Me: “The North had the money, not the South.”
You: “Again, not true. “Cotton is King” rang true in the years leading up to the Civil War and the concentration of wealth was with the slavers. They literally had money to burn, but apparently not to invest.”
They were rolling in dough? Wow, Never heard that before. Cotton was King, but it didn’t bring that much to the region. It was half the revenue, but that isn’t saying much.
GDP: North-$3.6 billion, South-$0.733 billion.
Population: North-27.71 million, South-8.73 million.
Cost of War: North-$3,366 million, South-$3,286 million.
Cost per Capita: North-$148, South-$376
So, per capita, the South paid more than twice the costs and had less than 4 times the revenue.
Your statement doesn’t hold to facts.
The Southern lag in industrial development did not result from any inherent economic disadvantages. There was great wealth in the South, but it was primarily tied up in the slave economy. In 1860, the economic value of slaves in the United States exceeded the invested value of all of the nation's railroads, factories, and banks combined. On the eve of the Civil War, cotton prices were at an all-time high. The Confederate leaders were confident that the importance of cotton on the world market, particularly in England and France, would provide the South with the diplomatic and military assistance they needed for victory.There was tremendous wealth in the antebellum south but it was held in very few hands.