How Cotton Was a Catalyst of the American Civil War, Essay Example

Introduction

The onset of the civil war in America was documented to be in 1861 which continued until 1861 and the venue of the civil war was USA. The major intention of the war was the preservation of the United States Union. A great diversity of the ideas existed with regard to the role that was supposed to be accomplished by the federal government. According to the opinion of the majority, the role that the federal government was supposed to accomplish was related to the maintenance of power. Majority of the federalists had a great faith in as far as this important role was concerned. However, on the contrary, those who were non federalists maintained the fact that the responsibility of the maintenance of the greater part of the power was the responsibility of the state (American Economic Association 1897, 124-65).  The state, according to their argument, was better placed in the determination of laws leading to the justification of its independent action with respect to the mandate of the federal government. In consideration of this juncture, the enactment of the rights of the states was accompanied with major disagreements on the most important issues such as the issues related to taxation, slavery and so on.

This was the most deadly of the wars in the history of America which was consequential to the deaths of more than 620 000 soldiers together with a very high number of casualties of the civilians that were hardly determined (Thomas 2002, 115-135). It was consequential to the termination of slavery together with the restoration of the Union. The role  of the federal government was made stronger the reconstruction era that extended upto 1887 was shaped out of the issues related to the politics, the social life, racial and economic. The resultant changes were responsible for the elevation of the nation to a status of a superpower

The trade in cotton played a pivotal role in economy during this particular time leading to the situation of the majority of the reforms as well as laws affecting the production of cotton. Prior to the time that cotton gin was introduced that has the responsibility for the removal of the cotton seeds from the real cotton, the planting of cotton was an intensive process in terms of labor and therefore calling for a requirement of a labor force that was significantly large. This was especially so at the time of harvesting of the crop. The characteristics of the product include soft fiber whose growth surrounds the seeds. The seeds have a characteristic of stickiness and in usual circumstances; there is a difficulty in the process of their separation from the fiber (Thomas 2002, 75-85). The process of production was actually doubled as a result of the invention and introduction of cotton gin. This resulted to the increase in the value of the business as cotton farming became a venture that was highly lucrative. As a result of this development, majority of the states in the Southern region of America joined the activity of cotton growing. Within a short while of time the production of cotton reached a point of becoming top in the export market. In relation to all the exports, cotton made half of the contribution.

In the year 1900, the economy of the majority of the people in the Southern region of United States depended on the production of cotton. The effectiveness of production was enhanced through the use of the slave sourced from the African American. These people were forced to supply labor which was either under compensated or even not compensated at all for the purposes of the production processes of cotton (Bruce & James 2007, 213-32).  During this period of time the number of the existing slaves had gone past the four million mark and they were mostly found in the plantations of significantly large acreages. There was no single plantation that lacked the presence of the slaves. The major regions in which cotton was actively grown was documented to be among the following; Mississippi, Louisiana, Florida, Alabama, Carolina Georgia, South as well as Texas (Business & Economics 1948, 67).

There are significant reasons behind the contribution of cotton as catalyst in the civil war in America. The most notable reasons behind the ignition of the war are as follows:

Potential Profitability Associated With the Trade in Cotton

There was passage of laws by the federal as well as the confederate governments acting in a combination with the navy’s Union that was responsible for impacting on the effectiveness responsible for the creation of enormous transformations with regard to the trading in cotton in the context of the northern as well as the southern produce. There was a sharp increase in the purchasing power of the raw cotton in as far as the North was concerned at the time of the war imputed to the northern provisions. This was accompanied by a simultaneous sharp drop in the purchasing power of raw cotton in as far as the south was concerned which was an attribute of similar provisions (Russell 1977, 34-56), As a result of this development, the farmers who had the potential capabilities of transferring their cotton in a cheap manner to the south were in a position of generating some profits that were unexceptional. In addition to this, the theoretical edicts had the implication of the any trade who was found violating the law was liable of loosing personal load together with the freedom exposed to the trader. The trader in a position of the achievement of official permission for the purpose of trade and in other occasions some military assistance in the process of getting an avenue across the frontier of the military however was exposed to high levels of reduction of the costs associated with transportation (Angela 2005, 34-56).  These are the traders who were in a position of accumulating high levels of profits and more so in the situation of the constriction of the trade. There was great value attached to the property rights of the trade permits that were usually scarce together with the selection of the mechanism of allocation which was an important aspect in the process of the avoidance of bribery as well as cronyism

Federal Government Role in the Promotion of the Civil War

There were major contributions towards the proliferation of the civil war as a result of the contribution of the federal government. The implementation of the blockage of the navy played a major responsibility in the fuelling of the war. The intention of this action was the prevention of the traders from the southern region to earn through the use of export of the staple product that inherently belonged to them. They were also impeded from the importation of the goods that they required for the purpose of manufacture as well as provisions (David 2001, 451-34).

