Not really. Cotton couldn't be harvested at an industrial scale before the cotton gin; increasing the scale before that point didn't justify the cost. Slave labor was profitable once upon a time, but tobacco wasn't the cash crop it used to be.https://twitter.com/HeerJeet/status/1467597465792745483 …
-
-
Replying to @HalfTangible
Jeet Heer Retweeted b-boy bouiebaisse
Jeet Heer added,
b-boy bouiebaisseVerified account @jbouieReplying to @HeerJeetprobably worth saying that Madison records one of the Pinckneys (Charles Cotesworth, I think) as arguing at the constitutional convention that Virginia would benefit from a ban on the importation of enslaved people because it could sell its surplus of slaves at inflated value pic.twitter.com/RlkcRZSSus1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HeerJeet
Yup. https://hti.osu.edu/history-lesson-plans/united-states-history/cotton-gin … http://thecottonengine.weebly.com/resurgence-of-slavery.html …
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Replying to @HalfTangible
The cotton gin is a distraction (a deliberate one) since fact that ending atlantic slave trade would make domestic slave trade wealthier was understood before cotton gin invented. It's scapegoating a technology for what was a political and moral failure.
9:56 AM - 6 Dec 2021
0 replies
0 retweets
1 like
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.