You've been shown, again and again, and you simply ignore the facts provided by official US government sources, and keep trying to play your own tune.
"Value of Total U.S. Exports ..........$278,902,000"
"Total Southern Contribution ....................$252,000,000"
So would loss of Confederate exports hurt the Union economy?
And here you deliberately misstate the situation again. It is the loss of European trade that would hurt the Union. This loss did not occur *ONLY* because the Union put warships around Southern ports to stop the Southern trade with Europe.
Having no choice but to trade with the North, the Europeans did so, but without those warships, the Europeans would have chosen to trade instead with the South, and that would have absolutely wrecked the financials of various Northern businesses.
You keep running away from the point, because you can't think of a single manner to address the point honestly. When looked at honestly, the North was in a great deal of financial trouble, and badly needed a war to prevent it.
Total complete rubbish, a laughable lie on the face of it, beyond despicable propaganda, which should utterly shame you, if you were capable of honest shame.
$252 / $279 = 90% of US exports "Southern products" -- absurd, and it tells us the perpetrators of this fraud are complete liars to be trusted in nothing, zero, nada trust.
Actual details on US exports can be found here.
It puts the lie to the whole concept of "Southern products" by showing that except for cotton most "Southern products" were not seriously reduced in 1861 and some significantly increased.
So they might have been "Southern products" but certainly not "Confederate products".
Of course they would "trade with the South", just as they did before 1861, shipping directly to and from major Southern ports like New Orleans and Baltimore.
The question here is: were there enough customers in the Confederate South to buy up the hundreds of shiploads of imports on their return-from-Europe voyages?
Answer: in no possible way -- zero, nada, zip way.
Oh, you claim, it would be cheaper to "ship direct".
No it would be vastly more expensive to land imports in, say, Savanah for shipment by rail to, say, Chicago, because of both the double tariff and at least 25% higher rail freight costs.
So the whole notion is absurd, a Lost Causer's wet dream unsustained by any reality.
DiogenesLamp: "You keep running away from the point, because you can't think of a single manner to address the point honestly.
When looked at honestly, the North was in a great deal of financial trouble, and badly needed a war to prevent it."
Hogwash, I'm running from nothing but you are drinking 100 proof Confederate joy-juice and its rotting your brain -- get off it!
The truth is in April 1861 only war could add Virginia and the Upper South to Jefferson Davis' little Confederacy, since they had already voted "no deal", and only war could take those states away from the Union.
So who really needed war and who lost more from it?
Answer: 1) Davis 2) Lincoln