You might want to review those numbers, since they make no sense.
Logically, the South could not import more than the entire country.
Indeed, basic economic facts are that while the average slave-holding Confederate citizen was better off than their Northern cousins, for every white Confederate, there were four Northerners, and Union-states' manufacturing and trade economy accounted for 80% to 90% of the country's totals.
So any suggestions which exaggerate the importance of Confederate-state trade are necessarily misleading.
PeaRidge: "...Northern businessmen, politicians, and newspapermen knew that the demand for goods from the South was immense and would have a far reaching impact on their economy."
Yes but as it turned out, unlike the South: the North's manufacturing and trade economy was not destroyed by embargos, blockade or war.
PeaRidge: "The profits to Northern coffers that were about to be lost were:
Bounties to fisheries, per annum………………………………$1,500,000...
Total Annual Revenue Lost………………………………… $226,500,000."
You cite no source for these numbers, and they appear very dubious.
What exactly do they represent?
Regardless, in overall terms Civil War cost the Union around $6 billion, the Confederacy another $2 billion.
So your figures here add up to less than 4% of the Union total.
What is the significance of that?
PeaRidge: "North knew it was approaching permanent injury.
Its economy depended on manufacturing and shipping.
But it neither raised its own food nor its own raw materials, nor did it furnish freights for its own shipping"
You are obviously very confused.
Those words apply to the South, not the North.
The North was self-sufficient in virtually every respect, except its need for Southern cotton, and even that, as it happened, could be done without.
PeaRidge: "Suddenly, in late March and early April, Lincoln's office was filled with governors, businessmen, and politicians calling for war."
A misleading exaggeration, at best.
The truth is that Lincoln listened to many voices, from all sides, especially those of Border States like Kentucky.
That's because Lincoln figured, if he lost Kentucky that was the same as losing the whole thing.
So he payed close attention to opinions from Kentucky, all of which said Lincoln should go as easy as possible on secessionists.
So Lincoln was not eager for war, but he was determined as much as possible to uphold his oath of office.
That data makes very good sense. Each jyear, part of the imports from overseas were sold South. That amount in 1859 was $106,000,000. The amount of Northern and Western productions sold south for the same year was $240,000,000. See page 74, Southern Wealth and Northern Profits, 1860.
Regarding your comment: "Indeed, basic economic facts ...Union states....accounted for 80 to 90% of the country's totals.
Not germaine to this discussion nor accurate.
Your comment: "the North's manufacturing and trade economy was not destroyed by embargos, blockade or war."
Not relevant.
Your comment: "You cite no source for these numbers, and they appear very dubious. What exactly do they represent?"
I did cite the source, if you will take the time to read it. And it will make sense to you too.
My comment: "But it neither raised its own food nor its own raw materials, nor did it furnish freights for its own shipping"
You said: "You are obviously very confused. Those words apply to the South, not the North. The North was self-sufficient in virtually every respect, except its need for Southern cotton, and even that, as it happened, could be done without."
If that were true, then why did the Northeastern states import such large amounts of food each year?