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.
Now its very interesting that you admit that “You cannot pay people to grow cotton cheaper than you can do it with slave labor. It's economically impossible.” Again, you're words. Now the implication of that is that Southern plantations would be at a HUGE competitive disadvantage if slavery was abolished. Now, as you always say, follow the money. The Fire Eaters and their ilk were DEATHLY afraid that the abolitionists would have their day, amendment or no, as they had in the free states by 1861.