Empire of Cotton

by Sven Beckert

  42. British workers, especially the cotton operatives of Lancashire, however, by and large did not agree with the pro-Confederate sympathies of some merchants and manufacturers, and they frequently spoke in support of the Union, especially once Lincoln proclaimed the possibility of emancipation. Lincoln himself communicated his appreciation for the support of Lancashire workers in early 1863. This is strongly argued by Barley, Myths, 67–71; Philip S. Foner, British Labor and the American Civil War (New York: Holmes & Meier, 1981), and Jones, Union in Peril, 225; against this view, but now largely refuted, Mary Ellison, Support for Secession: Lancashire and the American Civil War (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1972).

  43. Jones, Union in Peril; Owsley and Owsley, King Cotton; for the Confederacy, see W. L. Trenholm to Charles Kuhn Prioleau (Liverpool), New York, June 21, 1865, B/FT 1/137, Fraser, Trenholm & Company Papers, Merseyside Maritime Museum, Liverpool; on the importance of wheat imports to Britain, see for example William Thayer to William H. Seward, London, July 19, 1862, Seward Papers, Library of Congress, Washington, DC; Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, Third Series, vol. 171, June 30, 1863, 1795. For a far-flung debate on why not to recognize the Confederacy, see ibid., 1771–1842; Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, Third Series, vol. 167, June 13, 1862, 543; George Campbell, Duke of Argyll, to Lord John Russell, October 11, 1862, Box 25, 30/22, Lord John Russell Papers, National Archives of the UK, Kew; on the Prussian desire for a strong United States to counterbalance British influence, see Löffler, Preussens, 59; see also Martin T. Tupper to Abraham Lincoln, May 13, 1861 (support from England), in Series 1, General Correspondence, 1833–1916, Abraham Lincoln Papers, Library of Congress, Washington, DC; for European pressures on Lincoln, see Lord John Russell Papers, National Archives of the UK, Kew; Lord Richard Lyons to Lord John Russell, Washington, 28 July 1863, in United States, Washington Legislation, Private Correspondence, Box 37, 30/22, Lord John Russell Papers, National Archives of the UK, Kew; Charles Wood to James Bruce, Earl of Elgin, August 9, 1862, LB 11, Letterbook, July 3 to December 31, 1862, MSS EUR F 78, Wood Papers, Oriental and India Office Collections, British Library, London. American diplomats too were frequently reminded of Europe’s urgent need for cotton; Henry S. Sanford to William H. Seward, April 10, 1862, Seward Papers, Manuscripts Division, Library of Congress, Washington, DC, quoted in Case and Spencer, United States and France, 290; William Thayer to William H. Seward, London, July 19, 1862, Seward Papers; William L. Dayton to Charles Francis Adams, Paris, November 21, 1862, AM 15236, Correspondence, Letters Sent A-C, Box I, Dayton Papers, as quoted in Case and Spencer, United States and France, 371.

  44. Sancton, “Myth of French Worker,” 58–80; for concerns about social upheaval and plans to improve the situation of unemployed cotton workers, see Ménier, Au profit; on British workers’ collective action see Hall, “Poor Cotton Weyver,” 227–50; Jones, Union in Peril, 55, argues that both Gladstone and Lyons cited fears of social upheaval among textile workers as reasons to intervene in the American conflict; Address by William E. Gladstone on the Cotton Famine, 1862, Add. 44690, f. 55, vol. 605, Gladstone Papers, British Library, London; William E. Gladstone, Speech on the American Civil War, Town Hall, Newcastle upon Tyne, October 7, 1862, as quoted in Jones, Union in Peril, 182.

