How the Cotton Gin Ended Slavery

By Douglas V. Gibbs

As a radio host and prolific writer, focusing my efforts on the founding of this nation and the Constitution, I receive a constant barrage of questions, comments and challenges regarding what I say and write.  I welcome these communications, and every once in a while, enjoy sharing the interplay with my readers and listeners.  The latest came in regards to a statement I make often which argues that the invention of the cotton gin ultimately would have led to the end of slavery in America, and that the War Between the States was unnecessary.  In fact, I believe that the dark days of the American Civil War was against what the Founding Fathers intended, and that without the bloodshed, ultimately slavery would come to an end in America.  Without the Civil War slavery would have ended without the death of so many Americans, and without the Executive Branch becoming such a powerful branch of government as President Lincoln made it as he stomped all over the Constitution during that time period.


The question from the person who emailed me simply stated, "Subject: Cotton gin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.  Wikipedia says the opposite?"

I wrote back:

What I mean when I say the cotton gin led to the end of slavery is not that it lessened slavery at the time of its invention, for in truth more slaves were needed in the field to increase production in order to keep up with the new machine, but the cotton gin began an innovation revolution that led to other inventions that made producing cotton, and manufacturing cotton products, more efficient, moving the industry from the fields to the factory. Because of the cotton gin, other devices followed, which in the long run even made labor in the field, or at least at the numbers being used, not as necessary. The only thing holding the South back in moving the industry completely into the factory was laws that disallowed the South to manufacture the final products, because if that was allowed, the North would lose an important role of their own in the industry. Eventually, however, slavery was becoming too expensive, because hiring workers was not only becoming a lot cheaper than housing, feeding and providing health care for the laborers as was the case with slaves, but also now a work force in the terms of numbers was readily available. Slavery began because during the early days of colonization, once the cash crop of tobacco was discovered, there were not enough people in the colonies to populate the needed labor force, and a rapidly numerically increased cheap labor force was needed. As the nation grew, the increase in free population provided plenty of workers that were willing to work for a low enough wage. Economics and innovation was killing slavery, as well as a growing abolitionist movement in the South. Slavery had outlived its usefulness from the point of view of those in the 1800s, and keeping slaves had become more of a status symbol than a perceived need. With all of these factors in play, it is my contention that without the Civil War, slavery would have been abolished State by State within 15 years of what became the start of the Civil War. And abolishing [slavery] State by State, instead of the wholesale slaughter of over 600,000 men, was what the Founding Fathers wanted to happen, which is why they began the process of abolishing slavery with Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution, which led to the elimination of the Atlantic Slave Trade.

Hope this clears it up for you.

Blessings,

Douglas V. Gibbs
Constitution Radio, KCAA 1050 AM
www.politicalpistachio.com
www.douglasvgibbs.com