FOOTNOTES:

[654] Bancroft, Seward, II, p. 204.

[655] De Bow’s Review, Dec., 1857, p. 592.

[656] Cited in Adams, Trans-Atlantic Historical Solidarity, p. 66.

[657] Ibid., p. 64.

[658] Cited in Smith, Parties and Slavery, 68. A remarkable exposition of the “power of cotton” and the righteousness of slavery was published in Augusta, Georgia, in 1860, in the shape of a volume of nine hundred pages, entitled Cotton is King, and Pro-Slavery Arguments. This reproduced seven separate works by distinguished Southern writers analysing Slavery from the point of view of political economy, moral and political philosophy, social ethics, political science, ethnology, international law, and the Bible. The purpose of this united publication was to prove the rightfulness, in every aspect, of slavery, the prosperity of America as based on cotton, and the power of the United States as dependent on its control of the cotton supply. The editor was E.N. Elliot, President of Planters’ College, Mississippi.

[659] Jan. 26, 1861. Cited in Maxwell, Clarendon, II, p. 237.

[660] Am. Hist. Rev., XVIII, p. 785. Bunch to Russell. No. 51. Confidential. Dec. 5, 1860. As here printed this letter shows two dates, Dec. 5 and Dec. 15, but the original in the Public Record Office is dated Dec. 5.

[661] pp. 94-5. Article by W.H. Chase of Florida.

[662] Rhett, who advocated commercial treaties, learned from Toombs that this was the case. “Rhett hastened to Yancey. Had he been instructed to negotiate commercial treaties with European powers? Mr. Yancey had received no intimation from any source that authority to negotiate commercial treaties would devolve upon the Commission. ‘What then’ exclaimed Rhett, ‘can be your instructions?’ The President, Mr. Yancey said, seemed to be impressed with the importance of the cotton crop. A considerable part of the crop of last year was yet on hand and a full crop will soon be planted. The justice of the cause and the cotton, so far as he knew, he regretted to say, would be the basis of diplomacy expected of the Commission” (Du Bose, Life and Times of Yancey, 599).

[663] F.O., Am., Vol. 780. No. 69. Bunch to Russell, June 5, 1861. Italics by Bunch. The complete lack of the South in industries other than its staple products is well illustrated by a request from Col. Gorgas, Chief of Ordnance to the Confederacy, to Mason, urging him to secure three ironworkers in England and send them over. He wrote, “The reduction of ores with coke seems not to be understood here” (Mason Papers. Gorgas to Mason, Oct. 13, 1861).

[664] F.O., Am., Vol. 843. No. 48. Confidential. Bunch to Russell, March 19, 1862.

[665] p. 130

[666] The two principal British works are: Arnold, The History of the Cotton Famine, London, 1864; and Watts, The Facts of the Cotton Famine, Manchester, 1866. A remarkable statistical analysis of the world cotton trade was printed in London in 1863, by a Southerner seeking to use his study as an argument for British mediation. George McHenry, The Cotton Trade.

[667] Scherer, Cotton as a World Power, pp. 263-4.

[668] Lack of authentic statistics on indirect interests make this a guess by the Times. Other estimates run from one-seventh to one-fourth.

[669] Schmidt, “Wheat and Cotton During the Civil War,” p. 408 (in Iowa Journal of History and Politics, Vol. 16), 78.8 per cent. (Hereafter cited as Schmidt, Wheat and Cotton.) Scherer, Cotton as a World Power, p. 264, states 84 per cent, for 1860. Arnold, Cotton Famine, pp. 36-39, estimates 83 per cent.

[670] Great Britain ordinarily ran more than twice as many spindles as all the other European nations combined. Schmidt, Wheat and Cotton, p. 407, note.

[671] This Return for April is noteworthy as the first differentiating commerce with the North and the South.

[672] These facts are drawn from Board of Trade Reports, and from the files of the Economist, London, and Hunt’s Merchants Magazine, New York. I am also indebted to a manuscript thesis by T.P. Martin, “The Effects of the Civil War Blockade on the Cotton Trade of the United Kingdom,” Stanford University. Mr. Martin in 1921 presented at Harvard University a thesis for the Ph.D degree, entitled “The Influence of Trade (in Cotton and Wheat) on Anglo-American Relations, 1829-1846,” but has not yet carried his more matured study to the Civil War period.

