Cotton? Pre-1700 even?

I've come to think cotton was not as rare as we have been led to believe. I agree that it depends very much on who, where and when, but there are many, many references to it, as these two from Thomas Jefferson:

A letter from Jefferson to Brissot de Warville, Paris, August 16, 1786…
”The four Southernmost states make a great deal of cotton. Their poor are almost entirely clothed in it in winter and summer. In winter they wear shirts of it, and outer clothing of cotton and wool mixed. In Summer their shirts are linnen but the outer clothing cotton. The dress of the women is almost entirely [made of] cotton manufactured by themselves, except the richer class, and even many of these wear a good deal of home-spun cotton. It is as well manufactured as the calicoes of Europe. Those 4. states furnish a great deal of cotton to the states North of them, who cannot make it, as being too cold."

"..As the state of Virginia, of which I am, carries on a household manufactures of cotton to a great extent, as I also do my self, and one of our great embarrassments is the clearing the cotton of the seed, I feel a considerable interest in the success of your invention, for family use." (Letter to Eli Whitney, Nov. 16, 1793, Life and Selected Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Random House.)

A very long but interesting item from Philadelphia about cotton manufacture in 1788, encouraging southern states to grow more:

The Pennsylvania Gazette
March 19, 1788
PHILADELPHIA
The manufacturing society of this town have at length obtained two complete machines for carding and spinning cotton, one of which cards 40 lb. of cotton per day, and the other spins 50 threads at a time. We feel infinite pleasure in communicating this agreeable intelligence to the public, and we have no doubt, that by application to the society, private persons or companies will be informed how they may be supplied with them. As they are of the greatest consequence to this country, we beg leave to suggest the propriety of gentlemen in every town in the state joining to procure one of each. Five lads of 15 years of age, and a girl of 12, may tend four spinning and one carding machines, which will card and spin 12000 lb. of cotton per annum. We trust these acquisitions will afford immediate employment to our stocking-weavers in Mulberry ward and Germantown. This valuable branch, in which there are above eighty private looms, has been suspended for want of cotton yarn. The duty on hosiery is considerable, which will exceedingly favor the manufacture. It is necessary, however, that our supply of cotton be encreased. The planters of Maryland, Virginia, the Carolinas and Georgia, as wheat, tobacco and rice decline in price from the quantity, will, no doubt, apply to raising this raw material. The price of cotton at this time is from 2s8 to 3s as in quality, by the large quantity. It is with great pleasure we learn, from a correspondent, that the ingenious Artizan, who constructed THE CARDING AND SPINNING MACHINES, though not the original inventor (being only the introducer) is likely to receive A PREMIUM from the Manufacturing Society, besides a generous price for his machines; and that it is highly probable our patriotic legislature will not let his merit pass unrewarded by them. Such liberality must have the happy effect of bringing into Pennsylvania other useful Artizans, Machines and Manufacturing Secrets, which will abundantly repay the little advance of the present moment. On this ground, which supercedes the necessity of manual labour, the manufactures of the United States must succeed. The only doubts which have arisen on the subject heretofore have been from the high price of labor, and the scarcity of hands; but when the work of fifty persons can be done by a man, a boy and a machine, and when the expence of manufacturing thread can be reduced 90 per cent. we find those doubts most happily dissipated. The ingenuity, versatility and enterprize of America will enable her, we confidently trust, to acquire the various secrets and improvements of the old world.

It is earnestly hoped by one of our correspondents, that the southern states will pay the most immediate and the most unremitted attention to the cultivation of COTTON, to which their soil, their climate, and the nature of their population, are all adapted. He adds a particular request, that this little paragraph may be favored with a place in every news-paper to the southward of Pennsylvania. Without cotton, the newly acquired machines will be of no value; with abundance of that raw material, they may perform wonders.

Spence

Thank you gentlemen.
I find most things, if not all, in our endeavors are context dependent to who, when, and where. It is pretty much a given.
While what you have both stated and demonstrated is pretty much what I have come to understand as being a little more accurate than the previous stance of little to no cotton in the Colonies, (reached through the generous examples you both and others have generously shared in the past, here and elsewhere) what surprised me here is the time and location. New England in 1676 (100 years before the revolution), and being used to knit stockings. Not for fabric for a lightweight summer shirt or shift, knitting stockings.

It is also interesting how often she is asked to make clothing while in captivity, but is usually paid for it in some small way. Also that it seems that after her initial capture, once she is among King Phillip's people, most of the tribe treats her halfway decently, when in a village or camp for a while. It is the wife of Phillip that she has to stay with that treats her worse than anyone else.

I agree that cotton stockings in New England that early is surprising. It is a good find and an interesting data point. Thanks for sharing!

Fabulous exerts gentlemen.

One would be surprised that cotton wasn't just for the wealthy during the period. Believe Washington was given price listings for cotton textiles.

I've always considered the situation with cotton to be an important example of something I think happens far too often in re-enacting. When I got into the hobby more than thirty years ago one of the first things I learned was that cotton was so rare and fine that only the very wealthy could afford it. It just was not worn by the lower classes, and so it couldn't be used in making any of our clothing. That was as near absolute dogma as most any of the 'knowledge' handed down to the newbies. Yet, if we can believe Thomas Jefferson, the exact opposite was true, cotton was the fabric of the of the poor. Rather than only being worn by the rich, the rich seemed to consider it a low-class fabric and only a few of them wore it....."The dress of the women is almost entirely [made of] cotton manufactured by themselves, except the richer class, and even many of these wear a good deal of home-spun cotton." I consider Thomas Jefferson a reasonably credible witness. 

This 'truth' we were taught is immortal, will never die. The only competition it has in the lexicon of the hobby is that those poorly made Rupert shot with the curved tail are called swan shot because they look like the neck of a swan.

Spence

Could both be true?
Average, or homespun, cotton being a fabric for the lower classes, but maybe some fine imported cotton fabric being a luxury for the wealthy in hotter climates?

I do often wonder where many of these "irrefutable truths," come from. The cotton debate, swan shot, surviving guns with carving or even a little engraving only having been showpiece guns lightly used by the wealthy.
Why is a community ravenous for primary source information and uncovering as much original information and artifact as possible, so dogmatic about not changing views on the things we think we "know" when updated information comes along?