theDigitalExhibit

Blog

  • DailyDig#6: the Cotton Gin Got Sleeker

    The Cotton Gin Got Sleeker: How Technology Fuels Exploitation Then and Now
    The Industrial Revolution didn’t just bring factories, machines, and faster production—it reshaped entire economies and re-entrenched systems of exploitation. In the early American republic, one of the clearest examples of this was the relationship between Northern industry and Southern slavery. Technological innovations like Eli Whitney’s cotton gin didn’t lessen the burden of labor—they made slavery even more profitable.

    The Roots of the Cotton-Slave Economy
    Before the cotton gin, growing and processing cotton was an incredibly labor-intensive task. Short-staple cotton, which grew well in the Deep South, had sticky seeds that were difficult to remove by hand. Planters often avoided it in favor of other crops. But in 1793, Eli Whitney’s cotton gin changed that. It could clean short-staple cotton quickly and efficiently, making large-scale cotton cultivation wildly profitable—as long as there was a captive labor force to plant, pick, and process it.

    This is where slavery stepped in—and ramped up. Between 1790 and 1860, U.S. cotton production increased more than 100-fold. So did the number of enslaved people in the South. Cotton became the backbone of the Southern economy and the most important export of the United States. By 1860, the South was producing 75% of the world’s cotton.

    The Northern Mills and the Global Demand
    So where did all that cotton go? To the North—and across the Atlantic. Northern industrial cities like Lowell, Massachusetts, and later Pittsburgh and Philadelphia, became hubs for textile mills and manufacturing, producing cotton goods for both domestic and global markets. As the textile industry matured, it created downstream demand for more industrial growth—railroads, iron foundries, shipping, and eventually steel production.

    The need for strong materials to build machines, looms, and transportation infrastructure led to the birth of steel mills. As cities industrialized, the appetite for cotton didn’t decrease—it expanded. Southern plantations supplied the raw materials; Northern factories processed them and turned a profit. Both economies—though seemingly different—were tightly bound by a single thread: enslaved labor.

    Profiting from Enslavement, Nationally
    It’s convenient to think of slavery as a Southern issue, but the economic benefits were national. Banks in New York and Boston financed plantations and insured enslaved people as property. Shipping companies moved cotton to mills. Wall Street’s early growth was fueled by these very transactions. Northern industrialists, investors, and everyday consumers were entangled in a system that relied on brutal labor in the South.

    The cotton gin didn’t create this system, but it made it more efficient. It automated the easiest part—seed removal—and left the backbreaking work of planting, picking, and processing to human beings who were denied their humanity. In doing so, it linked Southern slavery and Northern industry in a feedback loop of profit and dehumanization.

    The Modern Echo: Exploitation in the Gig and Global Economy
    Fast forward to today, and you can see echoes of this dynamic in the global economy. Technological innovation is still marketed as a path to liberation—apps, automation, smart devices. But look closer. That “fast” delivery? That $5 T-shirt? They’re made possible by underpaid workers in warehouses, on bikes, in factories overseas. The labor didn’t disappear—it was just outsourced and hidden.

    Gig economy platforms claim to “empower” workers with flexibility, but many ride the same razor-thin margins and lack of protections that industrial laborers faced in the 19th century. Just like the cotton gin increased productivity while deepening dependence on enslaved labor, today’s platforms increase convenience while entrenching a new kind of precarious work.

    The Bottom Line
    Technology is never neutral. It exists in context—and that context is shaped by who has power and who does the work. The cotton gin didn’t end labor; it shifted who benefited from it. The same goes for today’s tools. The sleek interface may have replaced the spinning jenny or steel loom, but the exploitation underneath remains deeply familiar.

    The cotton gin just got sleeker.

  • DailyDig#5

    Tariffs Gone Wrong: How U.S. Presidents Keep Repeating the Same Trade Mistakes

    Tariffs have always been sold as a way to protect American industries. But more often than not, they end up backfiring—hurting workers, killing jobs, and even tipping the economy into chaos.

    Trump’s trade war with China might seem like a modern fiasco, but it fits a much older pattern. Let’s take a look at three of the worst tariffs in American history—and how Trump’s strategy ended up in the same hall of shame.

