“The South was losing political power for every new state admitted to the union that was not a slave state.”
Ummm...every time a state is admitted, the previous states lose power. ALL of them. Northern states would lose just as much power as southern states.
What you mean is the pro-slavery block would lose power each time a non-slave state entered the Union. Which is true, but only on one issue: SLAVERY. Every time a non-slave state was added, the future of slavery was more in doubt. But that leaves the issue as one of SLAVERY.
Meanwhile, it is important to note this was NOT like the American Revolution. The revolution removed a KING. Taxation without representation. But the South retained representation.
In fact, the South was OVER-represented because every slave counted as 0.6 persons for representation, but no slave could cast a vote. In Alabama, for example, 45% of the total population were slaves. 435,000 slaves. Gave Alabama credit for an additional 260,000 in population, although none of that 260,000 had a vote. With a voting population of 500,000, Alabama got representation for about 750,000 people. Every white voter in Alabama got to cast 1.5 votes!
However, the white population in the South was increasing faster than the black population, so each year the powerful in the South became a little less powerful.
Political power was the key. The South was not concerned with slavery being abolished, especially since the north was offering an amendment to the Constitution to guarantee it’s continuance where it CURRENTLY existed. This was the rub. Current existence would mean that all new states would be in alignment with non-slave holder states interest.