Chasing down the numbers is a difficult task, as you can find a variety of numbers. Plus how much of the export prices are a function of transport costs and northern markup. Also, import numbers weren’t kept at all.
Of course the whole debate is absurd. These economic excuses arose after the war was over so that Southerners wouldn’t feel so bad about fighting to preserve slavery.
Exactly that.
Sure, but it has to be done if we wish to refute claims of our Lost Causers that, what, 75% or 80% or even 90% of Federal revenues were "paid for" by Southern exports.
When you go looking for actual numbers it turns out there are various sources, but they all say pretty much the same thing: "Southern products" were very important but not as important as Lost Causers claim.
Indeed, when you get down to it, turns out there was only one major product which was indisputably Southern -- cotton.
And cotton alone accounted for roughly half of US exports.
And we know for certain it's Southern because in 1861, when all Confederate products were deleted from Union exports, cotton exports fell by 80%.
But no other alleged "Southern product" came anywhere close to 80% reduced exports.
Tobacco exports, for example, fell only 14%.
Even rice exports, which you'd think very Southern, fell just 46%.
Indeed, hops & clover seed, listed as "Southern products" increased exports hugely in 1861.
So clearly the term "Southern product" was quite loosely defined and not intended to be taken as some kind of gospel truth.
And the bottom line is this: in 1861, despite an 80% reduction in US cotton exports, overall exports fell only 35%.
And 35% sounds about right for the importance of the Confederate economy to the overall US national economy.
You disagree?
SoCal Pubbie: "Of course the whole debate is absurd.
These economic excuses arose after the war was over so that Southerners wouldn’t feel so bad about fighting to preserve slavery."
Well, actually Confederate propagandists figured out early-on that our European trading partners would not like a civil war over slavery, but could well understand "free trade" and "oppressive Federal government", so that is the line they used as early as 1861.
This link from my post #85 discusses the issue in some depth.
The claim that they fought to free the black man arose during the war (about half way through it) so that the Northerners wouldn't feel so bad about invading and murdering people who had done them no harm, and who only wanted to be left alone.
Also to assuage their consciences and expand their political power ever since. It's a lot easier to feel good about destroying people's lives if you portray them as evil. It's an old technique that still works today.
Hitler did it too.