Cotton Statistics

[jgoodguy]

This is supposed to be a high brow academic discussion of cotton and cotton related statistic plus interesting related reference.

Please abide by that purpose.
Thanks

 

[Drew]

What about slaves?

I would like to see cotton prices, 1865-1871. If anyone's got them, please post.

 

[jgoodguy]

 

[jgoodguy]

Interesting Source
link
Production and price of cotton for one hundred years
by Watkins, James L. (James Lawrence), b. 1850 Publication date 1895

I would like to see cotton prices, 1865-1871. If anyone's got them, please post.

Well if you insist

 

[jgoodguy]

from
Generating the Wealth of Nations 12: US Cotton Exports and the Price of Cotton

Holy rollercoaster Batman.

 

[jgoodguy]

From post https://civilwartalk.com/threads/what-was-the-break-even-price-for-cotton-between-1800-and-1860.131999/post-1493010

 

[jgoodguy]

Link to Post

From
Conflict and Compromise: The Political Economy of Slavery, Emancipation and the American Civil War
Ransom, Roger L.
Used copies less than $7

 

[uaskme]

View attachment 297576
From post https://civilwartalk.com/threads/what-was-the-break-even-price-for-cotton-between-1800-and-1860.131999/post-1493010

The years after the War Of 1812 marked the opening of an era in which metropolitan merchants grew ever more reliant on the Atlantic cotton market. The wealth produced by the trade drove New York businessmen to focus increasingly on the commodity. By 1835, 119 of 120 New York ships arriving at Liverpool carried Cotton. That same year, Manhattan based packets averaged 700 bales of cotton per voyage. The rise of cotton coincided with a dramatic decline in New Yorkers brokering of other commodities to aRuropean markets. The 1830s witnessed a historic expansion of New York investment in shipping lines both transatlantic lines involved in international shipping as well as coastal lines that shipped between Southern ports and New York. Profits from cotton allowed for a little through reorganization and modernization of the New York Based Shipping industry. Pp270 Slavery in NY by NY Historical Society

Shipping Cotton and such during this period caused the expansion of NY to the detriment of Charleston. Was a major reason of Sectional strife. Also another reason the North would not let the South Go. NY Financial Interest and Others Benefit from the increase of Cotton Production.

 

[jgoodguy]

The years after the War Of 1812 marked the opening of an era in which metropolitan merchants grew ever more reliant on the Atlantic cotton market. The wealth produced by the trade drove New York businessmen to focus increasingly on the commodity. By 1835, 119 of 120 New York ships arriving at Liverpool carried Cotton. That same year, Manhattan based packets averaged 700 bales of cotton per voyage. The rise of cotton coincided with a dramatic decline in New Yorkers brokering of other commodities to aRuropean markets. The 1830s witnessed a historic expansion of New York investment in shipping lines both transatlantic lines involved in international shipping as well as coastal lines that shipped between Southern ports and New York. Profits from cotton allowed for a little through reorganization and modernization of the New York Based Shipping industry. Pp270 Slavery in NY by NY Historical Society

Shipping Cotton and such during this period caused the expansion of NY to the detriment of Charleston. Was a major reason of Sectional strife. Also another reason the North would not let the South Go. NY Financial Interest and Others Benefit from the increase of Cotton Production.

Is there an online link to this data?

 

[Stratagemo]

@jgoodguy

That's really interesting, I'm particularly interested in the numbers (price and production) from 1845 to 1860, seems overall like a period of consistent growth in both price and production, a great position for cotton producers (and no doubt all those associated with the industry) to be in, financially speaking.

Thanks for sharing it!

 

[Norm53]

Interesting Source
link
Production and price of cotton for one hundred years
by Watkins, James L. (James Lawrence), b. 1850 Publication date 1895


Well if you insist

View attachment 297568
View attachment 297569

Interesting Source
link
Production and price of cotton for one hundred years
by Watkins, James L. (James Lawrence), b. 1850 Publication date 1895


Well if you insist

View attachment 297568
View attachment 297569

Thanks for the data. I can't reconcile in my mind the Confederacy exports with the European imports, but there obviously are other foreign cotton sources that might explain the differences. Any way to find out how much Egypt, India, et. al., are producing without reading books on the subject? That would tell us the Conf. market share. I always assumed that it was substantial ("Cotton is King" - (when produced with slave labor)). It would also be interesting for me to know the prices of cotton produced by free labor, which I assume the foreigners are using, and their technology (Are they all using cotton gins in those years?), and compare those prices with Conf. prices. It is possible that free labor is more expensive, but also more productive, so that prices all over are competitive.

