Resolved: A truely capitalistic system would be detrimental to slavery, even if it were permitted t

Anyways let's get to the debate. Contention 1: King Cotton and Slavery During the 1800's and even before then Cotton was key to many early industries. The first known factories that were established were that of Texile mills to help produce clothing. The key ingrediant in it was between wool and cotton. We have all known wool to be itchy and hot if you wear it in the summer time, so cotton is actually softer and a lot cooler to wear. This was one of the main reasons as to why it was so popular to Brittish manufactures. [1] This brings us to a key issue here of the slave and cotton. First we have to look at the production of cotton. Leading up to the Civil War and even into it soil depleation became a huge issue. This was actually the same exact issue that plagued farmers in the Midwest during the dust bowl. [2] Cotton needs furtail soil and crop circulation in order to keep its growth healthy and this led to a key flaw in the economics of the time. Another key issue to look at here is that of the price of a slave. With soil depletion and falling prices mean less and less profit for the south. When we observe the above graph we can see that the prices of slaves would rise dramatically and continue to do so. Many have even gone as far to state that slavery would end itself by this price differential. Slaveholders wouldn't make enough profit and the value of holding a slave skyrockets it appears that soon it would be nearly impossible to own a slave. [4] If we observe the chart above we can see that this backs the issue at the time. Not only was cotton issues causing price fall, but we were beginning to see prices fall dramatically. Why is this you may ask? It was based on over production. [3] At the time plantation owners had to make key profits in order to stay in business and in order to compete at the time. How was this achieved? By producing more and more cotton. This was done by more and more plantation holders and this caused overproduction of cotton which caused a price failure. With that mixed with the soil deplition issue we can see that it would only spell disaster for slavery. Contention 2: Merchantilism and CapitalismThe first key issue here that we have to observe is that of merchantilism which was a key economic system in which the South was rooted in for a long time. Merchantilism is an economic system in which although capitalistic, it still has barriers to free trade. A key barrier to this system was that of tarrifs. As shown bellow. We can see how dangerous these tariffs were to cotton prices. we could see that many people would have a hard time in the North and South of purchasing these products due to the high increase of cotton prices. Another key economic crisis that would occur here is that of a retalitory tariff that many nations would tend to place on each other when a tariff was placed. This would rise prices even further. At this point we would have to see that the US would have to raise tariff prices high so that it may compete internally with that of Indian cotton. In a free economic system of that of Adam Smith's we would have to see that a truely Capitalistic system would have no tariffs and complete free trade. This would decimate cotton and other key US industries causing a call to end Slavery. Another key issue we'd have to look at here was the Abolition movement in the British Empire. This was a key reason that Britan didn't get involved in the American Civil War was due to the Anti-Slavery movement that was occuring and that they were pushing for no support for nations that foster slavery. [5] This would cause a dramtic increase in tariffs on American Cotton or even an Embargo. Which, once again, would cripple the Slavery system in the United States. Indian cotton was key for Britian at this time so it was starting to ease the cotton pain and thus a decrease in demand for American cotton. [6] This would lead to an even further price drop in profits for platation owners. Not to mention that another key thing for production is incentive. Alexis De Tocqueville wrote in his book, Democracy in America, that when he observed America he saw slavery. He stated that slavery deprived the value of the product due to there being no incentive to produce well. This was seen in Soviet Russia. When Kolkoy, or collective farming, became the norm, farming fell dramatically and Russia began to starve. It wasn't until an incentive for the farmers became law that farming production exploded. Slaves have no incentive and thus they produce a bad product. Why trust American cotton why you are paying for some one who has done a better job, due to incentive, from India. Sources1. Beverly Lemire, Fashion’s Favourite: The Cotton Trade and the Consumer in Britain, 1660-1800 (Oxford: 1991).2. Craven, Avery O. Soil Exhaustion as a Factor in the Agricultural History of Virginia and Maryland, 1606–1860. N. p. : n. p. , n. d. Print.3. Stephen Yafa, Big Cotton: How a Humble Fiber Created Fortunes, Wrecked Civilizations, and Put America on the Map (NY: Viking, 2005).4. Robert William Fogel, Without Consent or Contract: The Rise and Fall of American Slavery (New York: W. W. Norton, 1989), Chapter 35. Oldfield, John. "Brittish Anti-Slavery. " BBC News. BBC, n. d. Web. 13 Aug. 2015.6. Engl1101, Student: John Mays, and Instructor: Nathan Camp. “Maharaj Cotton” How the Death of “King Cotton” Led to Increased British Interests in India (n. d. ): n. pag. Web. 13 Aug. 2015.