[673] Adams, Trans-Atlantic Historical Solidarity, p. 89.

[674] F.O., Am., Vol. 843. No. 10. Bunch to Russell, Jan. 8, 1862. Bunch also reported that inland fields were being transformed to corn production and that even the cotton on hand was deteriorating because of the lack of bagging, shut off by the blockade.

[675] Arnold, Cotton Famine, p. 81.

[676] Richardson, II, 198. Mason to Hunter, March 11, 1862.

[677] Parliamentary Returns, 1861 and 1862. Monthly Accounts of Trade and Navigation (in Parliamentary Papers, 1862, Commons. Vol. LV, and 1863, Commons, Vol. LXV).

[678] Arnold, Cotton Famine, pp. 174 and 215.

[679] In 1861 there were 26 Members from Lancashire in the Commons, representing 14 boroughs and 2 counties. The suffrage was such that only 1 in every 27 of the population had the vote. For all England the proportion was 1 in 23 (Rhodes, IV, 359). Parliamentary Papers, 1867-8, Lords, Vol. XXXII, “Report on Boundaries of Boroughs and Counties of England.”

[680] The figures are drawn from (1) Farnall’s “Reports on Distress in the Manufacturing Districts,” 1862. Parliamentary Papers, Commons, Vol. XLIX, Pt. I, 1863. Ibid., Vol. LII, 1864; and (2) from “Summary of the Number of Paupers in the Distressed Districts,” from November, 1861, to December, 1863. Commons, Vol. LII. Farnall’s reports are less exact than the Summary since at times Liverpool is included, at times not, as also six small poor-law unions which do not appear in his reports until 1864. The Summary consistently includes Liverpool, and fluctuates violently for that city whenever weather conditions interfered with the ordinary business of the port. It is a striking illustration of the narrow margin of living wages among the dockers of Liverpool that an annotation at the foot of a column of statistics should explain an increase in one week of 21,000 persons thrown on poor relief to the “prevalence of a strong east wind” which prevented vessels from getting up to the docks.

[681] Trevelyan, Bright, p. 309. To Sumner, Dec. 6, 1862.

[682] The historians who see only economic causes have misinterpreted the effects on policy of the “cotton famine.” Recently, also, there has been advanced an argument that “wheat defeated cotton"—an idea put forward indeed in England itself during the war by pro-Northern friends who pointed to the great flow of wheat from the North as essential in a short-crop situation in Great Britain. Mr. Schmidt in “The Influence of Wheat and Cotton on Anglo-American Relations during the Civil War,” a paper read before the American Historical Association, Dec. 1917, and since published in the Iowa Journal of History and Politics, July, 1918, presents with much care all the important statistics for both commodities, but his conclusions seem to me wholly erroneous. He states that “Great Britain’s dependence on Northern wheat ... operated as a contributing influence in keeping the British government officially neutral ...” (p. 423), a cautious statement soon transformed to the positive one that “this fact did not escape the attention of the English government,” since leading journals referred to it (p. 431). Progressively, it is asserted: “But it was Northern wheat that may well be regarded as the decisive factor, counterbalancing the influence of cotton, in keeping the British government from recognizing the Confederacy” (p. 437). “That the wheat situation must have exerted a profound influence on the government ...” (p. 438). And finally: “In this contest wheat won, demonstrating its importance as a world power of greater significance than cotton” (p. 439). This interesting thesis has been accepted by William Trimble in “Historical Aspects of the Surplus Food Production of the United States, 1862-1902″ (Am. Hist. Assoc. Reports, 1918, Vol. I, p. 224). I think Mr. Schmidt’s errors are: (1) a mistake as to the time when recognition of the South was in governmental consideration. He places it in midsummer, 1863, when in fact the danger had passed by January of that year. (2) A mistake in placing cotton and wheat supply on a parity, since the former could not be obtained in quantity from any source before 1864, while wheat, though coming from the United States, could have been obtained from interior Russia, as well as from the maritime provinces, in increased supply if Britain had been willing to pay the added price of inland transport. There was a real “famine” of cotton; there would have been none of wheat, merely a higher cost. (This fact, a vital one in determining influence, was brought out by George McHenry in the columns of The Index, Sept. 18, 1862.) (3) The fact, in spite of all Mr....