Over the years, I have had only a cursory "education" in the political wranglings of Mr Lincoln and his administration during the Civil War. I have come to realize, however, that there is one policy of that era that I should have a better background in because it appears to be one of the things that might have led to his assassination.

I am referring to the wheelings and dealings surrounding what appears (on the surface) to be illegal - and hypocritical - cotton trading between the two warring factions for economic gain. In the past 3-4 years, I have read proposed books and published books that include this theme. I recently went online and read some scholarly thoughts on the issue; one essay in particular intrigued me with its title: Trader or Traitor. It ended up taking a middle-of-the-road approach in its conclusion, and I can live with that, I guess.

However, I would like some brief and lucid comments from our Lincoln scholars on this forum as to their feelings about the cotton trading that Lincoln certainly condoned and perhaps participated in, at least via issuing permits to family and friends with few exceptions.

I have developed some personal opinions about the logic behind these practices as well as views as to their legality, hypocrisy, and even cause for a "coup d'etat" as recently explored in the fictional book The Lincoln Deception. Could I get some further edumacation from others on this forum? In political language that I can understand, please...

P.S. I am not attempting to judge Lincoln in this case - just to understand him. Is it all tied to the industrial/military complex that we still blame for everything today?

I did read "Dark Union" that explores the aspect of the cotton deal and ties it into the assassination. I have discounted any ties (maybe wrongly) just on the premise that the theory was proposed by Dr. Ray Neff.

I'm not sure that Ray Neff was the first to propose a tie between the cotton brokering and the plot against Lincoln, but I can see where such an assumption on the part of historians could be made. That's why I want to know more about why Mr. Lincoln was apparently involved in what seems to be dishonest dealings to me.

In a nutshell - Lincoln needed cotton to keep England out of the war. Licenses and permits were granted for certain shippers from NY to keep the trade going. This led to bribes, kickbacks etc to those who were granted the licenses and hard feelings among those who weren't. Since politically speaking NYC was always a Democratic Party town, Lincoln's actions were not popular.
The graft that ran Mayor Fernando Wood's Mozart Hall organization came primarily from the ships that ran the cotton trade. Wood became one of the main sponsors of the Copperhead movement.

Charles Higham's Murdering Mr. Lincoln deals with this topic. Inside the book's dust jacket it says, "Higham shows for the first time that Lincoln unwittingly sealed his own doom. By allowing trading with the South in contradiction of his own laws, he enriched a circle of powerful people who, once he had outlived his usefulness and handed over the arrangements to others, marked him very quickly for assassination."

One theory I once read somewhere noted that cotton prices became so inflated due to the war that many futures traders made a ton of money. But, then as the war wore down, the cotton traders began losing so much money that they wanted another President who they thought would rev up the war again, thus increasing cotton prices and recouping their losses. This theory would have it that Lincoln was targeted for financial reasons as prolonging the war would benefit the traders as cotton futures rose.

Of the North-South trading historian James McPherson has written, "The Davis administration looked the other way out of necessity; the Lincoln administration looked the other way out of policy."

Thanks, Roger. I actually know the nutshell of the cotton issue, but I'm looking for more meat inside that shell - such as what you just provided.

Higham's book (although I never finished reading it) is one of those that I knew - along with Dark Union and an unpublished ms - are based on the "cotton killed Lincoln" theory. Since reading The Lincoln Deception, however, I have become more intrigued with the theory. I have learned a great deal from two online sources: http://www.thebhc.org/publications/BEHpr...-p0312.pdf and http://www.abrahamlincolnclassroom.org. The more I read, the more powerful names kept popping up. Some of Lincoln's closest friends and political allies were increasingly involved in the trading (and some would add the word "scandal" at the end of that sentence).

Fernando Wood's high-jinks became obvious to me while reading Michael Kline's Baltimore Plot, but now I'm intrigued with the likes of Thurlow Weed, Orville Browning, Ward Hill Lamon, Benjamin Butler, and others being involved. On the opposite side, Stanton and Welles were hesitant to join in and Grant and Sherman considered the trading policies a detriment to the war effort in many respects. Lincoln even helped his Confederate widow sister-in-law, Emilie Helms, get her cotton on the market. The whole issue seems to be a separate sub-plot under the whole North-South issue.

Laurie, lots and lots of names are mentioned in Higham's book. For example, another man knee deep in the "cotton conspiracy" (Higham's phrase for it) was John Albion Andrew, governor of Massachusetts.

Lori, in Stuart D. Brandes book Warhogs: A History of War Profits in America Mr. Brandes touches on this very subject in a chapter that starts on page 92. entitled “Trading with the Enemy”. It really does not cover if there was a correlation with Lincoln’s assassination, but does cover Lincoln and the cotton trade.

