The South was NOT producing the bulk of the money. Exports were not the same as GDP, which was about $4 billion in 1860. Agriculture in total only provided 38% of U. S. GNP and cotton was only a portion of that. Industry accounted for 28% of GNP and services provided another 34%.
In that same year 90 percent of the nation’s manufacturing output came from northern states. The North produced 17 times more cotton and woolen textiles than the South, 30 times more leather goods, and 20 times more pig iron. Even in the agricultural sector, northern farmers were out-producing their southern counterparts in several important areas. In 1860 northern states produced half of the nation’s corn, four-fifths of its wheat, and seven-eighths of its oats.
The real faction that wanted to fight to keep what they had were Southern slaveholders. In 1860, the economic value of slaves in the United States exceeded the invested value of all of the nation’s railroads, factories, and banks combined. Now, how does that square with your fallacies of bogus King Cotton?
Don't mix these two things up. GDP is not European trade. European trade is part of GDP, but it is not the same thing.
The South was producing the bulk of European Trade, which was about 278 million dollars per year in 1860.
GNP and cotton was only a portion of that. Industry accounted for 28% of GNP and services provided another 34%.
Gross National Product is not the issue here. Only European trade is the issue. Were taxes collected on GNP? Then why talk about it? Taxes (tariffs) were only collected on Imports, therefore imports were the sole source of revenue for the US Government.
Imports were paid for by exports, 73% of which were products of the Southern states.
Show me your figures for how much export value the North created. (Do not include specie. Goods purchased with specie are not "trade", and a nation that continues to use specie to purchase goods will soon run out of specie.)