For all the talk of "King Cotton" the real story was that in Europe from 1860 to 1865 there was low food harvests that left Europe unable to feed its population and only grain and corn from the United States prevented food shortages. So for all the talk about Great Britain and France recognizing the CSA, what happens if Lincoln embargos grain and corn exports to Europe?
What if Lincoln embagos grain to Europe
- Thread starter ejpsan
- Start date
That would be massively self-defeating. Why would Lincoln do anything so daft?
The cotton embargo was the CSA pushing cotton prices up so that the price cotton bonds - which were one of the CSA's biggest sources of foreign money - went up.
Since the USA can get foreign money without needing to do grain bonds, there won't be any deliberate attempts to force up the price of grain.
Since the USA can get foreign money without needing to do grain bonds, there won't be any deliberate attempts to force up the price of grain.
I think the idea was that Lincoln would threaten this if the Europeans started getting close to recognizing or outright supporting the CSA. Essentially a "Stay out of this or we starve you" threat.
Which, provided it is used well, could perhaps be a legitimate weapon available to Lincoln to keep the CSA unrecognized, but I am not well versed in this part of history.
Which, provided it is used well, could perhaps be a legitimate weapon available to Lincoln to keep the CSA unrecognized, but I am not well versed in this part of history.
I doubt it would have worked. The grain market was much more diversified than cotton. It'd have caused problems certainly, but nothing a government pissed off enough wouldn't have been willing to have its lower classes bear.
I rather doubt it. If anything, such a threat would push a European power more toward recognising or supporting the CSA. Great Powers do not get to be great powers by letting other countries push them around.
The POD was that Great Britain and France recognizes the CSA. I remember a book about cotton that said if the CSA was recognized, the U.S. was going embargo grain exports to Europe which is one of the reason that no countries in Europe did recognized the CSA. I do remember the weather in Europe from 1860 to 1865 was colder and wetter in the summer which led to much smaller harvests. As for the world grain market, the U.S. was the only exporter of note, as Canada, Argentina, and Australia had not developed their potential yet.
The problem is is that the odds of Great Britain recognizing the CSA were pretty remote. If the CSA somehow managed to pull off a win and weaken the US, than they'd by all means step in and establish relations, but you'd have to jump through a lot of hoops to get them to recognize the Confederacy before they had clearly won the war. And given the fact that the CSA had basically a snowball's chance in hell of defeating the Union, it's not going to happen.
Now, could some Union President who isn't Lincoln fuck up and preemptively threaten Great Britain and France with a grain embargo in order to head off recognition at the pass? Maybe, but given the fact that Lincoln's election was what triggered secession in the first place it's a tough scenario to put together.
Anaxagoras
Banned
That would be almost as stupid as the South imposing its own embargo on the export of cotton to Europe. Nobody would ever do something so foolish.
Oh wait...
Oh wait...
Lincoln trying to dictate how the European powers should act by any means, be it through embargo or open threats, would have been seen as such an insult to Britain and France - and this was a time in which people cared deeply about such insults - that I think you'd have found a swing in favor of war with the USA. Now that might not translate into actual action, but it would certainly mean less favorable dispositions towards the Union.
The Tsar should have been so grateful that he might just give away Alaska...
Russia was the only real competitor that the United States had for the title of breadbasket of Europe. Grain from Poland, Ukraine and Belorussia would make up some of the shortfall. Prices would rise with the scarcity of grain, allowing Russian landowners to significantly increase their incomes.
This would coincide with the emancipation of the serfs (an event which freed quite a few more souls than the 13th Amendment would a few years later). A few years of extra-profitability would have been beneficial to the newly freed peasants, as it would have allowed them to pay off their redemption payments to the government. Those peasants not part of the Mir collectives would be better positioned to enter the emerging capitalist economy.
Of course once he US Civil War ended, Midwestern farmers would flood the market with grain, causing prices to decline. If the price decline was precipitous enough, it would probably ruin many Russian and European farmers who took on debt to increase their production during good times.
I cannot comment on the rest of Europe, but I wonder how such an event would effect politics in the UK. The Corn Laws had been repealed only in 1849. A great deal of land had been taken out of production after the decline in grain prices. A sudden increase in the price of corn (grain), combined with the cotton embargo would have caused a worse recession than the UK suffered OTL.
Perhaps, as a result, the next Tory government would have been less eager to embrace Free Trade, and imposed a tariff on grain as a hedge against future grain embargoes?
Russia was the only real competitor that the United States had for the title of breadbasket of Europe. Grain from Poland, Ukraine and Belorussia would make up some of the shortfall. Prices would rise with the scarcity of grain, allowing Russian landowners to significantly increase their incomes.
