Sixty Percent of 1860 U.S. Export Income From Cotton

major bill

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Forum Host
Joined
Aug 25, 2012
120 posts and yet not much of a link to the Northern states going to war to keep the cotton profits. All we have establish is that cotton made up 60% of U.S. exports. We have yet to have any indication that the North would have not more or less retain the amount of money from cotton the Northern states were already making from the cotton trade. European ships could well still have picked up Confederate grown cotton in Northern ports. Does anyone have a cost study of unloading import in Northern ports and then sailing empty ships to Southern ports to load cotton? I predict doing so would add cost to the European shipping companies and thus raising the cost of cotton in Europe. Basic economics would indicate that as the cost of cotton went up the demand for cotton would decrease.
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
As you may note from the thread above, R. P. Kennedy claimed that, "The Union [Yankee] wasn't making any money from these [cotton] exports."

rpkennedy is correct in this claim, as the U.S. Government did not levy a tariff on exports, on imports coming into the United States. However, you might find it interesting that the Confederacy DID have tariffs on BOTH exports and imports.

My response (below his) provided sources with evidence that Yankees were making plenty of money off the trade. Your evasion below does not refute, or even challenge, that point.

And I think you need to be able to tell us the difference between US government "Yankees" and civilian businessmen "Yankees" who were entitled, yes, even expected to go with the idea of "making plenty of money off the trade" as possible. They were Yankee Capitalists after all, dealing with Southern Capitalists.

Please state plainly whether you agree with Kennedy that the Yankee wasn't making any money from cotton exports.

If you want a poll taken on who you think presents the better, more correct view of what you and rpkennedy have posted in the course of this thread, you have two options.

1. Begin a new thread with a polling option, or...
2. Count the number of "likes" listed after each or your and rpkennedy's posts.

But, just so you know, I agree with rpkennedy's views. :wink:

Sincerely,
Unionblue
 
Last edited:

NedBaldwin

Major
Joined
Feb 19, 2011
Location
California
"Growth of an economy is directly related to exports. If exports increase at a faster pace as compared to imports, nothing can stop an economy from being a developed one. On the other hand, the instability in exports can adversely affects the process of economic development.

Lower exports mean low foreign exchange and lower foreign exchange in turn means a small purchasing capacity of a nation in the international market.

Fluctuations in export earnings introduce uncertainties in an economy. These uncertainties influence economic behavior by adversely affecting the level and efficiency of investment and in turn have a negative effect on growth.

In addition to the above factors, export growth is also important because of its effect on internal trade and economic stability. Even more, the rate of economic growth and the distribution of income and wealth in a country are closely related to export growth."

http://dailyojo.com/articles/the-importance-of-exports-in-an-economy.html


“Economic life develops by grace of innovating; it expands by grace of import-replacement.”
— Jane Jacobs, Cities and the Wealth of Nations

I agree with the idea you quoted of "exports increase at a faster pace as compared to imports" but not because of the importance of the increase in exports but rather the importance of slowing the increase in imports. What was making the US a developed economy was not the expansion of cotton production, but rather the innovation and creation of products that no longer needed to be imported.
 

NedBaldwin

Major
Joined
Feb 19, 2011
Location
California
:nah disagree:

"GNP" generated by Ohio farmers swapping corn for molasses is not the same thing as 60% of hard currency export income, the subject of the thread. We really do need an economist to show up and explain this.

GNP = Consumption + Investment + Government Spending + Exports – Imports + Net income inflow from abroad – Net income outflow to foreign countries.

The Cotton sold abroad is offset by the imports bought with the "hard currency" . Whereas the Corn and the Molasses are two domestic products both produced and consumed internally.
 

major bill

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Forum Host
Joined
Aug 25, 2012
We could use a comparison of the net value of exports and the net cost of imports ca. 1850s-1860s.
 

cedarstripper

First Sergeant
Joined
Mar 16, 2005
Location
western New York
New York Times, Oct. 6, 1861
http://www.nytimes.com/1861/10/02/news/our-civil-war-and-european-trade.html?pagewanted=all

"The war is already worth all it is likely to cost in the lessons it has taught. It has forever released us from the bondage to cotton, which for a generation has hung over us like a spell, destroying all freedom of commercial or political action, and rendering us slaves to the most absurd delusions. The war has proved to the world that cotton is no longer needed to maintain our commercial independence, as this was never so thoroughly established as since this article has been counted out of the list of our exports. We have $65,000,000 in gold in the country more than we had on the first day of January last. The war has also shown where the real strength and wealth of the country lay. That in this country, as everywhere else, strength and justice, and industry and wealth go hand in hand. As all prosperity is based upon mural conditions, we establish one when we vindicate the other. Hence the contest for principle in which we are engaged is only one, in another form, for our material welfare.

