Civil War History - Secession and PoliticsWas it Slavery, or was it States Rights? Perhaps it was the election of Lincoln? What were the real reasons for Southern Secession and what were the political issues in this time of war? Find your answers here in the Secession and Politics Disussion.
Thanks for that, Hal, but it doesn't answer my question. I can see that advantage and influence in the government are powerful motivators, what I can't see is WHO was going to transfer his operation to help gain that advantage and inflluence.
OK. I'm looking at the situation with today's eyes. In this particular case, I can do that, can't I? I don't see it. They didn't?
So it comes back to why and how the slaveocracy expected expansion to solve their very present problems. It doesn't make sense to me. I'd appreciate any and all explanations.
If this is your question, I was not specifically answering it. I was just giving my watered down views on the gist of the slavery in the territories issue.
As for your question, I don't think I can address it, since I don't really see that a "slaveocracy" was in charge. I don't even know what a slaveocracy means here. And I don't say that to be flippant.
But if by slaveocracy you mean polical leaders from the slave states, I can say this. It all gets very confusing to me. On the one hand, some say that it was necessary to increase the territory into which slavery could be established in order to save and protect their peculiar institution. And at the same time, those same folk also argue that decreasing the territory within which slavery could be expected to exist, by the act of secession, was also necessary to save slavery. I can't satisfactorily wrap my mind around both ends of that one at the same time.
Maybe my mind is too simplistic.
But I see that the grabbing of territory, to add to one side or the other, as the strategic goal of those seeking for advantage and greater influence within the legislative halls of the general government. It was really just a continuation of the debate that started in the constitutional convention and resulted in the original 3/5 rule as well as the differing criteria for determing each state's senate and house representation. In our system, representation equals political power. Pretty pure and simple.
What I do not see is large numbers of slaveholders moving west in order to seize those territories for the purpose of adding to the south's political clout. I can understand their moving to new ground in Mississippi, Arkansas and East Texas. That's economic.
I do not see them moving in droves to Utah, Kansas, Nebraska and New Mexico. That would take a degree of patriotism one simply doesn't find -- even then.
What I do not see is large numbers of slaveholders moving west in order to seize those territories for the purpose of adding to the south's political clout.
Quite a dilemma. The Southern politicians wanted more clout. But who in their right mind would want to leave the Southland for such God-forsaken places?
On the other hand, Northern folk naturally couldn't wait to relocate into more inhapitable territory...
Simplicity during discussion is a desirable trait and often leads to the very crux of a point. Simple thought tends to circumnavigate the 'can't see the forest because of the trees' phenomena.
Sectional differences were a given during conception of this Country and it's inheritance culminated into war in 1861. Economic dominance required majority rule. The admission of new states as free or slave became important as each respective sections chance for majority rule, only. The South realized it's loss of sectional rights/self-rule and petitioned peacefully to leave this Union. Slavery expansion West purely was a fight for economic dominance via political power.
Quite a dilemma. The Southern politicians wanted more clout. But who in their right mind would want to leave the Southland for such God-forsaken places?
On the other hand, Northern folk naturally couldn't wait to relocate into more inhapitable territory...
Hal
That, Hal, was my point. Not only were they godforsaken places, but they would not support the kind of agriculture preferred in the south.
On the other hand, Northern folk cared only that they could get their 160 acres, feed the cow that gave their children milk, feed the horse that would pull the plow, keep alive the chickens that gave them eggs and meat, and raise whatever the earth and the rain would permit.
Whether these pioneers came from Pennsylvania, Ireland, Norway, Holland, or Belgium is of no consequence. They came for the freedom to plant whatever would grow and they had no thought of owning someone to do their work. They came in large numbers and they died in large numbers. And they carved out a nation that is envied and hated because it is rich and powerful.
Which is also my point, Rob. Political power is important, but I haven't seen yet where political power could be achieved by moving into states that could not support slavery in order to gain that political power. Perhaps you can enlighten me.
Ole
When a state became a 'free' state, more representation to Congress with loyalty to that view provided the political power (votes) needed to dictate legislation; the majority rule, 'rule' . Southernern folk saw the writing on the wall. I believe the forementioned states could indeed utilize slaves. Diversity of economic focus to Southern entrepreneurs is entirely possibile.
Please don't count me as a specialist on the matter. This, however should be very obvious. ;-) This is only my humble opinion.
But nobody was rushing to populate those states with the idea that they could gain another voice or two in congress.
That the aforementioned states might have found some benefit in slaves is a far piece from given. I don't buy it. If you do, then please change my mind.
At the risk of offending Hal, I will say again that I see no evidence that the slaveocracy had any inclination toward any kind of business outside of growing cotton.
If they'd have applied their industry to growing wheat, we'd likely not be having this discussion. Mining, smelting, spinning, weaving, banking, and on and on were available to them. They'd have gotten the same ration about doing it with slaves, but it was there.
At the risk of offending Hal, I will say again that I see no evidence that the slaveocracy had any inclination toward any kind of business outside of growing cotton.Ole
No offense at all.
But again, your use of "slaveocracy" presupposes what I consider to be several fallacies. So, it it difficult for me to discuss your point.
The Southern politicians wanted to keep from falling under the domination of the northern states. But the same disadvantages that resulted in them losing the eventual shooting war with those states, were the very disadvantages that would keep them from winning the fight for slavery in the new territories.
And unlike many Southern politicians of the day, I don't think the climate and geography of the west had anything to do with slavery's status there. It was simply a matter of practical things. Like numbers. The North had them, the South didn't. And things like economics. Wealthy southern slave owners had little incentive to pack up the plantation and head for Nebraska to start from scratch. Poor southerners might, but they didn't have the slaves to carry with them there. On the other hand, there was no shortage of northerners itching to grab some land out west and make a new life for themselves.
So the outcome was unavoidable. The South was going to lose influence in the general government as the union expanded. And being dominated by the North was not palatable to the South.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Sectional power 
Linear Mode
