American wealth and power emerged despite slavery, not because of it. It was industrialization, free labor, and free markets that made America America.
There seems no practical reason why a Southern frontiersman or settler would want to extend slavery to the West, but perhaps the idea of slavery was like a cultural talisman for such people, an extension of their national identities. Again, of no personal, practical value to them; but if you attacked it, you were attacking their nation and themselves. So naturally they wanted to see it expand westward.
Here's a potential clue: There was much more pro-Union sentiment among hillbilly communities in the South. There is striking evidence of this: The mountainous region of the state of Virginia broke off and became the state of West Virginia. (The University of West Virginia sports teams call themselves "the Mountaineers".) There was much pro-Union sentiment in eastern Tennessee (mountainous) as opposed to western Tennessee. Western Tennessee rolls out into the northern part of the Mississippi Delta, with the city of Memphis having served as an important node in a logistical network that shipped cotton out into global markets. The highest of the Appalachian mountains are in northern Georgia, the setting (I think) for the film "The Free State of Jones" (2017?, with Matthew McConaughey).
Meanwhile, cotton production was concentrated in the "Black Belt," counties far inland the encompassed the shoreline of the primordial seas. The soils in those counties were the most productive; no accident the most important cash crop (cotton) got concentrated in those counties. And, no surprise, slave populations were also concentrated in those counties.
Now, suppose oneself is a blacksmith. Would there be much work available in a Black Belt county? Not obvious, since the plantations will support a lot of skilled slave labor, including blacksmiths. But, was cotton production dominated by these highly integrated enterprises (plantations), or were there yet a lot of smaller holdings that didn't necessarily depend as heavily on slave labor? A formative question in my mind is: Would someone living and working in these counties be concerned with a flood of former slaves coming in to the free labor market post-emancipation? Would that person be concerned about having to compete with these people for work? Alternatively, wouldn't emancipation open up new opportunities to free labor to work on the plantations?
In any case, the hillbillies seem to have /not/ been concerned about new laborers flooding their labor markets. Perhaps their operations were more like family-run businesses and were thus not securing labor in free markets or slave markets to begin with. These people may thus have been more interested in being left alone rather than being pulled in to someone else's fight.
Economy by 1861 favored paid labor over slave labor, many slave owners understood that but their investment was at risk. Not sure about western slave expansion in that slave populations couldn't support much expansion. OTOH, the South felt the Congress was passing laws they felt were harmful.
The 5/8ths compromise was way to recognize slave owner property rights while reducing states representation. Founders clearly wanted slavery to go away and included a curious phrase to end all importation.
Many who fought were convinced of an invasion from the north that had to be countered. But it did split families. Many I suppose felt like a war survivor relative with a gravestone "My country failed me"
There seems no practical reason why a Southern frontiersman or settler would want to extend slavery to the West, but perhaps the idea of slavery was like a cultural talisman for such people, an extension of their national identities. Again, of no personal, practical value to them; but if you attacked it, you were attacking their nation and themselves. So naturally they wanted to see it expand westward.
That's one theory, anyway.
It /is/ a puzzle.
Here's a potential clue: There was much more pro-Union sentiment among hillbilly communities in the South. There is striking evidence of this: The mountainous region of the state of Virginia broke off and became the state of West Virginia. (The University of West Virginia sports teams call themselves "the Mountaineers".) There was much pro-Union sentiment in eastern Tennessee (mountainous) as opposed to western Tennessee. Western Tennessee rolls out into the northern part of the Mississippi Delta, with the city of Memphis having served as an important node in a logistical network that shipped cotton out into global markets. The highest of the Appalachian mountains are in northern Georgia, the setting (I think) for the film "The Free State of Jones" (2017?, with Matthew McConaughey).
Meanwhile, cotton production was concentrated in the "Black Belt," counties far inland the encompassed the shoreline of the primordial seas. The soils in those counties were the most productive; no accident the most important cash crop (cotton) got concentrated in those counties. And, no surprise, slave populations were also concentrated in those counties.
Now, suppose oneself is a blacksmith. Would there be much work available in a Black Belt county? Not obvious, since the plantations will support a lot of skilled slave labor, including blacksmiths. But, was cotton production dominated by these highly integrated enterprises (plantations), or were there yet a lot of smaller holdings that didn't necessarily depend as heavily on slave labor? A formative question in my mind is: Would someone living and working in these counties be concerned with a flood of former slaves coming in to the free labor market post-emancipation? Would that person be concerned about having to compete with these people for work? Alternatively, wouldn't emancipation open up new opportunities to free labor to work on the plantations?
In any case, the hillbillies seem to have /not/ been concerned about new laborers flooding their labor markets. Perhaps their operations were more like family-run businesses and were thus not securing labor in free markets or slave markets to begin with. These people may thus have been more interested in being left alone rather than being pulled in to someone else's fight.
Economy by 1861 favored paid labor over slave labor, many slave owners understood that but their investment was at risk. Not sure about western slave expansion in that slave populations couldn't support much expansion. OTOH, the South felt the Congress was passing laws they felt were harmful.
The 5/8ths compromise was way to recognize slave owner property rights while reducing states representation. Founders clearly wanted slavery to go away and included a curious phrase to end all importation.
Many who fought were convinced of an invasion from the north that had to be countered. But it did split families. Many I suppose felt like a war survivor relative with a gravestone "My country failed me"