# Would cotton farming have been viable sans slaves? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [November 2, 2025, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-cotton-farming-have-been-viable-sans-slaves/1024509 "2025-11-02T23:12:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![xtenkfarpl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/c2a13f/32.png) [@xtenkfarpl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xtenkfarpl)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2025, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-cotton-farming-have-been-viable-sans-slaves/1024509/21 "2025-11-03T18:42:30Z")
> [@DPRK](#): > > Jack Kerouac wrote about picking cotton (and how he made enough money not to literally starve but no more than that Jack was writing fiction, and to the extent that there was a real basis, this was something he did for a short while rather than a long term necessity. Don’t get me wrong: I love a lot of his work. But he did often adjust facts to suit his narrative… ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2025, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-cotton-farming-have-been-viable-sans-slaves/1024509/22 "2025-11-03T20:44:23Z")
> [@Beckdawrek](#): > > We know production was nearly ceased during the Civil War. But after how quick was it to pick up? By 1880 sharecropping allowed cotton to rebound, but again, that is a source of cheap unskilled labor, that in the USA just did not exist without slavery- and later freed slaves. So , yes, if all the slaves were freed before the Civil war (which then would not occur) sharecropping could take over - due to all that unskilled cheap labor. Mechanical cotton pickers came about in the 1940’s. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2025, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-cotton-farming-have-been-viable-sans-slaves/1024509/23 "2025-11-03T22:43:20Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > I think you might mean 19th century, i.e. the 1800’s. I was referring to the period after Whitney’s gin was introduced in 1793, hence 18th century. Despite schoolbooks, machinery did not make an immediate difference. About 30 years were needed for the change to percolate through the South. Rice and indigo were the two leading exports from the South in the 18th century. > [@Beckdawrek](#): > > I’d like to see stats on that. > > We know production was nearly ceased during the Civil War. But after how quick was it to pick up? Stats shall you have. [This chart on annual cotton production on Statista](https://www.statista.com/statistics/1070570/us-cotton-output-area-historical/?srsltid=AfmBOoo2YhcoXIQcSjchALOcfI42lxhgOnznph2alyMewCaNtpysPezn) shows the nearly flat production from 1792 to 1822, the tenfold growth from then to the Civil War, and then a resumption of prewar levels in 1876 and another tripling of growth during the next half century. Most production turned to cheaper and better cottons in other countries after the Depression, but greatly increased efficiency in the U.S. meant that it has more or less the same output from one-fourth the acreage. > [@DrDeth](#): > > By 1880 sharecropping allowed cotton to rebound, but again, that is a source of cheap unskilled labor, So this is correct. Sharecroppers were treated barely better than slaves and far worse than any northern counterparts. Of course, technology improved in that half century as well, with steam-powered equipment for processing being especially important. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2025, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-cotton-farming-have-been-viable-sans-slaves/1024509/24 "2025-11-03T23:05:18Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Are there any solid examples of successful cotton farms employing free people for a decent amount of time, or is this pretty much theoretical? For starters, I assume that @Darren_Garrison 's mother and grandmother, mentioned in post 3, weren’t slaves. I expect that they probably didn’t have great working conditions, and they were probably underpaid, but they were still free. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2025, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-cotton-farming-have-been-viable-sans-slaves/1024509/25 "2025-11-04T04:00:34Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > I was referring to the period after Whitney’s gin was introduced in 1793, hence 18th century. No, here- > [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > Then it boomed like oil in the 20th century. By 1860 it was 75% of the world’s supply and 60% of American profits. > [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > So this is correct. Sharecroppers were treated barely better than slaves and far worse than any northern counterparts. Yes, it was a hard life, but they could not be sold or beaten and their children were free. > [@Chronos](#): > > For starters, I assume that @Darren_Garrison 's mother and grandmother, mentioned in post 3, weren’t slaves. I expect that they probably didn’t have great working conditions, and they were probably underpaid, but they were still free. Yes, but in order to pick cotton back then, a Southern farmer needed a lot of cheap labor. From the early 1800’s to 1865 he got that from slaves, then after that from freed slaves, working as sharecroppers. That reservoir of cheap labor was only there due to slavery and the 3 million now freed slaves. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2025, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-cotton-farming-have-been-viable-sans-slaves/1024509/26 "2025-11-04T04:15:04Z")
