The Lancashire cotton famine

Just watched a program on telly about the Lancashire cotton famine. It seems that during the ACW the mill workers held a meeting at the Free Trade Hall in Manchester and voted not to process any cotton coming from the CSA. This was a brave and noble thing they did as many thousands of them and their families died from starvation and disease. After the war was over Abraham Lincoln presented the people and mill workers of Manchester with a statue to thank them for their support.

http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk/ewm/ic3/68.html

I remember my grand-dad saying something along these lines when I was a nipper. I'd forgotten it. :embarassed:

Are any of our American cousins aware of this action in support of the USA in the civil war? And did it help in the final outcome?

I was not aware of it and it is interesting to know about. Regarding whether it contributed to the Confederate defeat... possibly, but only in a political manner. It definitely would not have had an economic impact on the South.

Even if the cotton workers had wanted to process Southern cotton, they wouldn't really have even been able to, since very, very little was ever exported from the South during the war. To the best of my knowledge the Confederacy itself banned the export of cotton in an attempt to force Britain and France to intervene. Even the small amounts that were exported by smugglers rarely got anywhere because of the extremely tight Union naval blockade. So, there wasn't any cotton in the first place.

The impact would have been in political opposition to Britiain joining in on the side of the Confederacy. Any real possibility of British entry into the war ended with the Emancipation Proclamation, since the British public simply would not support slavery. As such, the Lancashire contribution can probably be seen as one of many vocal demonstations against slavery that firmly moved Britain away from intervention.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

Just watched a program on telly about the Lancashire cotton famine. It seems that during the ACW the mill workers held a meeting at the Free Trade Hall in Manchester and voted not to process any cotton coming from the CSA. This was a brave and noble thing they did as many thousands of them and their families died from starvation and disease. After the war was over Abraham Lincoln presented the people and mill workers of Manchester with a statue to thank them for their support.

http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk/ewm/ic3/68.html

I remember my grand-dad saying something along these lines when I was a nipper. I'd forgotten it. :embarassed:

Are any of our American cousins aware of this action in support of the USA in the civil war? And did it help in the final outcome?

---

Wait, so cotton picked by lower caste Indians with only a tad more freedom and rights than black slaves in the US made India's cotton morally desirable over that bought from US slave states?!? Sounds like the cotton workers of Manchester died for naught. I'm sure the East India Company was jumping for joy over incidents like these.

Thanks for those thoughts TC :bow:

The political aspect hadn't really registered on my radar and it's a good point.

Being a Mancunian myself, I have to say that I'm not a little proud and humbled that my forefathers were more than likely to have been a part of this action.

IIRC there was very little appetite to join in the ACW, probably on the side of the CSA. Even those still piqued at the loss of the colonies were in a minority. As the UK had abolished slavery in 1807 it could have led to mass public discontent and given, at that time, the rise of republicanism in Britain a fillip.

So it did have some impact, either moral or political, as the statue clearly shows........so another question?

Would this be the first instance of the 'working man', by using industrial action, to formulate or influence government policy, let alone foreign policy? Even at the risk, which sadly turned out to be the case, that some of them and their families may perish?

Quote:

---

Wait, so cotton picked by lower caste Indians with only a tad more freedom and rights than black slaves in the US made India's cotton morally desirable over that bought from US slave states?!? Sounds like the cotton workers of Manchester died for naught. I'm sure the East India Company was jumping for joy over incidents like these.

---

I can see what your driving at but I'm reasonably sure that the cotton from the southern states was more suited to the climatic conditions in the East- Lancashire basin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

I can see what your driving at but I'm reasonably sure that the cotton from the southern states was more suited to the climatic conditions in the East- Lancashire basin.

---

That's wishful thinking. I believe US grown cotton was of a superior or rather 'preferable' strain for textile manufacturing to the one grown in India at that time (not exactly sure why). Furthermore US grown cotton was cheaper, in no small part thanks to the shorter travel distance between the US and Britain and the fact that its transport was not subject to a shipping monopoly (i.e. the East India Company).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spino

That's wishful thinking. I believe US grown cotton was of a superior or rather 'preferable' strain for textile manufacturing to the one grown in India at that time (not exactly sure why). Furthermore US grown cotton was cheaper, in no small part thanks to the shorter travel distance between the US and Britain and the fact that its transport was not subject to a shipping monopoly (i.e. the East India Company).

---

Not it's not. I could provide some links but I'll let you do the research. :bow:

The micro-climate of East-Lancashire has been shown to assist in the weaving process. The high humidty of the area was ideal for spinning and weaving the particular type of cotton from the southern USA.

I know, I lived in that area long enough. :yes:

Oh, the East India Company was wound up in 1813 and ceased to function in India after 1858. I'm sure you don't need me to tell you when the ACW broke out. :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

Would this be the first instance of the 'working man', by using industrial action, to formulate or influence government policy, let alone foreign policy?

---

Certainly not. The modern incarnation of unions certainly developed with the industrial revolution, but "working men" have been using strikes and other methods to influence government policy for all of recorded history. Some of the Roman grain shortages were actually due to strikes by dock workers or transporters. The regular Helot revolts against the Spartans included denial of agricultural products to try and produce their own emancipation. I suspect that it you went back in time 100,000 years and observed ancient man you'd find a few disgruntles blokes named Ogg and Ugg refusing to skin a deer because they wanted better spots in the cave.

ROFL....:2thumbsup:

Maybe I should clarify a little here....

I didn't propose that further back in history that there had never been disputes, I'm more than certain that there were. (nice I.E.s BTW)

What I was attempting to ask was this....

Why did people, at great risk to themselves and their families, support a notion that all men are created equal? For no material or financial gain?

fascinating.

I don't think it really affected the war at all.

While the East Indian Trading Company wasn't really up and at it, there were merchants who jumped at the chance to sell their Egyptian and Indian cotton, without superior American cotton to be sent in. American Cotton was more fine than Egyptian or Indian, and thus more desirable.

I think it was a noble but wasted action.

Well, while a load of Mancs where dieing for their beliefs, Liverpool was building the CSS Alabama, which far more interesting and controversial.

http://www.csa-dixie.com/liverpool_dixie/alabama.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSS_Alabama