  45. Jones, Union in Peril, 114, 123, 129, 130, 133; Lord Richard Lyons to Lord John Russell, Washington, July 28, 1863, in United States, Washington Legislation, Private Correspondence, Box 37, 30/22, Lord John Russell Papers, National Archives of the UK, Kew; Charles Wood to James Bruce, Earl of Elgin, August 9, 1862, in LB 11, Letterbook, July 3 to December 31, 1862, MSS EUR F 78, Wood Papers, Oriental and India Office Collections, British Library, London; Glyndon G. Van Deusen, William Henry Seward (New York: Oxford University Press, 1967), 330–31, Abraham Lincoln, “Annual Message to Congress,” December 3, 1861, in John George Nicolay and John Hay, eds., Abraham Lincoln: Complete Works, Compromising His Speeches, Letters, State Papers, and Miscellaneous Writings, vol. 2 (New York: Century Co., 1894), 94; “The Cabinet on Emancipation,” MSS, July 22, 1862, reel 3, Edwin M. Stanton Papers, Library of Congress, Washington, DC. Thanks to Eric Foner for bringing this source to my attention.

  46. William Thayer to William H. Seward, London, July 19, 1862, Seward Papers, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, DC; Henry S. Sanford to William H. Seward, April 10, 1862, Seward Papers; William L. Dayton to William H. Seward, Paris, March 25, 1862, Despatches, France, State Department Correspondence, National Archives, Washington, DC. Napoleon argued that social unrest would follow if cotton could not be secured. Thurlow Weed to William H. Seward, Paris, April 4, 1862, in ibid.; Imbert-Koechlim is quoted in Industrial Alsacien, February 2, 1862, as cited in Sancton, “Myth of French Worker,” 76; William L. Dayton to Charles Francis Adams, Paris, November 21, 1862, in AM 15236, Correspondence, Letters Sent A-C, Box I, Dayton Papers, quoted in Case and Spencer, United States and France, 371, also see 374; Owsley and Owsley, King Cotton, 16–17.

  47. Charles Francis Adams Jr. to Henry Adams, Quincy, Massachusetts, August 25, 1861, in Ford, ed., A Cycle of Adams Letters, 34–35, 36.

  48. For this fascinating story see Ricky-Dale Calhoun, “Seeds of Destruction: The Globalization of Cotton as a Result of the American Civil War” (PhD dissertation, Kansas State University, 2012), 99ff., 150ff.; William Thayer to William Seward, March 5, 1863, Alexandria, in Despatches of the U.S. Consul in Alexandria to Seward, National Archives, Washington DC. See also David R. Serpell, “American Consular Activities in Egypt, 1849–1863,” Journal of Modern History 10, no. 3 (1938): 344–63; William Thayer to William H. Seward, Despatch number 23, Alexandria, November 5, 1862, in Despatches of the U.S. Consul in Alexandria to Seward, National Archives, Washington DC; William H. Seward to William Thayer, Washington, December 15, 1862, Seward Papers, Library of Congress, Washington, DC; Ayoub Bey Trabulsi to William H. Seward, Alexandria, August 12, 1862, in Despatches of the U.S. Consul in Alexandria to Seward, National Archives, Washington, DC; William Thayer to William H. Seward, April 1, 1862, in ibid.; for the dispatches to Seward on cotton see for example William Thayer to William H. Seward, Alexandria, July 20, 1861, in ibid.; William Thayer to William H. Seward, Despatch number 23, Alexandria, November 5, 1862, in ibid.

  49. William H. Seward to William Thayer, Washington, December 15, 1862, Seward Papers, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, DC. See also Ayoub Bey Trabulsi to William H. Seward, Alexandria, August 12, 1862, in Despatches of the U.S. Consul in Alexandria to Seward, National Archives, Washington, DC; William Thayer to William H. Seward, April 1, 1862, in ibid.

  50. Baring Brothers Liverpool to Joshua Bates, Liverpool, February 12, 1862, in HC 35: 1862, House Correspondence, Baring Brothers, ING Baring Archive, London; Charles Wood to James Bruce, Earl of Elgin, August 9, 1862, in MSS EUR F 78, LB 11, Wood Papers, Oriental and India Office Collections, British Library, London; Dunham, “Development,” 295; Rapport de Neveu-Lemaire, procureur général de Nancy, January 5, 1864, as cited in Case, ed., French Opinion, 285–86; similar reports came in from other districts as well.