If they needed to they could have paid the workers more. The Southern state governments could have subsidized doing so if necessary, even, much as they supported slavery (to the point of war, literally). They just didn’t _want_ to, since they were willing to spend money and effort to hurt people, but unwilling to do so to help them. Slavery was _always_ more about malice and dominance than it was about profit. Then as now, “the cruelty is the point”. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2025, 4:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-cotton-farming-have-been-viable-sans-slaves/1024509/27 "2025-11-04T04:18:38Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > The Southern state governments could have subsidized doing so if necessary, even, much as they supported slavery (to the point of war, literally). They just didn’t _want_ to, since they were willing to spend money and effort to hurt people, but unwilling to do so to help them. Slavery was _always_ more about malice and dominance than it was about profit. I dunno if I completely agree, but this idea has merit. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2025, 4:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-cotton-farming-have-been-viable-sans-slaves/1024509/28 "2025-11-04T04:27:28Z")
> [@Odesio](#): > > Imagine it’s 1680 and you’re a South Carolina cotton farmer. How are you going to attract laborers when it’s time to plant, cultivate, and harvest?.. Would you want to live in South Carolina before air conditioning was invented? It’s hard to imagine life anywhere in the deep South in the days before A/C, but somehow people got through intense heat and humidity for half the year or more.\* Texas had thriving agriculture (farms raising cotton, corn, rice, wheat etc.) in the 19th century after the Civil War, with tenant farmers (increasingly white) replacing slave labor. > **[The Evolution of Texas Agriculture: From Prehistoric Roots to Modern Practices](https://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/entries/agriculture)** > > Explore the rich history of Texas agriculture, tracing its evolution from prehistoric practices to modern advancements, and understand the challenges and contributions of this vital sector to the state's economy. \*having lived near Houston, I’ve wondered how businesses were able to find office help and other workers willing to endure the hellish summers. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2025, 4:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-cotton-farming-have-been-viable-sans-slaves/1024509/29 "2025-11-04T04:39:48Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Slavery was _always_ more about malice and dominance than it was about profit. I don’t think that’s the case at all. In the 17th century, colonists weren’t sitting around trying to figure out how to be cruel to Africans. They wanted to make money, slavery was an economic benefit to them, and they engaged in all sort of mental gymnastics to justify their enslavement of others. Had there been no economic incentive, slavery wouldn’t have been such a big part of American history. ---
**Author:** ![Askance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/askance/32/8281_2.png) [@Askance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Askance)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2025, 5:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-cotton-farming-have-been-viable-sans-slaves/1024509/30 "2025-11-04T05:56:32Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Given that it was viable even with slavery, it certainly would have also been viable without. Slavery is actually less efficient than free workers. > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I don’t think this is true, at least from the perspective of the plantation owners. Free and compulsory labor was more efficient for them than paid labor, even if it was obviously less efficient for the overall society. I _think_ it was the book **1493** that addressed this. Apparently they did originally use indentured labour from Europe in the cotton and other fields in the South, but they all died of various diseases prevalent there so switching to slaves from Africa, where those diseases already existed, was simply a way of keeping the labour supply up. They were quite aware they were less productive (and potentially more dangerous) than paid workers but felt they had no choice. Africa was convenient, there was already a flourishing slave market there, and it enabled the notorious Triangular Trade route for shipping. While slavery was regarded as immoral in Christian countries in Europe, buying Africans was okay because they were pagans, and as an added bonus could be brought into the faith thus saving their souls! Really they were being done a favour. But that created a new problem - once slaves were Christianised, how to rationalise still keeping them as slaves? This is the point where the rationale switched from religion to skin colour, leading directly into the subhuman trope, supercharged by their misunderstanding of Darwin and by the developing “science” of eugenics. So in short it doesn’t seem like cotton production in the pre-modern-medicine South could have been viable without slavery. