Replies

One, the whole system was more complex than what’s described in the Southron lament.

Not a "Southron" and it really isn't. I've noticed you've gone to great lengths to make it more complex, and i've been trying to simplify it.

This is not rocket science. The vast bulk of European trade was for items produced by the Southern States. When the South left, most of the European trade in New York was going to leave with it.

Now you want to get into the grass about what was this particular year's trade deficit, and how much profit was made by this entity, and so on and so forth, and you are hoping you can find some sort of mitigating explanation for why the vast bulk of the products going to Europe were produced in the South while virtually all the money came back through New York.

Instead of just accepting the reality that the North East had the South paying their taxes and subsidizing their industries, while gouging them on services, you want to find something to rescue your theory in the financial details somewhere.

I'm trying to simplify, and you are trying to make things more complicated.

When the South left, most of the European trade in New York was going to leave with it.

So then what you're saying is that European trade would basically dry up altogether? All outgoing and little or no incoming?

Instead of just accepting the reality that the North East had the South paying their taxes and subsidizing their industries, while gouging them on services...

I thought you wanted us to accept reality.

DiogenesLamp: to SoCal Pubbie: "The vast bulk of European trade was for items produced by the Southern States. When the South left, most of the European trade in New York was going to leave with it.
Now you want to get into the grass about what was this particular year's trade deficit, and how much profit was made by this entity, and so on and so forth, and you are hoping you can find some sort of mitigating explanation for why the vast bulk of the products going to Europe were produced in the South while virtually all the money came back through New York."

Only half true, if that much.
50% (about $200 million) of 1860 US exports ($400 million) were Deep South cotton, that's all.
Almost everything else classified as "Southern products" could be and was produced outside the Deep Confederate South.
This was demonstrated conclusively in 1861 when Confederate exports were deleted from US totals, and excluding cotton, "Southern products" fell only $3 million.

So roughly $200 million of $400 million was Confederate cotton and, sure, that's a big deal.
But Northern "exports" to the South were also around $200 million, plus several times that number manufactured for Northern consumption.
That explains how Northerners earned money to pay for US imports and import tariffs.

So would loss of Confederate exports hurt the Union economy?
Of course, but even in 1861 the pain was not a much as secessionists claimed it would be, and in later years the Union adjusted, adapted & continued to grow economically without Confederate cotton.