  51. Liverpool Mercury, January 4, 1864, 8; the general argument is also made by Tripathi, “A Shot,” 74–89; William H. Seward, March 25, 1871, in Olive Risely Seward, ed., William H. Seward’s Travels Around the World (New York: D. Appleton & Co, 1873), 401.

  52. This is the impression from reading the Annual Reports of the Manchester Chamber of Commerce; for a sense of relief by cotton interests see Manchester, Forty-Third Annual Report, 17, 25; Liverpool Mercury, August 8, 1864, 7, August 9, 1864, 7, August 10, 1864, 3, August 31, 1864, 7, September 22, 1864, 7, October 31, 1864, 7. See also Owsley and Owsley, King Cotton, 137, 143; Atkinson, “Future Supply,” 485–86; John Bright to Edward A. Atkinson, London, May 29, 1862, Box N 298, Edward A. Atkinson Papers, Massachusetts Historical Society, Boston.

  53. Bremer Handelsblatt 12 (1862), 335.

  54. The Economist, September 21, 1861, 1042; J. E. Horn, La crise co
tonnière et les textiles indigènes (Paris: Dentu, 1863), 14; Leone Levi, “On the Cotton Trade and Manufacture, as Affected by the Civil War in America,” Journal of the Statistical Society of London 26, no. 8 (March 1863): 42; Stephen S. Remak, La paix en Amérique (Paris: Henri Plon, 1865), 25–26; Bremer Handelsblatt, April 22, 1865, 142.

  55. The importance of slaves to the struggle for emancipation has been beautifully analyzed by many historians; see especially Ira Berlin et al., Slaves No More: Three Essays on Emancipation and the Civil War (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992); Eric Foner, Reconstruction: America’s Unfinished Revolution, 1863–1877 (New York: HarperCollins, 2002); Steven Hahn, A Nation Under Our Feet: Black Political Struggles in the Rural South from Slavery to the Great Migration (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University, 2003); Steven Hahn, The Political Worlds of Slavery and Freedom (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2009); on the contradictions of southern state formation and the weaknesses it wrought in war see also Stephanie McCurry, Confederate Reckoning: Power and Politics in the Civil War South (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2010).

  56. London Mercury, September 22, 1863, 7; Ravinder Kumar, Western India in the Nineteenth Century: A Study in the Social History of Maharashtra (London: Routledge & K. Paul, 1968), 35, 59, 151, 161; Maurus Staubli, Reich und arm mit Baumwolle: Export orientierte Landwirtschaft und soziale Stratifikation am Beispiel des Baumwollanbaus im indischen Distrikt Khandesh (Dekkan) 1850–1914 (Stuttgart: F. Steiner, 1994), 58, 68, 114–15, 187; Alan Richards, Egypt’s Agricultural Development, 1800–1980: Technical and Social Change (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1982), 55, 61; in Turkestan, many years later, the result would be quite similar; John Whitman, “Turkestan Cotton in Imperial Russia,” American Slavic and East European Review 15, no. 2 (1956): 190–205; on economic change in the postbellum South see Foner, Reconstruction, 392–411; Gavin Wright, The Political Economy of the Cotton South: Households, Markets, and Wealth in the Nineteenth Century (New York: Norton, 1978), 166–76; Wright, Old South, 34, 107; Steven Hahn, The Roots of Southern Populism: Yeoman Farmers and the Transformation of the Georgia Upcountry, 1850–1890 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1983).

  57. W. H. Holmes, Free Cotton: How and Where to Grow It (London: Chapman and Hall, 1862), 18; Merivale, Lectures, 315; Report of the Select Committee of the House of Commons, dated July 25, 1842, as cited in Alleyne Ireland, Demerariana: Essays, Historical, Critical, and Descriptive (New York: Macmillan, 1899), 150; The Economist, December 9, 1865, 1487, emphasis in original.

