Replies

The coalition of Northern states had at that time control of congress. If slavery expanded to the territories, those states would likely vote as a coalition with the other slave states, and thereby deprive the North Eastern power barons of their control of Washington.

What you say bears only the loosest relationship to reality, yet you keep on repeating, and repeating, and repeating it.

You've made up your mind in advance and don't let facts ever change it.

The Southern-dominated Democratic Party had controlled the Congress for most of the years 1800-1860.

They were the true "power barons" in Washington.

Democrats lost control of the House for brief periods, but retained the Senate from 1845 up to 1861 and the withdrawal of Southern senators.

Democrats and Southerners also predominated or were overrepresented in the executive and judicial branches before the Civil War.

More to the point, though. Slavery would undercut the position and rights of free labor and small farmers in the territories.

That was reason enough for opposing it in the eyes of many Northerners.

Northern "power barons" didn't really care. They could always cut a deal with the slave owning "power barons" of the South.

Farmers and workingmen knew they'd lose out if slavery were imposed on their states or on the territories.

What you say bears only the loosest relationship to reality, yet you keep on repeating, and repeating, and repeating it.

You've made up your mind in advance and don't let facts ever change it.

I didn't make up my mind in advance. I once believed as did you, that the war was just and fought to end slavery. I was shown the error of my beliefs, first by my friend, and eventually by learning more about what happened.

You keep missing/ignoring the significance of this Map. You don't seem to grasp what it represents.

This map shows how the natural trade between the South and Europe was deliberately skewed to benefit New York and Boston. That map represents 200 million dollars in trade value that should not have gone through New York, and should instead have gone through New Orleans, Savanna, Charleston, and so forth.

People don't understand that the South produced the vast bulk of that money that shows up as coins on top of New York.

More to the point, though. Slavery would undercut the position and rights of free labor and small farmers in the territories.

Is the concern for undercutting the rights of free labor a concern for the slaves, or a concern for the white laborers? Let us make the motivation here clear. You are trying to claim a moral reason for opposing slavery, but you are offering an economic one. You are just about admitting that the opposition to slavery was one of self interest, not a greater moral good.

Northern "power barons" didn't really care. They could always cut a deal with the slave owning "power barons" of the South.

You are right to recognize that there were indeed "Power Barons" in the South, they did indeed exist, but they didn't matter as much. The votes in Congress would go along with the disposition a territory chose in becoming a state. The "Free Soil" movement was an effort to make certain that newly acquired states would vote with the North Coalition, and not with the South. It was an attempt at a coalition of big business interests with that of free labor to secure new states in their orbit.

The Whole thing about opposing expansion was to maintain the Northern power coalition. This is why Southern independence put such a monkey wrench into things. With the money diverting to the South, and Europeans able to sell merchandise up the Mississippi river, the economic allegiances would slowly shift to favor the South over the people who then controlled it. (New York, Chicago, Boston.)

If States could chose to leave the Union, than many of the territories-becoming-states might very well do that as well.

Farmers and workingmen knew they'd lose out if slavery were imposed on their states or on the territories.

Well they were certainly told that, a lot. Yes, there was a lot of resentment directed at Wealthy slave owners who prospered by the sweat of other people's brows instead of their own, but this is a variation of the hate the rich mantra that the modern Democrats constantly use.

Yes, the same groups of people (demographically and philosophically) were stirring up the same animosities back then.

x: "Farmers and workingmen knew they'd lose out if slavery were imposed on their states or on the territories."

Thanks for a great post, we cannot overemphasize how important this point is, since DiogenesLamp and many others in our culture work day and night to convince Americans of a 100% role reversal -- according to them Lincoln was basically a Big City slicker Democrat and Deep South slavocratic secessionists were the Constitutional conservative Republicans.

But the opposite is true, then & now.
In 1860 cotton was Big Business -- the United States' biggest business allying Deep South Mega-agribusiness with Northern Big City slicker finance & merchants.
None of those people were abolitionist Republicans.

Republicans were your average Americans -- small farmers, small town tradesmen, manufacturers & store keepers.
Republicans didn't care so much about Big City merchants & finance, they did care a lot about Slave Power intrusions into their labor & produce markets.

That's why they nominated & elected back-woods rail-splitter Lincoln instead of a more accomplished politician like former New York Governor & then Senator William Seward.
Lincoln then, like Trump today, represented the vast mass of "forgotten Americans".

Democrats then as now were the Big City slicker finance & merchant class allied with Deep Cotton South mega agribusinesses, just as today they ally with global & illegal alien business & labor interests.

1860 slaves were the equivalent to illegal alien workers today.
Lincoln then & Trump today want them at least restricted if not abolished in the United States.