Norm

 

[uaskme]

Is there an online link to this data?

The Rise of the New York Port by Robert Albion.

You have list Cotton Production. No mystery who shipped it. Some goes thru New Orleans. You can pull up the growth of NY vs the other Ports. NY needed something to ship to Europe during this period. Cotton was it. Made shipping more profitable.

The power and wealth that New Yorkers accumulated through their control of the Atlantic cotton trade inspired numerous jealousies. White Southerners, in particular voiced frustrations and at times outright rage over their dependence on New York bankers and factors for credit. The Panic Of 1837 inspired a series of Southern commercial conventions to address these concerns. Delegates spoke to a deepening regional sense of “enslavement” to Northern and specifically New York capital. Voicing hostility to the growing power of New York, one delegate noted that “the South thus stands in the attitude of feeding from her own bosom a vast population of Merchants, ship owners, capitalist and others, who, without the claim of her progeny, drink up the life blood of her trade. Antebellum Southern resentments Over Andy Yorkers’ parasitical role in the Cotton Trade would reverberate in late nineteenth century Populist attacks on Wall Street and on New York more generally. Pp273 Slavery N NY footnote Square Riggers on Schedule by Albion

One problem the Planters had, they spent proceeds from this years crop and borrowed against next years, Factored. Which cost them a lot of money. NY Bankers got those profits. Plus all the spending sprees to NY. Russel wrote about the Conventions. South goes on and on, about the decline of Charleston and the Rise of NY. NY was pretty much a Southern City financed by Slavery. Reason they wanted to remain Neutral. Planters are going to walk away from their Debts. Business interest decide their Interest are better Protected in the Union. Want the South to be punished by the Law. Not paying their Debts cost them the biggest Friend they had in the North.

 

[jgoodguy]

Thanks for the data. I can't reconcile in my mind the Confederacy exports with the European imports, but there obviously are other foreign cotton sources that might explain the differences. Any way to find out how much Egypt, India, et. al., are producing without reading books on the subject? That would tell us the Conf. market share. I always assumed that it was substantial ("Cotton is King" - (when produced with slave labor)). It would also be interesting for me to know the prices of cotton produced by free labor, which I assume the foreigners are using, and their technology (Are they all using cotton gins in those years?), and compare those prices with Conf. prices. It is possible that free labor is more expensive, but also more productive, so that prices all over are competitive.

Norm

I've seen it somewhere in my wanderings. I'll try to backtrack and see.
an interesting page

SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION: THE GLOBALIZATION OF COTTON AS A RESULT OF THE AMERICAN CIVIL WAR
by
RICKY-DALE CALHOUN

 

[wausaubob]

1857-1860 were very solid years, so the people in the secessionist states were in solid shape. They had skipped the 1857 turn down in the Midwest. The problem was that by 1861 the international market for textiles was glutted. Leading Confederates did want to ship their cotton, if they could hold it safely on site. They thought the price would shoot up. But there was a long wait. It wasn't until the fall of 1862 that inventories began to fall. Even there was cotton in England, but the speculators could make money on the shortage by then.
The English demand for cotton was solid until 1867 when the price broke and labor movement began protesting for expanded suffrage.

 

[Stratagemo]

Thanks for the data. I can't reconcile in my mind the Confederacy exports with the European imports, but there obviously are other foreign cotton sources that might explain the differences. Any way to find out how much Egypt, India, et. al., are producing without reading books on the subject? That would tell us the Conf. market share. I always assumed that it was substantial ("Cotton is King" - (when produced with slave labor)). It would also be interesting for me to know the prices of cotton produced by free labor, which I assume the foreigners are using, and their technology (Are they all using cotton gins in those years?), and compare those prices with Conf. prices. It is possible that free labor is more expensive, but also more productive, so that prices all over are competitive.

Norm

Hi Norm,

Here is some data on world sources of cotton in the antebellum period, which is hopefully helpful to you.

As you can see, the US is by far the most significant source of cotton supplier in the years leading up to the Civil War.

 

[jgoodguy]

The Rise of the New York Port by Robert Albion.

You have list Cotton Production. No mystery who shipped it. Some goes thru New Orleans. You can pull up the growth of NY vs the other Ports. NY needed something to ship to Europe during this period. Cotton was it. Made shipping more profitable.

