(01-05-2014 09:41 PM)Craig Hipkins Wrote:  [quote='RJNorton' pid='28765' dateline='1388937065']
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

Hi Craig. It's amazing how many names Higham includes as being part of the cotton dealings in one way or another. Here are some of the other people Higham mentions: Judah Benjamin, Jacob Thompson, Clement Clay, Beverley Tucker, Orville Browning, Thurlow Weed, Leonard Swett, Lafayette Baker, Benjamin Butler, William Fessenden, William Orme, George Ashmun, George Sanders, Robert Coxe, Ward Hill Lamon, Preston Parr (saying Lewis Powell was his chief operative), William C. Durant, and Ward Hill Lamon's brother, Robert Lamon.

I was only very vaguely aware Ward Hill Lamon had a brother, and I don't believe I have ever seen a photo of him.

Many of those names appear on various sites that I have encountered online related to the cotton deals. Something sticks in my mind that George Ashmun's visit to Lincoln just as the President was preparing to go to the theater was related to that.

What exactly happened to the cotton producers and trade in the southern states and to the European cotton market after the war? Since Britain and France increasingly had turned to imports from India, Egypt, and Asia Minor (Turkey today) during the war?

Charles Higham is not a reliable source. When researchers attempted to retrace his investigation which "proved" Errol Flynn was a Nazi spy, they found he had invented the documentation. Only a court ruling that the Flynn family had no standing to bring a libel suit against him saved Higham. While you can legally get away with libeling the dead, people who do so require the strictest scrutiny of anything they claim.
Tom

(01-11-2014 12:16 AM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:  What exactly happened to the cotton producers and trade in the southern states and to the European cotton market after the war? Since Britain and France increasingly had turned to imports from India, Egypt, and Asia Minor (Turkey today) during the war?

Southern cotton was still in demand but it would never achieve the high prices it did before the war since it now had competition. The absence of slave labor also lowered it's profit margin. All & all it did well until the boll weevil made it's appearance.

In the movie ""The Rocketeer" (staring Billy Campbell), there is a character like Errol Flynn,(Neville Sinclair played by Timothy Dalton ) who is a movie star and Nazi secret agent.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJL9aVp_1jE

Billy Campbell also stared in "Killing Lincoln"

Thanks, Tom, for supporting my doubts about the accuracy of Mr. Higham's research. On a similar note to the cotton issue, a friend advised me to check out similar "questionable" political tactics in the history of the railroad. I guess vice and money-grabbing never goes out of style.

(01-04-2014 09:55 PM)JMadonna Wrote:  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. ...

Spot on, as the Brits would say. Jefferson Davis wanted to starve Europe of cotton and force intervention and recognition. He called for a cotton embargo and even burned cotton. The Union blockade actually helped this strategy, but it also put the Union in the position of denying cotton to Europe. Capturing cotton and selling it in the North or abroad helped relieve pressure and alleviate social distress in Europe. Some things just have to be done in war. One of the common scenes as the war progressed was Confederates burning cotton as the Union army took over a city.

Back to my original question: Do you feel that the cotton dealers could have been involved in planning Mr. Lincoln's demise?

I'd say no. To great a risk for an uncertain outcome. Even if they kill Lincoln, what assurance is there that things will be any better for them. The cotton dealers would need some kind of deal with either Johnson, Stanton or Seward, (Stanton would be the best choice, and that's not likely to happen).

Agreed Gene, the cotton dealers wanted foremost an end to the war so that they could resume business as usual. Many would have preferred a southern victory and may have contributed funds to that end, but to be actively involved in such a plot with no assurance that they would profit by it seems far fetched.

(01-17-2014 10:50 PM)Don1946 Wrote:  The Union blockade actually helped this strategy, but it also put the Union in the position of denying cotton to Europe. Capturing cotton and selling it in the North or abroad helped relieve pressure and alleviate social distress in Europe.

It would be kind if someone could comment on the following:

Wasn't a side effect of the blockade and the capturing of blockade runners that this was a (welcomed?) way for the north to get ships and enlarge the fleet? Since contrary to the Confederacy the Union allegedly did not buy ships from Europe, and in 1863, as Lincoln informed Congress on Dec. 8, the US Navy consisted of 578 vessels (compared to ~100 at the beginning of the war). This is an incredible increase within such a short period of time (to be built at least)! How many shipyards did the North have in those days?

I also read that the Navy Department purchased the captured blockade runners at auctions, after they had been condemned by prize courts. Was this alway the modus operandi or did it happen that they also took the short cut and just kept them (without the court and pay)? And who received the money? (The owner? The government? Both seems odd to me.)

Many of the 578 vessels were smaller river boats, they didn't take as long to build. Many were frequently privately owned, purchased by the gov't and fairly quickly (and cheaply) converted to gun boats & river transport - supply boats

Thank you, Gene, that makes sense to me! (I've always thought "vessel" rather refers to bigger ships.)

For those of you who have access to jstor - Ludwell Johnson has a number of good articles on the subject I read his " Beverley Tucker's Canadian Mission, 1864-1865 "and found it very informative. He has a number of other articles regarding the trade of cotton too.