What would have happened if “King Cotton” had packed
up its bags and left the antebellum South? Would slavery, as an institution, have survived
emerging markets from across the globe?
Were there emerging markets? Would
slavery have withered on the branch had there been adequate competition? Would the War of Northern Aggression been inevitable
without slavery? These questions and
more have piqued my interest for years.
Empire of Cotton: A Global History by Sven Beckert
was published in 2014. Normally, I try
to stay away from comprehensive histories.
Most are usually too broad in scope, and often than not, subjected to
the political inclinations of its author which in today’s academia is
progressive, if not outright Marxist.
One must be careful when purchasing a history
book. I first research the author and
then the reviews. Empire of Cotton received
acclamations from progressive publications such as The Nation, Slate and other
usual suspects. So-called historian,
leftist propagandist and red diaper baby, Eric Foner, also wrote a high praise
for this work. Come to find out, Mr.
Beckert acknowledged Foner as a friend and thanked him for his valuable input. Again, when reading today’s history, one must
proceed with a wary eye and a skeptical mind.
When reading this tome it won’t take long before you’re
assaulted with an ethos that is pervasive in today’s academia: Eurocentric
self-loathing, anti-capitalism rants, Luddite sentimentalism, and of course,
the illegitimate and criminal enterprise that is the United States.
Mr. Berkert was kind enough to classify certain
types of capitalism, the foremost being war capitalism. War capitalism consists of violence, coercion,
and modernity; in the case of the United States it is slavery, expropriation of
lands from the native Indians and infrastructure projects that invaded the tranquil
paradise of subsistence farmers. Here is
an excerpt:
The muscle of armed trade enabled the creation of a
complex, Eurocentric maritime trade web; the forging of a military-fiscal state
allowed for the projection of power into the far-flung corners of the world;
the invention of financial instruments – from marine insurance to bills of
lading – allowed for the transfer of capital and goods over long distances; the
development of a legal system gave a
modicum of security to global investments; the construction of alliances with
distant capitalists and rulers provided access to local weavers and cotton
growers; the expropriation of land and the deportation of Africans created
flourishing plantations. Unbeknownst to
contemporaries, these alterations were the first steps toward the Industrial
Revolution.
Who knew bills of lading, maritime insurance and a
legal system could be considered weapons of mass destruction?
Mr. Berkert advances progressive hyperbole on one of
the pillars of American illegitimacy.
Slave owners were sadistic task masters seething with unbridled, wanton
violence. He gives the impression that
the “masters of the lash” whipped their slaves from sunup to sundown, squeezing
every ounce of energy that could be had in a 17 hour work day. Of course, he didn’t mention that states,
like North Carolina, had laws that forbade abuse of slaves. Of course, abuses did happen, but it wasn’t
as prevalent as the author would have us believe. Slaves were expensive. What good would they have been if they were
crippled or maimed? Common sense should
carry the day.
And let’s not forget the other pillar. What would a progressive polemic be without
the abuses of the bunny rabbit people: the North American Indian. Here is an excerpt:
Native Americans understood the underlying
foundations of the expanding military-cotton complex: Upon removal in 1836, the
chief of the Cherokees, John Ross, in a letter to Congress decried that “our
property may be plundered before our eyes; violence may be committed on our
persons; even our lives may be taken away, and there is none to regard our
complaints. We are denationalized; we
are disenfranchised. We are deprived of membership
in the human family!” The coercion and
violence required to mobilize slave labor was matched only by the demands of an
expansionist war against indigenous people.
Nothing of this kind had ever been dreamed of in Anatolia or Gujarat.
The Trail of Tears is probably one of the most
misunderstood, if not, the most distorted event in American history. The most honest description I’ve read, so
far, on the removal of the indigenous peoples is in The Life of Andrew Jackson
by Robert V. Remini. Here is an excerpt:
Jackson believed that the steady increase and
movement of the white population was slowly surrounding and pressuring the Indians
into adopting one of two possible courses of action: either “to become
industrious Citizens” and accept the sovereignty of the states in which they
lived; or “remove to a Country where they can retain their ancient customs, so
dear to them, that they cannot give them up in exchange for regular society.”
It would have been nice if Mr. Beckert had added
some context on Indian removal. It would
also be of some help had he given a brief history of Chief John Ross and the
schism within the ranks of the Cherokee nation.
Since he refused to do so, I will.
Mr. Ross was one of the richest men in Northern Georgia. He owned a number of businesses along with a
200 acre farm that was worked by SLAVES.
That’s right, the man who lamented the deprivation of his humanity owned
slaves. And when the Civil War broke
out, Ross sided with the Union while a sizeable faction sided with the
Confederacy under Stand Watie. Nothing
is as simplistic as progressives would have us believe, nor is the displacement
of peoples unique to the United States. To
suggest so is dishonest.
Empire of Cotton does have redeeming qualities and it
is an interesting read if you can get past the self-loathing and insatiable
bloodletting that a mountain of cotton bolls couldn’t absorb. For instance, this book did answer the
questions about emerging markets prior to the American Civil War, and the surprising
amount of U.S. cotton production after the abolishment of slavery.
Sven Beckert’s history on the evolution (or
devolution depending on your outlook) of cotton and how this one commodity advanced
capitalism and became the indispensible fabric that bound the global marketplace
met my expectations in some areas and exceeded in others. It is worth the read.
Source:
