WI: Boll Weevil hits the American South by the 1850s-60s

[Deleted member 67076]

The Boll Weevil has the fun distinction of causing massive damage to the cotton cultivation of the American South during the late 19th century. But suppose it manages to spread earlier for some reason (perhaps greater American-Mexican trade ties or an unlucky plantation owner accidentally spreads the insect or something) and works its magic by the 1850s.

What happens then? While one can surmise this could hurt the cotton industry in America, what would be the political and economic effects of this? Furthermore, what does this mean for other big cotton growing regions such as Egypt who have had their competition potentially crippled?

 

[Deleted member 67076]

Bump

 

[r1ncewind]

Well, it could perhaps reduce the demand for slaves in the south if they have no cotton to collect, i guess? economic collopse of the south pre CW could only be to the good.

 

[Donald Reaver]

Perhaps efforts from the south from a few parties to spread the Boll Weevil to their competitors.

 

[twovultures]

IIRC the gulf coast of the US can grow the kind of cotton that is still useful to mass produce even without machinery. So plantation slavery would still exist, with cotton and sugarcane jostling for control along the gulf.

However, the wind would be taken out of the sails of most of the South. THe economic impetus for spreading slavery inland would be gone. I think that slaveowning interests would go on the defensive, seeking to preserve slavery where it is already established instead of pushing to make new territories slave states-and seeing a lot of pushback against slavery within the southern states, as areas where IOTL cotton wasn't grown (like West Virginia) could see slavery as an even greater threat to their wages than IOTL. The US as a whole would be in a recession as the growing cotton economy got sabotaged, delaying industrialization (though maybe other goods like Appalachian steel could fill the gap).

Egypt and India would see a thriving cotton industry, though I think most of the profits would end up in the pockets of British elites who would control the export of raw cotton from both regions to Britain. This gives the economy a corresponding boost. We might see a little more cotton production from West African colonies of Europe than IOTL (true story: Victoria's Secret uses 100% Burkina Faso cotton).

 

[wtw]

The slave owners would go to other crops, granted there will be economic issues for a little bit, but there are other crops they could grow.

 

[Deleted member 67076]

The slave owners would go to other crops, granted there will be economic issues for a little bit, but there are other crops they could grow.

Interesting, do you have any idea of what other crops could take the place of cotton, and how profitable they'd be?

 

[wtw]

Interesting, do you have any idea of what other crops could take the place of cotton, and how profitable they'd be?

Tobacco in many places, a lot of fruit, nut and berry, crops. Vegetables as well, swine and cattle as well as poultry production would rebound. But the US would become the tobacco king, and the South will become our version of Imperial valley today. I actually think we might see vineyards pop up as well and American wineries eventually. The thing is many of these are labor intensive today even. There will be fewer slaves needed for some crops and livestock, I honestly do not know which, but slave owners will adapt. I honestly doubt all but a handful will go under.

 

[Mre64]

Tobacco in many places, a lot of fruit, nut and berry, crops. Vegetables as well, swine and cattle as well as poultry production would rebound. But the US would become the tobacco king, and the South will become our version of Imperial valley today. I actually think we might see vineyards pop up as well and American wineries eventually. The thing is many of these are labor intensive today even. There will be fewer slaves needed for some crops and livestock, I honestly do not know which, but slave owners will adapt. I honestly doubt all but a handful will go under.

The issue is, with the boll weevil hitting in the late '50s early '60s, the economic effects will completely change the Civil War, even if the slaveowners could theoretically change their production in the long-run, in the short run Lincoln just got elected and the South Carolinian legislature is debating secession, and that is where the major butterflies kick in.

 

[wtw]

The issue is, with the boll weevil hitting in the late '50s early '60s, the economic effects will completely change the Civil War, even if the slaveowners could theoretically change their production in the long-run, in the short run Lincoln just got elected and the South Carolinian legislature is debating secession, and that is where the major butterflies kick in.

I know, I know, the civil war itself might be butterflied away because of this. The economic reasons for it happening in that time frame would force the South into a position that they will be forced into making consessions from the North to avoid it as much as possible. They will be desperate for alternatives and this will be bad. I don't know how bad it will be. I do not know how many farms went under from the weevil, but the slave owners will look for alternatives.

 

[twovultures]

Interesting, do you have any idea of what other crops could take the place of cotton, and how profitable they'd be?

George Washington tried growing wheat on his plantation with slaves, but never made it profitable.

@wtw has a point that slaveowners have options, but for crops and livestock that live easily in the north, competition with northern free labor is going to keep a lot of slaveowners poor. Without cash crops or very valuable minerals, there's very little value to be gained from chattel slavery; there's a reason slavery died out in the north, and slaves weren't used in coal mines.

 

[TRH]

George Washington tried growing wheat on his plantation with slaves, but never made it profitable.

@wtw has a point that slaveowners have options, but for crops and livestock that live easily in the north, competition with northern free labor is going to keep a lot of slaveowners poor. Without cash crops or very valuable minerals, there's very little value to be gained from chattel slavery; there's a reason slavery died out in the north, and slaves weren't used in coal mines.

Yeah, I suppose with slaves you have to pay the full cost of labor up front. Not a good option for a high-turnover job like coal mining.

 

[TheYoungPretender]

Tobacco in many places, a lot of fruit, nut and berry, crops. Vegetables as well, swine and cattle as well as poultry production would rebound. But the US would become the tobacco king, and the South will become our version of Imperial valley today. I actually think we might see vineyards pop up as well and American wineries eventually. The thing is many of these are labor intensive today even. There will be fewer slaves needed for some crops and livestock, I honestly do not know which, but slave owners will adapt. I honestly doubt all but a handful will go under.

Bingo. What people miss about American slavery is that it was not just an economic question surrounding cotton. Many things were cultivated with slave agriculture, and there was a good deal of industrialization involving salve workers. By the 1850s, it was a civilization and an ethos. It will not go away quickly.

 

[twovultures]

Bingo. What people miss about American slavery is that it was not just an economic question surrounding cotton. Many things were cultivated with slave agriculture, and there was a good deal of industrialization involving salve workers. By the 1850s, it was a civilization and an ethos. It will not go away quickly.

You know, we should try to pin down a date for when, exactly, this boll weevil infestation occurs.

The boll weevil is brought north of the Rio Grande by a steamship in 1850 vs. the boll weevil is brought in by a British ship during the 7 years War is going to have very, very different butterflies. It's your thread @Soverihn, which scenario should we be focusing on?

 

[Deleted member 67076]

You know, we should try to pin down a date for when, exactly, this boll weevil infestation occurs.

The boll weevil is brought north of the Rio Grande by a steamship in 1850 vs. the boll weevil is brought in by a British ship during the 7 years War is going to have very, very different butterflies. It's your thread @Soverihn, which scenario should we be focusing on?

Oh man both of these are cool scenarios. I can't really decide between the two. Although I did envision the first one when making this thread.

 

[Johannes Parisiensis]

Could some of these slaves be used in manufactures, and especially the ones which transform the raw materials produced in the South, such as textiles, sugar and rum?

 

[twovultures]

Oh man both of these are cool scenarios. I can't really decide between the two. Although I did envision the first one when making this thread.

Slavery as civilization and ethos it is then.

Yeah, slavery will not go quietly in that scenario-though once again, the US will face a major, major recession especially in the South. While the slaveowners might not go under, the Gone With the Wind-esque mansions and armies of slaves won't be economically sustainable for long, IMHO. Vineyards require labor, but they're not even in the same league as cotton or sugarcane when it comes to manpower needed. I can see peanuts grown with slave labor becoming a popular novelty food in the North, but I don't think that as a cash crop it will be enough to replace cotton. As for industrialization, just as in OTL's civil war the North has an advantage over the South both in existing industrial infrastructure, willingness to invest in said infrastructure, and bodies to throw at the industrial machinery.

 

[James Ricker]

The slave owners would go to other crops, granted there will be economic issues for a little bit, but there are other crops they could grow.

Those "Other Crops" will also require less slave labor.

 

[wtw]

Those "Other Crops" will also require less slave labor.

Like I said I do not know which ones, and this is pre-mechanized agriculture. So I honestly do not doubt that there will be fewer slaves, but I still stand with my point depending on when the slave owners will adapt and they had options.

 

[Jared]

Working off the phone at the moment, so can't give a full answer to this scenario, but here's a few general points to consider:

The boll weevil did not just poof into existence at once, but spread over quite a few years. There's going to be a gradual wind-down in cotton agriculture, not a sudden collapse.

George Washington tried growing wheat on his plantation with slaves, but never made it profitable.

Whatever his other qualities, George Washington was not the best plantation manager. At times up to one-third of Virginia's slave labour force was used in wheat and cattle rather than tobacco.

The historical evidence demonstrates that wheat (and other small grains) were efficiently and profitably farmed using slave labour in Virginia, Kentucky, Missouri, Indiana, Illinois, Kansas (for a short time), and IIRC parts of North Carolina too. The reason it wasn't used more was because of higher profitability of cotton, not because slave-grown wheat was unprofitable in itself.

@wtw has a point that slaveowners have options, but for crops and livestock that live easily in the north, competition with northern free labor is going to keep a lot of slaveowners poor. Without cash crops or very valuable minerals, there's very little value to be gained from chattel slavery; there's a reason slavery died out in the north, and slaves weren't used in coal mines.

Erm, slaves were used extensively in mining. Can't remember off the top of my head if that included coal, but it certainly included other minerals.

Yeah, I suppose with slaves you have to pay the full cost of labor up front. Not a good option for a high-turnover job like coal mining.

No, people could and often did rent slaves, particularly for mining and urban manufacturing pursuits. It was not always necessary to buy them upfront.