[x]

Time to give it up, Diogenes. You think the North got the South's cotton money and used it to buy imports and that somehow the money rightly belonged to the South. That's fallacious in itself. Money circulates, and people who get money through exports can use the money to buy domestic products. The money is no longer theirs. They have already used it to buy what they want.

On top of that, you left one big thing out. In his book Heyday: Britain and the Birth of the Modern World Ben Wilson relates that in the 1850s Britain invested over $1 billion dollars in the US. So there were plenty of pounds coming into the US for investment. They were changed into dollars to buy US stocks and bonds, and those pounds could be used to buy British goods. The case was similar with France and other European countries, though the numbers were smaller.

If you studied economics, you would know that investment flows are a big part of the balance of payments. But don't feel bad. I didn't remember that until now.

[rockrr]

Another waste of space from the Lost Cause Flat Earth Society...

[BroJoeK]

Thanks for the heads-up. I’m near certain that whatever Ayn Rand said about the US Civil War did NOT favor slavocrat secessionists.

[DiogenesLamp]

You think the North got the South's cotton money and used it to buy imports and that somehow the money rightly belonged to the South.

How was the North going to buy most of the European goods by only producing 28% of the total trade value with Europe?

Of course I think it was the South's money. They produced it didn't they?