A major factor was that the 1860 crop, which had been a very large one, had already been shipped and Britain had stockpiles on hand from the late antebellum years. So there was a little bit of a cushion for the British there. Also, bumper crops from the later 1850s had left Great Britain with a surplus at the outset of the Civil War...
...It wasn't until the second half of 1862 that a pinch began to be felt in Britain. Britain imported only about one percent as much Southern cotton as it had imported in the last antebellum shipments...
...But, the strategy was doomed in the long term. First, Britain developed alternate sources of cotton—by 1864, British imports had reached 75% of their antebellum average, most of the new cotton coming from India and Egypt...
...And, there was also an increasing volume of American cotton coming into Britain from ports controlled by the United States military as the war went on. Some cotton would come out of ports that the U.S. controlled...
...Thus, despite the promise of its effectiveness, the ‘King Cotton’ strategy didn't work out for the Confederacy, as it had hoped. Along with that, any hopes of it getting recognition from the European powers were also wiped out.”
https://www.thegreatcoursesdaily.com/american-civil-war-the-confederacys-king-cotton-diplomacy/
When discussing historical matters, it helps to know what the f*ck you're talking about.
I've been around the block on this assertion before. Another fellow who I shall not name was constantly trying to suggest that the British were just going to get alternative sources of cotton, and therefore Southern cotton was doomed.
He too would ignore the fact that the cotton shortage was artificially created by Lincoln, and would not have occurred without Union Warships cutting off the supply. England would *NOT* have created alternative sources of supply without the interdiction occurring. You cannot pay people to grow cotton cheaper than you can do it with slave labor. It's economically impossible.
England would have continued using the South's cotton indefinitely without Lincoln's intervention.
When discussing historical matters, it helps to know what the f*ck you're talking about.
That's correct, but it's also very important to not *LIE* or attempt to *MISLEAD* people about historical information.
Pretending that other sources of cotton would have just occurred naturally is an example of an attempt to mislead. Without the war, those other sources would not have materialized.
Lincoln is responsible for Europe finding those other sources, and once they were created, that represented a permanent loss of income for the South. That economic damage persisted long after the war.