Talk:Cotton gin

"Modern cotton gins" section and lack of adequate citations

Ten years ago I wrote the original text describing how a modern cotton gin works. I got the information from the following website: http://www.ars.usda.gov/Main/docs.htm?docid=5260&pf=1&cg_id=0 I neglected to cite the source at the time, though. Mainly I doubted that I would be able to do it correctly. I should have just bitten the bullet and tried; anything would have been better than nothing.

Now that section has been altered and added to by numerous other people, so using the original source for the entire section doesn't really work. I don't know how to deal with that; if anyone has any suggestions I would appreciate the help.--Ormewood (talk) 23:50, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I went back into the article and cited the single source I used when I wrote the original three paragraphs (at the end of the third paragraph). This is only the second citation I've done and it's possible I did something wrong with it. Feel free to point out any mistakes I may have made. Again, there's alterations that others have made since I wrote the original material and none of those changes cite sources, nor does the source I cite account for them. I don't know what to do about them other than just leave them as they are. Ormewood (talk) 01:37, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I have added a citation that gives the source for most of the material in the first three paragraphs of the "Modern cotton gins" section. I have not yet removed the template stating that "This section needs additional citations for verification," though, because I don't know if I have satisfied the criteria for removing it. I would greatly appreciate any assistance in determining if the section is now adequately cited. If it is, please either let me know or just remove the template. If not, please specify why; any suggestions as to further refinements would also be appreciated. Ormewood (talk) 19:47, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Date of invention

Was changed to 1792 from 1793. Upon further review, it sounds right. Apparently, EW created it in 1792, refined it through 1793 perhaps, and patented it in 1793. Am I right? I may be wrong, but we'll keep it at 1792 for now. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 21:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

According to these sites it was patented in 1974. http://www.eliwhitney.org/cotton.htm http://sc.essortment.com/cottongin_rciv.htm http://inventors.about.com/od/cstartinventions/a/cotton_gin.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.239.247.219 (talk • contribs) 05:15, 10 February 2007

Would like to see clarification of "The gin was credited for increasing assets in the American jobs." Rncooper (talk) 12:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• To Crazyrussian, I looked it up, and you're wrong. it was right the first time. 24.255.127.144 (talk) 21:10, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Slavery and the cotton industry

I removed the reference to sharecropping and the opportunities for emancipated slaves after the Civil War. That information more properly belongs in articles about the American Civil War, Reconstruction, and probably African-American History.

I did, however, leave a much more qualified statement about the connection between slavery, the cotton industry, and the start of the Civil War, since that is a context within which students are often introduced to the cotton gin as a technological artifact. I do still hope that someone will fill in more details about the operation of the cotton gin and how it fits in the process of turning cotton plants into cloth. --Salvagebar 15:30, 6 July 2018

(UTC)

Would be good to add a qualification to the connection between the cotton gin and the cotton boom in the American South. Often the cotton gin is said to be the reason for the cotton boom, but there were many other factors, like new cotton hybrids that were easier to pick. The cotton gin increased efficiency of seed removal enormously, but the new breeds of cotton increased cotton picking efficiency to a similar degree, while also making cotton cultivation possible in lands previous marginal for the plant. I'll add this info later if I find the time. Pfly 13:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Did anyone notice that someone replaced actual names with 2 adult film stars? I'm not sure how to submit this to be corrected. -- Anonymous 69.255.45.97 13:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe that this article could be improved by adding more detail on how the cotton gin affected the South, and the connection between the South, and slaves. I researched this topic already, and I would be happy to research it some more and add this information. I also can add information on the operation of the cotton gin and how it fits in the process of turning cotton plants into cloth. Also, how Eli Whitney invention varied from others. sjstoltz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjstoltz (talk • contribs) 15:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to add new information, just make sure you can cite sources for it. — Michaelmas1957 (talk) 15:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism

This article has been the subject of a lot of vandalism. The inclusion of porn star names and general vandalism has rendered the article useless. Is there any way we can change this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.226.215.220 (talk) 23:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

Sure—somebody who knows a little bit about it can go back to one of the earlier versions. I agree it is practically useless as-is, but don't know enough to feel comfortable about finding the best historical version. Wwheaton (talk) 22:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Increase in the slave trade

