal
Joined
Feb 13, 2019
Messages
325
Location
Cape May, NJ
#44
I am far from being an expert here and would welcome correction. But, as noted my bolded above, my understanding is that with an average of 7 pickings over the same stand of cotton during the same harvest year, this would be another major reason that the often expressed panacea that mechanization*-- i.e., the mechanical cotton-picker--would have sped slavery to its demise w/o the war... is complete and utter Bunk.

*The #1 reason why I have kept this source handy for almost 3 years. :wink:

https://eh.net/encyclopedia/mechanical-cotton-picker/
I am far from being an expert here and would welcome correction. But, as noted my bolded above, my understanding is that with an average of 7 pickings over the same stand of cotton during the same harvest year, this would be another major reason that the often expressed panacea that mechanization*-- i.e., the mechanical cotton-picker--would have sped slavery to its demise w/o the war... is complete and utter Bunk.

*The #1 reason why I have kept this source handy for almost 3 years. :wink:

https://eh.net/encyclopedia/mechanical-cotton-picker/
I thought that I replied to this post before. Maybe not. Anyway, I thoroughly enjoyed it and save it.
 

O' Be Joyful

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 6, 2015
Messages
2,796
Location
Use-ta be: Zinn-zä-nätti o-HI-o The BIG city.
#45
I thought that I replied to this post before. Maybe not. Anyway, I thoroughly enjoyed it and save it.
You did Norm, but in the other cotton thread, you guys have my head spinning trying to keep up. :smile:

After having a thread such as this--detailing cotton production at the time--promised by a fellow respected member for over 2 years, I am finding this quite fascinating. Perhaps, he will eventually join in on the fun.
 

ebg12

Corporal
Joined
Feb 28, 2019
Messages
257
#46
I am far from being an expert here and would welcome correction. But, as noted my bolded above, my understanding is that with an average of 7 pickings over the same stand of cotton during the same harvest year, this would be another major reason that the often expressed panacea that mechanization*-- i.e., the mechanical cotton-picker--would have sped slavery to its demise w/o the war... is complete and utter Bunk.

*The #1 reason why I have kept this source handy for almost 3 years. :wink:

https://eh.net/encyclopedia/mechanical-cotton-picker/
great article!

by 1950 75% percent of the cotton still was picked by hand because machinery had not been developed fully to deal with the task.

by 1920 85% of black farmers were sharecroppers.
 
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
15,818
Location
los angeles ca
#49
I disagree with this statement: "I don't think it was slavery that made American cotton dominant."

Although American cotton was superior in quality, which certainly contributed to its dominance, it also was cheap because of the cheap slave labor required to hand pick it. The combination of low cost and high quality resulted in American cotton acquiring 80% of the cotton fiber market.

With respect to the statement, "The southern transportation system was better and the southern farmers were better agronomists.", undoubtedly southern farmers were better cotton agronomists, probably better than any in the world, based on the many years of growing it. However, I would hesitate to generalize that to other products, such as wheat, corn, rice and sugar.

With regards to southern transportation, I will need more evidence that it was superior to that of the north.

Norm
Per Colonel Arthur Fremantle's published diary of his travels to the Confederacy ; Rail Road travel was extremely exciting in the sense of facing the real possibility of life and limb.
Leftyhunter
 
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Messages
7,619
Location
Denver, CO
#50
As stated by @ebg12, the American varieties were superior. Seeds from the ginning were extremely valuable and the Cotton Supply Association wanted unginned cotton as early as 1858.
American growers concentrated on the rivers, as the steamboats were perfect for transporting a high volume, but durable product. With just a few supplement railroads, the US southern transportation system was vastly superior to anything in India. With those advantages, the US growers were dominant with any labor system. Slavery was efficient for opening new land, but for sustained production, paying the good producers would have worked nearly as well. Good thread.
 

Yankeedave

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Dec 3, 2012
Messages
4,757
Location
Colorado
#53
Interestingly enough the British cotton textile industry did not encourage cotton cultivation in Cuba and Brazil. I have seen cotton fields in El Salvador. Curious has to why the British didn't finance or encourage the Central American nations who were independent by the early 1820s to produce cotton?
Leftyhunter
That would fall under Knights of the Golden Circle.
 
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
15,818
Location
los angeles ca
#54
That would fall under Knights of the Golden Circle.
Not sure why that would be true. The Knights of the Golden Circle was a private American political organization. It would of made perfect sense for the West European consumers of cotton to invest in Central American cotton fields to lessen their dependency on American cotton. Their investment would of certainly payed off in the Civil War.
Leftyhunter
 

Norm53

Corporal
Joined
Feb 13, 2019
Messages
325
Location
Cape May, NJ
#56
Not sure why that would be true. The Knights of the Golden Circle was a private American political organization. It would of made perfect sense for the West European consumers of cotton to invest in Central American cotton fields to lessen their dependency on American cotton. Their investment would of certainly payed off in the Civil War.
Leftyhunter
In the previously cited sources, American cotton seed was distributed to farmers in Argentina and Brazil, so there was a definite interest in getting more SA American cotton planted.

Norm
 
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
15,818
Location
los angeles ca
#58
In the previously cited sources, American cotton seed was distributed to farmers in Argentina and Brazil, so there was a definite interest in getting more SA American cotton planted.

Norm
Yet apparently for some reason Argentinian and Brazilian farmer's could not produce cotton on a commercial scale to replace Southern cotton. Egyptian and farmers in British India could supplement cotton to Western Europe somewhat but not on the scale that antebellum Southern farmers did.
Leftyhunter
 

Norm53

Corporal
Joined
Feb 13, 2019
Messages
325
Location
Cape May, NJ
#59
Yet apparently for some reason Argentinian and Brazilian farmer's could not produce cotton on a commercial scale to replace Southern cotton. Egyptian and farmers in British India could supplement cotton to Western Europe somewhat but not on the scale that antebellum Southern farmers did.
Leftyhunter
Very true, and as I said, therefore British Mfgers. had no choice but to use Indian cotton because the quantities purchased were cheap in spite of the larger transport costs, and there was enough of it to keep the machines running and workers employed. From the import stats above, after an appreciable dip in 62 - 63, 64, and 65 imports climbed up, not quite to 61 level, but appreciably. After the war, American cotton again was #1 in export and remains so today. (Chinese cotton is larger in production, but most of it is used domestically.)
 



(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)
Top