3 ms·
Interesting; I was under the impression that the British just found new sources of cotton. From the American perspective this story is mostly told as a losing b
by philwelch 2y ago
Interesting; I was under the impression that the British just found new sources of cotton. From the American perspective this story is mostly told as a losing bet from the Confederate side—the South believed that Britain was so dependent on Southern cotton that they would intervene on their side of the war. Given the intensity of British public opinion against slavery this seems like a bad bet, but if the Confederates had better judgment they probably wouldn’t have started the war in the first place.
- defrost 2y agoIIRC (I don't have historic trade complexity to hand, I once did for a project some years ago) the British did cultivate new sources (eg India) after experiencing a volume lull for some time. Over a longer arc the cloth trade itself grew in volume and demand for raw fibre increased, absorbing the post Civil War US production again. You're correct that public sentiment opposed slavery and that unionised mill workers in England supported a ban on non use of "slave cotton". What also occurred, as often happens in war, is that a profitable black market trade grew and lined the pockets of many middle men, at the expense of growers who had reduced profits and embargos to deal with and for mill workers who saw less actual work as bale numbers plummeted.