Can someone explain to me how a device that reduced the number of slaves required to harvest cotton caused an increase in the slave trade? A few dozen slaves to seperate the cotton from the stem vs one to turn the crank on the cotton gin.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.83.237.47 (talk • contribs) 20:05, 17 April 2007

It gave access to the operation of a plantation to a much larger group of people. Before the cotton gin, only very rich people could operate a plantation. For every one slave in the field, there would need to be ten picking out the seeds. This meant plantation owners had to purchase large numbers of slaves, which required large amounts of capital. With the cotton gin, for every one slave removing the seeds with the gin, now there could be 10 working in the field. This drastically changed things. Now, plantation owners no longer had to use large amounts of capital on the purchase and upkeep of slaves. This meant many many more (white) people could run a plantation with fewer slaves; running a plantation was now within the reach of the "common" (southern white) man, something that before the cotton gin, such people could only fantasize about. So, slave demand goes up. Later, the government (most likely lobbied by the very rich large plantation owners who were losing all of their business) imposed tariffs on owning slaves, which once again would remove the affordability of owning a plantation from everyone except extremely wealthy people. However, these new "common" plantation owners weren't going to give up their bounty without a fight. They refused to pay the tariffs, and the American civil war was born. --Artificial Silence 18:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I must clarify what I see as a misunderstanding in your question. The cotton gin made efficiently cleaning the cotton easier. It had nothing to do with harvesting it. Harvesting was still labor intensive and once growers could clean the cotton efficiently and send it to market, the demand for more cotton created demand for more labor to harvest the cotton. The truth is that the US cotton market was very small before the invention of the cotton gin. Slavery was on the decline and the surge in the cotton market caused the rebirth of the slave trade. Also of note is that ginning was seldom a "one man at the crank" operation. Most large operations were water or horse powered. -- Mufka ^{(user) (talk) (contribs)} 20:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

A distinction needs to be made between workers and slaves. To say that when a plantation grows it needs more slaves unwittingly implies that it was impossible to satisfy labour needs by other means. If a plantation grows, it needs more workers. How to provide those workers is a separate issue, leading to the following questions:

• What factors influenced the demand for workers? (presumably cotton gin etc.)
• Why did the plantation owners continue to use slaves instead of obtaining employees? (it was cheaper, morals said slaves were "good" or whatever...)

--62.213.130.75 (talk) 12:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Question about what the cotton gin actually does

My son's public school teacher told him that lives of slaves were easier because the slaves no longer had to pull the cotton from the thorny bur, however Genevieve Foster's "George Washington's World" states that:

"Eli Whitney had always enjoyed tinkering, and here was a challenge. Could he make a gadget that would quickly separate the seeds from the cotton? Yes, he could. The cotton gin that he invented was snapped up by the cotton planters. Within a few years it meant that a great many more acres of cotton were planted. Instead of needing fewer slaves, the plantations now needed many more to plant and pick all this cotton."

Referring to this page: http://www.cottonsjourney.com/Storyofcotton/page3.asp for a description of the cotton plant itself:

Does the cotton gin pull the cotton from the sharp thorny bur, or pull seeds out of the cotton locks?

That is to say, did the slaves have to tear their fingers up pulling the soft insides from the thorny plant, or did the cotton gin do that nasty chore for them?

Madiantin (talk) 18:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The cotton was picked by hand. The cotton gin just separated the useful part from the un-useful parts. CsikosLo (talk) 11:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The cotton gin pulls the cotton fibers off of the seeds. There are several different mechanical methods for removing fiber from the seeds, but the Eli Whitney saw-type ginning method is the most common.

The plant stalk itself is not thorny. When cotton is picked by hand, the locks are removed from from the sharp, pointed hull that surround the locks of cotton. Cotton develops inside of a protective casing that opens up as the cotton matures. The segemented casing looks a little like a small, rounded football that splits open at one end, creating a shell surrounding its contents. Each petal-shaped shell segment dries out and become hard, and is refered to as a bur. Cotton is still harvested by hand in some parts of the world today. --Servile (talk) 02:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I was also taught in school that the cotton gin was a contributing factor in ~ending~ slavery by making cotton processing require less work (as indeed the industrial revolution overall moved things away from laborious farming toward factory work). I think this needs to be addressed in the article at least, if something so widespread is a misconception. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.94.57.191 (talk) 09:02, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

