Your post #382 makes no sense where it says:
PeaRidge: "Not germaine to this discussion nor accurate."
Not responsive.
PeaRidge: "Not relevant."
Not responsive.
PeaRidge: "I did cite the source, if you will take the time to read it."
Not responsive. You cited no source for the numbers, much less a link. They make no sense as is.
PeaRidge: "If that were true, then why did the Northeastern states import such large amounts of food each year?"
Re-read my post #415.
Again, your problem is: you reduced "The North" to just the Northeastern states, and expanded "The South" to include not only Upper South but also Border States of Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland and Delaware.
In actual fact, when push came to shove, "The North" included not only Northeastern states, but also Middle-Atlantic, Mid-Western, Northwestern, Far West and those Border States.
So, "The North" accounted for 80% of the free-white population, 80% to 90% of industry and was, for all intents and purposes economically self-sufficient.
Of course, I'm not saying "The South" wasn't important economically -- since it accounted for the majority of the nation's exports -- only that it's just as wrong to over-state as under-state "The South's" importance.
Indeed, this was a lesson secessionists learned the hard way in 1861 when they embargoed cotton shipments to Europe, expecting that would help them to "win friends and influence people" there.
It didn't.
Bro, I suspect PR is saying the South imported $346M in goods in 1860, with that including "imports" from the North and West as well as from overseas.
However, I sincerely doubt anybody at the time could have come up with accurate numbers in regard to domestic trade between regions. No government agencies to compile the data in such detail.