    1. The Tariff of Abominations (1828) — President John Quincy Adams

    What it did:
    Under President John Quincy Adams, Congress passed the Tariff of 1828, which slapped heavy taxes on imported goods, especially textiles and manufactured products. The goal was to protect Northern factories—but it crushed the Southern economy, where cheap imports and cotton exports were critical.

    Public reaction:
    The South erupted in outrage. South Carolina called it the “Tariff of Abominations” and threatened to nullify the law. Tensions between North and South skyrocketed, setting the stage for future conflict over states’ rights and federal authority.

    How it was resolved:
    President Andrew Jackson and Congress passed the Compromise Tariff of 1833, which gradually lowered tariff rates and temporarily cooled off the crisis.

    Bottom line:
    Adams’ tariff nearly tore the country apart decades before the Civil War even started.

    2. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff (1930) — President Herbert Hoover

    What it did:
    Signed into law by President Herbert Hoover, the Smoot-Hawley Tariff raised taxes on more than 20,000 imported goods. The idea was to protect American farmers and manufacturers at the start of the Great Depression—but it triggered a global trade collapse instead.

    Public reaction:
    Economists, businesses, and even members of Hoover’s own party begged him not to sign it. After it passed, countries around the world retaliated, slapping tariffs on American exports. Global trade froze. Prices rose. Millions of jobs were lost. The Depression deepened.

    How it was resolved:
    When Franklin D. Roosevelt took office, he worked to reverse the damage through new trade agreements that lowered tariffs and reopened global markets.

    Bottom line:
    Hoover’s tariff turned a bad recession into a global economic catastrophe.

    3. Bush’s Steel Tariffs (2002) — President George W. Bush

    What it did:
    In 2002, President George W. Bush imposed tariffs of up to 30% on imported steel to rescue struggling U.S. steel companies.

    Public reaction:
    American manufacturers exploded in anger—higher steel prices made cars, construction equipment, and appliances more expensive to produce. U.S. allies like the European Union and Japan threatened retaliatory tariffs targeting politically sensitive U.S. exports like Florida orange juice and Harley-Davidson motorcycles.

    How it was resolved:
    The World Trade Organization ruled Bush’s tariffs illegal. Facing retaliation and economic fallout, Bush scrapped the tariffs early—well before their scheduled expiration.

    Bottom line:
    Bush’s steel tariffs saved a few steel jobs but cost far more jobs in manufacturing.

    4. Trump’s Tariff Fiasco (2018–2020) — President Donald Trump

    What it did:
    President Donald Trump launched a full-blown trade war with China, slapping tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars in imports. He also targeted allies like Canada, Mexico, and the EU with tariffs on steel and aluminum.

    Public reaction:
    The blowback was swift and painful. Farmers—especially soybean growers—got crushed when China stopped buying U.S. crops. Consumers faced higher prices on everything from groceries to washing machines. Businesses warned that rising costs and supply chain disruptions were hammering the economy. Trump insisted “tariffs are great” even as American workers and industries paid the price.

    How it was resolved:
    A limited “Phase One” trade deal was signed with China in early 2020, but many tariffs stayed in place. The Biden administration has kept some of Trump’s tariffs but shifted toward rebuilding alliances to compete with China more strategically.

    Bottom line:
    Trump’s tariffs hurt American farmers, businesses, and families far more than they hurt China.

    Conclusion: Different Presidents, Same Mistake

    Across nearly two centuries, the story stays the same:

    • A president promises tariffs will “protect American jobs.”
    • Other countries retaliate.
    • Costs rise.
    • Jobs are lost.
    • The economy suffers.

    From John Quincy Adams to Herbert Hoover to George W. Bush to Donald Trump, tariffs have proven again and again to be a political gamble that regular people end up paying for.

    When politicians treat trade like a zero-sum game, history shows the real losers are the workers, farmers, and consumers caught in the crossfire.

  • DailyDig#2

    Let’s take a deep dive into three pivotal moments of the American Revolution—not just through the facts, but through the artwork that immortalized them. These visual representations don’t just depict battle scenes; they shape how we remember the struggle for independence.

    The Battle of Lexington – Amos Doolittle’s Eyewitness Engraving

    The first significant clash of the war occurred at Lexington and Concord. Let’s focus on Lexington, where artist and engraver Amos Doolittle, a Connecticut-born Patriot, gave us one of the earliest visual accounts of the confrontation. His engraving, The Battle of Lexington, depicts British Redcoats unleashing fire on the colonial militia in the early morning of April 19, 1775.

