There was 429,000 slaves in the border states and 500,000 fled during the entirety of the Civil War, most in 1864-1865 from what I can gather. That leaves over 3,000,000 in the Confederacy, with an average price in 1860 of $800 that's still $2.4 Billion. The earlier the victory, the fewer runaways as well.
Just like taxes decreased over the 20th Century in America? America in the Cold War is a useful example to compare to a victorious Confederacy.
It was unclear as to what you were speaking of. Confederation taxation on cotton exports alone was able to bring in around $4 Million in 1861 despite the blockade.
You've answered your own question here; the reason there wasn't a glut is because it was destroyed over the course of the war and a looking at cotton prices shows this was being reflected in the prices. We're also not talking about individual Confederates, we're talking about the Confederate government which did have control over massive amounts of cotton. Hence, why I said the Red River campaign.
Which is a goal post shift on your part because whether or not the 50% rate is ruinous is a different issue from the earlier claim about the Confederacy being unable to restore the situation. Matter of fact, that proves how easily they could fix it; they passed the Currency Reform in early 1864 and then on until September of 1864, despite Lee being forced into Richmond and the Sherman advancing on Atlanta, the inflation rate fell from 700% to just 50% and was still falling until Atlanta fell. The reason it quit decreasing is obvious: the war had turned decisively against the Confederacy.
The Currency Reform Act shows that, had the Confederacy won, it could've easily fixed this crisis. This also ignores that inflation only began to become an extremely serious issue going into 1863, meaning an earlier victory would see the situation largely fix itself in the event of peace.
Which again does not suggest immense damage had been done to the economic underpinnings of the Confederacy. Indeed, why bread riots existed is quite easily explained when one knows that Pre-War Confederate society was largely agrarian and the Confederate Army was largely farmers; a shortage of labor led to a decrease in production. It does not mean the farms had been burned and the fields salted.
Issues that did not arise until 1863 and thereafter could've been fixed fairly easily as I've pointed out.
They can win very easily with the Generals they've got. Lee, for instance, damn near destroyed Pope's Army of Virginia in August of 1862. That would've brought in Anglo-French intervention, ending the conflict.
Juan Prim was holding some talks with the Americans in secret on the subject. Here's some discussion of it here and here.
See above.
IOTL: Panama Canal.
Annexation Bill of 1866 and the suggestion by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to annex Canada as repayment for the Alabama Claims.
Baltimore Evening Sun, Nov. 11, 1931, "A Bad Guess," H. L. Mencken
Most of England's appalling troubles today are due to a bad guess: she went into the war on the wrong side in 1914. The theory of her statesmen, in those days, was that, by joining France and Russia, she would give a death-blow to a dangerous rival, Germany, and so be free to run the world. But the scheme failed to work; moreover, it had unexpected and almost fatal results. Not only did Germany come out of the mess a dangerous rival still; France also became a rival, and a very formidable one. Worse, the United States was pumped up to immense proportions, and began to challenge England's control of the world's markets. The results are now visible: England has three competitors instead of one, and is steadily going downhill. If she had gone into the war on the German side she'd be in a much better situation today. The Germans would be grateful for the help and willing to pay for it (while the French are not); the French would be down and out, and hence unable to menace the peace of Europe; Germany would have Russia in Europe and there would be no Bolshevik [communist] nuisance; England would have all of Siberia and Central Asia, and there would be no Japanese threat and no Indian revolt; and the United States would still be a docile British colony, as it was in 1914. . . .
The United States made a similar mistake in 1917. Our real interests at the time were on the side of the Germans, whose general attitude of mind is far more American than that of any other people. If we had gone in on their side, England would be moribund today, and the dreadful job of pulling her down, which will now take us forty or filthy years, would be over. We'd have a free hand in the Pacific, and Germany would be running the whole [European] Continent like a house of correction. In return for our connivance there she'd be glad to give us whatever we wanted elsewhere. There would be no Bolshevism [communism] in Russia and no Fascism in Italy. Our debtors would all be able to pay us. The Japs would be docile, and we'd be reorganizing Canada and probably also Australia. But we succumbed to a college professor [Wilson] who read Matthew Arnold, just as the English succumbed to a gay old dog who couldn't bear to think of Prussian MP's shutting down the Paris night-clubs.
As for the mistake the Russians made, I leave it to history.
The price of slaves in 1866 in a CSA victorious scenario would not be at real 1860 price levels but far lower. The price of slaves crashed during the war. Some of that was panic selling due to the fact no one wanted to be the last one paying for a slave but not all of it. With machinery smashed, infrastructure ruined, buildings burned down to the ground and people going hungry slave prices will not be high.
During the 20th and 21st centuries taxes went up and down. Among the tax cuts that happened are the JFK one, the Reagan one, GW Bush's and now Donald Trump's. So yes taxes do go down at times.
The $400.000 was cash on hand. That is what the CSA had left just before Jeff Davis was captured. IOW it was broke. The money it made in taxes before was already spent.
The inflation rate might go down somewhat further but the economy would still be a wreck and then the debt would come due with no money to pay it with.
Nobody said the fields were salted but many were burned. Also a lot of that was not just burned farms but burned railroad tracks and badly maintained railroad equipment. That wouldn't be fixed overnight.
What is this Fantasy Island Scenario of the British and French coming in? The British expressed zero interest in doing so the entire war. The most they were discussing was a proposal to mediate the dispute and even that never happened. France would only have gotten involved with English backing. Napoleon was in no way interested in fighting the US with only the CSA as an ally.
Juan Priam's talk was so successful virtually no one heard of them. Anything even remotely coming off would be well known or at least more well known.
Which was previously shown as not being particularly serious and likely a negotiating ploy. The bill didn't even make it out of committee.
Someone calling the US a "docile English Colony" didn't know what he was talking about. Long before 1914 London was not dictating US government policy.