Naw... that's not it.
The real truth is that so much of it is right, and explodes so many of your shameless lies, that you just can't risk addressing any of it, and you know it, don't you?
DiogenesLamp: "How many slaves did it take to grow and harvest wheat rather than Cotton?"
We don't have census numbers as to how many slaves were used in each economic activity -- i.e., cotton, wheat, tobacco, rice, sugar, manufacturing, railroads, construction, dock workers, household servants, etc.
But we can still make some estimates...
In 1860 there 3,951,000 total slaves.
Of those, 58% lived in the Deep South cotton states = 2,312,000.
A reasonable estimate is that 3/4 of those were used in cotton production = ~1.7 million.
Then outside the Deep South, where wheat, tobacco & other items (i.e., hemp) predominated, cotton was also grown, using perhaps 20% of the slave workforce, or roughly 300,000 out of 1.6 million.
Add together ~1,700,000 in the Deep South plus ~300,000 elsewhere = 2.000,000 = 51% of all 1860 slaves.
That means roughly half of US slaves in 1860 did not work in cotton, and so would not fall under your alleged "no cotton = no slaves" rule.