I see you failed your reading classes.
The paid labor per capita rates were $150 in the South to $144 in the North, so per capita income was higher in the South.
I’ll provide a little more education for you since you are clearly without a clue here.
In 1860 the vast majority of people worked in agriculture, in the South as high as 70% so “wage rates” rarely affected their income. Hence, the per capita income does not reflect wage rates of mostly non-agricultural workers. It would have to reflect agricultural income. So you are equating things which are widely different.
And you continually (though corrected on several occasions) keep trying to use a figure for the South which does not consider the WHOLE population. When you do it shows per capita income to be about 30% less (from your own figures) than the North (which is not clearly defined). Income in the South was higher than the Midwest but nothing close to NE and the North as a whole.