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

Introduction

The Civil War in the United States began in 1861 and was fought throughout the northern and southern states in America until it eventually ended in 1865.  The major intention of the war was the preservation of the Union of the United States.  While both sides had their purpose and validated viewpoints, many diverse ideas surrounded the concepts that comprised the definition of the role of the federal government.  The majority opinion declared that the federal government was supposed to accomplish tasks that were related to the maintenance of power.  A majority of the federalists had a great faith in this role of the federal government.  However, those individuals who were non-federalists maintained the belief that the responsibility of maintaining power within the Union was the sole responsibility of the state, not the federal government (American Economic Association 1897, 124-65).  The state, according to their argument, would better be positioned to determine the laws that would justify independent actions and personal rights while respecting the mandate of the federal government.  In consideration of this concept, the specific rights of the states were highly disagreed upon by both sides especially on many important issues such as taxation, slavery and so on.

This was the most deadly of the wars in the history of the United States, which ultimately led to the deaths of more than 620,000 soldiers, paired with tens of thousands of casualties of men, women and children that were not directly involved in the conflict (Thomas 2002, 115-135).  These deaths and casualties were the consequences of decisions made by both sides to enter military conflict surrounding the main disagreement of the abolition of slavery.  The role of the federal government was strengthened during the Reconstruction Era that extended up to 1887.  This era was shaped around the issues relating to politics, social life, racial and economic preservation and advancements.  The resulting changes of the Reconstruction Era were responsible for the elevation of the United States to a position as an international superpower.

The trade in cotton played a pivotal role in the country’s economics during this particular time period, which led to a political reformation movement that resulted in many laws that directly impacted the sale and production of cotton.  Prior to the time that the cotton gin was introduced to the agriculture industry, the planting of cotton was an extensive process in terms of labor and required a significantly large labor force to do the work of several acres.  The cotton gin was responsible for the removal of the cotton seeds from actual cotton plant.  The process of production was increased by half because of the invention of the cotton gin, and provided a much more efficient use of time and labor in crop production.  However, prior to the cotton gin, the work was very difficult and highly time consuming for farmers and field hands, especially during the harvest period for the crop.  The characteristics of cotton include a soft fiber that surrounds the actual seeds.  The seeds are very sticky and difficult to cultivate during unusual circumstances, and there is often much difficulty in the process of separating the soft fiber from the plant (Thomas 2002, 75-85).  The cotton gin increased the value of cotton farming as a business, and the industry became a venture that was highly lucrative.  As a result of this development, a majority of the states in the Southern region of the United States joined the venture of cotton farming.  Within a short period of time, the production of cotton reached a point of becoming the most highly exported product of the American economy.  Consequently, cotton exportation comprised over half of the total exports made internationally by the American economy.

In the year 1900, the vast majority of Southern economies in the United States highly depended upon the production of cotton.  Due to the extensive process of cotton production, the effectiveness of cotton farming was highly enhanced through the use of the slaves that were shipped to the United States from Africa.  These individuals were obligated by force to supply the strenuous labor for cotton production; whereby, the slaves were either highly undercompensated or not compensated at all for their work in the cotton field (Bruce & James 2007, 213-32).  During this period of time the number of the existing slaves had grown much greater than four million persons, and they were mostly found working on the plantations of significantly large acreages where the work was highly required.  No single plantation lacked the presence of slaves during this time period in the United States.  The major regions in which cotton was actively grown are documented to have been among the following: Mississippi, Louisiana, Florida, Alabama, Carolina, Georgia, and Texas (Business & Economics 1948, 67).

Due to the necessity of cotton in the southern states, the prospect of abolishing slavery made cotton production nearly impossible in a time period prior to the introduction of the cotton gin into agriculture.  There are several significant reasons behind the contribution of cotton as catalyst for the American Civil War.  The most notable reasons behind the ignition of the war are as follows:

Potential Profitability Associated With the Trade in Cotton

There became a passage of laws by both the federal and confederate governments, acting in a combination with the Navy’s Union that addressed the cotton trade in the United States.  These laws heavily impacted the effectiveness of enormous transformations in the cotton industry and the cotton trade domestically and internationally for both the North and South.  There was a sharp increase in the purchasing power of raw cotton for the North.  This was accompanied by a simultaneous and substantial decrease in the purchasing power of raw cotton within the South, despite the similar quantities and qualities of cotton provisions within both regions (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 profits that were highly unacceptable.  In addition to this, the theoretical edicts of these new laws provided the implication that any trade that was found violating the law was liable of losing the load altogether and the freedom of the exposed trader for having conducted criminal behavior.  All traders were required to receive specific permission from qualified officials in order to conduct trade for cotton production.  Furthermore, there were other occasions where military assistance may be provided to support traders through the process of traveling safely throughout the frontier, although these traders were also victims of increased transportation costs, sometimes even higher than the price of the cotton revenue (Angela 2005, 34-56).  However, the traders that utilized these avenues for cotton trade were in a social and economic position to accumulate high profits regardless of the legal restrictions placed for cotton trade.  There was great value attached to the property rights of the trade permits that were scarcely given to traders, and the allocation of these permits was often highly intertwined with unethical acts of bribery and cronyism.

