All the evidence points in the direction the south's motivation to start the CW was to expand and sustain slavery. It's without a shadow of a doubt, at the beginning of the 19th Century the north downsized slavery to nothing and the south expanded slavery from that point of time until 1860 to a whopping 300%. 1,000,000 slaves in 1800 when the north started to downsize, from that point to 1860 the south expanded slavery to 4 million. In 1800 75,000 bales of cotton were produced, by 1860 there were 3,841,000 bales of cotton produced. Therefore, the amount of slaves expanded by 300% and the amount of cotton produced increased by 5,000%, and that's enough evidence to prove that the south's excuse for independence was backed by cotton demand which was backed by slavery. Independence from the Union and expanding and sustaining slavery were synonymous.
The value of a slave did devalue because the slave's value increased and decreased upon how much cotton a slave could produce. The more cotton a slave picked the more the value of the slave increased, that's of course because there was a high demand for cotton in 1850s and slavery made cotton prices cheap. I hate to say it, but as soon as emancipation was enacted the slave was utterly worthless. The subsequent decades under a low demand of cotton and the inefficient and miscalculation method of tenant farming/sharecroppers over produced cotton which devalued it to where deflation set in hard, which clearly showed that real income and real interest rates in the south during the Gilded Age plummeted below the poverty level. Hence, cotton was the commodity and slavery was the form of labor that made up of the bulk of the southern economy during the antebellum era.
Yes, the Confederate currency was hyperinflated to 9,000% in only 4 years, the only other countries I can think of off the top my head that accrued that much inflation in that short of time were the Germans under the Weimer Republic and I don't think the Venezuelans economy under Chavez hyperinflated that high and that fast of amount of time. The south's economy from 1860-1890 is a classic case of monetary and fiscal blunders that reveal an a palpable manner that the demand for cotton backed by slavery was the only means of survival. Look at the linear progression on the southern economy contraction during the CW, it is a perfect model of a Banana Republic in distress that had one microeconomic unit that made up 3/4 of its macroeconomics. Once Lincoln ordered the blockade on southern ports cotton exports fell to nil, which the southern economy contracted. Subsequently, the Europeans loaned them $8 million that countered the recession a little, but not being able to export cotton caused a double dip recession backed by stagflation, then as the war progressed a depression set in and it crashed the southern economy. Printing fiat money at alarming rate could not buffet the problem for the Confederacy because the had no valuable commodity to neutralize it or keep it from inflating, but they used cotton bonds instead that were IOU's that could not stop the printing press, so insert too much paper money chasing too few of good it devalued their currency to hyperinflation.
As for the Confederacy fighting a defensive war, I always thought that was the only way they hung around the war so long. They were fortified and had a spy network tracking the Union's movements, so that gave them time to dig in a little more. You and I both know that more primitive armies fought more sophisticated militaries in the era of bombings to soften up fortified perimeters lasted longer than the Confederacy. If the Union had planes to drop bombs the CW would have lasted a month or two, that's it. But they didn't, so they had to devise strategies to put the squeeze on the Confederates, which they did in a relatively short time. People are kidding themselves if they don't believe the Union controlled the tempo of the CW. They could have just stopped initiating and let the Confederates starve to death or die from hookworm, which would have forced the Confederates to go on the offensive, and that would have been all she wrote. Either fighting a offensive strategy to end it or using war of attrition the Confederates were completely finished by 1865.
Imo, Gettysburg proved that an offensive strategy was not in the cards for the Confederacy. Did Lee not lose 37% of his army at Gettysburg? A battle or two more in the north his army would have been completely KIA'ed. Even going on the offensive in the south giving up their fortified positions would have wasted them fast...
Just my 2 cents..
Bringing the