Historirian Sven Beckert's book EMPIRE OF COTTON argues that it was the slave laborers of the US that enabled industrialization, especially in northern Europe -- but as we discussed in class, many economic historians question Beckert's selective use of evidence. Nevertheless, should we accept Beckert's central thesis -- which is that cotton production and industrialization were intimately connected both in the US and in Europe?

a
Yes, of course, because the sequence went something like this: demand for raw cotton radically increased in England where the first mechanized thread-making machines (powered by water) finally made it economically feasible for cloth-weavers to make cost-competitive, high-quality cloth. And once that happened, competition for customers was the incentive for innovations in technology. This happened in England, then elsewhere in Europe, then in the USA.

b
No, because Beckert gets too many specific facts wrong, as pointed out in Deirdre McCloskey's critique in The American Historical Review.

c
No, because technology would have come to the US one way or another anyway.

d
No, because Americans and Britons alike preferred wool clothing, due to the cold winters, and consumer preference was determinative in fabric markets.