You wrote three paragraphs without knowing a single assertion to be based on fact.
Federal revenues for imports were very valuable, but not for the reason you think.
The vast majority of consumed goods were imported into the South.
Large numbers of Northern manufacturers were dependent on their only source of raw materials....the South.
Large numbers of Northern manufacturers were dependent on their primary source of consumption, the Southern consumer.
You should look up the figures sometime.
furthermore, MOST DYs were PLEASED to believe ANYTHING (no matter how obviously silly/DISHONEST) if it makes the southland look bad and/or the aggressors from the north look LESS bad.
free dixie,sw
When I took the time to look up those facts, they confirmed my points.
On the other hand, the South's exports (i.e., cotton) were more than double the value of the North's.
Per capita incomes varied by region within the South and North, with highest in the Northeast & Southwest. But as the 1860 census points out (p.295), per capita western values were increased by the fact that many owners of western property did not live there.
Overall, Northern & Southern per capita incomes were roughly the same, but with nearly four times the free population, the North, even in 1860, dominated economically.
"The vast majority of consumed goods were imported into the South.
This claim makes some sense, if we consider: the North produced and exported many times more manufactured goods than the South, while the South used it's cotton export earnings to purchase manufactured goods from both the North and overseas.
However, I've seen no actual numbers to verify this claim, which brings us back to your debate with Non Sequitur regarding the supposed percentage of goods which first landed at places like New York or Philadelphia, but which ended up eventually shipped to the South.
Since the North's overall economy was roughly four times the South's, it seems unlikely that the "vast majority" of imports went South.
"Large numbers of Northern manufacturers were dependent on their only source of raw materials....the South.
The South exported raw cotton to mills in the North and Britain, both of which somehow survived without it during the Civil War.
"Large numbers of Northern manufacturers were dependent on their primary source of consumption, the Southern consumer."
Oh, really? 5.6 million Southern whites were the "primary source of consumption" of good produced by 21.7 million Northerners? I don't think so:
Let's suppose, for sake of discussion, the South imported half it's manufactured goods from the North, and half from overseas. Since, on the whole, Southerner's had about the same income, and used the same goods as northerners, but produced almost none of their own, we can easily calculate that 5.6 million Southerners would consume roughly the same Northern manufactured goods as 2.6 million Northerners (the rest coming from overseas.)
For the North, an additional 2.6 million Southern consumers represented 12% on top of their existing population of 21.7 million. And the Civil War proved positively, this 12% was not necessary to the North's economy.