  58. Holmes, Free Cotton, 16, 18, 22; Commission Coloniale, Rapport à M. le Ministre de la Marine et des Colonies sur l’Organisation du Travail Libre, Record Group Gen 40, box 317, Fonds Ministérielles, Archives d’outre-mer, Aix-en-Provence, France; Cotton Supply Reporter (December 16, 1861): 722.

  59. Holmes, Free Cotton; Auteur de la paix en Europe par l’Alliance anglo-française, Les blancs et les noirs en Amérique et le coton dans les deux mondes (Paris: Dentu, 1862).

  60. The theme of “rehearsal for Reconstruction” is taken from Willie Lee Nichols Rose, Rehearsal for Reconstruction: The Port Royal Experiment (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1964); Liverpool Mercury, September 23, 1863, 6; this was also the conclusion of an increasing number of people in Liverpool, who by 1863 had sent an ever-increasing number of letters to the editor of the Liverpool Mercury to make their antislavery voices heard; see Liverpool Mercury, January 19, 1863, 6, January 24, 1863, 7; Edward Atkinson, Cheap Cotton by Free Labor (Boston: A. Williams & Co., 1861); Atkinson Papers, Massachusetts Historical Society, Boston; Manchester, Forty-First Annual Report, 33; Atkinson, “Future Supply,” 485–86.

  61. Already in 1862, Mr. Caird argued in the House of Commons, that “the advantages which the Southern States had hitherto derived from slave cultivation would be to a great extent at an end.” Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, Third Series, vol. 167 (1862), 791; see Liverpool Mercury, January 3, 1865, 6, April 25, 1865, 6, May 13, 1865, 6; for prices, see John A. Todd, World’s Cotton Crops (London: A. & C. Black, 1915 (1924), 429–32; XXIV.2.22, RP, Rathbone Papers, Special Collections and Archives, University of Liverpool; Baring Brothers Liverpool to Baring Brothers London, July 19, 1865, in House Correspondence, HC 3 (1865), folder 35 (Correspondence from Liverpool House), ING Baring Archive, London.

  62. Bremer Handelsblatt, June 17, 1865, 234–35; W. A. Bruce to Lord John Russell, May 10, 1865, in Letters from Washington Minister of Great Britain to Foreign Office, Earl Russell, 1865, in 30: 22/38, Lord John Russell Papers, National Archives of the UK, Kew; W. A. Bruce to Lord John Russell, May 22, 1865, in ibid.

  63. August Etienne, Die Baumwollzucht im Wirtschaftsprogramm der deutschen Übersee-Politik (Berlin: Verlag von Hermann Paetel, 1902), 28; the theme of labor shortage was also an important subject in discussions on the expansion of Indian cotton production during the U.S. Civil War; see Times of India, October 18, 1861, 3, February 27, 1863, 6; Zeitfragen, May 1, 1911, 1; Protocol of the Annual Meeting of the Manchester Cotton Supply Association, June 11, 1861, reprinted in “The Cotton Question,” Merchants’ Magazine and Commercial Review 45 (October 1861): 379; Liverpool Mercury, June 12, 1861, 3; the superintendent of the Cotton Gin Factory in the Dharwar Collectorate reported in May 1862, “Although the cultivation of native cotton is capable of extension to an enormous degree, yet the amount of labour available is barely sufficient to clean the quantity now produced”; quoted in Times of India, February 12, 1863, 3; Bengal Hurkaru, May 11, 1861, as reprinted in Bombay Times and Standard, May 17, 1861, 3.

