What these numbers clearly show is that your conclusions are strongly influenced by what you decide to include or exclude.
My figure of $357 million total exports is based on including only half of the "species" exports shown in the reference.
Had I included all $58 million of species exports, total exports would be $392 million, making cotton exports of $192 million less than 50%.
You talk about "re-exports" as if they should be summarily dismissed, but I don't see why.
If, for example, a New York merchant buys up a ship-load of, say, coffee from Columbia, brings it to New York where he offloads half for US customers, refills that half-ship with cotton he purchased from the South and then sends the ship on to customers in Manchester, England, England, across the Atlantic... see, I believe one commodity is just as much a export as the other, at least in terms of profits received by that New York merchant.
Again, my point is: the overall US import-export picture in 1861 was as complicated, and subject to interpretations, as it is today, and not amenable to such simplistic statements as, "Southern cotton & tobacco represented 75+% of all US exports."
PeaRidge: "Hanson lists exports by type.
Your figure is cotton and does not include Southern exports of tobacco, food, semi-finished cotton goods, chemicals, hemp, or the proportional value of finished cotton."
You are including much as "southern exports" which not-necessarily were Deep South or even Upper South exports.
Tobacco, for example, even today is produced in such non-southern states as Pennsylvania, Ohio, Connecticut and Indiana.
So it is far from safe to assume that all non-cotton agricultural exports in 1861 came from future Confederate states.
PeaRidge: "DeBow and Kettel have done excellent work on pulling together the entire data listings.
That data shows the Southern contributions to export value in the 75 to 87#% range depending on year."
Again, I'm saying they overstate the value of future-Confederate state exports while understating the value of total 1860 US exports.
PeaRidge: "The statistical tables from Treasury records do break out by source such as foreign countries transshipping through US ports."
But "foreign countries" did not transship through US ports.
Instead, as my example above shows, US merchants purchased foreign products, brought them into the US, often added value to them, such as converting cotton to cloth, then "transshipped" to other foreign customers.
In the process, the US merchants charged a profit, which was then used to help pay for imports from foreign countries, including tariffs for the US treasury.
PeaRidge: "So, you see, that has to be factored out because it was not sourced production."
Of course, for your purposes of maximizing the importance of Southern cotton, tobacco, etc., exports and minimizing the value of other US export related products & services, you would naturally wish to exclude everything possible.
But in reality, there was a much bigger picture here in 1860, of which future Confederate state exports were indeed important, perhaps 50+%, but were by no means the only games in town as represented by your 75% to 87% figures.
As I have told you on this and other posts, the specie is not included in any of the export data from the US Statistical Reports from the Dept. of Commerce historical records.
Why....because it was external in origin and not intended to
be part of the trade purchases. In other words, it was not a part of US export trade. So, to include it is in error.
And it is spelled specie.
You said: “If, for example, a New York merchant buys up a ship-load of, say, coffee from Columbia, brings it to New York where he offloads half for US customers, refills that half-ship with cotton he purchased from the South and then sends the ship on to customers in Manchester, England, England, across the Atlantic... see, I believe one commodity is just as much a export as the other, at least in terms of profits received by that New York merchant.”
That is not a reexport. Now you are just making things up and thinking if you make the explanation long enough, it will be believed. WRONG
YOU AGAIN “So it is far from safe to assume that all non-cotton agricultural exports in 1861 came from future Confederate states.”
Your own data tables did not even include all the other southern exports.
YOU “Again, I'm saying they overstate the value of future-Confederate state exports while understating the value of total 1860 US exports.”
Your they is Kettel, DeBow, United States Treasury, Dept. of Commerce, Statistical History of the US and the US Census.
Are you saying all of them are making a mistake and you are not? Really? No kidding??
You: But “foreign countries” did not transship through US ports.
Wrong again. Western hemisphere shippers and destinations had their cargoes transported in a variety of ways. European shippers sometimes visited Canada first for offloading, and then on to New York to offload and pick up other goods. The offloads if destined other non domestic ports would be inventoried and temporally stored.
But the value of those products would not be entered into the US Treasury records as being part of US commerce.
YOU again: “In the process, the US merchants charged a profit, which was then used to help pay for imports from foreign countries, including tariffs for the US treasury.”
Absolutely and unequivocally wrong.
You end up with this conclusion based on your comedy of errors above: “But in reality, there was a much bigger picture here in 1860, of which future Confederate state exports were indeed important, perhaps 50+%, but were by no means the only games in town as represented by your 75% to 87% figures.”
Those figures are accurate. They originate with data from the US government.
And the percentages are accurate.
And Northern merchants knew it.