I explicitly linked this research because I said the 5-50% number is garbage. To show how absurd it is to make that kind of argument.
It cites sources of the the Northern economic engine that relied on support from slave-grown cotton and the proceeds to hand-wave those away.
If 60% of Southern output is tied to slave-grown cotton, and 20-25% is dedicated to production/support of said slave-grown crop ... it seems like a silly argument to me. You could cut down to textile processing or whatever, not the tools or insurance or everything else and that drops it to 15%. So an argument for 75% could be made. But then the argument is 3/4th of the economy vs. 4/5th of it. Which is still more than half.
I could see an argument made that 60% of the US economy was tied to slave-grown cotton, just the cotton itself, but that is still larger than 50%.
So sure, if someone wants to say it was not 80% ... great. It still was over half of the US economy no matter how much some people move the goal posts.
There are several after-the-fact or "what if" history books based around the idea of the South taking all their cotton and putting it in storage in France during the war, cashing in, and then winning because of that economic advantage. The strong Southern economy has always been an argument for why they should've won and why the loss was such a big deal.
It just seems silly to me. Like saying the majority of the CSA DIDN'T secede because of slavery related reasons.
So taking even the lowest possible number (5%) still puts slavery WELL AHEAD of the Gold Rushes.
Which was the majority of my point.
But I'd love to have a "slavery wasn't THAT bad" debate.
Or as Kirby more succinctly put it.