Why Slavery Was Not Allowed to Head West

Money, land, and politics seem to be the leading cause for most problems in history. Until the eve of the War Between the States, slaves were considered property. The right to private property was protected by the Constitution (even institution of slavery) and understood as a right that could not be infringed upon according to Natural Law. However, most Southerners knew that the new western territories would not be suitable for traditional plantation-style slavery. Because of this and the Industrial Revolution, many foretold of its inevitable end. This would eventually make a slave owner’s property worthless and freedom for the slaves would soon follow.

Jefferson Davis opposed the Northern use of the term “the extension of slavery;” he felt that expression was misleading.¹ It was not the South’s intention to extend slavery, in fact the movement of slavery into the western states would be a blessing for those in servitude. He said:

The question was merely whether the slaveholder should be permitted to go with his slaves, into territory (the common property of all) into which the non-slaveholder could go with his property of any sort. There was no proposal nor desire on the part of Southern States to reopen the slave trade, which they had been foremost in suppressing, or to add to the number of slaves….Indeed, if emancipation was the end to be desired, the dispersion of the negroes over a wider area among additional Territories, eventually to become States, and in climates unfavorable to slave labor, instead of hindering, would have promoted this object by diminishing the difficulties in the way of ultimate emancipation.²

Political representation would be one reason why Southerners would want to take their slaves with them out west. According to the three-fifths clause of the Constitution, “every five slaves [would] account for three persons for purposes of determining the number of congressional seats in each state.”³ If the South would be allowed to take their slaves into the new states, they could quickly gain stronger control of the government and promote State’s Rights. This means the Republican Party’s agenda for a strong central government, central banks, corporate welfare, etc. would fall under attack.

Here in lies the cause of the war, the question over central government or limited government. This also explains why slavery would come under attack by the Lincoln administration when the South seceded. As long as the South was part of the Union and paying their taxes, all was well. The Republican Party would come to oppose slavery, “but not on moral grounds.”⁴

So in the end, the war was about money, land, and politics. The North wanted to tax and control the Nation’s money to push their agenda forward, while the South wanted to protect the people’s right to keep their money and property. Big government won, yet economic slavery still persists.

Footnotes 

1.       Crocker III, H. W. "The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Civil War." 8. Washington D.C.: Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2008. 

2.       Ibid. 

3.       DiLorenzo, Thomas J. "The Real Lincoln." 23. New York: Three Rivers Press, 2002.

4.       Ibid, 24.