Federal Government Role in the Promotion of the Civil War

The Federal Government made multiple contributions towards the ultimate conflict that ensued between the North and the South into the Civil War.  First of all, the federal government implemented a blockage of the Navy that was highly instrumental in fueling the war.  The intention of this action was to prevent the traders of southern states from using naval exports of their cotton products.  This, in turn, restricted much of the economic gains that these southern states could garner, and forced the states to rebel against the federal government to protect their way of life and their source of revenues.  In addition to the naval restrictions, the southern states were also impeded from the importation of goods that they required for the purpose of manufacturing cotton and other economical products as a provision of the federal government (David 2001, 451-34).  The federal government showed a very strong bias against the southern states, and this region felt that in order for their way of life and economic livelihood to be maintained, they must fight back against the oppression and restriction of the federal government.

These federal restrictions were ultimately based on a consequential feeling about the farmers within the United States that they were all in a position of forfeiting their trade of cotton to the markets in Europe because their textile manufacturers who made use of the cotton were faced with a new deprivation of raw cotton.  This led to a situation whereby the southern farmers were inspired to engage in exporting raw cotton internationally to their economic partners in Europe.  The textile manufacturers in the North identified the need of establishing strategies that would facilitate their presence within this lucrative industry.  There were more benefits enjoyed by the farmers from the south as a result of a possibility of conducting their trade to the Europeans than anything the northern farmers could have possibly earned (Donald 2005, 145-57).  The naval and transportation blockades from the federal government were directly responsible for an increase in the cost of transportation which in turn escalated the actual price of cotton in the geographic areas of New York and 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 minimizing the gains of the southern farmers from this trade prompted the administration to devise a system of fewer payments from the officials of the treasury relative to the actual market price of the cotton (Robert 1986, 34-57).  In essence, the direct results decreased the southern farmers’ profits and restricted the exportation capabilities of many cotton farmers in the south, which negatively effected the south as an entire region.

Discrimination in Trade Permits Issuance

The governments devised a new system of issuing trade permits that were ultimately designed to forestall farmers of all products, especially cotton, from being restricted by a monopoly of the agriculture industry.  This was initially aimed at facilitating for the access of the trade to the loyal, domestic citizens only.  There were steps aimed at the determination of the loyalty of the applicant with regard to the permit in matters of actual cotton ownership.  This could be a very lengthy and arduous process to receive a trade permit for cotton and caused many farmers to have acres of crops that were unable to be sold for profit.  However, there was a great dependence within the system on the integrity and 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 and the individuals who were exceptionally wealthy ascertained the appointments of people who had close association with them to act as the issuing agents within the treasury.  In most cases, the agents performed favors to politicians and closer, more lucrative friends in their issuance of trade permits.  There was a tendency for individuals to use 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 over the cotton industry within the majority of the United States (Charles 1914, 245-57).  This system of issuing trade permits was quite unfair, and extremely biased towards individuals with high influence and political or economic power.  The negative results of this system played a vital role in creating a rift between the north and south and setting the stage for the Civil War.

The Proponents of Slavery and Non-Slavery

Because the agriculture industry required quite intensive labor for the production of cotton, there became an even greater need for manipulating individuals and companies into providing cheap labor.  Cotton production was also a very high profile activity within the industry, and was very popular among farmers with large acreage plants of land.  In some of the states, however, the use of the cheap labor that came in the form of slaves was highly prohibited.  Some of the states, particularly in the south, advocated for slavery as a necessity for the economic advancement of the region.  There existed some states that used both slaves and free workers that were directly 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 slave law became a major consideration of the state governments, and even touched the floor of the federal government.  This was consequential to the initiation of two distinct territories, in the North and the South, 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 to force them to join in support of the actions of slavery.  This was a highly consequential factor that led to the eruption of violence within the country.  The importance of slavery in relation to cotton production was the largest factor that led to fueling the conflict between the North and South and leading to the culmination of the Civil War.  The southern farmers required the use of slavery within the region for economic and social advancement and maintenance, while the north was morally objected to cotton farming practices by using slaves as workers.  Still, the conflict ensued and caused the deaths and casualties of hundreds of thousands of people throughout the entire United States based on these major economic and social differences.

Conclusion

The tightening of the naval blockade by the federal government was responsible for the creating the potential for substantially decreased profits that were necessary for the southern farmers and the region as whole to maintain their way of life.  Transportation costs were greatly increased because of the blockades, and a total trade ban could only lead to the magnification of the conflicts that existed between the two regions.  As a negative consequence, the practice of smuggling and finding ways around the new laws became used throughout the region.  President Lincoln had the intention of using cotton, and the economic greed associated with the industry, as a source for advancing the interests of the nation.  The actions of Lincoln were highly consequential to causing the Civil War; whereby, one of the major characteristics of the war was the destruction of the cotton farming plantations, the railroads, and all other resources that were intricate pieces of cotton production and exportation.  The culmination of the war was marked by setting the slaves free across the entire United States, which had a direct relationship with the farmers replacing cotton production with the production of 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?.