Sure. The first one was just dismissive of the idea that the "rump" was not economically viable. Rather than just assert that it was, I brushed it off as immaterial.
The second was after further thought when I considered that economic viability is probably very important in regards to the question of independence. How can a state or nation exist if it cannot be economically viable?
I have little doubt that the "rump" confederacy would have been able to sustain itself economically. It would have done so much better with Virginia, Maryland and North Carolina etc. as part of it, but it could have existed on it's own.
And that's it for me for awhile. I have some responsibilities that I need to attend to.
Stuff and nonsense. Unless by exist you mean continued thievery from the United states. It wasn't that they lacked the resources, or the will to create an infrastructure - they lacked the interest. Sure, they had the makings for a fledgling economy, if they could survive being devoured by any one of a number of foreign powers. But not enough of an engine to survive for very long, even in the very best of circumstances.
So it was the height of impetuousness for them to have their temper tantrum the way they did. Foolish and bloody.