You said: “Hardly, since you are restricting “the North” to Northeastern states, while expanding “the South” to include all of Deep South, Upper South and Border States.”
No restriction or expansion. The poster flatly stated that the North was importing only cotton. It was shown to him that not only was that incorrect, but that the Northeastern states imported more food than cotton.
Next you said: “At least 1/3 of those 54 million came from Border States which remained loyal to the Union, meaning we are looking at most at 36 million produced in Confederate states, versus 74 million in Union states.”
That cannot be found in the data tables I supplied to you. If you think it is important, then cite the source. It does remain irrelevant to the point I made, but most likely fundamental to the misrepresentation you posted.
You: “Again, break it down by state and you’ll find that Deep South states most devoted to export cash crops produced relatively few grains, while more northern Border States produced far more.”
Then I would gladly read your data if you can find it.
You: “And since Border States remained loyal to Union, your analysis is deeply flawed.”
What analysis? The data was given to support the point that large amounts of food were sent North just before the war.
Sure, if "the South" included Border States nearest the Mid-Western, Middle Atlantic and New England states.
Border States are just the "Southern" states from which most northern "imports" must have come.
But remember this: when push came to shove, those Border States served the Union, and their "exports" continued to go to the Union, which consequently did just fine.
But the Confederacy lost its "imports" from Border States, and consequently was forced -- irrespective of embargoes and blockades -- to change over from planting cash crops like cotton to food crops & produce.
In short: the Confederacy was more dependent on Border State food than was the North, and suffered more in consequence.
BJK: "At least 1/3 of those 54 million came from Border States which remained loyal to the Union..."
PeaRidge: "That cannot be found in the data tables I supplied to you.
If you think it is important, then cite the source.
It does remain irrelevant to the point I made, but most likely fundamental to the misrepresentation you posted."
First, your entire argument is not just false, it's irrelevant, but I set all that aside for purposes of discussion.
Second, here's what we know for certain:
In economic terms, the old pre-war "South" can be divided into three well-known sections: Deep South, Upper South and Border States.
In terms of free-white populations, each section had about 2.8 million citizens in 1860.
But while all "Southern" were slave-states, there was a huge difference in the numbers and employment of slaves.
In the Deep South slaves were nearly 50% of their population, in the Upper South around 25% and in Border States less than 15%.
Slaves in the Deep South were used mostly on large plantations to grow cash crops like cotton for export.
But in Upper South and especially Border States, there were fewer large plantations, and more small family farms on which slaves worked beside their white "owners".
And Border States like Maryland included as many free-blacks as slaves.
So Border States did not grow as many cash crops as the Deep South, but did grow more food for "export" -- to both North and South.
And again, we know that because the loss of Border State "exports" forced Deep South planters to begin raising more food crops.
PeaRidge: "The data was given to support the point that large amounts of food were sent North just before the war."
Your point is both irrelevant and false.
Irrelevant, because the supposed loss of Southern food caused no serious hardships in the North.
False, because most or all of that food must have come from Border States with fewer than 15% slaves, which decided to remain in the Union.
Bottom line: in the Civil War, Border States were not "South", they were North.