The power and wealth that New Yorkers accumulated through their control of the Atlantic cotton trade inspired numerous jealousies. White Southerners, in particular voiced frustrations and at times outright rage over their dependence on New York bankers and factors for credit. The Panic Of 1837 inspired a series of Southern commercial conventions to address these concerns. Delegates spoke to a deepening regional sense of “enslavement” to Northern and specifically New York capital. Voicing hostility to the growing power of New York, one delegate noted that “the South thus stands in the attitude of feeding from her own bosom a vast population of Merchants, ship owners, capitalist and others, who, without the claim of her progeny, drink up the life blood of her trade. Antebellum Southern resentments Over Andy Yorkers’ parasitical role in the Cotton Trade would reverberate in late nineteenth century Populist attacks on Wall Street and on New York more generally. Pp273 Slavery N NY footnote Square Riggers on Schedule by Albion

One problem the Planters had, they spent proceeds from this years crop and borrowed against next years, Factored. Which cost them a lot of money. NY Bankers got those profits. Plus all the spending sprees to NY. Russel wrote about the Conventions. South goes on and on, about the decline of Charleston and the Rise of NY. NY was pretty much a Southern City financed by Slavery. Reason they wanted to remain Neutral. Planters are going to walk away from their Debts. Business interest decide their Interest are better Protected in the Union. Want the South to be punished by the Law. Not paying their Debts cost them the biggest Friend they had in the North.

Thanks.
We have a thread on those commercial conventions. Economic Aspects Of Southern Sectionalism, 1840-1861 Russel

 

[Norm53]

I've seen it somewhere in my wanderings. I'll try to backtrack and see.
an interesting page
View attachment 297579
SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION: THE GLOBALIZATION OF COTTON AS A RESULT OF THE AMERICAN CIVIL WAR
by
RICKY-DALE CALHOUN

Excellent synopsis of that Ph.D. dissertation. It would be fun to read the entire work, but I don't know if our library can get it from the University library. It's worth a try.

However, we can learn something from the extract: They wanted only American cotton. I know that there are several species of cotton, but did not know that there was any substantial difference in the cellulose fibers to make a difference in cloth manufacture. Now I know that there was. The mill spinning and weaving machinery was set up for the American species. Buying it from other countries with different species would have required a lot of changeovers and maybe even different machinery altogether.

Although cotton is a perennial, it is grown as an annual to reduce disease penetration and it grows fast, so I surmise that mill owners were planning to promptly distribute the American seeds to areas where there was plenty of sunlight and long, warm growing seasons. If they were successful, then that is why, after an initial dip, the imports remained high when American exports were almost nil. That success would have reduced the leverage that the Conf. gov't had over European mills about recognizing the Confederacy as an independent nation - or else.

Also, do the stats tell us something about the success of the blockade runners? I thought that from the literature the blockade was only moderately successful. If true, then why the precipitous decline in exports? Wouldn't the runners have loaded their outgoing vessels with cotton to pay for the weapons, ammo, and food on the return voyage? There's a lot of story behind these stats, but where to find it?

Norm

 

[uaskme]

Yankees force Negroes back onto the Plantations immediately. Young Males are used for military purposes, all others, including women and children work. Some on Government run Plantations. Yankees want the Plantation System to recover as quickly as possible. There is no advantage to the Yankee to give the most important commodity production to Europe. Makes no Economic sense. Sugar and Cotton Production will shift because if the War. That is Natural.

 

[Norm53]

View attachment 297580

Hi Norm,

Here is some data on world sources of cotton in the antebellum period, which is hopefully helpful to you.

As you can see, the US is by far the most significant source of cotton supplier in the years leading up to the Civil War.

Very good. These stats tell us a lot.

#1: American cotton growers had an overwhelming share of the world cotton market.
#2: They support the proposition that capitalists in the Confederate states had no incentive to invest in other industries where market share and profitability would never equal that of cotton growing. Let the rest of the world compete with each other over meager mill profits.
#3. Brazil and Spanish Caribbean islands used slave labor at that time. They had the climate to produce cotton, but chose other products that were more profitable: sugar, coffee, rubber. US growers could not offer substantial competition in those products.

Norm

 

[Norm53]

The piece that I'm still missing from this thread is the cost and productivity of planting and harvesting cotton with slave labor v. free labor. Instead of wishing for stats on foreign free labor, are there stats available that compare ante-bellum v. post-bellum American cotton costs and productivities?

Norm