  64. Cotton Supply Reporter (June 15, 1861): 530; Supplement to The Economist, Commercial History and Review of 1865, March 10, 1866, 3; Bremer Handelsblatt, April 22, 1865, 142; the institution of slavery itself, of course, thrived for a few more decades in places such as Cuba, Brazil, and Africa; by and large, however, cotton was no longer produced by slaves; see Suzanne Miers and Richard Roberts, The End of Slavery in Africa (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1988).

  65. Timothy Mitchell, Rule of Experts: Egypt, Techno-Politics, Modernity (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002), 59–60; Mathieu, De la culture, 25.

  66. Bremer Handelsblatt, October 14, 1865, 372.

  67. The Economist, December 9, 1865, 1488; Eric Foner, Nothing but Freedom: Emancipation and Its Legacy (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1983), 27–28.

  68. Berlin et al., Slaves No More, 1–76.

  69. Reclus, “Le coton,” 208.

  70. Baring Brothers Liverpool to Baring Brothers London, February 4, 1865, in House Correspondence, HC 3 (1865), folder 35 (Correspondence from Liverpool House), ING Baring Archive, London; Gore’s General Advertiser, January 19, 1865, as cited in Hall, “Liverpool Cotton,” 163; Indian Daily News, Extraordinary, March 8, 1865, clipping included in U.S. Consulate General Calcutta to William H. Seward, Calcutta, March 8, 1864, in Despatches of the U.S. Consul in Calcutta to U.S. Secretary of State, National Archives, Washington, DC; Letter from Calvin W. Smith to “Dear Friends at home,” Bombay, April 23, 1865, in folder 13, Ms. N-937, Calvin W. Smith Papers, Massachusetts Historical Society, Boston; Samuel Smith, My Life-Work (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1902), 35; Brown Brothers, Experiences, 49–50.

  71. William B. Forwood, “The Influence of Price upon the Cultivation and Consumption of Cotton During the Ten Years 1860–1870,” Journal of the Statistical Society of London 33, no. 3 (September 1870): 371.

  72. Horn, La crise, 46.

  CHAPTER TEN: GLOBAL RECONSTRUCTION

  1. Frederick W. A. Bruce to Earl of Clarendon, British Secretary of State, Washington, DC, December 18, 1865, reprinted in Cotton Supply Reporter (February 1, 1866): 1795; Memorandum, W. Hickens, Royal Engineers, to Secretary of State, Washington, DC, December 18, 1865, in ibid.

  2. Edmund Ashworth, as cited in Cotton Supply Reporter (July 1, 1865): 1675; Maurice Williams, “The Cotton Trade of 1865,” Seven Year History of the Cotton Trade of Europe, 1861 to 1868 (Liverpool: William
Potter, 1868), 19. For more on Williams see Thomas Ellison, The Cotton Trade of Great Britain: Including a History of the Liverpool Cotton Market and of the Liverpool Cotton Brokers’ Association (London: Effingham Wilson, 1886), 255.

  3. Robert Ed. Bühler, “Die Unabhängigkeitsbestrebungen Englands, Frankreichs und Deutschlands in ihrer Baumwollversorgung” (PhD dissertation, University of Zürich, 1929), 3; Cotton Supply Reporter (June 1, 1865): 1658.

  4. B. R. Mitchell, International Historical Statistics: The Americas, 1750–2005 (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007), 391, 467, 547–49; Elijah Helm, “An International Survey of the Cotton Industry,” Quarterly Journal of Economics 17, no. 3 (May 1903): 417; Gavin Wright, “Cotton Competition and the Post-bellum Recovery of the American South,” Journal of Economic History 34, no. 3 (September 1974): 632–33. Douglas A. Farnie and David J. Jeremy, The Fibre That Changed the World: The Cotton Industry in International Perspective, 1600–1990s (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 23, 25.

