Talk:Cotton diplomacy

Discrepancy

The article states, "This embargo was effective at first, creating an instant source of income from the valuable cotton backed bonds, shutting down hundreds of textile factories, and putting thousands of people in Europe out of work, but the embargo became a disaster for the confederacy when the British did not cave in to their demands, choosing instead to import cotton from Egypt and India in 1862." Yet the sources listed make it clear that there was a surplus of cotton in Great Britain, and some of the source I have read for my research indicate that there was enough cotton for Great Britain to seel it to the Union as well as meet their own needs. For these reasons, I doubt the statement that thousands of people were put out of work in Europe. TDStewart (talk) 12:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

• In Lancashire alone there were 500,000 people employed in the textile industry, over half of them were put out of work when the United States blockaded the south, and that was just lancashire, it effected every industrialized area of western europe. It was known as the cotton famine.

I figure it's an example of, where you stand depends on where you sit. A Yankee POV concentrates on the bulging warehouses of 1861. A north England POV concerns itself with the closed mills of 1863. India and Egypt take an interest in their export surge. Paper historians notice the increased use of esparto and wood pulp. The various interests don't have to be saying things that aren't true. They just have to care about different things. Which leaves the question, are they saying something that's relevant here? Jim.henderson (talk) 14:47, 3 December 2013 (UTC)