Nobody said the North couldn't survive without the South. What I said was that the North didn't want to let go of all that sweet sweet profit money they were making from slavery, which is what would have happened had the South been able to establish competing trade directly with Europe.
They also ended up having to borrow heavily and inflate the money in an effort to weather the financial shock of losing their cash cow.
Over time, their unofficial position became "If we can't have the profits from the work of slaves, ain't nobody gonna have those profits from the work of slaves."
And now we see what sort of evil bastards those New England robber barons (still the same today) were.
They've been selling (and publishing) a lie for 150 years.
It’s you selling the lie DegenerateLamp - and not a very clever one.
Given peace, Southern cotton would still come North. Southern funds would still be invested in Northern banks. Southerners would still import Northern goods with the low tariffs you're talking about. Southern plantation owners would still grind their profits from the labor of the slaves, and use the money to buy things from the North, which Northerners could use to buy things from Europe. So yes, there may have been dislocations, but nothing that those concerned couldn't have weathered.
Over time, their unofficial position became "If we can't have the profits from the work of slaves, ain't nobody gonna have those profits from the work of slaves."
Pretty good summation of the secessionist mindset, given how things turned out, but I guess you'd still want those profits yourself.
And now we see what sort of evil bastards those New England robber barons (still the same today) were.
Really? Lowells and Cabots are very thin on the ground nowadays.