Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: ought-six
England did. When cotton exports from America were greatly restricted due to the Union blockades, England turned to Egypt and the Caribbean for its cotton needs. Also, some cotton shipments from the South still did manage to run the blockades, but only a fraction of what it had previously shipped.

Not nearly enough, though. And even with the blockade runners and supplies from Egypt and India the British textile industry was in a depression for the duration of the rebellion.

But we still have the conflicting stories between you and 4CJ. He says that the Union tariff income rose trying to replace that which they could no longer get from the South. You said that there wasn't enough demand for Southern goods in the North to make it a profitable market for them. So which is it?

120 posted on 03/10/2008 6:10:34 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur (Save Fredericksburg. Support CVBT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies ]


To: Non-Sequitur

“You said that there wasn’t enough demand for Southern goods in the North to make it a profitable market for them. So which is it?”

Prior to the Civil War, the main product the North bought from the South was cotton (which was used in the New England textile mills, especially in Lowell, MA: Remember, Northern industries wanted to compete with European industries). But that was a fraction of the quantity the South exported to Europe. Moreover, some of the Southern plantations were owned by Northern bankers and investors, so any cotton from those operations that went to New England mills would have equated to Northerners paying themselves rather than paying Southerners or Southern interests. Also, many Southern plantations were insured by Northern insurance companies (who didn’t have to pay off when the plantations were burned or destroyed by Union troops).

A very interesting book that addresses much of this is “Complicity: How the North Promoted, Prolonged, and Profited From Slavery,” by Anne Farrow. She and a couple others began their project to research the reparations-demanding activists’ claim of insurance companies making money off of slavery, and thus those companies should pay descendants of slaves reparations (you know, the old Jesse Jackson shakedown). Anne Farrow (and sorry, but I forget the other author or authors; I remembered her name because it reminded me of the Fay Raye character’s name in “King Kong”: Ann Darrow) was very surpised at what the research uncovered; specifically, that Northern interests were VERY much involved in slavery, up to and even during the Civil War.


134 posted on 03/11/2008 5:51:51 PM PDT by ought-six
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson