Of course they did. You can hear the same red state/blue state complaints now from both sides. They haven't led to Civil War, and if we do have a Civil War they won't be the reason. Secondly, consider that these are the "prominent Southerners," the political class, the people who read the newspapers and believe what they read, the people who write the newspapers and put in enough grievances to fill the pages. There's no indication that the average Southerner felt that his pocket was being picked unless he picked up elite opinions.
They wanted to expand the power of the federal government and reduce the power of the states to do that.
The Northerners or the Southerners? Northerners wanted a federally-funded transcontinental railroad. Southerners wanted a federally-funded (and possibly slave-built) transcontinental railroad. Northerners wanted a Homestead Act. It's not clear how that would expand the power and reach of the federal government. Northerners wanted an increase of the tariff and Southerners didn't. Southerners wanted federal censorship of the mails. They wanted strict enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Law, and they wanted state resistance to the law to be suppressed. I don't see that in 1860 either side wanted to expand the power of the federal government much more than the other.
And they used the slavery issue to keep Midwesterners on side whose interests otherwise did not align with those of Northeastern industrialists.
It was the other way around. There was massive opposition to slavery expansion in both the Northeast and the Midwest. That's how the Republican Party got started and it was started at the grassroots. There was agreement between farmers and townspeople on both sides of the Alleghenies about slavery in the territories. Northeastern intellectuals agreed with them about slavery expansion. The tariff was the "wedge issue." It was thrown in to win the support of Pennsylvania, a key swing state that had gone Democrat in 1856 because it was Buchanan's state. The tariff prevented the Republicans from going the way of the Liberty Party and the Free Soil Party. New York financial interests were divided. New York went Republican because of the upstate vote.
Mining was just not an economically productive use to put slaves to. Had it been, they would have been used much more for that purpose throughout Latin/Central America which was doing a good bit of mining.
Don't you know that they were? Native and African slaves were used extensively at Potosi, the world's largest silver mine. If there isn't a large Black population in Bolivia, it's because most of the Africans were worked to death.
Two things. It was much worse then. There weren't "stabilizers" built in like social security, a federal income tax, etc etc that smooth things over. The wealth transfer from one region to another was far greater then. Also, numerous Southern politicians were saying it. This must have been on the minds of their voters.
The Northerners or the Southerners? Northerners wanted a federally-funded transcontinental railroad. Southerners wanted a federally-funded (and possibly slave-built) transcontinental railroad. Northerners wanted a Homestead Act. It's not clear how that would expand the power and reach of the federal government. Northerners wanted an increase of the tariff and Southerners didn't. Southerners wanted federal censorship of the mails. They wanted strict enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Law, and they wanted state resistance to the law to be suppressed. I don't see that in 1860 either side wanted to expand the power of the federal government much more than the other.
The North wanted higher tariffs, more corporate subsidies, more expenditure for infrastructure projects and they wanted all this to be concentrated in their region like it generally had been up to that point. I will freely concede that both sides were not above some hypocrisy....ie Northerners in claiming states' rights for certain things they wanted and Southerners championing federal power for some things they wanted. Politicians then as now were hypocrites.
It was the other way around. There was massive opposition to slavery expansion in both the Northeast and the Midwest. That's how the Republican Party got started and it was started at the grassroots. There was agreement between farmers and townspeople on both sides of the Alleghenies about slavery in the territories. Northeastern intellectuals agreed with them about slavery expansion. The tariff was the "wedge issue." It was thrown in to win the support of Pennsylvania, a key swing state that had gone Democrat in 1856 because it was Buchanan's state. The tariff prevented the Republicans from going the way of the Liberty Party and the Free Soil Party. New York financial interests were divided. New York went Republican because of the upstate vote.
Midwesterners didn't just want slaves kept out of the Western territory. They wanted BLACKS kept out to include free blacks. They adopted the first "Black codes" and the state constitutions of Kansas and Oregon forbade Blacks from settling there. The desire to acquire the Western lands for settlement was fairly universal in the North. The Industrialists wanted it too because that was some of the "compensation" they used to draw cheap labor for their factories from Europe. They'd come over penniless, work in the factories for a few years and save a little and then go homestead free land in the West - the impossible dream in Europe, your own land!
The South's interest in the western territory was more for the votes in the Senate they needed. They had a smaller population and weren't drawing in a lot of immigration by comparison.
Don't you know that they were? Native and African slaves were used extensively at Potosi, the world's largest silver mine. If there isn't a large Black population in Bolivia, it's because most of the Africans were worked to death.
The Spaniards worked a lot of the Natives to death in the mines just as the Romans worked a lot of their slaves to death in the mines. Mining was horrendously dangerous until well into the 20th century. Slaves were expensive in America. Slave owners did not want to risk their valuable property in such a hazardous activity.