Cotton is King--- and I laugh!!

[5fish]

The more I read about the southern politics in the days leading up to our civil war. I see greed, corruption, and delusional thinking by the leaders of the secessionist cause.

The biggest delusional they crowed about was. The now immortal phrases "Cotton is King" or "King Cotton".

I have read post sighting that England or others European counties might come to the aid of the southern cause during the civil war for cotton. This is delusional thinking now as it was back in the 1860's.

This delusion about cotton is king hides the true king of crops back then and even today.

The true phrase back in the 1860's should have been "Northern Grain is King."

Yes, unemployed textile workers is bad but a hungry population is must worst. England and the other European countries understood this but the corrupt leaders of secession did not.

Even by 1860's, our nation was well on its way to becoming the bread basket to the world. Europe was almost like clock work having crop failures and our northern grain would make up for their failed crops.

Southern secession leaders greed blinded them to the true king of crops. Their greed for cotton led them to form a failed foreign policies during the civil war.

"Cotton is King" and I laugh at you southern boys that believed such fallacies. Southern delusions are a wonderful thing.

Northern Grain is the true King and Champion of the civil war.

[Freddy]

I am not sure how you came to the "Northern Grain is King" when this link shows that US cotton exports accounted for 32% in 1820, 51.6% in 1840, and 57.5% in 1860 of all US exports. Perhaps you can show some evidence of US grain exports in the period from 1820-1860. Otherwise Cotton is still "King Cotton" from 1840-1860 in my book.
http://cghs.dadeschools.net/slavery/...h/exports2.htm

[gary]

Cotton was important, but the Southerners failed to anticipate that foreign mills could look towards foreign sources and that they didn't necessarily enjoy a monopoly on it. Yep, relying on the fallacy that cotton was king only encouraged Southern seccession.

In a (sick) sense, I'm grateful for it too. Plenty of good reading to be had. None of us would be here if it was the Nineteen Century Peaceful Southern Economic Development Forum. It's kinda like reading a British regimental history during years of peace. Who cares if the Royal Welch Fusileers won the Cricket Cup in 1930 or if the officers of the Horse Guards went on a great hunting trip and came back with a trophy elephant?

[matthew mckeon]

I expect the elephants were quite concerned. Good that the crickets got their own cup.

[5fish]

Originally Posted by Freddy

I am not sure how you came to the "Northern Grain is King" when this link shows that US cotton exports accounted for 32% in 1820, 51.6% in 1840, and 57.5% in 1860 of all US exports. Perhaps you can show some evidence of US grain exports in the period from 1820-1860. Otherwise Cotton is still "King Cotton" from 1840-1860 in my book.
http://cghs.dadeschools.net/slavery/...h/exports2.htm

It is not the volume of the export I am talking about but which export was more important to England and Europe. Cotton was important but northern grain(wheat) was much more important to England and Europe.

Lets put in a historical context: Remember prior to our civil war there was the Crimean War. During the Crimean war England and their allies lost excess to Russian wheat. We(U.S.) gladly filled this void for England and her allies during the Crimean. During this time Europe's population is growing rapidly so feeding their population is becoming harder without importing wheat from us.

Lets move up to 1861 our civil war breaks out and what is England and her allies going to do for wheat if they back the southern cause. England and her allies can go back to Russia but they just fought a war with Russia. England and her allies would have to eat crow if they go back to Russia and ask for wheat. Counties do not like to eat crow.

The true answer is the south should have started their rebellion before 1855. Before 1855, England and most of Europe imported their wheat from Russia so the north would not have had a trump card in wheat to cotton.

As you can see the southern secessionist had bad timing as well as a false belief in the power of cotton.

If the southern rebellion had started ten years earlier England may have come to their aid by waiting ten more years cotton's power had been usurped by wheat.

Wheat trumps Cotton!!

[unionblue]

5fish,

Actually, I think it was corn that trumped cotton. If I can find the thread where this post is, I place it here.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[OpnDownfall]

In England Corn referred to 'grain' which in that country, usually referred to wheat. American Corn, in Britain at least, was known as maize, I believe.

[5fish]

Originally Posted by unionblue

5fish,

Actually, I think it was corn that trumped cotton. If I can find the thread where this post is, I place it here.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

This might help some get a better understanding of what I've been discussing. On the web look up the book:

Collapse of the Confederacy, by Charles Wesley; at google books. Read page 121 to 122 and one will see how England was becoming completely dependent on northern wheat,

[Borderruffian]

Well in the south cotton was king. Maybe not the rest of the world but in the south. However the CS leadership has never been known for having a geo-political view about anything.

[ole]

And try as hard as I can, I can't figure out how they figured they had the world by the tail. The simple explanation is unbelievable.

ole