"Not only did the FedGov lose a tremendous amount of money from an Independent South, The New England Shipping interests and warehouses would have take a massive hit on their vigorish, and New England factories would have lost major chunks of their business."
Then, obviously, you've not paid any attention to my actual arguments, but fantasize something different.
To repeat: my argument is not that Southern cotton was unimportant, far from it.
Rather, my argument is that cotton was not the USA's only export, and therefore was not solely responsible for import tariffs which produced Federal revenues.
Once again, the facts are simple & clear: in 1860 US cotton exports totaled $191 million, and US imports $362 million, producing Federal revenues of $52 million (15% tariff).
So it's entirely fair to say cotton paid for 53% of imports, and therefore 53% of Federal revenues.
That's a huge number -- nobody North, South, East or West would be happy about losing 53% of US export earnings.
Especially hard hit would be shippers, merchants and manufacturers in big cities like New York, Philadelphia and Boston.
This is not a matter of dispute.
But some, including DiogenesLamp have claimed the number was much higher than 53% -- if I remember correctly, some have claimed upwards of 85%, and that is just ridiculous.
And as proof that the American economy and Federal Government could quickly adjust to life without cotton, it certainly did just that during the Civil War.
DiogenesLamp: "The only way possible for the Union to win was to make sure European business interests never saw those profits from trading at Southern ports.
Thus the Blockade was absolutely necessary."
Remember, General Scott's Anaconda Plan was based on a preexisting plan created years earlier, to be used in the event of domestic insurrections.
It was not a new idea, and would have been well known to a former Secretary of War like, for example, Jefferson Davis.
DiogenesLamp: "I found out a long time ago that the Union didn't launch a war over slavery.
I have since come to realize that the Union launched a war because of money.
It was the potential loss of Massive amounts of money that made the leadership decide an independent South was a threat to their livelihood."
Total rubbish, the Union didn't "launch a war" for any reason, period.
The Confederacy provoked, launched, declared & waged war against the United States for months before the Union did anything significant in response.
Of course, once the Union did respond, it fought for total victory and unconditional surrender, including the abolition of slavery.
Those are very simple facts anybody should be able to remember.
So why can't you?
Okay, I read up until I saw the words "Southern Cotton" and I realized my point had gone completely over your head.
The economics of this were way beyond cotton. They were about shipping, manufacturing, and banking. An independent South represented a MASSIVE threat to the economic well being of New York, Boston, Chicago and Philadelphia.
The very foundation of what created New England wealth would have collapsed. No, this was about perhaps as much as 80% of the entire Eastern Seaboard economy, it wasn't about just cotton or tariffs. It was about the big enchilada. Southern Dominance of European trade.