WI: No Cotton Gin?

So, as I understand it, the invention of the cotton gin in 1793 was fairly directly responsible for calcifying slavery into the "peculiar institution" it ended up as shortly before the Civil War. Indeed, I've heard it said that without the cotton gin, slavery would have fizzled out in the US long before the Civil War-era.

So, what if? Let's say Eli Whitney hits his head right before he was supposed to invent the cotton gin, and for some reason no one else comes up with the idea until at least the mid-1800's (or whatever). What happens? Does slavery get phased out in the US around the time the British dropped it (early 1800's), or does it go on?
 
The cotton gin is so simple that its non-discovery isn't that plausible. However, if we're treating it as if it is plausible, here goes.
The old slavery system based on tobacco, particularly in eastern Kentucky, Virginia, and North Carolina, will continue to decline, and perhaps one of the proposed gradual emancipation schemes could be introduced by the 1830s, with the "necessary evil" mentality never being supplanted without an economic revitalization of the institution. This probably alters settlement patterns in Western Appalachia and the Old Southwest, perhaps slowing colonization and leaving more room for the civilized tribes. Without slave pressure, Gringo migration into Texas may not be large enough to break away from Mexico, and if it does, it would be likely to desire true independence, rather than union with the U.S.
Then again, maybe indigo could become the alternate cotton, and the butterflies could be much less major.
 
The cotton gin is so simple that its non-discovery isn't that plausible. However, if we're treating it as if it is plausible, here goes.
The old slavery system based on tobacco, particularly in eastern Kentucky, Virginia, and North Carolina, will continue to decline, and perhaps one of the proposed gradual emancipation schemes could be introduced by the 1830s, with the "necessary evil" mentality never being supplanted without an economic revitalization of the institution. This probably alters settlement patterns in Western Appalachia and the Old Southwest, perhaps slowing colonization and leaving more room for the civilized tribes. Without slave pressure, Gringo migration into Texas may not be large enough to break away from Mexico, and if it does, it would be likely to desire true independence, rather than union with the U.S.
Then again, maybe indigo could become the alternate cotton, and the butterflies could be much less major.

Interesting response, though, TBH, speaking as somebody who actually lives in Texas and knows a fair bit about this state's history, I do want to set one thing straight: slavery wasn't a primary reason for Texas breaking away from Mexico; it was, in fact, largely an afterthought(with a few exceptions to the rule). Even without slavery's expansion, there will almost certainly be significant "Gringo" immigration into Texas, barring a radical departure from Santa Anna's policy(which isn't at all impossible, though that may be another thread for another time); really, the only likely significant change here, demographically is going to be in just *who* comes-there'll probably be more backcountry farmers and European immigrants coming there in place of most of the wannabe planters.

Also, here's another thing to consider: there'll also be less opposition to westward expansion beyond Texas later on-so, especially if Mexico does something really stupid between 1830 and, say, 1860, and America wins that fight, they can say goodbye to at least everything else due north of the 33rd parallel, if not more.
 
Interesting response, though, TBH, speaking as somebody who actually lives in Texas and knows a fair bit about this state's history, I do want to set one thing straight: slavery wasn't a primary reason for Texas breaking away from Mexico; it was, in fact, largely an afterthought(with a few exceptions to the rule). Even without slavery's expansion, there will almost certainly be significant "Gringo" immigration into Texas, barring a radical departure from Santa Anna's policy(which isn't at all impossible, though that may be another thread for another time); really, the only likely significant change here, demographically is going to be in just *who* comes-there'll probably be more backcountry farmers and European immigrants coming there in place of most of the wannabe planters.

Also, here's another thing to consider: there'll also be less opposition to westward expansion beyond Texas later on-so, especially if Mexico does something really stupid between 1830 and, say, 1860, and America wins that fight, they can say goodbye to at least everything else due north of the 33rd parallel, if not more.
As for your latter point, it was the Calhounist plantocrats who pushed for sub-Rio Grande expansion. The North and west thought that the area was too far away, too populated, and too brown to be both readily controlled and worth integrating. Even with a less divisive slavery issue, many Northerners will have these same arguments, and the Southerners have less reason to resist them, as they will either have broken away from slavery and started using immigrants to speed up population growth, or even parts of the Old Southwest will not be fully settled.
 
Also, is indigo plausible as a replacement for cotton? I know that it was successfully introduced into SC in the mid-18th century, but are there any factors that would limit its expansion throughout the south?
 
One more thing. Did Whitney's status as the inventor of the cotton gin facilitate his granting of the 1798 army supply contract that kickstarted the idea of the american system?
 