In Popular Culture

How about an "In Popular Culture" section? One example that comes to mind is Tom Robinson from To Kill a Mockingbird, whose arm was caught in a cotton gin when he was young. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Damuna (talk • contribs) 16:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

It certainly would be of value to have drawings of how ALL of the early inventions operated. Showing a few slaves leaning over a small box tells us nothing. There is obviously a progression of these devices from manpower to horsepower, to steam power....with concomitant increases in size and complexity, and perhaps in mobility. The absolute lack of these elements here will send me looking to "grain harvester combine" to see if the development from sickle to binder to swather to "combine" is much better. It should be.

Currently, this site is elementary school level. Then there's the entire problem of cast iron. Almost no machine of size or significance was made before 1779, when the Darby Brothers in Iron Bridge, England mastered coking coal and developed cast iron for bridge structures. Before this time, many of the inventions remained toy-like in size Homebuilding207.178.98.32 (talk) 01:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Eli Whitney

Some idiot erased the Eli Whitney section of this article. Can someone please fix it? Thank you. 206.110.213.71 (talk) 21:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Someone is attempting to insert information on a machine from India predating Whitney's invention. While this may be true they're hashing up the Whitney section while doing it.Saxophobia (talk) 17:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Last paragraph under "invention"

It now reads: The cotton gin may have been one of the causes of the American Civil War. President Lincoln was famously quoted as saying "how could such a simple invention alter American history in such a king sized way?" when commenting on the effect that the cotton industry had on the United States. The cotton gin was made so that slave labor would be easier. Ironically, more slaves were needed because of the cotton gin.

We need to either delete this paragraph or add more on the subject, and I don't know enough to do it. How was it a cause of the war? Why were more slaves needed? --Ultrarob (talk) 22:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The answer to both your questions is that since cleaning the cotton was easier, it allowed plantation owners to plant more crops, needing more slaves to pick and tend them. In turn, the larger amount of slaves led to increased tension between the North and the South, in turn leading to the Civil War.-Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.248.143.230 (talk) 21:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I have trouble with such a tenuous weak "stairstep-causal" relationship between the machine that scrubbed and cleaned cotton and the (direct) causes of the Civil War. I see the rationale, I just don't think there is a causal relationship. Too many other factors in the slow march to that war. ddean52518  — Preceding undated comment added 00:28, 11 July 2014

Some loose ends

After cleaning up a few cases of clear vandalism, I am left trying to figure out the stories for Noah Homes, Robert Watkins and Hodgen Holmes. The Robert Watkins part of the story seems insignificant and incorrect. He was active after Whitney already had a patent[1][2]. The Noah Homes part of the story is a little more tricky. Because it was a part of this article for so long, it is impossible to discern whether all of the other online references to this name in this context were sourced here or if they were sourced independently. Perhaps Noah Homes is supposed to be Hodgen Holmes? I can't find anything about patent office records for Noah Homes. I'll try to look around some more but some of this might need to be scrubbed for lack of sources. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 00:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I hunted down the source of the Noah Homes info. It was added on March 6, 2006 in this edit, which was preceded by this external link addition. Checking this shows that the info originated from the cotton.org web site. Since I have not been able to find any reference to this name in any print source and since all online mentions of the name appear as word for word quotes from the cotton.org site, I have removed the info about this person pending better sources. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 13:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

POV Issue RE: slavery's spread and whether its good or bad

Currently: "An unfortunate by-product of the cotton gin was the expansion of slavery through the region, as laborers were needed to plant and harvest cotton -- not the most pleasant of tasks in the Southern heat."

While many would feel the expansion of slavery is unfortunate, I don't think declaring that this is so (that the spread was unfortunate) is an opinion that should be advanced in this article as truth. If someone wants to find what surely are numerous examples of notable people claiming that such was unfortunate then it would seem fine, but I don't think wikipedia itself should endorse a view one way or the other- regardless of what the popular sentiment is.

Agree? Disagree? This may be what the "you're all communists/liberals" guy was referring to, though who knows.

