White Gold: The Empire of Cotton

Summary: The invention of the cotton gin sparked many changes in not only America, but in Europe as well. Many of these changes were economic, putting America at the forefront of the cotton industry. The South particularly was the the main producer of cotton for the world. Since the cotton gin originated in America, many countries started buying cotton, raw, or refined from America. England also tried to bolster their economy by converting most of the Northern part of the country to cotton farms. The civil war would hinder America's involvement in the cotton industry, but this prompted England and other European countries ,who used America for cotton, to incorporate many of their colonies. Now with most of the settled world producing or buying cotton, Britain gained a large amount of power. Despite English efforts to dominate the cotton exchange, once the Civil War was over, America was back on top. Even though slaves were no longer available, they were producing up to twice as much cotton as they had been before. America quickly regained control of not only raw cotton, but refined cotton as well.

1. Could this be considered the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, why, or why not?

2. What modern day invention could be compared to the cotton gin, and why?

Transatlantic Abolition

Summary: This reading goes over the timeline of slavery between the 1780's and 1800's. Large abolitionist groups were started in Britain, America, and France; Britain being the largest and most affluent group. These groups were generally made up of Quakers, only being augmented by other religious groups. Between 1780 and 1807 all of these petitions for the abolition of slave trading as well as slavery were in vain, other than a couple illustrations of slave ships causing a lot of people to join the cause. 1807 was the first time any government had accepted and agreed upon legal action, in 1807 Parliament made it illegal for British ships to transport slaves, a year later America also banned the slave trade. 1820 is when things took a new turn, many women decided to become proactive and formed many of their own anti-slavery groups, eventually turning in a petition with 1.3 million signatures, culminating in a meeting between all three countries most prominent abolitionists.

Q1: Women remained outside of politics for much of the beginning of America, what prompted this sudden surge, and why did this topic spark their interest?

Q2: Quakers were the original abolitionists due to their emphasis on equality, other religions such as Christianity have the "golden rule" treat others as you want to be treated, why were they not as interested/active in abolition?

Text Analysis.1.

1. What is the author arguing? Overall the author is arguing that slavery is wrong, but more specifically that Congress should outlaw the ability of slaves to be traded across borders of non-slave states. Also calling upon the people to be proactive against the slave trade.

2. How does the author appeal to logos (logic), pathos (emotional quality), and ethos (the writer’s perceived character) with their argument? The author appeals to logos by citing that if the slave owners were only to set their slaves free and use them as paid workers instead, that their production would go up. Also by targeting part of the argument towards Congress can show some sort of appeal to a layman's logic. For the emotional argument the author tries to really sell the idea of slaves being people and just how wrong it is to treat another human in such a way. Appealing to the people the author uses a couple religious references.

3. What is the historical significance/relevance of this document? It comes from a influential abolitionist writer, at a time when anti-slavery views were starting to become very popular.

4. Do you find the author’s argument convincing? Why or why not? I personally find this incredibly convincing. Even putting myself in the shoes of an early American, I find it hard to argue against any point. The author touches on nearly every angle, legal, moral, and religious. All of which are at the top of my decision affecting variables. Perhaps the only way I would be against this is if I were a slave holder.