  5. The graph on page 279 is based on the author’s analysis of data on cotton spindles from nineteen countries (Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Mexico, the Netherlands, Portugal, Russia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States). Due to the dispersed and inconsistent nature of the sources, this is not more than an estimate. Some numbers have been extrapolated. For the numbers see Louis Bader, World Developments in the Cotton Industry, with Special Reference to the Cotton Piece Goods Industry in the United States (New York: New York University Press, 1925), 33; Amiya Kumar Bagchi, Private Investment in India, 1900–1939, Cambridge South Asian Studies 10 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972), 234; Javier Barajas Manzano, Aspectos de la industria textil de algodón en México (Mexico: Instituto Mexicano de Investigaciones Económicas, 1959), 43–44, 280; Belgium, Ministère de l’Intérieur, Statistique de la Belgique, Industrie (Brussels: Impr. de T. Lesigne, 1851), 471; Pierre Benaerts, Les origines de la grande industrie allemande (Paris: F. H. Turot, 1933), 486; Sabbato Louis Besso, The Cotton Industry in Switzerland, Vorarlberg, and Italy; A Report to the Electors of the Gartside Scholarships (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1910); George Bigwood, Cotton (New York: Holt, 1919), 61; H. J. Habakkuk and M. Postan, eds., The Cambridge Economic History of Europe, vol. 6 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965), 443; Kang Chao, The Development of Cotton Textile Production in China (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1977), 301–7; Stanley D. Chapman, “Fixed Capital Formation in the British Cotton Industry, 1770–1815,” Economic History Review, New Series, 23, no. 2 (August 1970): 235–66, 252; Louis Bergeron and Jean-Antoine-Claude Chaptal, De l’industrie française: Acteurs de l’histoire (Paris: Impr. nationale éditions, 1993), 326; Melvin Thomas Copeland, The Cotton Manufacturing Industry of the United States (New York: A. M. Kelley, 1966), 19; see years 1878–1920 in Cotton Facts: A Compilation from Official and Reliable Sources (New York: A. B. Shepperson, 1878); Richard Dehn and Martin Rudolph, The German Cotton Industry; A Report to the Electors of the Gartside Scholarships (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1913); Thomas Ellison, A Hand-book of the Cotton Trade, or, A glance at the Past History, Present Condition, and the Future Prospects of the Cotton Commerce of the World (London: Longman Brown Green Longmans and Roberts, 1858), 146–67; Ellison, The Cotton Trade of Great Britain, 72–3; D. A. Farnie, The English Cotton Industry and the World Market, 1815–1896 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1979), 180; Mimerel Fils, “Filature du Cotton,” in Michel Chevalier, ed., Rapports du Jury international: Exposition universelle de 1867 à Paris, vol. 4 (Paris: P. Dupont, 1868), 20; R. B. Forrester, The Cotton Industry in France; A Report to the Electors of the Gartside Scholarships (London: Longman, Green and Co., 1921), 5; “Industrie textile,” Annuaire statistique de la France (Paris, 1877–1890, 1894); Michael Owen Gately, “The Development of the Russian Cotton Textile Industry in the Pre-revolutionary Years, 1861–1913” (PhD dissertation, University of Kansas, 1968), 134; Statistisches Reichsamt, Statistisches Jahrbuch für das Deutsche Reich, vol. 24 (1913), 107; Aurora Gómez Galvarriato, “The Impact of Revolution: Business and Labor in the Mexican Textile Industry, Orizaba, Veracruz, 1900–1930” (PhD dissertation, Harvard University, 2000), 23, 45; Great Britain, Committee on Industry, and Trade, Survey of Textile Industries: Cotton, Wool, Artificial Silk (London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1928), 142; International Federation of Master Cotton Spinners’ and Manufacturers’ Associations, International Cotton Statistics, Arno S. Pearse, ed. (Manchester: Thiel & Tangye, 1921), 1–32; International Federation of Master Cotton Spinners’ and Manufacturers’ Associations and Arno S. Pearse, The Cotton