05-10-2010, 07:57 PM
(05-10-2010, 05:14 PM)kandrathe Wrote: I was just reading up on Britain's need for attempting a monopoly on the cotton industry, in order to also secure their domination of the wool industry. This extended throughout their empire, to India, Australia, and New Zealand. One might theorize then that issues with British East India Company, and Egypt and India as a major suppliers (esp. during the Civil War), and then choosing to buy cheaper (slave picked), and higher quality cotton from North America after the war ended resulted in some of the angst that led to the revolt in India, and British presence in the Egypt and middle east.After which war are we talking about?
Britain was the major world consumer of cotton, as well as one of several major consumers of wool. But they were far from having a monopsony (not a monopoly - they were buyers, not sellers), especially on wool. The continent still bought quite a lot of wool, for their own manufactures. Britain never became the world wool power in quite the same way it dominated cotton textiles. Even in cotton, there were competitors - the Northern US being one of them.
I think, roughly speaking, that the cotton production chain goes India - US South - Egypt - US, in that order. Certainly the world's major consumer opportunistically jumping back and forth among suppliers caused substantial disruption. How much that has to do with the revolt of 1857, I'm not sure - it doesn't factor in the standard accounts of the causes.
-Jester