[PeaRidge]

"most planters were in debt-mainly to factors who in turn were financed by northern merchants or banks."

Let's examine that. Each year around September, the cotton crops appear at market. By June of the next year, the loans were paid off. Then the cycle began again. So, sometimes they were in debt, sometimes not.

During the business cycles of 1857-1860, the value of cotton sales profits on balance in Northern banks was more than the South borrowed to buy raw materials and manufactured goods. So, the Southern banks were paid in gold or silver coins, specie.

I already gave you the source, the United States Department of the Treasury. The figures are thus for 1860:
Value of Specie in all Union banks: $40,618,000
Value of Specie in all Southern banks: $48,359,000

So, your statement from McPherson, "They didn't have much liquid capital." requires one to say, compared to whom, Dr McPherson?

[GOPcapitalist]

So, your statement from McPherson, "They didn't have much liquid capital." requires one to say, compared to whom, Dr McPherson?

You are exactly right. It is statements like this one that make McPherson a junk historian.

He is NOT an economist and lacks any significant formal training or even a reasonably educated background in that field (save, of course, his strong interests in a single bearded german economist from the mid 19th century). As a result practically everything McPherson writes on economic matters is a farce characterized by statistical selectivity, frequent error, and outright falsehoods.

[WhiskeyPapa]

I already gave you the source, the United States Department of the Treasury. The figures are thus for 1860:

Value of Specie in all Union banks: $40,618,000
Value of Specie in all Southern banks: $48,359,000

Well, this is pretty comical. You're saying that if I find a musty old book from 1860 -- the official U.S.Treasury book for -1860-, that it will have entries for "Union" and "Southern"?

That is just totally absurd.

You can't even cobble together a coherent lie.

Walt

[mac_truck]

"They didn't have much liquid capital."

One of the critical early failures of the southern confederacy was their inability to raise money or credit to purchase the implements of war. They held their cotton crop off the market in the false belief that they could coerce Europe into recognizing them, and a good portion of it got confiscated by the Union.

If the south had liquid capital, why didn't they use it to buy weapons and other war-making material?

[rustbucket]

For comparison with your specie figures, the amount of public debt tabulated by the US Treasury Department on Feb 2, 1861, was $69,373,649.26.

One wonders how the North was going to pay off its portion of the debt. As Texas Senator Wigfall said that same February, "How will it be with New England? Where will their revenue come from? From your custom-houses? What do you export? You have been telling us here for the last quarter of a century, that you cannot manufacture even for the home market under the tariffs which we have given you. When this tariff ceases to operate in your favor, and you have to pay for coming into our market, what will you expect to export?"