Well, not if you put a blockade around all their ports it wouldn't.
If the demand wasn't there before the rebellion why would that change?
I'm constantly astonished that so many conservatives don't seem to understand basic economics. What point is "demand" (In the North) if the money to fill your demand does not belong to you? The people who are actually owed the money may have different demands, and the people who owe the money (The Europeans) would be obligated to figure out what they wanted in exchange. Demand in the North without the money to pay for it is meaningless. "Demand" in the South would have been created if that is where the money was destined. It would just possibly be different imports to balance those trades.
You would have us believe that the Southerners would simply heap their European currency up into piles and just look at it. No, they would redeem it on products that the Europeans could supply that they would want.
And you accuse me of not being creative?
I'm constantly astonished that so many conservatives don't seem to understand basic economics.
I'm not really sure I'm the one with the problem. You seem to be making this stuff up as you go along.