Obfuscation of history is the privilege of the Victors. The slavery issue was much more complex than merely oppressing a few million black field hands, so essential to producing the labor intensive, and extremely valuable, crop of cotton. Each slave counted as 3/5's of a human being; that many votes accruing to their "owner." This compromise satisfied the North that could not countenance a black African's worth being a full 5/5 human. The agrarian South had little industry, was very much Rich or Poor. Its population was stagnant while the industrial North was growing by immigration. More slave states meant more Senators for the South. That was the prime motivation since the South had always held the Presidency by virtue of the Senate majority. The Poor fought for their rights certainly, but primarily because their homes were being invaded by hostile armies. Self defense. A prime field hand cost roughly $1,000.00 - back then! "Owning" meant responsible, costly, caring for them. This fact naturally meant a level of respect, even paternalist fondness, that is impossible for us to imagine today, so brainwashed we have become. It would be stupid, financial suicide to beat and abuse them. Blacks, seen in vast numbers at first Manassas, alarmed the Yankees. They did not understand the dynamic. We still don't. A bit jumbled, sorry.....
You forgot the other dynamic. Fewer slave states in the expanding nation meant more senators for the anti-slave states as well.
By the 1850s the divide was not between the official political parties, it was between slave and anti-slave. Those labels were shorthand for a whole host of positions held by their adherents. Kind of like today when you can say a Democrat will generally be in favor of abortion and a Republican will generally be pro 2nd Amendment.
Southerners were certainly afraid slavery was going to be abolished because they said so and the new Republican Party was explicitly anti-slavery. But many also had a belief that being anti-slavery was just an excuse they used to gain political control. A little like we accuse the anti-abortion people of drumming up the fear to get out the vote with clueless women. Do we really believe that Joe Biden and crew care that much about abortion or do we think they are using the issue to get more power and control?
And guys like Tarqueen love to point to Lincoln’s words that he would respect slavery. Except his party was explicitly anti-slavery and ending it was officially part of their platform. Think about today, do we believe Joe Biden, Obama, and Kamala when they say that they support the 2nd Amendment and do not want to take our guns? Of course, not. And every once in a while we’ll get video or a transcript of a speech one of them made in front of supporters where they’ll let the mask drop and say what they really think. Same thing happened with Lincoln. He gave some speeches in abolitionist areas while seeking the nomination that got out and were quite a bit more radical than his more public pronouncements.
The people who believe it was all for the best have to turn it into some great moral crusade to justify all the death and destruction. The older I get as I watch what is happening tells me it was just politics. We weren’t united as a country then and we never will be. There are two competing ideas that cannot coexist. One is for a centralized and all powerful state, and the other is for maximum personal freedom and small government. It may seem strange that in 1860 the side for maximum freedom owned slaves, but it was one of those accidents of history. The issue has been gone for 160 years and yet the divisions remain. If you look at the heart of progressive America where the most radical and extreme policies not only take root but have full support of the populace, look to New England. Massachusetts today is putting up illegals in people’s homes and they are not short of volunteers. If you want to see the heart of more conservative and less intrusive policies, look at old Dixie.
Anyway, that’s the way I see it.