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2025, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-cotton-farming-have-been-viable-sans-slaves/1024509/31 "2025-11-04T17:41:09Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > No, here- You separated the quote at the crucial spot. If read as “What we know is that cotton was a tiny crop in the 18th century. Then it boomed…” the progression from the 18th to the 19th century should have been clear. If it wasn’t here’s the explanation. > [@DrDeth](#): > > Yes, it was a hard life, but they could not be sold or beaten and their children were free. But they could be continually terrorized, and were. Northern workers had means of organizing and gained political power. The South started the campaign of terror immediately after the war and codified it later. By no means was the North a paradise either for blacks or ethnic white workers, but no comparison of awfulness can fail to conclude that conditions in the postwar South approximated those of the antebellum period. Which, to be clear, were the opposite of the later picture drawn of happy darkies singing in the moonlight. > [@Odesio](#): > > I don’t think that’s the case at all. In the 17th century, colonists weren’t sitting around trying to figure out how to be cruel to Africans. That lasted only until larger numbers of black slaves (Native Americans at various times and places could also be enslaved) arrived. By the mid-17th century, the attitudes were already [hardening](https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/slavery-colonial-america). > As Europeans continued to settle the North American colonies throughout the 17th century, the legal codification of race-based slavery also continued to grow. Though many historians agree that slavery and indentured servitude coexisted in the early part of the century (with many Europeans arriving in the colonies under indentures), especially throughout the 1640s-1660s colonies increasingly established laws limiting the rights of Africans and African-Americans and solidifying the institution of slavery upon the basis of race and heredity. By the end of the century, slavery was legal in almost all colonies, and the children of slaves were automatically slaves themselves. The settlers considered both the African imports and the indigenous natives as savage races distinctly below the white race, and thus little more than recalcitrant animals that deserved treatment no better than a balky mule. White supremacy was baked into the country from before the beginning. > [@Odesio](#): > > all sort of mental gymnastics to justify their enslavement of others Quite so, and these did grow more sophisticated (and biblically-based) over time as attacks on slavery also evolved. By the time of the war they were so extreme and sickening that more than the small cadre of abolitionists were disturbed. In that mindset war was inevitable. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2025, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-cotton-farming-have-been-viable-sans-slaves/1024509/32 "2025-11-04T17:46:50Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > That lasted only until larger numbers of black slaves (Native Americans at various times and places could also be enslaved) arrived. A great many Native Americans were enslaved; they were just sent overseas to places like the Caribbeans. By importing black slaves and exporting Native American ones, the slavers separated the slaves from the people that they were most likely to either escape to or hope to rescue them. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2025, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-cotton-farming-have-been-viable-sans-slaves/1024509/33 "2025-11-04T20:41:35Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > By the end of the century, slavery was legal in almost all colonies, and the children of slaves were automatically slaves themselves. I’m not questioning the idea slavery in the Americas was a cruel and terrible institution. I’m questioning the idea that it was more about malice than economics. The slavers were driven by their economic interest more than any desire to be cruel. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2025, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-cotton-farming-have-been-viable-sans-slaves/1024509/34 "2025-11-04T21:40:50Z")
> [@Odesio](#): > > I’m questioning the idea that it was more about malice than economics. The slavers were driven by their economic interest more than any desire to be cruel. The North economically outcompeted the North because slavery was an economic drag on the South. The South responded by doubling down on slavery, not by switching to a more profitable system. Because profit was the excuse, not the point. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2025, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-cotton-farming-have-been-viable-sans-slaves/1024509/35 "2025-11-04T21:49:54Z")
