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.
In fact, when push came to shove, "the North" included the Northeast, Middle-Atlantic, Midwest-Northwest, Far West and Southern Border States all of which accounted for 80% of US free-white population and 90% of US manufacturing.
Sure the Deep South and Upper South were important economically, but they were not in 1860 dominant.
The Union could and did get along just fine without them.
PeaRidge: "If you will consult Kettell's section III, you will find that the first table shows you that the Southern states produced in 1858 54 million slaughtered animals to the productions of 22 million in the west and 34 million in the Northeast."
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.
But doubtless, even that overstates the Southern case -- since such edible agricultural products were produced inversely proportional to the amount of land devoted to slave-based cash crops like cotton, tobacco and sugar.
In other words, high-slave areas like the Deep South produced few if any surplus animals for slaughter, while low-slave Union states like Kentucky and Missouri producd correspondingly more.
PeaRidge: "With regard to grain, the South produced 307 million pounds while the West harvested 173 million and the Northeast produced 132 million."
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.
And since Border States remained loyal to Union, your analysis is deeply flawed.
I’ve been browsing Kettel. Interesting book, though his intent is obviously to argue a case, not describe reality, so I suspect a lot of his conclusions need to be taken with considerable sodium chloride.
Thanks, PR, for providing this resource.
For instance, as BJK notes, he separates the West from the North but combines the entire South, as a way of making the South’s contribution to the economy loom larger.
More importantly, a lot of what he has to say is extremely interesting for what it says about the attitude of southern apologists in 1858. I found it fascinating that he essentially agrees with today’s leftists who demand reparations for slavery. Kettel was essentially a vulgar reverse Marxist, believing that all capital and all wealth is generated by enslaving others and stealing most of the value of the work they do. Except of course he believes this to be a good thing and the basis of all civilization.
So far from believing that slavery was on its last legs and shortly to disappear, he was boundlessly optimistic about its survival and expansion. He thought the only result of a conflict between North and South would be the utter destruction of the Northern economy. (May have been a little over-optimistic there.)
It is also interesting where he draws the line between North (and West) and South. The only criterion he apparently considers for “South” is the presence of slavery. And his complaints about the North are largely, though not exclusively, focused on its opposition to the Peculiar Institution.
He constantly harps on the basic theme of the inequality of men and the positive good of slavery, much like Stephens in his Cornerstone speech a couple of years later.
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.