As I recall, senators were equally appropriated between North and South states, with the Southern states all slaving states. In fact, new state admissions had to be split between free and slave, to keep this symmetry.
However, the South had a perverse advantage over all free states in representation, because they got 3/5ths benefit from every slave they could create (breed) or import in, while the North wasn't benefiting from that.
I think the OP is blind to the truth, because he's proven he's blind to what Ayn said “about the Civil War.”
If Free Republic had a "like" button, I'd be mashing it right now.
But if you just “read between the lines”, there is no limit to possible interpretations.
As I understand it, cotton and tobacco were the USA’s biggest exports before the Civil War, but somehow the North made more money off them than the South did.
The proper sequence is to identify an event, then look for an explanation.
But it seems like here we’re starting with the explanation, then trying to tack it on to an event.
No disrespect meant to the original poster. Just my two cents.
And thanks to BidenInflation, two cents ain’t worth much anymore.
Women didn’t vote either while you’re at it
The concept she articulated applies to all human societies throughout history. She simply articulated the social dynamics occurring in the leadup to the Civil War.
In fact, new state admissions had to be split between free and slave, to keep this symmetry.
One of the laws which did the most damage to the South was the "Navigation act of 1817." This law was passed with the support of Southern states which at the time could not see how this law would hand a monopoly over to Northeastern interests. By 1860, the coalition of Northern states could do anything they wanted and leave the South paying the bill. (The South produced 72% of the total trade with Europe, and all taxes came from trade with Europe.)
For some reason, I never thought to ask that question when I was in high school and college in the 1960s.
Didn't the 3/5ths compromise apply to all the slave states - north and south - at the time the constitution was ratified?
There is never one reason for a war of any sort.
Many, many things went into the start of our civil war.
“As I recall, senators were equally appropriated between North and South states...”
They were fewer Southern states, and yes, Southern cotton, etc. were being taxed and the money was spent in the North.
Well that is a yankee perspective. The north, a manufacturing economy, was essentially requiring the south, an agricultural economy to buy northern farm tools or pay high customs on cheaper English imported tools. The Feds sent the Star of the West to resupply Fort Sumter in Charleston S.C. harbor. Fort Sumter was there to enforce the customs tariffs. S.C. objected and drove the Star of the West out of Charleston Harbor by force. This was the first shots fired in the War between the States. Slavery had nothing to do with it. The 3/5’s comprise had been reached in congress by congress to keep the south in the union. Otherwise the southern less populated states would have no voice in a united government. And of course would have likely seceded. But as we know, a deal is not deal when it comes to politicians and money.
Come on, man! Tell the whole story. Let's get it straight.
In 1861 almost 80% of the population was in the northern states. There were 20 states in the north and 11 in the south. The northern states absolutely controlled congress -- period. They did exactly as Ayn Rand stated in that quote. In 1928 congress, controlled by the northern states, passed the "Tariff of Abomination," which shifted funds to the northern industrial states at the expense of the less populated rural and agrarian southern states.
The bottom line is the country was as divided in 1861 as it is today (although not exactly along geographical lines). Clearly, expansion of the southern way of life was a major part of the "War of Northern Aggression," and a big part of that war was exactly as described in the Ayn Rand quote -- benefits for the north at the expense of the south.