I just don't see how it can be declared whether something is good or bad when it is surely opinion. If someone's opinion is notable then include it in the article, but don't just declare something subjectivly good or bad in the actual article. Anyone get the distinction I'm making?--Δζ (talk) 18:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems that using the word "unfortunate" is a value judgment that doesn't belong. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 19:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The article seems to be quite broken at the moment with other value judgements such as "Many negative effects occurred from the creation of the cotton gin". Objectively, only effects occurred, the article should simply state them. However the effects stated are unverified anyway so perhaps this point is moot since the whole "Effects of the cotton gin" section needs to be rewritten. --62.213.130.75 (talk) 12:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, more information as to sourcing and less pov as to opinions one way or another are in order. That section in particular seems forum or blog like and does not source anything. Also eventually technology freed the slaves not opinions about morality or ethics. Machines never complain or try to run away to put it crassly. Machines did the work cheaper and had zero upkeep beyond buying and maintaining them while people were an ongoing expense. Humans put out about 33 watts of power or about 1/20th. of a horsepower and that does not compare at all with machine power and energy conversion. The Industrial revolution freed the slaves in my opinion or at least made them into Wage slaves. Anyway, we could rewrite a lot of the article for n.p.o.v. and find lots more interesting and creative info no doubt. skip sievert (talk) 15:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Unclear how it actually works

Despite the words, photos, and figures, I have almost no idea how the thing actually works. I have examined the (faint and poorly labeled) reproduction of Whitney's patent, the museum photo, and the absurd image of a "modern" gin, with its computer screen, moisture sensors, cameras, and inscrutable modules. It appears that the key separation step may be at the lower left module, but I really have no idea. For all but the modern plant, where is the unprocessed cotton put in? Where does the cleaned fiber emerge? Where do the seeds come out? What are the important differences between the Whitney gin and the many machines that are mentioned dating back 2000 yr to the first century CE? Surely we can do better than this! I suppose engineers with expertise in the modern and historical and technical details may now be in short supply, but we should put out an all-points "WANTED!" bulletin to go gather some of them in here to fix up this mess. Maybe the 1911 Britannica could help? Wwheaton (talk) 01:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I strenuously second this request!! I came away from this article with little understanding of how *any* of the sundry incarnations of cotton gins actually work. Telling me that it consists of a roller and a flat stone tells me *nothing* about what the roller and stone (and the human) actually does.

I also have NO idea what all this German crap below has to do with a legitimate request for a better explanation of how the thing actually works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.172.43.67 (talk) 15:21, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

It is amazingly awful that ten years later, I still agree with previous comments: HOW THE DUCK DOES IT WORK???

2A01:E35:8A8A:FEA0:9865:7357:50FB:6460 (talk) 12:12, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

The text you're referring to shouldn't have been inserted under the heading "Unclear how it actually works." I gave it its own section and heading. I also deleted the title that read "shitty crap" or whatever the wording was; I didn't think that retitling someone else's work that way was either appropriate or helpful. I disagreed with "99.200.214.57" that their contribution about Hugo Krebs was relevant, because there's a never-ending supply of people who claim they have information about the "REAL" inventor of the cotton gin. But the author of that section is entitled to their say, and doesn't deserve to have their contribution vandalized by someone who disagrees with it. Ormewood (talk) 00:03, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Hugo Kreb's cotton gin

in —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.200.214.57 (talk) 16:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The following citation references an early version of the cotton gin:

Translated from “Das Buch der Deutschen in Amerika” published by the German-American National-League in 1909 in Philadelphia, Max Heinrici editor, this article was written by Professor J. Hanno Deiler, Professor Emeritus Tulane University, New Orleans

Deutsche in Pascagoula (Mississippi)

In January 1721, 300 colonists arrived at the concession (charter) of Madame Chaumont in Pascagoula. Here an enterprise had been found from an earlier time probably built on the ruins of the Chaumont concession or possibly based on a German colony established by its own concession (charter). In 1772 the English captain Roman found at the German farmer, Krebs, cotton and a roller cotton gin invented by Krebs, certainly the first cotton gin in America. In the same year there was the description of a great storm that, “among Krebs and the Germans it has stormed terribly”. Hugo Ernestes Krebs came from Neumagen on the Mosel. He left behind 14 grown children whose descendants still own the old “Krebs-Farm” in East Pascagoula today (1909).

