That’s an interesting thought. But given that our court system seems to operate at glacial speeds, how long do you think that process would have taken?
I suppose an argument could be made that this would have bought time for the North to use its industrial might to better prepare for war against the South.
I think the North harbored increasing resentment for the growing wealth of the South and its lucrative cotton exporting business. Maybe even felt some fear over its growing independence. Perhaps not the main cause of the war, but a motivating factor nonetheless. It was inevitable that the North wasn’t going to let go.
that is hard to say. Given the Courts Decision in Sanford v Scott (Dred Scott). I could easily see the Taney court deciding for SC.
The South was not the only people to make money off of the cotton trade. The bankers in Philadelphia, New York City and Boston lent millions to Southern planters. A prime field slave cost over a thousand dollars. Each years cotton crop was planted with borrowed money and it was paid back when the crop sold. The vast majority of ships used to carry Southern Cotton to markets in Europe and to New England were owed by Northerners. The companies that insured those ships and cargos were largely Northern based.
When cotton shipped by rail, it was shipped in cars made in the North, on rails made in the North and pulled by locomotives made in the North. Even if the South seceded, Northern business would still loan, insure and transport Southern cotton because all the South could actually do is grow the stuff. The great wealth generated by cotton did not generate any significant political power for the South. The House of Representatives was firmly in the hands the more populous Northern states. The Senate majority was controlled by States where slavery was illegal, and in 1860, a Northerner won the Presidency. The South actually had almost no influence in the Government of the United States.