[667] Scherer, Cotton as a World Power, pp. 263-4.
[668] Lack of authentic statistics on indirect interests make this a guess by the Times. Other estimates run from one-seventh to one-fourth.
[669] Schmidt, "Wheat and Cotton During the Civil War," p. 408 (in Iowa Journal of History and Politics, Vol. 16), 78.8 per cent. (Hereafter cited as Schmidt, Wheat and Cotton.) Scherer, Cotton as a World Power, p. 264, states 84 per cent, for 1860. Arnold, Cotton Famine, pp. 36-39, estimates 83 per cent.
[670] Great Britain ordinarily ran more than twice as many spindles as all the other European nations combined. Schmidt, Wheat and Cotton, p. 407, note.
[671] This Return for April is noteworthy as the first differentiating commerce with the North and the South.
[672] These facts are drawn from Board of Trade Reports, and from the files of the Economist, London, and Hunt's Merchants Magazine, New York. I am also indebted to a manuscript thesis by T.P. Martin, "The Effects of the Civil War Blockade on the Cotton Trade of the United Kingdom," Stanford University. Mr. Martin in 1921 presented at Harvard University a thesis for the Ph.D degree, entitled "The Influence of Trade (in Cotton and Wheat) on Anglo-American Relations, 1829-1846," but has not yet carried his more matured study to the Civil War period.
[673] Adams, Trans-Atlantic Historical Solidarity, p. 89.
[674] F.O., Am., Vol. 843. No. 10. Bunch to Russell, Jan. 8, 1862. Bunch also reported that inland fields were being transformed to corn production and that even the cotton on hand was deteriorating because of the lack of bagging, shut off by the blockade.
[675] Arnold, Cotton Famine, p. 81.
[676] Richardson, II, 198. Mason to Hunter, March 11, 1862.