A scan of the book is available on Archive.com

The following information is quoted from the Jackson County, Missouri website (http://www.co.jackson.ms.us/GIPages/GICHistory_Timeline1500.html) :

"The first account of Hugo Krebs' cotton gin was written in 1772 by Bernard Romans, an English traveler, botanist and promoter whose duty it was to find commercial opportunities in British West Florida and report them to the home government. His report on his findings in this southern region tells of a visit to the Pascagoulas in 1772 where he finds Krebs' efficient gin and describes it in his report to English interests. Krebs was suspicious of the British and avoided any publicity. He disassembled his gin to prevent copying of his design, and never patented it, which was compared in later years to Eli Whitney's gin that was not invented until 1792."

The Jackson County site mentions that the "LaPointe-Krebs House, popularly known as the Old Spanish Fort and is the oldest known residence in the Mississippi Valley."

I don't know if this information is worth including but thought it worth passing on. I'll leave it to someone who has been working on this page to decide and edit if desired. SdKfz231 (talk) 16:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

There have been a dizzying number of claims for the invention of the cotton gin. You could probably easily write a book listing them all...perhaps more than one book. I think that the article currently covers the subject adequately by stating that Whitney received the patent although there are those who believe that others may have come up with the idea first.Ormewood (talk) 00:23, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Word origin

The word Gin, like nearly every word in the English language, has more than one meaning. In reference to a cotton gin, it mean an engine, or machine. Gin the liquor is named as such because it is derived from juniper berries, which are called genevre in some languages, and that has transformed into the word gin in modern English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.8.1.2 (talk • contribs) 02:37, 11 June 2009

VANDALISM ALERT!!!!!!!!!!

someone replaced eli whitney's name with the name of Sandi Buchanan, in this article!!!! PLEASE FIX!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knightaj0 (talk • contribs) 02:01, 4 January 2010

 Done Thanks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

inappropriately placed picture

There is a picture showing a diagram of a modern cotton gin in the section "How Whitney's Model Works". However given how long ago he lived, I doubt his model included so many moisture sensors and cameras like are shown in the diagram. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.148.183.191 (talk) 19:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

It is now March 14th, 2010, approximately seven weeks after the above comment was posted. The picture is still there and the paragraph above it clearly describes the picture as Whitney's design. The note below the picture clearly labels it as a modern day plant. The page is protected so only authorized users can make corrections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.246.125.93 (talk) 06:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Editors who have vested interests in pages don't listen to the little people i.e. unregistered IP addresses. Yeah it is stupid, and a fair comment. How Whitney's design worked!! LOL, using the same logic, why not use a modern Ferrari engine to illustrate how Benz's first gasoline motor worked...I mean they both have pistons, valves, and plugs! How similar is that?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.39.49.120 (talk) 18:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

You know, it's not hard to register a free account. Takes just a little more time than complaining on a talk page. I removed the incorrect sentence that said the picture was of Whitney's Cotton Gin, and created a new section with an expand tag for the current process and put the picture there. Happy? ;-) CSZero (talk) 19:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I inserted a brief description of how the modern gin works. I got the information from the following website: http://www.ars.usda.gov/Main/docs.htm?docid=5260&pf=1&cg_id=0 I am not an engineer and have no first hand knowledge of how a gin works. I simply condensed the very lengthy and detailed information available on the above USDA website. If I screwed it up please correct it.

I am a little vague about how to credit sources of information; if anyone would care to correct this or tell me how to do so, please do so.Ormewood (talk) 16:36, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I was responsible for the sentence which described the diagram of the modern gin as Whitney's gin. I should have read the preceding paragraph more carefully. My apologies, and thanks to CSZero for correcting the error.Ormewood (talk) 20:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Remove expand tag for the current process?