This would coincide with the emancipation of the serfs (an event which freed quite a few more souls than the 13th Amendment would a few years later). A few years of extra-profitability would have been beneficial to the newly freed peasants, as it would have allowed them to pay off their redemption payments to the government. Those peasants not part of the Mir collectives would be better positioned to enter the emerging capitalist economy.
Of course once he US Civil War ended, Midwestern farmers would flood the market with grain, causing prices to decline. If the price decline was precipitous enough, it would probably ruin many Russian and European farmers who took on debt to increase their production during good times.
I cannot comment on the rest of Europe, but I wonder how such an event would effect politics in the UK. The Corn Laws had been repealed only in 1849. A great deal of land had been taken out of production after the decline in grain prices. A sudden increase in the price of corn (grain), combined with the cotton embargo would have caused a worse recession than the UK suffered OTL.
Perhaps, as a result, the next Tory government would have been less eager to embrace Free Trade, and imposed a tariff on grain as a hedge against future grain embargoes?
Anaxagoras
Banned
When the South seceded, Congress took advantage of the absence of Southern congressmen and senators to pass a stiff tariff on imports from Britain and France. This pissed off the British and French royally and helps explain the marginally pro-South neutrality each displayed in the first year or so of the conflict. If Lincoln had done something as inexplicably stupid as to cut off grain exports, the British and French would surely have recognized the Confederacy without a second thought. Qualms about slavery aside, a Union grain embargo would be like shoving a knife into the backs of both countries.
A grain embargo in these circumstances would be a really, terminally stupid idea. Not only would it fail in itself, it would not force Britain or France to do anything, and would be more likely to lead to intervention.
Firstly, embargoes leak. If the US of A isn't selling grain to Britain and/or France, then it's selling grain somewhere else. And a lot of that grain will be onsold to Britain and France. If the US of A isn't selling grain to anyone, then you've got a lot of very pissed off US farmers, quite possibly a financial crisis, and every country in Europe now angry with the USA. That's like shooting yourself in the foot while your foot is in your mouth.
Secondly, if Britain and/or France had already recognised the CSA - or were simply thinking about it - then such a move is diplomatic blackmail. Great Powers do not take kindly to blackmail. If Lincoln wanted to turn recognition of the CSA into actual intervention, he couldn't find a better way to do it.
I think we just found the long sought POD that will allow the South to win the war. Grain embargo on powers with bad harvests results in both recognizing the confederacy and actively intervening. No southern cotton is one thing food shortages caused by a grain embargo would likely be enough to trigger military intervention
Please read my post on the "King Wheat" myth at https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.history.what-if/zLZg6EzfPps/W5SwgLfuUKkJ
On top of all the other reasons why it's a stupid idea, wouldn't it result in local oversupply and an internal severe fall in the price of wheat, making the USA farmers much poorer?
I'd imagine it's easier to store cotton than wheat as well - less danger of rot? Does anyone know this for sure?
I'd imagine it's easier to store cotton than wheat as well - less danger of rot? Does anyone know this for sure?
Daft.
How does recognising the confederacy lead to grain imports? certainly no time soon.
Surely the solution to a lack of wheat is - PLANT MORE WHEAT. It does not take long to grow. Or eat rice, or barley or potatoes or something else. I mean its not like Britain and France are actually short of land or ships or money.
Or import it from somewhere else. While there may be a famine somewhere its a reasonable bet that it wont be in places like Britain and France who can afford to buy it for a season.
Just because american wheat is cheaper does not make it the sole source of carbs.
But just to be clear. Banning wheat exports means you need a drooling idiot Lincoln, a suicidal congress and comatose Chase.
Either the the wheat is bought up by the US government for which you need money or it is not in which case the the farmers go bankrupt, the people dependent on the farmers go bankrupt and probably a lot faster than the europeans go hungry.
Not to mention the Europeans have a lot of options short of recognizing the confederacy, which of itself is irrelevant btw.
How does recognising the confederacy lead to grain imports? certainly no time soon.
Surely the solution to a lack of wheat is - PLANT MORE WHEAT. It does not take long to grow. Or eat rice, or barley or potatoes or something else. I mean its not like Britain and France are actually short of land or ships or money.
Or import it from somewhere else. While there may be a famine somewhere its a reasonable bet that it wont be in places like Britain and France who can afford to buy it for a season.
Just because american wheat is cheaper does not make it the sole source of carbs.
But just to be clear. Banning wheat exports means you need a drooling idiot Lincoln, a suicidal congress and comatose Chase.
Either the the wheat is bought up by the US government for which you need money or it is not in which case the the farmers go bankrupt, the people dependent on the farmers go bankrupt and probably a lot faster than the europeans go hungry.
Not to mention the Europeans have a lot of options short of recognizing the confederacy, which of itself is irrelevant btw.