Replies

To all: DiogenesLamp's endlessly repeated claim that "the South" "paid for" 72% of Federal revenues is, of course, complete nonsense.
However, Southerners absolutely did contribute economically to the Union, circa 15% to 20% of total US GDP, and the loss of Southern exports did affect the Union economy, just not as much as our Lost Cause apologists like to pretend.

How much?

The table below represents the best summary I can find of US & CSA economics during the years 1860-1865:

DiogenesLamp: "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 [Southern Products
exports] 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."

Yes, DiogenesLamp's basic claim that the Union economy would (& did) suffer from removal of Confederate state exports & trade with the Union is valid -- that did happen to some degree, arguably circa 15%-20% overall.
However, the net result in 1861 was not a reduction in Union GDP -- even when adjusted for inflation, Union GDP continued to grow throughout the Civil War.
So, while the loss of Confederate state exports did hurt the Union economically, it was not the devastation our Lost Cause apologists like to pretend.

However, secession was absolutely devastating to the Confederate economy, which had contracted 65% in 1865, compared to 1860, in constant dollars.

Further, by 1863 Federal tariff revenues in nominal terms exceeded 1860's, and by 1864 even in inflation adjusted terms.
So all pretenses that "the South" "paid for" any number remotely resembling 72% of Federal revenues are just nonsense.

Here are the real numbers:

**USA & CSA GDPs, Exports, Imports & Tariffs (1860–1865)**
**All figures in millions of dollars, inflation-adjusted to 1860 dollars (except specie)**.
Sources: [1][2][3][4][5][6]
Year	USA Nominal GDP	Inflation-Adjusted GDP (1860$)	Union GDP	CSA GDP	Total Exports	Southern Exports	Specie Exports**	Total Imports	Tariff Revenues	Average Tariff %*
1860	4,410	4,316	3,546	770	400	208	67	354	53	15%
1861	4,673	4,398	3,738	660	209	63	24	272	38	14%
1862	5,881	4,945	4,435	510	159		12	159	41	26%
1863	7,746	5,323	4,908	415	142		17	167	47	28%
1864	9,600	5,379	5,064	315	144		25	177	57	32%
1865	10,012	5,523	5,248	275	143		30	132	47	36%
Notes: Union GDP calculated as total U.S. GDP minus estimated CSA GDP. Non-GDP series deflated using implied GDP deflators derived from Officer–Williamson. Southern exports available only for 1860–1861. * Tariffs after 1861 are Morrill Tariff rates. ** Specie exports are reported in nominal values and are not inflation‑adjusted, as they represent physical transfers of gold and silver rather than transactions settled in depreciated paper currency.

Sources
[1] Nominal U.S. GDP (Officer–Williamson / MeasuringWorth):
https://www.measuringworth.com/datasets/usgdp/result.php

[2] GDP methodology:
https://www.measuringworth.com/datasets/usgdp/constructiongdp.php

[3] Inflation-adjusted GDP series:
https://www.measuringworth.com/datasets/usgdp/sourcegdppre29.php

[4] Confederate States GDP estimates:
Historical Statistics of the United States
Schwab (1901), Confederate States of America

[5] U.S. exports, imports, and specie:
Scientific American Reference Book
U.S. Census foreign trade history

[6] U.S. tariff revenues:
Trescott, “Federal Government Receipts and Expenditures, 1861–1875” (JSTOR)

Good work -- and definitive on the issue.

The South's large plantation owning slaveholders were not just wealthy but also astonishing in their pride and unreality about what secession would set in motion. Cotton and other plantation crops like tobacco and rice were so lucrative that British and US merchant banks had branches in the South's significant port cities. These included Charleston, Savannah, Mobile, Richmond, and New Orleans, of course, but also Pensacola, Wilmington, and Apalachicola.

So, with cash and access to credit, why didn't the Antebellum South also develop industry on a significant scale as the North did? Textile factories would have been a natural fit. Yet, aside from railroads, which served the transport needs of the plantation economy, there was little interest in industry because plantation slavery was so lucrative.

Eventually, during and after the Civil War, the South developed an industrial base. Yet, for decades, its growth was impeded by the South's endemic poverty, poor educational system, and the dismal effects of segregation. The modern South is different of course, and in many respects, a better place to live than the North.