I would like to remove the expand tag at the end of the article. I wrote an explanation of how the modern gin works, and someone else has added additional information. I plan to remove the tag within the next few weeks; if anyone has any objections please post them here.Ormewood (talk) 16:41, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I HAVE REMOVED THE EXPAND TAG.Ormewood (talk) 14:13, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The article in general

After reading this page about the cotton gin, I have to say that it is pretty well organized. I did learn some new information that I did not know before however, I knew the basic information before reading this page; and the page did in fact cover the main points of the cotton gin that are important. It seems well-written and definitely organized into appropriate sections and describes each section well. The sources seem complete and authoritative, especially the source used by a historical society, or museum, something to that effect which is definitely legitimate. Most other sources seem to be articles with research from university presses which contribute to majority in research all over the nation. Even the illustrations look to be like legitimate and appropriate pictures for the article. They clearly show different forms of the cotton gin, from the original version to modern ones used on farms. One illustration in particular has captions to explain each step in the process of use for the modern cotton gin. I found the pictures to be very helpful in showing exactly how the gin works. The subject seems to be covered thoroughly by having sections with the origin, who invented it, how the gin changed society, and the basis of its design. There is even mention of a controversy about Eli Whitney inventing the cotton gin from the beginning. However, there is not enough evidence so it is only briefly mentioned. The subject is covered of its main points that are important and need to be known. The article has not been marred with frivolous or random contributions. All edits seem to be legitimate of changing information. There was one incident of vandalism but seemed to be fixed quickly, along with other edits for the page. Compared to an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is far from it. An encyclopedia definitely has more precise and quantity of information, maybe too much information it seems sometimes. Wikipedia is better in that it allows the most important information to be known with more pictures and not a lot of extra information that isn't really necessary. The only improvement I would suggest is the section on Whitney's design. There isn't a lot of information in that section and seems kind of random and pointless, almost like it has no purpose. I would either add information to make it seem useful or delete the section and put that information somewhere else. HIST406-11kfisher9 (talk) 02:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I reworded the sentences which described how the original gin worked. I think it's a lot clearer now. A diagram would be helpful, though; an animated diagram even more so. Ormewood (talk) 01:44, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Slavery

This article desperatley needs a section on Cotton Gin and the increase of slavery in the Americas — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Mentlegen (talk • contribs) 02:07, 12 February 2012

I would suggest looking at Edward E. Baptist's book published subsequent to this post titled "The Half Has Never Been Told: Slavery and the Making of American Capitalism" (Basic Books, New York, 2014) It goes into great detail in this topic. A couple points relevant here:

The article here talks about growth of slavery in the South and seems to limit its impacts to the South. But this growth was done by a great forced migration of slaves from the old slave states to New Orleans and the new slave states, which fairly quickly was undertaken by a specialized group of slave traders who constantly scoured every nook and cranny of the old slave areas. The African American families and communities, as they were under slavery in the old slave states, provided much healthier and more productive individuals than the degraded individuals in the new states, while the process itself tore apart these communities. This migration greatly increased the value of slaves and commitment to sustaining slavery in not only the old states but in the north generally. The wealth from the trade transformed the economies of states such as Virginia, where it was reinvested into non-slave activities (such as coal production firing the expansion of railroads and industry) as well being poured into financial and speculative markets throughout the whole north, basically underwriting and shaping the growth of capitalism in the United States and Great Britain.

Within the labor process, the cotton gin greatly increased the rate of work (partially answering a question asked in another posting here). The cotton gin itself speeded up the production line, so to speak, leading to a vast increase in the productivity of slaves in other stages of production, such as picking the cotton. Driven by the bull whip, which Baptist called "the whipping machine," the productivity of the worker increased more than five fold from 1805 to 1860.

The book is well worth reading and I think it could inform this piece greatly. I'm working in other spheres so I don't have time for it. Stephen Mikesell 14:55, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 March 2012

In the last paragraph of the "Modern Cotton Gins" section, there is a description of passing cotton through ribs, where the seeds are too "small" to pass through. I believe what was intended was that they are too "large" to pass through. Tatorbug Rhinestone Cowboy (talk) 06:30, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Done Thanks, Celestra (talk) 19:17, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

HIST406 Critique

This article covers the cotton gin, the reasoning behind its creation, the actual creation, and then its uses through time. It is decently well written, and gives much detail in the various areas. The language used makes it simple to understand the process used. While there is not too much detail on the early history, the article references this fact and explains it by saying that early architects may have mistook the parts of a cotton gin for other tools.

Illustration wise there is something to be desired. The article does have an image of the original patent for the cotton gin, and one example of a modern cotton gin plant, but a simple illustration of the parts and how they fit together would go a lot further in explaining the concept.

