Yet in one of your earliest posts to me on this thread you stated that Sourherners were taxed at 12 times the rate of Northerners per capita, although you never explained by what mechanism that was possible. The only federal taxes at the time were tariffs. Why did you bring up tariffs? Apparently to show the fabulous riches the North would lose, although exports were only 9% of total economic activity.
Since it was the Southern states that seceded, and not the North, what was their reason to do so? Northern control of the Southern economy? Was it their fault Southerners didn’t want to build factories, mills, and railroads?
You seem to be fixated on the chimera of economic competition between North and South, without really explaining how that actually motivated Southern secession in 1860. Why not 1850? Also, why the sesech didn’t mention it at the time.
Well, first I had to get you to understand that the South was producing the vast majority of the export value to Europe, for which Imports were brought in as payment.
To simplify the math, we'll round some numbers in convenient directions. The 73% of total export trade will be rounded up to 75%. The Northern Population will be regarded as 20 million. The Southern population will be regarded as 5 million.
All revenue to the Fedgov is the consequence of Imports, which we will regard the 75% as in payment for Southern exports. As all Federal Revenue comes from imports, we will conclude that the South was paying 75% of all Federal revenue.
So 1/4th of the population of the South, was paying 75% of all the revenue. That 5 million in the South represents 20% of the total population, and so the ratios would be 20/100ths paying 75%, while 80/100ths pays the remaining 25%.
If we Normalize the South's population to the North, we have to multiply by 4, which makes it 80/100ths paying (75% X 4) which equals 300%. 300% / 25% =12.
The South was paying 12 times the rate per capita of the North.
The entire point hinges on recognizing that the South was producing ~75% of the total revenue to the Federal Government, and I think you've admitted to it producing 60%.
If we run the numbers with 60%, it would look like this.
20/100ths * 4 = 80/100ths. 60% * 4 = 240%. 240%/25% = 9.6, so even with your admitted number, the South was paying 9.6 times per capita than the North.
Apparently to show the fabulous riches the North would lose, although exports were only 9% of total economic activity.
But how much of the economic activity of New York did it represent? If I recall correctly, New York had an economy of 1.2 billion per year, of which 200 million would on the face of it constitute 20% of the economy for that city. (Likely more in repercussive effects.)
Additionally it constituted 75% of the revenue of the FedGov, which would have also had to be made up somewhere, and would likely have also been an additional drain on the Northern economy, as well as the loss of subsidies from the Fed Gov as a consequence of the loss of revenue from the South.
Is 20% of your total economic activity sufficient to go to war? I guess it would depend on who was losing the money and how much power they had to initiate a war. Lincoln was backed by the New York Wealthy, and these are the very people who had the most to lose from Southern independence.
We have 20% right off the bat, and I haven't even gotten into manufacturing losses to the north that would have been caused by low import duties on European manufactured goods. They would have had additional losses from the lower cost competition.
To tally all the various forms of losses that would have been experienced by the North would require a great deal of research and time, but a good estimate of the exact amount isn't necessary. It is sufficient to just demonstrate that all the factors would be a net monetary loss for powerful people in the North.
All the changes would result in Northern money interests bleeding from a thousand cuts.