This was consequential to a feeling among the Northern as well as the Southern farmers to the effect that they were in a position of forfeiting their trade in the trade of cotton to the markets in Europe in the situation that their textile manufacturers who made use of the cotton faced the deprivation of the raw cotton. This led to a situation whereby there was an inspiration among the southerners to the engagement in exporting. The textile manufacturers in the North identified the need of establishment of some strategies that would facilitate their persistence in the business. There were more benefits enjoyed by the farmers from the south as a result of a possibility of conducting their trade to the Europeans as compared to the traders from the North (Donald 2005, 145-57).  The blockade made as a result of the actions of the federal government was responsible for the induction of an increase in the cost of transportation which was responsible for the escalation of the actual cotton price in the context of New York as well as Great Britain. The increases in the actual price of the cotton had no important benefits extended to the farmers. The eventual course of action aimed at the minimization of the gains that the southerners enjoyed from this trade prompted the administration in the direction of devising a system of fewer payments from the officials of the treasury relative to the actual market price of the produce (Robert 1986, 34-57).

Discrimination in Trade Permits Issuance

The initial scenario involved a system of the issuance of the permits of trade in a design of forestalling all people or a group of people against the monopoly of the trade of cotton. This was initially aimed at facilitating for the access of the trade to the loyal citizens only. There were steps aimed at the determination of the loyalty of the applicant with regard to the permit in matters of actual ownership of the cotton. However, there was a great dependence of the system on the integrity as well as diligence of the agents at the treasury with the responsibilities of issuing of the permits (Peter 1981, 247-53). The prominent official in administration together with the politicians, the businessmen as well as the individuals who were exceptionally wealthy ascertained the appointments of people who had close association with them to act as the agents in the treasury. The reciprocation of the agents to the favors that were conferred upon them was political favors. There was a tendency of the use of the influence by the president, Abraham Lincoln together with the associates who were close to him for the purpose of the acquisition of the permits leading to their immense control of the cotton in the majority of the states (Charles 1914, 245-57).  This system of the issue of the permits was quite unfair with the results that they played a vital role in the fueling of the war in the situation that the issue came to the limelight of the public.

The Proponents States of Slavery and Non Slavery

As a result of the requirement of intensive labor in the production of cotton, there arose a need for the manipulation of cheap labor. The production of cotton was also associated with high profile of popularity as an important activity of farming. In some of the states however, the use of the cheap labor in the form of the slaves was highly prohibited. Some of the states advocated for slavery. There existed some slave as well as free states that were responsible for addressing the interests of the North as well as the South. Among the reforms that were in place, the issue of the fugitive law of slave was a consideration. This was consequential to the initiation of two distinctive territories that were characterized by diverse interests (Edwin 1998, 24-45). There were important developments at the time of the initiation of pressure by the proslavery states towards the free states in an effort of forcing them to join them in support of the actions of slavery. This was consequential to the eruption of violence. The importance of slavery ion the fuelling of the war was based on the fact of the importance of slavery in the supply of labor for the purpose of the production of the cotton. This was based on the existence of its supporters and opposers at the same time.

Conclusion

The tightening of the naval blockade in the federal government was responsible for the creation of the potential for the profits that were spectacular on the part of the individuals who were in a position of obtaining the produce as well as transporting it through means that were relatively cheap. A total trade ban could only lead to the magnification of profits potential together with a likelihood of the creation of a situation of the promotion of smuggling. Lincoln had the intention of the use of cotton accompanied by a feeling of the application of greed for the purpose of the advancement of the interests of the nation. The actions of Lincoln were consequential  to the civil war whose major characteristic was the destruction of the plantations of cotton, the railroads in addition to the rest of the infrastructure that were responsible for crippling of the production of cotton in the regions that never supported the Union. The culmination of the war was marked by setting free of the slaves and there was a replacement of the production of cotton by corn.

Bibliography

American Economic Association. 1897. Publications of the American Economic Association. Nashville: American Economic Association.

Angela, L. 2005. Inventing the Cotton Gin. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Pres.

Bruce, C. & James M. 2007. The Civil War?. England: Mariner books.

Business & Economics. 1948. Empire cotton growing review. London: Empire Cotton Growing Corp

Charles, A.B. 1914. American government and politics. New York: Macmillan.

David, G. S. 2001. Northern naval superiority and the economics of the American Civil War. Columbia Univ. of South Carolina Press.

Donald, J. M. 2005. The slavery quarrel and the American Civil War History. New York: Algora Pub, 55.

Edwin C. F. 1998. The Secret War for the Union. United States: Houghton Mifflin trade.

Peter J. P. 1981. American Civil War. NY: Meier and Holmes Publishers.

Robert, G. W. 1986. Export agriculture and the crisis in Central America?. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

Russell, F. W. 1977. The American way of war. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Thomas, E. G. 2002. The American Civil War. New York: Square One Publishing?.