No. The Senate was evenly split between free and slave states. Add in the Democrat senators from Northern States and the South dominated US politics through the 1830s and 1840s. That was changing in the 1850s. Southern concern wasn't about always being excluded or oppressed. It was about losing the power that they had held for so long.No. By 1858 there were 17 states that did not allow slavery vs 15 that did. The South's concern was in no longer being able to stop economic legislation that favored the North and which harmed the South even more than the legislation passed by the federal government already had. Everybody remembered the Tariff of Abominations.
I'm getting tired of repeating this. You don't think people in Virginia or South Carolina worried about whether there was slavery in the territories? Slaveowners in Mississippi and Missouri certainly did. Was that concern legitimate in the way that Northerners worries about the expansion of slavery wasn't?
Southerners were only concerned about the spread of slavery to the territories in the West so long as they were concerned about seats in the US Senate. As has already been demonstrated, there were not more than about a dozen slaves in the Arizona territory and no, slavery had not proven economically profitable for anything but labor intensive crops that could yield a high value. As states industrialized, the percentage of Blacks who were slaves steadily decreased and slavey gradually went extinct.
By 1858 there were 17 states that did not allow slavery vs 15 that did. Did I not say, "That was changing in the 1850s"? I did say exactly that. My point was that the South was not the bottom dog getting kicked around in antebellum America. Southerners were very much in charge in the 1840s and got what they wanted in terms of low tariffs in the Polk years and afterwards.
The South's concern was in no longer being able to stop economic legislation that favored the North and which harmed the South even more than the legislation passed by the federal government already had.
They were much more concerned about federal actions that could affect slavery. That was what all the uproar was about in the 1850s. A smarter South would have been able to appeal to the urban Democrat voters and farmers of the North and West to shore up its economic position. That was what the South was able to do for much of American history. The slavery issue would make that impossible.
Southerners were only concerned about the spread of slavery to the territories in the West so long as they were concerned about seats in the US Senate.
First of all, why is that a legitmate concern, while Northerners concern about more slave states in the Senate isn't? Secondly, it's not true. It's one of those backformations that people came up with after the war. Before the war, there were articles like "Kansas a Slave State" which argued, rightly or wrongly, that good soil and abundant water meant that Kansas could be a profitable slave state. DeBow's Review also argued for a transcontinental railroad, built by slave labor that would ultimately make the western territories slave states.
As has already been demonstrated, there were not more than about a dozen slaves in the Arizona territory and no, slavery had not proven economically profitable for anything but labor intensive crops that could yield a high value.
Slaves did all kinds of things in the South, in ancient times, and around the world. Before the Europeans, Indians practiced slavery in the Southwest. Slaves have long been used in mining around the world, and with adequate irrigation, could have been used in agriculture in the Southwest.
As states industrialized, the percentage of Blacks who were slaves steadily decreased and slavey gradually went extinct.
And yet, DeBow's which was passionate about slavery expansion, also advocated industrialization in the South. They believed slavery and industry were fully compatible. What seems logical and natural to us now, didn't back then.
FLT-bird:
" As has already been demonstrated, there were not more than about a dozen slaves in the Arizona territory and no, slavery had not proven economically profitable for anything but labor intensive crops that could yield a high value. " Can we at least put an end to this piece of nonsense?
In fact, slavery was alive and well in New Mexico:
Spanish Rule: "Slaves were not only valued for their labor, but were also a prestige item among the more prominent and prosperous of the Spanish colonists.
Enslavement of an individual was not always permanent.
Slaves, especially women, often gained kinship relationships with their owners.
The offspring and descendants of enslaved persons were called genizaros and made up one-third of New Mexico's population in the early 19th centuries.
In the Spanish caste system genizaros had low status, but were important for frontier defense and cultural contacts with Indian tribes.
Forced labor and debt peonage were also features of slavery in New Mexico.
Some Indians captured and enslaved in New Mexico were sent south to work in Mexican mines or even to distant places like Cuba to work on sugar plantations...Mexican Rule: "...After Mexico gained independence from Spain in 1821, Mexico enacted the Treaty of Córdoba, which decreed that indigenous tribes within its borders were citizens of Mexico.
Officially, the newly independent Mexican government proclaimed a policy of social equality for all ethnic groups, and the genízaros were officially considered equals to their vecino (villagers of mainly mixed racial background) and Pueblo neighbors.[33]
This never was completely put into practice.
The Mexican slave trade continued to flourish.
The average price for a boy slave was $100, while girls brought $150 to $200.[34]
Girls demanded a higher price because they were thought to be excellent house keepers and they were frequently used as sex slaves...
American Territory: In the period of Mexican and early American rule (1821–1880), most of the genízaros and captive servants in New Mexico were of Navajo ancestry.
Author Brugge estimates that 2,465 Navajos were captive servants during the 1860s as well as 1,000 from other tribes.[35]
During negotiations with the United States military, Navajo spokesmen raised the issue of Navajos being held as servants in Spanish/Mexican households.
When asked how many Navajos were among the Mexicans, they responded (with exaggeration): "over half the tribe".[36]...
Last Slaves:...Slavery in New Mexico and the southwestern United States persisted into the 20th century in isolated cases.
In 1909, trader Louisa Wade Wetherill inherited 32 Ute slaves, all women, from a rich Navajo leader.
She gave the women a herd of sheep and sent them on their way, but they gave away their sheep and came back destitute to her trading post.
She built them hogans and permitted them to live nearby, feeding them and giving them work when they asked for it.[42]"
So, can we now, finally, stop, stop with this "slavery wasn't profitable in New Mexico" nonsense?
For anyone who's not familiar with the 1860 map of the USA:
