[Footnote 661:  pp. 94-5.  Article by W.H.  Chase of Florida.]

[Footnote 662:  Rhett, who advocated commercial treaties, learned from Toombs that this was the case.  “Rhett hastened to Yancey.  Had he been instructed to negotiate commercial treaties with European powers?  Mr. Yancey had received no intimation from any source that authority to negotiate commercial treaties would devolve upon the Commission.  ’What then’ exclaimed Rhett, ‘can be your instructions?’ The President, Mr. Yancey said, seemed to be impressed with the importance of the cotton crop.  A considerable part of the crop of last year was yet on hand and a full crop will soon be planted.  The justice of the cause and the cotton, so far as he knew, he regretted to say, would be the basis of diplomacy expected of the Commission” (Du Bose, Life and Times of Yancey, 599).]

[Footnote 663:  F.O., Am., Vol. 780.  No. 69.  Bunch to Russell, June 5, 1861.  Italics by Bunch.  The complete lack of the South in industries other than its staple products is well illustrated by a request from Col.  Gorgas, Chief of Ordnance to the Confederacy, to Mason, urging him to secure three ironworkers in England and send them over.  He wrote, “The reduction of ores with coke seems not to be understood here” (Mason Papers.  Gorgas to Mason, Oct. 13, 1861).]

[Footnote 664:  F.O., Am., Vol. 843.  No. 48.  Confidential.  Bunch to Russell, March 19, 1862.]

[Footnote 665:  p. 130]

[Footnote 666:  The two principal British works are:  Arnold, The History of the Cotton Famine, London, 1864; and Watts, The Facts of the Cotton Famine, Manchester, 1866.  A remarkable statistical analysis of the world cotton trade was printed in London in 1863, by a Southerner seeking to use his study as an argument for British mediation.  George McHenry, The Cotton Trade.]

[Footnote 667:  Scherer, Cotton as a World Power, pp. 263-4.]

[Footnote 668:  Lack of authentic statistics on indirect interests make this a guess by the Times.  Other estimates run from one-seventh to one-fourth.]

[Footnote 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.]

[Footnote 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.]

[Footnote 671:  This Return for April is noteworthy as the first differentiating commerce with the North and the South.]