Gold and Silver came from mostly Nevada and California, and it is misleading to count them as the "North's" contribution.
Specie is not trade. Nations are loath to part with Specie and won't do it unless they have no choice.
Specie is not "trade", trade is "trade", and it was clearly in the South's best interest to get away from Northern laws taxing them at 12 times the per capita taxation of the Northern population.
Remaining in the Union made no money for the South, and caused them all sorts of problems. Leaving the Union would have gotten them an immediate 65 million per year taken out of Washington DC's coffers and put into Southern enterprises and infrastructure.
The swapping of Charleston for New York as the financial center would have netted them more still. The capitalization of their much smaller population would have had a massive effect on their economy.
You don't see the financial threat that the South posed to the entrenched powers in the North. You've never thought along those lines because no one pointed out to you the financial situation.
Nobody ponders how much of a money losing situation (for them) was Southern membership in the Union.
The above is your claim. It is not convincing to me. Specie can clearly pay for imports. Very little gold or silver was produced in the South.
To claim it is irrelevant is disingenuous. I gave you several examples of ways in which imports can be offset in the balance of payments in other ways than direct exportation of goods. Ways which in fact, they *were* offset.
The only way "balance of payments" arguments make sense, is to look at all the inputs and outgo for the whole nation.