    The Redcoats are shown in tightly organized ranks, rifles raised in unison—a stark contrast to the scattered and unprepared colonial farmers and militiamen. A mounted British officer commands the assault, signaling the cold efficiency of the empire’s military machine. Meanwhile, the colonists are shown either retreating, falling, or fleeing in disarray. Doolittle’s portrayal of British soldiers firing first functions as visual propaganda, offering a direct answer to the debated question: “Who fired the shot heard round the world?”

    Given that Doolittle was a Patriot, his bias is clear. But that’s part of what makes the image powerful: it reveals not just the event, but how Patriots wanted the event remembered—as unprovoked violence against innocent colonists.

    The Turning Point – John Trumbull’s The Surrender of General Burgoyne

    Fast forward to 1777 and the Battle of Saratoga, a decisive American victory and arguably the turning point of the war. It was this triumph that convinced France to formally enter the war as an ally to the colonies—a move that changed everything.

    This moment was later captured by John Trumbull in The Surrender of General Burgoyne (1821), part of his series of Revolutionary War paintings housed in the U.S. Capitol Rotunda. Unlike Doolittle’s chaotic battlefield, Trumbull’s composition is serene and ceremonial. General Horatio Gates, the American victor, stands calmly at the center, receiving the sword of General John Burgoyne, who appears humbled and dignified.

    There is no violence here. No blood. Instead, we see a diplomatic exchange, reinforcing the idea that America had matured from rebellious colonies to a legitimate nation with formal military conduct. The American flag rises in the background, understated yet powerful, symbolizing the emerging strength and order of the new republic. Trumbull invites us to see this not just as a military win, but as a moment of national legitimacy on the global stage.

    The Final Blow – Trumbull’s The Surrender of Lord Cornwallis

    The final artwork in this visual trilogy is The Surrender of Lord Cornwallis, also painted by John Trumbull (not Thomas Thumball—a common mix-up). This painting captures the aftermath of the Siege of Yorktown in 1781, the last major land battle of the Revolution.

    Though titled after Cornwallis, the British general is not pictured—a deliberate historical detail. In reality, Cornwallis claimed illness and sent General Charles O’Hara to surrender in his place. Trumbull honors that moment with precise choreography: O’Hara offers his sword to General Benjamin Lincoln, who had previously been forced to surrender Charleston to the British and was now symbolically vindicated.

    American and French officers flank the scene, their postures dignified and triumphant. The inclusion of the French emphasizes the international nature of the American victory. Above all, a white flag and calm atmosphere signal that the conflict—at least militarily—is over.

    The painting doesn’t revel in chaos or gore; instead, it memorializes the transfer of power, the closing of a violent chapter, and the rise

  • DailyDig#1

    In present-day America, there’s still a major equity gap between white and Black people. And that gap didn’t just come out of nowhere—it’s been baked into this country from the very beginning.

    Whenever we talk about wealth gaps, education disparities, or even which schools get funded better, it all connects back to the blueprint laid in the Southern colonies. Black folks weren’t brought here to build a better life—they were brought here to build wealth for somebody else. Our ancestors were forced to work plantations and grow cash crops like tobacco, indigo, and, later on, cotton. They were never meant to share in the riches of the land they worked.

    Land was everything back then—and honestly, it still is. If you owned land, you had money, power, and a voice. The English understood this early on. Through the Virginia Joint-Stock Company, they grabbed land from Native people fast and aggressively. As soon as they saw how much money tobacco could make, they started pushing Natives out and working the land for profit.

    At first, indentured servants—mostly poor Europeans—did that work. They were promised land after their contracts ended, but the system got messy. Too many of them lived long enough to claim land and started demanding rights. Then came Bacon’s Rebellion, when poor white and Black folks rose up together. That scared the elites. So, they shifted gears and leaned into slavery—bringing over Africans they could control completely and strip of any rights.

    This move reshaped the entire Southern social structure: rich white landowners at the top, then small farmers, then indentured servants, and finally, enslaved Africans at the very bottom.

    And that hierarchy didn’t just fade away. It still echoes in today’s systems—where wealthy homeowners sit at the top and people of color, especially Black folks, are still fighting to get a real seat at the table.