The numbers tell a different story. 3/4ths of that pile is the consequence of Southern exports.
Move 3/4ths of the trade represented by that pile to the south, and New York is in a serious crises.
No it isn't. It's the consequence of goods being shipped into the United States.
You are being made to look more stupid then you already are. I’d suggest to you to stop but I have to admit watching “BroJOeK’’ school is... entertaining.
Fixed it for you. You're welcome.
DiogenesLamp: "The numbers tell a different story. 3/4ths of that pile is the consequence of Southern exports."
But those numbers say no such thing, and if you read my posts, you'd well know that.
In 1860 total US exports, including specie, were roughly $400 million.
Cotton exports were less than $200 million, which is roughly 50%.
Other exports you might lump in add up to less than 10%, but those exports were just as likely to be Northern produced as Southern, or if Southern they came from Union Border States like Maryland, Kentucky & Missouri.
So I'd say that 1/3 of those other exports (i.e., tobacco, hemp, molasses, etc.) came from Confederate-South states meaning, as I've repeatedly said: the actual exports from Confederate-South states came much closer to 50% than to 75% or 87%.
DiogenesLamp: "Move 3/4ths of the trade represented by that pile to the south, and New York is in a serious crises."
But by 1860 roughtly 80% of those exports already shipped directly from such Southern cities as New Orleans, Charleston, Mobile Bay and Galveston to European markets.
On return trips those ships brought imports and immigrants to the city where they were most welcomed: New York and also Philadelphia & Boston.
"Serious trouble" is a relative term.
The fact is that New York & other eastern cities quickly adjusted during Civil War and learned to prosper without Southern cotton.
So cotton was just not that big a deal for them.