Replies

When it came to cotton, most of the physical labor was done by slaves, with free whites mostly in support and supervisory positions. What Northerners did to keep the cotton trade going was seen by plantation owners as exploitation and theft, but wouldn’t the same apply to Southerners who weren’t actually doing the planting, hoeing, and picking?

That’s not to say that the rest of the population wasn’t productive, but if cotton was the basis of the region’s economy and the thing to boast about, how it was produced counted for a lot. As for tobacco, secessionists hoped the Border States would join them. So from that point of view, tobacco did count as a largely Southern product. Northern states didn’t grow as much tobacco and it wasn’t valued as highly.

x: "When it came to cotton, most of the physical labor was done by slaves, with free whites mostly in support and supervisory positions."

Right, but FLT-bird wants us to believe that most of the work was done by whites with slaves in relatively minor supporting roles.

So, the question here is whether we are to take the Mississippi "Reasons for Secession" document seriously when it says,

"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world.
Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth.
These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun.
These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization... "

"None but the black race" sounds pretty definitive to me.

x: "As for tobacco, secessionists hoped the Border States would join them.
So from that point of view, tobacco did count as a largely Southern product.
Northern states didn’t grow as much tobacco and it wasn’t valued as highly."

Well, of course, Southern propagandists wanted everyone to think that tobacco was a "Southern Product" and so, for this purpose only, they defined "The South" as broadly as possible, to include Border States of Missouri, Kentucky and Maryland, plus even tobacco produced in southern Illinois, Indiana and Ohio.

But when push came to shove, all three of those Border States voted overwhelmingly to remain in the Union, meaning their tobacco exports were not "Southern Products", regardless of what Confederate propagandists claimed.

And, whereas secession nearly eliminated 1861 cotton exports, so cotton was undeniably a "Southern Product", at that same time tobacco exports fell only 14%, meaning tobacco was really a Union Product.

But even if, for sake of discussion, we granted that tobacco was 100% a "Southern Product", it's 1860 exports were only $19 million, meaning roughly 5% of total exports.
Add $19 for tobacco, plus $192 for cotton, gives us $211 million in "Southern Products" which is roughly 53% of 1860's total exports of $400 million.

And we could keep going -- $11 million in manufactured cotton products exported in 1860, nearly all of it produced in Northern states, especially New England, and yet counted as 100% "Southern Products".
Add to that nearly $4 million in turpentine products, which also declined only 40% in 1861, plus nearly $3 million for rice, a clear "Southern Product", and now we're up to $229 million in "Southern Products" exported in 1860.

Now, according to this New York Times article, from February 28, 1862, total 1860 exports were $400,122,296.
So, the exaggerated number of $229 million in "Southern Products" were a maximum 57% of total US exports, not the ridiculously claimed 75%.

Well then, how do they get from the already exaggerated 57% all the way up to the ridiculous 75%?
Obviously, by reducing the total value of 1860 exports from the NY Times figure of $400 million, by $84 million, all the way down to just $316 million, which makes $229 million in "Southern Products" 72% of the total.

Where did that $84 million in exports magically disappear to?
Well, first, there were preliminary numbers published in early 1861 showing total 1860 exports as $373 million, or $27 million less than the final total of $400 million.
So 72% is based first on sticking with the original number of $373 million, ignoring the later revision to $400 million.

Second, "specie" means exports of gold and silver which, thanks to discoveries in California and Nevada, were readily available to balance any trade deficits.
1860's preliminary numbers said we exported $57 million in specie that year.
When that $57 million is subtracted from preliminary total exports of $373 million, the new total is $316 million, of which $229 million in "Southern Products" is now 72%!

How did 72% magically become 75%?
No big deal, it's just a rounding error, close enough for government work.

The true number for "Southern Products", when we add in the revised numbers, plus specie exports, and we count only those exports which were truly Southern, is roughly 50% of total 1860 exports, regardless of how many insults Democrat propagandists hurl to make the number seem larger than it was.

Here is another version of a map showing the US economy in 1860.
Notice it shows where gold and silver were found, along with iron and coal, plus timber and cattle, orchards, shoe manufacturing and even the first oil well in western PA.
The map shows two major manufacturing cities in the Confederacy -- Richmond and New Orleans -- plus 16 major manufacturing Union cities, including two mega-manufacturing cities -- New York and Philadelphia -- whose products alone equaled the other 14 Union cities combined.