It had over 4 times the free population as the South, 10 times the manufacturing, 14 times the textile production, 38 times the coal production and 15 times the iron production. The U.S. had 3 times the farm acreage, 7 times the railroad mileage, 9 times the merchant ship tonnage. It produced more livestock, more grain, more in almost every area except cotton. This is somewhat true, but what happens when KY, MO, MD, and DE join with the Confederacy? Why would far western agricultural states be interested in being controlled by an urban manufacturing society? Finally, given the construct of Confederacy surviving, to whom would the US export their manufactured goods to since obviously the South would immediately ally themselves with Britain for naval protection and manufactured goods? This situation leaves the remaining US sandwiched between British Canada and the Confederacy allied with Britian. My guess is Canada would refuse to integrate economically with the US for British mercantilistic reasons and the Confederacy would exclude themselves from Northern imports to reinforce its alliance with Britain. Finally, Northern textiles, pretty much the economy of New England, would have to find new suppliers of cotton or fail completely. Cotton, on a commercial basis was only available in Egypt (a British colony) and the South (an ally of Britian). So right off the bat I would imagine that NE would suffer a debilitating economic collapse that would also be felt in the manufacturing sector as well. The supposed strength of the remaining US would have to be invested in gaining parity with the Royal Navy to have any chance of insuring grain and manufactured exports to Europe. My view, given the supposition, is that the US would find itself as a marginalized player in North America and Europe both politically and economically. Its agricultural output would remain but most likely its industrial capacity would recede due to the absence of available exportable markets. Given this scenario do you expect France to see the US as an ally? Their navy at this point was pretty well shot and no match for Britian. Given these options, I don't really see a great future for the US. My thesis is the South could always have existed without the North, but the reverse was never true.
Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, and Delaware would not have joined the Confederacy. Nor would western Virginia rejoined. And if they had it would not have changed the economic statistics to any great extent. It industrial power of the U.S. was North of them.
Why would far western agricultural states be interested in being controlled by an urban manufacturing society?
I'm surprised that you of all people, with your emphasis on Southern culture, would have to ask that. The majority of the people who migrated west came from the eastern part of the U.S. Culturally, they would be more closely aligned with them than with the South. Family ties, markets for their goods, finance, transportation, any cultural or historical or economic indicator you care to mention ties them to the United States. They would be cutting their own throats to go off on their own.
Finally, given the construct of Confederacy surviving, to whom would the US export their manufactured goods to since obviously the South would immediately ally themselves with Britain for naval protection and manufactured goods?
The North would consume most of their manufactured goods. And there is no reason why they could not or would not continue to provide them to the Confederacy. From a cost perspective they would compete well with British goods once the transportation is factored in. The U.S. tariff would not be a factor - since the goods were being exported the tariff would not apply and since their domestic market was protected the U.S. manufacturer could be flexible on their export prices. The Confederacy certainly couldn't manufactur them themselves. So in all likelyhood the Confederacy would continue to buy from the U.S. The only difference being that the prices they paid would be inflated by the Confederate tariff.
My guess is Canada would refuse to integrate economically with the US for British mercantilistic reasons and the Confederacy would exclude themselves from Northern imports to reinforce its alliance with Britain.
I don't think you can safely say that either would necessarily be true.
Finally, Northern textiles, pretty much the economy of New England, would have to find new suppliers of cotton or fail completely.
Would not the Confederacy still be in the cotton exporting business? Taking the cotton that they sold to the New England manufacturers before the war and dumping that on the market would only serve to deflate the prices they could charge. One can talk about national pride and long term resentment resulting from the war, but when one's own pocketbook is feeling the pain then it becomes easier to overlook that resentment. The governments may have been hostile to each other but I still believe that given the choice between paying more for their goods on less money earned or maintaining a business relationship with Northern manufacturers then the Confederacy would have chosen the later. Again, it wasn't like they had another alternative, was it?
My thesis is the South could always have existed without the North, but the reverse was never true.
But history itself proves you wrong. The North lived, and lived very well, without the South during the Civil War. Far from collapsing, the U.S. economy expanded during that period. Tariff revenue rose. Business thrived. And after the war, the South's economy was a fraction of what it was pre-war both in terms of imports and exports, and the North still expanded. Without the North, the Confederacy had an economy based entirely on a single item - cotton - and it was a basket case within two or three years. Post war, even with Confederate victory, that fatal dependency would have continued and the South would have risen and fallen with the price of cotton. With Egypt and India as alternate sources I believe they would have fallen more often than risen.