No, you are moving the goal posts by refusing to show who was producing what revenue stream. Why are you so afraid of this? I keep trying to make you go down this path, and you seize upon every straw you can find to avoid looking at it.
This makes me think you see quite clearly where this is going to go, and you simply do not want to go there. You are afraid of the truth. That's why you bring up "Tariffs", or "Slavery", or "GNP" instead of looking at revenue streams and loss of trade.
Wikipedia states that cotton, the vast majority of Southern exports, were 60% of total exports in 1860.
So i've got you to admit to 60% of the total. (and just for "cotton". )
The other exports from the South contributed as well. Tobacco made money. So did rice, sugar, molasses and hemp.
If Southern production was so vital to Northern money interests then there was every reason to accommodate the demands of slave states.
So an avowedly anti-slavery President, endorsing the continuation of slavery, and to make permanent slavery in the United States, would be evidence that they considered this Southern Production so vital that they would do virtually anything to keep the money flowing?
Beware. This articles is written by a Black, Boston College law professor, so you know it's just full of bias in favor of Southern slavery.
http://cognoscenti.legacy.wbur.org/2013/02/18/the-other-13th-richard-albert
Indeed, industrialists in the North opposed war, and wanted to appease slave interests to keep business going as usual.
Because they were making a *LOT* of money from the deal. Remember this map?
It was only after the war started thats Northern captains of industry joined ranks with Uncle Sam.
If things were allowed to stand as they were, that money stream would be gone to them. If they could force the South back into the Union, that money stream would return. Everyone expected a quick fight, and then the South would be back to producing that money. It didn't work out that way.