The article has a large variety of sources, and cites them often throughout the page. The majority of the sources are of a scholarly nature, and so led credence to the information in the article. The information given in the article is useful and accurate, and gives enough detail to inform the reader of the topic without putting too much unnecessary information. It also goes into detail about how the invention and modernization of the cotton gin changed the history of the United States, though it does not go into detail with other nations. This would be one drawback of the article. Some further information on how this invention changed the economic situation of other countries or areas would be useful. The article does detail how the cotton gin has been improved and modernized, which is valuable information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HIST406-13sdmart3 (talk • contribs) 17:54, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Roller Gin?

The article ignores the existence of the roller gin (used on extra long staple cotton). There's one reference to Lakwete's study, but I don't think the text tracks with her finding.Bill Harshaw (talk) 19:39, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

If you are well-informed enough about this, and you feel confident enough in your writing abilities, why not have a go at editing the article yourself? It isn't any more difficult than editing the talk page. Ormewood (talk) 14:52, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Typo

In the second paragraph, "The invention has thus has been identified," someone please take out the second "has." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.29.95.254 (talk • contribs) 15:46, 30 May 2014

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2018

71.84.63.142 (talk) 22:18, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Sakura Cartelet^Talk 22:31, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Bad Grammar

The final sentence of the introduction is: Thanks to the cotton gin, the amount of raw cotton yielded had doubled each decade after 1800. In context, this is the wrong tense. It should be: Thanks to the cotton gin, the amount of raw cotton yielded doubled each decade after 1800.

I have removed the sentence entirely. It is unsupported by citations and not mentioned in the body of the article. The body of the article indicates that the amount of cotton produced increased linearly with the number of slaves in the South, which undercuts the argument that the cotton gin increased productivity. I can imagine better sourcing helping this article to tell a more complex story, but as it stands, the section on increased production needs work. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:59, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Still no explanation of how it works.

I came to this article to find out how the cotton gin separates the fibres from the seeds, but it does not appear to have a section with an explanation of the mechanism. This is a major deficiency. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 03:06, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

There appear to be at least three different ways in which cotton gins separate seeds from lint. The 'Early cotton gins' section hints ("A narrow single roller was necessary to expel the seeds from the cotton without crushing the seeds.") that the lint was pulled through a gap between rollers, or a roller and a non-moving surface, that was too narrow for the seeds to pass through. The second paragraph of the 'Eli Whitney's patent' section gives a decent explanation of how that gin worked. The 'McCarthy's gin' section states that the lint was detached from the seed by a reciprocating (later, rotating) knife. The description of how the roller and McCarthy's gins operated certainly should be expanded, citing reliable sources. It has been more than 4 years since I added the McCarthy's gin section, so I don't remember if those sources went into much detail about how it worked. Unfortunately, I do not feel that I have the time right now to research this. - Donald Albury 16:05, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Unintelligible sentence in intro?

//The fibers are then processed into various cotton goods such as calico and canvas, while any undamaged cotton is used largely for textiles like clothing.//

What? 1. Calico and canvas are both textiles under any definition I've ever heard, and have clothing applications. 2. Undamaged non-fibre cotton? The sentence seems to compare what is done with cotton fibres - processed into cotton goods - and some other cotton-plant entity which is used for clothing. But usually fibres are used for clothing.

I can't sort this out because I don't know enough about the subject to know what it should say. FloweringOctopus (talk) 11:08, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I just removed the sentence because it describes something that is not mentioned in the body of the article and thus should not be in the lead, and because it was unsourced, as well as confusing. Donald Albury 15:45, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Pullthrough into Cotton gin

Currently unreferenced, but it is a cotton gin technique. I doubt it'll get long enough to violate WP:WEIGHT; if it does, it'll take a while to do so. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 18:09, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Comment I'm not sure what is verifiable in that article. I searched for "cotton gin pullthrough", but found "pullthrough" used with "cotton gin" only in Wikipedia and clones. I did find descriptions of hooks or saw teeth "pulling cotton" through screens. Unless and until someone provides a reliable source for any part of the content of the article that is not citogenesis from WP, we should delete the article. Donald Albury 20:23, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

@Donald Albury I'll wait at least a few hours before PRODding the article; however, a "google test" might be somewhat difficult in this case. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 20:25, 20 September 2024 (UTC)