Replies

It would have waned in the South, same as it did in the North. It would have just taken longer.

I think one reason the Founders punted on the slavery issue was that in the 1780s slavery was looking to be economically unviable. I believe they thought that it would gradually die out without any fuss or bother. But then Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin and slaves could produce and process enough cotton that more than paid for their expenses. Cotton was so lucrative that rotation of crops was abandoned in favor of the huge returns that cotton brought. That of course led to the exhaustion of the soil and the quest for more land to grow cotton on.

By the 1860s the handwriting was on the wall. Where were future cotton-growing areas to come from? There was even talk of annexing Cuba to continue cotton/slavery. Too much of the south’s capital was invested in its slaves. Hard to imagine their giving that up without some violence.

I think you are correct. Those D@mn Massachusettsians are always stirring up troubles, aren't they? :)

That of course led to the exhaustion of the soil and the quest for more land to grow cotton on.

There was no more land on which cotton would grow without irrigation systems that hadn't yet been invented.

There was even talk of annexing Cuba to continue cotton/slavery. Too much of the south’s capital was invested in its slaves. Hard to imagine their giving that up without some violence.

They didn't have to give it up if they had remained in the Union. Lincoln and Northern state representatives were quite willing to guarantee them permanent protection for slavery if they just stayed in the Union.

What they wouldn't allow them to have is enough representation to vote off the taxes that had been put on their income streams, most of which were funding Washington DC, with a big chunk of it getting dropped off in New York.