This exhibit shows with what motives, and with what entire confidence and safety the banks, as the representatives of the capital of the country, come to the aid of the Government. They proffer all the money it wants. The rapid flow of specie into their vaults, with the abundance of capital, relieves them of all apprehension as to the future. The expenditures going on, apparently exert no tendency to increase the value or diminish the abundance of money, while they have already given a great impulse to manufactures and trade.

The condition of this country, resulting from the war, is that of complete commercial independence. Its influence, with our diminished imports, upon foreign countries, remains to be seen. A leading member of a great system cannot, in effect, disappear, and leave this system in harmonious action. The extent of this aberation we leave for those to be most injuriously effected, to decide. If England for the future is compelled to send us $50,000,000 or $100,000,000 annually, in bullion, in place of her fabrics which we have been accustomed to consume, her commercial system must undergo a great revolution. If it should turn out that she is to receive no more American cotton, at least for a year or two to come, the effect of the loss of American trade must be greatly aggravated. The rebellion in our country is thus involving all others in its material consequences, and, singular as it may seem, of all great commercial countries, the States loyal to our Government may very probably suffer the least. Neither England nor France can be less indifferent than ourselves to the contest. They are interested really more than ourselves in the speedy return of peace."
 

major bill

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Forum Host
Joined
Aug 25, 2012
So we are talking about plus $38 million or a plus 10%. Now we can discuss if this is enough to go to war to maintain. Then all we would need is some tiny proof that that Northern money interests were behind starting a war.
 

jgoodguy

Banished Forever
-:- A Mime -:-
is a terrible thing...
Don’t feed the Mime
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Location
Birmingham, Alabama

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
120 posts and yet not much of a link to the Northern states going to war to keep the cotton profits. All we have establish is that cotton made up 60% of U.S. exports. We have yet to have any indication that the North would have not more or less retain the amount of money from cotton the Northern states were already making from the cotton trade. European ships could well still have picked up Confederate grown cotton in Northern ports. Does anyone have a cost study of unloading import in Northern ports and then sailing empty ships to Southern ports to load cotton? I predict doing so would add cost to the European shipping companies and thus raising the cost of cotton in Europe. Basic economics would indicate that as the cost of cotton went up the demand for cotton would decrease.
Or has what actually occurred during the Civil War when cotton farmers or perspective cotton farmers in Egypt, British India and Brazil woke up and said
" I think opportunity is knocking on my door".
Leftyhunter
 

jgoodguy

Banished Forever
-:- A Mime -:-
is a terrible thing...
Don’t feed the Mime
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
So we are talking about plus $38 million or a plus 10%. Now we can discuss if this is enough to go to war to maintain. Then all we would need is some tiny proof that that Northern money interests were behind starting a war.

I tend to agree, but not only is the costs of war not known upfront or minimized as was the case for both sides, but the folks starting a war may not think they have to pay for it.
 

jgoodguy

Banished Forever
-:- A Mime -:-
is a terrible thing...
Don’t feed the Mime
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
I also see a lack of direct evidence and it appears that cotton factors, Northern manufacturers of goods sold South, Banks and export manufacturers all have a lot to lose.

Has anyone determined who wins other than Southern Advocates enjoying companionship in this thread.
 

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
As you may note from the thread above, R. P. Kennedy claimed that, "The Union [Yankee] wasn't making any money from these [cotton] exports."

My response (below his) provided sources with evidence that Yankees were making plenty of money off the trade. Your evasion below does not refute, or even challenge, that point.

Please state plainly whether you agree with Kennedy that the Yankee wasn't making any money from cotton exports.
How does the fact that Northern business men made money on the cotton trade prove the OP @Drew contention that the Civil War was caused by a conspiracy of nefarious Northern business men and corrupt politicians?
Leftyhunter
 

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
I also see a lack of direct evidence and it appears that cotton factors, Northern manufacturers of goods sold South, Banks and export manufacturers all have a lot to lose.

Has anyone determined who wins other than Southern Advocates enjoying companionship in this thread.
That is certainly one of the worlds greatest mysteries:thumbsdown:
Leftyhunter
 

jgoodguy

Banished Forever
-:- A Mime -:-
is a terrible thing...
Don’t feed the Mime
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
How does the fact that Northern business men made money on the cotton trade prove the OP @Drew contention that the Civil War was caused by a conspiracy of nefarious Northern business men and corrupt politicians?
Leftyhunter
It would appear to prove the opposite conclusion that war was unprofitable.
 

jgoodguy

Banished Forever
-:- A Mime -:-
is a terrible thing...
Don’t feed the Mime
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Indeed it did. To this very day Egypt and perhaps Brazil and now independent India produce cotton as do other nations. Southern cotton growers of today can only blame GGGG Grandpappy for that.
Leftyhunter
OTOH I am not sure that peanut or soybean farmers care.
 
Top