The one salient truth to which you have yet to respond is the fact that fully 3/4ths of all European trade was produced by that 1/4th of the total citizens, who lived in the South.
This places 3/4ths of the burden of paying for the government on this same 1/4th of the Nation's citizens. (Really, the burden was on the slaves, but why quibble?)
You also ignore the fact that the money produced by that 1/4th of the citizens, mostly ended up in New York, instead of coming directly back to the Southern companies who produced it, as would happen in a non-artificial economic environment.
First of all, in fact, I and others responded directly and at length, most recently in posts #788, 800, 810, 815, 857, and notably 877, plus 845, 889, 894 and 911.
Second, cotton exports were less than 10% of total US exports in 1800, rose to about 50% by 1840, and remained in that range through 1860.
By 1870 cotton was just below 50% and in 1880 less than 1/3 of total US exports, even though cotton production in 1880 was 1/3 higher than 1860.
Third, in 1860 cotton was not produced by 1/4 of the US population, but rather by fewer than 10% = roughly 2.5 million Deep South slaves.
Those 10% slaves made their "owners" wealthy and helped the nation prosper.
DiogenesLamp: "This places 3/4ths of the burden of paying for the government on this same 1/4th of the Nation's citizens. (Really, the burden was on the slaves, but why quibble?)"
Why quibble?
Well, for starters, "the government" obviously owed far more to those Deep Cotton South slaves than it did to their owners, and once you grasp that, you'll begin to see where "the government's" priorities lay.
DiogenesLamp: "You also ignore the fact that the money produced by that 1/4th of the citizens, mostly ended up in New York, instead of coming directly back to the Southern companies who produced it, as would happen in a non-artificial economic environment."
False again, on different levels:
First, half the US cotton crop shipped out of New Orleans, not New York, and 85% of that went directly to European customers.
The remaining 15% purchased by US Northerners certainly sold for the same prices as Europeans paid.
Second, New York claimed to earn 40% of the revenues on cotton, but we are not told how much went for what services.
Presumably shipping & warehousing costs were a large part, interest on loans and insurance relatively small.
And we are not told if that 40% included goods & services purchased in New York by Southern planters from the profits of their cotton sales.
Regardless, your claim that New York merchants had some kind of legal monopoly on cotton is belied by the fact that about half of all US cotton exports shipped from New Orleans.
Third, to reference your claim of a Northern legal monopoly -- of "jiggered" laws -- you cite as "the Navigation Act of 1817" (sic) but in fact, that particular law said nothing of the sort.
Look it up yourself.
Fourth, I remind you that Southern Democrats dominated Washington, DC, almost continuously from the founding of the Republic until the end of 1860.
Nothing important happened there which they did not approve of, especially commercial laws which you falsely claim to have been "jiggered" against the South.
Bottom line: you have created a fantasy in your own mind which has little or nothing to do with real history and therefore everything to do with promoting some otherwise indefensible propaganda.
You should move on to something else.