Industry of India, Being the Report of the Journey to India (Manchester: Taylor, Garnett, Evans, 1930), 22; International Federation of Master Cotton Spinners’ and Manufacturers’ Associations and Arno S. Pearse, The Cotton Industry of Japan and China, Being the Report of the Journey to Japan and China (Manchester: Taylor Garnett Evans & Co. Ltd., 1929), 18–19, 154; Italy, Ministero di Agricoltura, Industria e Commercio, “L’industria del cotone in Italia,” Annali di Statistica, series 4, no. 100 (Rome: Tipografia Nazionale di G. Bertero E.C., 1902), 12–13; Italy, Ministero di Agricoltura, Industria e Commercio, Annuario statistico italiano (Roma: Tip. Elzeviriana), see years 1878, 1881, 1886, 1892, 1900, 1904, and 1905–6; S. T. King and Ta-chün Liu, China’s Cotton Industry: A Statistical Study of Ownership of Capital, Output, and Labor Conditions (n.p.: n.p., 1929), 4; Sung Jae Koh, Stages of Industrial Development in Asia: A Comparative History of the Cotton Industry in Japan, India, China, and Korea (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1966), 324–66; Richard A. Kraus, Cotton and Cotton Goods in China, 1918–1936 (New York: Garland, 1980), 57, 99; John C. Latham and H. E. Alexander, Cotton Movement and Fluctuations (New York: Latham Alexander & Co., 1894–1910); Maurice Lévy-Leboyer, Les banques européennes et l’industrialisation internationale dans la première moitié du XIXe siècle (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1964), 29; S. D. Mehta, The Indian Cotton Textile Industry, an Economic Analysis (Bombay: Published by G. K. Ved for the Textile Association of India, 1953), 139; B. R. Mitchell, Abstract of British Historical Statistics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971) 185; B. R. Mitchell, International Historical Statistics: Europe, 1750–1993 (New York: Stockton Press, 1998), 511; Charles Kroth Moser, The Cotton Textile Industry of Far Eastern Countries (Boston: Pepperell Manufacturing Company, 1930), 50; National Association of Cotton Manufacturers, Standard Cotton Mill Practice and Equipment, with Classified Buyer’s Index (Boston: National Association of Cotton Manufacturers, 1919), 37; Keijiro Otsuka, Gustav Ranis, and Gary R. Saxonhouse, Comparative Technology Choice in Development: The Indian and Japanese Cotton Textile Industries (Houndmills, Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan, 1988), 6; Alexander Redgrave, “Report of Factory Inspectors,” Parliamentary Papers (Great Britain: Parliament, House of Commons, 1855), 69; J. H. Schnitzler, De la création de la richesse, ou, des intérêts matériels en France, vol. 1 (Paris: H. Lebrun, 1842), 228; Stanley J. Stein, The Brazilian Cotton Manufacture: Textile Enterprise in an Underdeveloped Area, 1850–1950 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1957), 191; Guy Thomson, “Continuity and Change in Mexican Manufacturing,” in Jean Batou, ed., Between Development and Underdevelopment: The Precocious Attempts at Industrialization of the Periphery, 1800–1870 (Geneva: Librairie Droz, 1991), 280; John A. Todd, The World’s Cotton Crops (London: A. & C. Black, 1915), 411; Ugo Tombesi, L’industria cotoniera italiana alla fine del secolo XIX (Pesaro: G. Frederici, 1901), 66; United States, Bureau of Manufactures, Cotton Fabrics in Middle Europe: Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Switzerland (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1908), 23, 125, 162; United States, Bureau of Manufactures, Cotton Goods in Canada (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1913), 33; United States, Bureau of Manufactures, Cotton Goods in Italy (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1912), 6; United States, Bureau of Manufactures, Cotton Goods in Russia (Washington, DC: G
overnment Printing Office, 1912), 9–11; United States, Bureau of the Census, Cotton Production and Distribution: Season of 1916–1917 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1918), 88; United States, Bureau of the Census, Cotton Production in the United States (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1915), 56.