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.
DiogenesLamp: "first I had to get you to understand that the South was producing the vast majority of the export value to Europe..."
In 1860 raw cotton exports were $191 million, of which half shipped directly from New Orleans, not New York.
Total 1860 exports, including specie ($66 million), were $400 million, making raw cotton <50%.
Manufactured cotton products were another $16 million, but that manufacturing was done in Northern cities, not the South.
Combined, they make cotton about 50%.
Everything else claimed as "Southern product" turned out to be, well, not so much.
We know that because the 1860 Confederate embargo on cotton exports reduced Union cotton exports by 80%, but no other "Southern products" came anywhere close.
Even rice exports fell only 46% and tobacco fell barely 14%.
Clearly claims that those were "Southern products" are gross exaggerations.
Yes, some was produced in Confederate States, but far from all.
That makes claims of 75% Southern pay-for of Federal revenues just more fantasy.
DiogenesLamp: "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...
But, of course, it wasn't those 5 million, it was their 4 million slaves who made Southern cotton the world's leader, with 80% market share in Britain, for example.
So if we want to whine about poor souls who were over-worked and under-paid, why not start with slaves??
Why cry in our beers over their very wealthy slave-masters?
DiogenesLamp: "The South was paying 12 times the rate per capita of the North."
Actually, it was slavery that paid for Southern luxuries.
DiogenesLamp: "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%."
I'll fully confess to 50% produced by 4 million slaves who gave their slave-masters the highest average standard of living ever seen at that time.
But you will never convince me those slave-masters were somehow "oppressed" by Federal government.
“So 1/4th of the population of the South, was paying 75% of all the revenue.”
How did figure that, anyway? Your only stats covered the percentage of foreign trade generated by Southern products, and tariffs collected at various US ports. Explain again how you make this leap?