Comments on: Why Cotton got to be King http://www.historynet.com/why-cotton-got-to-be-king.htm?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=why-cotton-got-to-be-king From the World's Largest History Magazine Publisher Tue, 14 Feb 2012 22:24:31 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3 By: Tony Tramonte http://www.historynet.com/why-cotton-got-to-be-king.htm#comment-156590 Tony Tramonte Thu, 10 Dec 2009 17:27:37 +0000 http://www.historynet.com/?p=13681652#comment-156590 I remember from a course in College I had called Economic History that around 1830 New Orleans had the highest standard of living in the country (and also the world). This was mostly a result of the products if mid-America being shipped downriver to New Orleans. I remember reading the stories about Abe Lincoln taking a raft down the river to sell some of his family's goods, and then having to walk back home. Then is quite common in history, think San Francisco and the Gold Rush. Also, Boston, some say, had the highest standard of living in the World for a period up until 1720, 1730 until it began to decline relative to other American ports. Of course, this is when Ben Franklin "voted with his feet" and walked to Philadelphia. I remember from a course in College I had called Economic History that around 1830 New Orleans had the highest standard of living in the country (and also the world). This was mostly a result of the products if mid-America being shipped downriver to New Orleans. I remember reading the stories about Abe Lincoln taking a raft down the river to sell some of his family's goods, and then having to walk back home.

Then is quite common in history, think San Francisco and the Gold Rush. Also, Boston, some say, had the highest standard of living in the World for a period up until 1720, 1730 until it began to decline relative to other American ports. Of course, this is when Ben Franklin "voted with his feet" and walked to Philadelphia.

]]> By: Tony Tramonte http://www.historynet.com/why-cotton-got-to-be-king.htm#comment-156334 Tony Tramonte Wed, 09 Dec 2009 22:40:26 +0000 http://www.historynet.com/?p=13681652#comment-156334 Thank you this was an interesting article. One thing I have never really understood was the issue of the Southern planters depleting the soil. They must have had knowledge of the principles of crop rotation as used at the time, such as the long-in-use three field system in Europe. They couldn't have really planned to constantly move West, as they could realistically only move up (or down) rivers before railroads. Maybe they just realized that the crops probably wouldn't be popular forever, so that they just chose to maximize profits/production while they could. I agree with the people mentioned in the article who felt Cotton was actually a drag on the economy of the South. The economy and standard of living would be distorted in an effort to maximize the export cash crop. This is something that still goes on to the present day in countries around the world (think coffee, bananas, other tropical products, oil for that matter) Thank you this was an interesting article. One thing I have never really understood was the issue of the Southern planters depleting the soil. They must have had knowledge of the principles of crop rotation as used at the time, such as the long-in-use three field system in Europe. They couldn't have really planned to constantly move West, as they could realistically only move up (or down) rivers before railroads. Maybe they just realized that the crops probably wouldn't be popular forever, so that they just chose to maximize profits/production while they could.

I agree with the people mentioned in the article who felt Cotton was actually a drag on the economy of the South. The economy and standard of living would be distorted in an effort to maximize the export cash crop. This is something that still goes on to the present day in countries around the world (think coffee, bananas, other tropical products, oil for that matter)

]]>