So, as I understand it, the invention of the cotton gin in 1793 was fairly directly responsible for calcifying slavery into the "peculiar institution" it ended up as shortly before the Civil War. Indeed, I've heard it said that without the cotton gin, slavery would have fizzled out in the US long before the Civil War-era.

This is based on a misunderstanding. Cotton wasn't the only viable use of slavery. It's just that, for most of the first half of the nineteenth century, it was the most profitable use of slavery. Knock out cotton, and all that happens is that the slaveowners move on to the next most profitable use of slavery.

In OTL, slaves in the USA were employed profitably in cotton, sugar, tobacco, rice, hemp, kinda-sort indigo, wheat and other small grains, cattle, mining, road, rail and canal construction, shipbuilding, blacksmithing, coopering, turpentine manufacture, brickmaking, ropemaking, and a whole host of other artisan and urban manufacturing pursuits. Outside of the USA, you can add a whole bunch of other more tropical crops (coffee, bananas, sisal, tropical fruit) to that mix.

So, what if? Let's say Eli Whitney hits his head right before he was supposed to invent the cotton gin, and for some reason no one else comes up with the idea until at least the mid-1800's (or whatever). What happens? Does slavery get phased out in the US around the time the British dropped it (early 1800's), or does it go on?

As an aside, the cotton gin is the kind of invention which is practical enough and necessary enough that I'd struggle to see it delayed by so much as a decade. And if it is delayed somehow, you've just ripped the heart out of the Industrial Revolution, which was largely built around cotton textiles. But let's set that to one side for the sake of the WI.

What happens in the short term is a continuation of the same trends which started in OTL after the end of the ARW and before the invention of the cotton gin. Slavery based on tobacco cultivation expands into the uplands of South Carolina, Georgia and so forth. Slave-based rice cultivation expands a little too, as does sugar in those regions where it's suitable. (Largely Florida and the Gulf Coast.) Indigo remains moribund. Slavery based on long-staple cotton (which did not need the cotton gin) expands into the regions where it's viable, albeit those regions are limited. Slavery based on wheat/small-grain and hemp cultivation expands into Kentucky, and southern Indiana and Illinois. The pressure to make the latter two slave states, which was considerable in OTL, will become much stronger ITTL, and likely succeed.

Longer term, the westward pace of Southern migration will be considerably slower. It was the profitability of cotton which allowed the westward pace to proceed as fast as it did (without much immigration), and things will be slower. Population density, and particularly urban density, will be higher; another effect of slavery was the relative lack of small towns and cities. Slaves will still be used in agriculture: tobacco, long-staple cotton, rice, sugar, wheat/small grains, hemp, and so forth, but not as extensively as with short-staple cotton. Other uses of slavery (artisans, urban manufacturing, timber, construction, etc) will also be significant.

Also, is indigo plausible as a replacement for cotton? I know that it was successfully introduced into SC in the mid-18th century, but are there any factors that would limit its expansion throughout the south?

Indigo is not remotely possible. In OTL, indigo production collapsed after the American Revolutionary Wars, and never meaningfully recovered. It was always less profitable in the mainland USA, and relied on British subsidies for meaningful cultivation. After the ARW, that was gone, and it was mostly grown as an off-season crop to keep rice-growing slaves busy for the rest of the year. It was moribund long before 1860, and had no real potential to expand.
 
i agree just too much development possibilities for the cotton gin. and i think they wouldn't be able to compete with india with regards to producing indigo.

to get rid of cotton i think is far more practical to suggest an early arrival of the boll weevil
 
One more thing. Did Whitney's status as the inventor of the cotton gin facilitate his granting of the 1798 army supply contract that kickstarted the idea of the american system?



Wiki says that Whitney was only one of the inventers of the American System. From what I've read the French were ahead of everybody in developing inchangeable weapon parts. But their system required more skilled craftsmen than similar American developements.
 
Simple or not nobody in western history had thought of it before, it made cotton cheap, which it never had been before. Cotton cloth used to be exotic and for high class clothes for the wealthy.

No-one had thought of the cotton gin before because there was no real need for it. Before then, Western demand for cotton was perfectly well-supplied by cultivation of long-staple cotton, which did not need the cotton gin since the seeds could be easily removed by hand.

However, long-staple cotton was more sensitive to frost and lower temperatures than short-staple cotton. For centuries that didn't matter because there was enough decent land to grow long-staple cotton to meet Western demand. When Western demand increased dramatically thanks to the Industrial Revolution, there was a concerted effort to find a solution to the problem of extracting seeds from short-staple cotton, and the cotton gin was found pretty quickly thereafter.

As an aside, long-staple cotton cultivation did not disappear even after the cotton gin. (If memory serves, in 1860 about 10% of the U.S. cotton harvest was long-staple cotton.)
 
Top