Best,

Dan

I guess I will have to break down and read Higham's book. I dealt with the gentleman while he was researching. He was pleasant, but did not want to consider other options on some of the assassination details (not related to the cotton issue). His attitude sort of turned me off to reading his final work.

It makes sense that any of the political figures in Northern states whose economies were devoted to the textile industry would want in on the cotton trade. What about Connecticut ties?

One source citation that I ran across in the Trader or Traitor article intrigues me: L.H. Johnson, "Beverley Tucker's Canadian Mission, 1864-1865." Journal of Southern History, 29 (1963a), 88-99. Were some of the Canadian Cabinet officials for the Confederacy involved in the cotton trade as well as planning campaigns into the North and possibly the plot(s) against Lincoln?

(01-05-2014 11:14 AM)L Verge Wrote:  I guess I will have to break down and read Higham's book. I dealt with the gentleman while he was researching. He was pleasant, but did not want to consider other options on some of the assassination details (not related to the cotton issue). His attitude sort of turned me off to reading his final work.

It makes sense that any of the political figures in Northern states whose economies were devoted to the textile industry would want in on the cotton trade. What about Connecticut ties?

One source citation that I ran across in the Trader or Traitor article intrigues me: L.H. Johnson, "Beverley Tucker's Canadian Mission, 1864-1865." Journal of Southern History, 29 (1963a), 88-99. Were some of the Canadian Cabinet officials for the Confederacy involved in the cotton trade as well as planning campaigns into the North and possibly the plot(s) against Lincoln?

R.I. Senator William Sprague (Sec. Chase' son-in-law) is probably a good example of a Northerner who had a vested interest. His guns for cotton scheme could have been a major embarrassment to Lincoln's administration had it not been squashed by Stanton.

I've always wondered why the fear of the British coming in militarily on the side of the South. If the Union would have proposed something like - let your navy take the port of Charleston for us and we'll give some of the richest cotton counties in South Carolina on a say 40 year lease.
It would have broken the back of the South, been less expensive militarily for the British than getting involved in a land war in America and ended the war sooner.

Dan - There are two Cabinet members that I have always wanted to pin guilt on: Judah Benjamin in the Confederacy and Salmon Chase in the Union. How much was Chase supporting his son-in-law? For some reason, assassination authors never seem to give Mr. Chase much attention. Maybe because he doesn't deserve any, but my female intuition keeps nagging at me about that man...

Jerry - Excellent point about the British and our war. It seems that a lease deal would be workable, but also any long-term deal that would basically turn the South into a "slave" economy once again to feed the demands of two industrialized nations - and I'm not thinking black servitude here.

(01-05-2014 06:02 PM)L Verge Wrote:  Dan - There are two Cabinet members that I have always wanted to pin guilt on: Judah Benjamin in the Confederacy and Salmon Chase in the Union. How much was Chase supporting his son-in-law? For some reason, assassination authors never seem to give Mr. Chase much attention. Maybe because he doesn't deserve any, but my female intuition keeps nagging at me about that man...

Me too! (except for that feminine intuition part

As for England, when you ask for help you are always a bit beholden to the helper. Besides, this was an internal problem, best handled without outside help or interference.

(01-05-2014 10:51 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  Laurie, lots and lots of names are mentioned in Higham's book. For example, another man knee deep in the "cotton conspiracy" (Higham's phrase for it) was John Albion Andrew, governor of Massachusetts.

Roger, This is interesting since Governor Andrew was known as one of the so called "Moral Whigs" of Massachusetts as opposed to the "Cotton Whigs" who were more mercantile in their political dealings. I have a copy of Higham's book but have only skimmed through it.

Craig

(01-05-2014 06:02 PM)L Verge Wrote:  Dan - There are two Cabinet members that I have always wanted to pin guilt on: Judah Benjamin in the Confederacy and Salmon Chase in the Union. How much was Chase supporting his son-in-law? For some reason, assassination authors never seem to give Mr. Chase much attention. Maybe because he doesn't deserve any, but my female intuition keeps nagging at me about that man...

Jerry - Excellent point about the British and our war. It seems that a lease deal would be workable, but also any long-term deal that would basically turn the South into a "slave" economy once again to feed the demands of two industrialized nations - and I'm not thinking black servitude here.

Great point Lori... As for Chase's relationship to his son-in-law that is a good question. Chase's ambition for higher office was matched only by his daughter Kate's for her father. As far a support, Sprague's marriage to Kate was going to bring a great deal of financial support to the family, and in return, Sprague would be introduced to the many power brokers in Washington for his own political ambition.