I have to say, I love it when people bring real facts to the discussion, and don’t just arm wave. The South really bet the farm (pun intended) on King Cotton, and the slave labor that gave them such a profit, and look where that got them. The really (really, really, really) ironic thing is that by going to war they set up their own competitors in Egypt and India. The Civil War also helped to increase the capacity and capability of Northern factories, further lowering their % of total exports.
Love the graphic.
Thanks, the whole subject has been debated here at great length.
This is as close as I've ever got to what the actual facts are.
And there's even another step we can take with this, when we consider the example I mentioned above: if a Southern cotton grower purchased machinery manufactured in the North -- for example, railroad or steamship equipment.
Now employees of the Northern manufacturer use some of their earnings to purchase European imports, and pay the duty on them.
In what sense, if any, can we say that the Southern planter has somehow "paid for" the Federal revenue from that duty?
I would say: in no sense, and therefore even though 50+% of US exports were cotton, it is not at all fair to say that the South "paid for" the duties on 50+% of the resulting imports.
Make sense?