Keep all of what money? You already agreed they didn’t pay any Federal tax. They kept everything they made from cotton. What was the North going to keep?
Plus your genius Southern planters embargoed their own cotton when the war began looking to force England to get involved. The North didn’t need to blockade it. Instead of getting in a fight they didn’t want, England developed new sources of cotton in Egypt and India. Brilliant move that embargo was. They thought Cotton was King and they had the world by the balls. Turns out, that was not the case. And here we are 165 years later, and you still have not learned that.
And historical details aside, how in the f**k can you show sympathy for a bunch of rouge aristocrats who championed slavery and attempted to destroy this nation all for their own enrichment? That’s just sick.
Are you just pretending to be stupid or is this intended to be a honest question?
72% of Federal revenue came from export products from the South. If PEACE had maintained, those products would have eventually shipped directly from the South to Europe, and Northern Factors wouldn't have been involved. Northern businesses would not have been involved.
That 200 million dollars per year would have been completely removed from the Northern economy. The 500 million in direct trade with the North would also become less and less, because Southerners would be buying cheaper and better quality products directly from Europe.
They kept everything they made from cotton.
They kept 40% of the profits from cotton. The "Factors" and Northern shipping companies, as well as the FedGov all took "their share", leaving the actual slaveholders to make less money from slavery than the Northern businesses and government.
Which is why the North really didn't mind passing the Corwin Amendment. Most of the profits from slavery were going into their pockets.
England developed new sources of cotton in Egypt and India.
Only because of the blockade. If peace had been maintained, they never would have developed alternative sources.
And historical details aside, how in the f**k can you show sympathy for a bunch of rouge aristocrats who championed slavery and attempted to destroy this nation all for their own enrichment?
Like the founders of this country? How can you not see that the civil war is identical to the Revolutionary war? Except the King was much closer and much more willing to shed blood than George III.
The South paid the large majority of the tariff. There was no federal income tax at that time. The government got most of its money via tariffs.
Plus your genius Southern planters embargoed their own cotton when the war began looking to force England to get involved. The North didn’t need to blockade it. Instead of getting in a fight they didn’t want, England developed new sources of cotton in Egypt and India. Brilliant move that embargo was. They thought Cotton was King and they had the world by the balls. Turns out, that was not the case. And here we are 165 years later, and you still have not learned that.
A couple things were at work. Britain was paying a lot for Cotton.....practically the oil of its day....and didn't want to have to pay all that money to a foreign country. So they started developing sources of cotton within the British Empire such as the Nile Delta and India. They had plenty of dirt cheap coolie labor in their own empire to do the work. They were also fearful of a war in America so they stockpiled as much cotton as they could in advance. They still got hurt economically but by 1861, the economic damage they suffered was not as much as it would have been a few years earlier and was not enough to force their hand. Give them credit for adjusting in time. The strategy likely would have worked and would have forced their hand a few years earlier.
And historical details aside, how in the f**k can you show sympathy for a bunch of rouge aristocrats who championed slavery and attempted to destroy this nation all for their own enrichment? That’s just sick.
Its quite simple. Your characterization is totally wrong. Southerners VOTED for secession. The vast majority of them did not own any slaves. The Southern states seceding would not have destroyed the US. It simply would have been smaller. If anything, the example of them seceding would have reined in the imperial ambitions of and pruned the growth of imperial Washington. That would have probably made the union that remained that much better/freer than it ended up becoming.