We’re probably using different definitions of malice. My contention is that since blacks and black slaves were treated differently in the laws than slaves or indentured servants of other races, the attitude toward them was inherently different. They were considered inferior to whites from the beginning. If purely economic reasons were considered that would not be true. The number of black slaves in the mid-1600s when these laws started appearing was tiny, a total in all the colonies of a few thousand at most. Economically, that number was not a difference maker. White supremacy explains more. The brutality of slavery certainly rose as the numbers did. By the mid-1800s the number of slaves had risen 100,000% and the fear of Southerners about uprisings and organized revolts probably appreciated proportionally. If you’re equating malice with sheer brutality then I would agree that it metastasized over time. Otherwise malice was present from the beginning. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2025, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-cotton-farming-have-been-viable-sans-slaves/1024509/36 "2025-11-04T22:57:33Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > The North economically outcompeted the North because slavery was an economic drag on the South. The South responded by doubling down on slavery, not by switching to a more profitable system. Because profit was the excuse, not the point. It’s no doubt the North outcompeted the South. The South doubled down on slavery because that’s where the economic interests of the slavers resided. The South was dominated by these elites and they tended to make decisions that were in their best interest. (Tangent: I recently took a trip up to Wisconsin which reminded me of what a shithole Arkansas is. When driving in rural Wisconsin, I did not see decay and signs of poverty like I do down here. Even in the smallest of towns, I didn’t seen any broken down homes that left me wondering who the hell lives there.) > [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > We’re probably using different definitions of malice. My contention is that since blacks and black slaves were treated differently in the laws than slaves or indentured servants of other races, the attitude toward them was inherently different. They were considered inferior to whites from the beginning. Slaves and indentured servants aren’t the same. An indentured servant serves for a set number of years and you don’t own them or their offspring like you do with a slave. Again, I need to stress something here. I’m not questioning the barbarity of slavery. I’m questioning the idea the South was driven by malice rather than what they saw as their own economic needs. Or at least the economic needs of the elite who were running the show. I don’t care how inferior you think Africans are, that’s not going to be the primary driver to bring them across the Atlantic. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2025, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-cotton-farming-have-been-viable-sans-slaves/1024509/37 "2025-11-04T23:06:02Z")
I only mentioned indentured servants because black slaves were originally considered to have the same rights as them, yet those changed for one group but not the other. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2025, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-cotton-farming-have-been-viable-sans-slaves/1024509/38 "2025-11-05T00:25:00Z")
I’m sure that plenty of Southern slave owners thought that slavery was in their best economic interests. But they were wrong. Bigotry often makes people stupid. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2025, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-cotton-farming-have-been-viable-sans-slaves/1024509/39 "2025-11-05T01:43:00Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > The South responded by doubling down on slavery, not by switching to a more profitable system. Oh, no- King Cotton was HUGELY profitable. Massively so. Of course when the war came, you cant arm soldiers with cotton and you cant eat it- and cotton farms had depleted soil. So, yeah for a while slavery and cotton was profitable. But you are putting all your eggs in one basket, and unlike the North- The South after the Cotton Gin pretty much stopped developing industrially. The cotton gin and king cotton was the thing that turned slavery in the USA from dying out- slowly- into thriving. Fortunes were made. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2025, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-cotton-farming-have-been-viable-sans-slaves/1024509/40 "2025-11-05T02:20:33Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > I’m sure that plenty of Southern slave owners thought that slavery was in their best economic interests. But they were wrong. Bigotry often makes people stupid. I am not an expert on the economy of the antebellum South. But put yourself in the mindset of a plantation owner in South Carolina during the 1830s. Your bread and butter is a cash crop like cotton or tobacco, but maybe you’re also a banker or you’re invested in other industries related to cotton like shipping or textiles. Your core economic interest lies in that cash crop though. What are you going to do that’s just as profitable as that cash crop you’re so heavily invested in? Slavery was absolutely in the best economic interest of the slavers. They understood that and it’s why they literally went to war to preserve it. It wasn’t so good for the South as a whole of course. We’re still economically underdeveloped. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-cotton-farming-have-been-viable-sans-slaves/1024509.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-cotton-farming-have-been-viable-sans-slaves/1024509.md?page=3)