Which is still a matter of considerable doubt despite your assumptions. Like the north they have the material capacity for a substantially larger forces that the US maintained prior to WWI, or even WWII - at least in terms of land power. With probable mutual hostility between the two nations some increase is likely. Whether its as large an increase in spending as your assuming and last for any length of time given the economic costs and also the probable social tensions that are likely to result post-war. Especially with your plans for the planters going on a conquest spree.
Okay, then articulate where your disagreements are because as it is, you are only making unfalsifiable arguments that do nothing to advance the conversation. If you feel the math I have used previously to show expected Confederate income sources is wrong, please show us and me what you disagree with there. If we are going to assume that, for some reason, the Confederacy is the one to drop self defense spending and the Union magically does not, why?
Not interesting in points scoring but on post #47 you said exactly that.
Except that's not at all what you claimed I said? This is what you stated I claimed:
Which is actually different from your initial point where you argued that there were no differences in industrial factories or cottage production in terms of their capacity to expand output, modernise equipment and methods etc.
$150 million in hypothetical goods produced by either system is still a $150 million in raw terms; that statement does not even comment on the issue of expanding capacity, modernizing equipment, etc. I even directly stated this several times to you:
And as I've already said, it has no relevancy to the matter because the Confederacy was not dependent on cottage industry but even if it was it doesn't have an effect on debating what was originally the point on hand, which was output. $150 million produced by a cottage industry is still $150 million, which can be objectively measured to both OTL and for comparison purposes. If you want to say factories are better, I am in agreement, but really it has no baring on the point at hand.
On this issue it could be that we're talking slightly past each other in that the south maintained the low tariff from 1857, about 15% while there was opposition to the Republican position for a higher tariff to protect industry which came into power from early 1861 in part aided by the absence of a number of southern delegates since they had left Congress when their states withdraw. I was referring to the high tariff policy that the US followed during and after the war and had attempted to pursue earlier. Had believed that that had continued into the 1850's but actually Democrat domination during most of that period have seem tariffs reduced markedly.
As such in that way you were correct that the south stuck to the lower tariffs that were in place during the 1840's & 50's. However I was thinking of the tariffs produced by the north from 1961 onward, which were to protect industry, which the south - and many in the west - opposed. Its noticeable that the lower tariff actually boosted government income during the period as imports increased. I was thinking that the sort of higher tariffs which caused tension earlier and then from the civil war afterwards. Partly mislead by your insistence that the proposed southern tariff was designed to protect its industries which seems not to have been the intent but instead also you also said to raise revenue.
Steve, as I have repeatedly said to you with ample citations, the intent was to foster and protect Southern industry while also encouraging a lively trade with Europe. If you feel otherwise, as always, the onus is on you at this point to provide something in contention. To quote Majewski again:
In fusing free trade and protectionist impulses, secessionists spoke and wrote in a Hamiltonian idiom of economic modernization and economic nationalism. Just as Hamilton had imagined the United States becoming a world economic power, secessionists envisioned the Confederacy as a vehicle for promoting economic modernization. Confederate duties closely resembled (and sometimes exceeded) the 10 to 15 percent tariff rate proposed by Hamilton in his famous Report on Manufacturers (1791). The similarity in rates reflected shared goals of simultaneously promoting nation building and economic development. Hamilton wanted to make his new nation economically independent while simultaneously encouraging enough international trade to pay for his ambitious fiscal plans. His moderate tariff encouraged domestic manufacturing while generating enough revenue to finance the Revolutionary War debt. Confederates wanted tariffs high enough to penalize northern goods—thus encouraging economic independence—but still low enough to allow for a vibrant trade with Europe.