More than half the population of S. Carolina was slaves. For purposes of argument, say it was exactly half, and that all other proportions of voters to non-voters were exactly the same as other states that did not have slaves. That would mean that a voter in SC would have 1.625 times the representation in congress as the non-slave owning voter in another state. It was worse than that. Large plantations were essentially their own district, and the plantation owner, or his designated substitute was always elected the congressman, and thus he would gain political power from his slaves. With that political power in the state non-slave owners were required to serve in the militia, and the militia was required, by law, to run patrols without pay to search for runaway slaves. So non-slave owners were thus enslaved by wealthy slave owners to further and protect slavery.
That is the system that the southern plutocrats wanted to extend to the territories, and to enforce on the unwilling northern states. Not states rights, but slavery for all to further the demands of the rich.
“That is the system that the southern plutocrats wanted to extend to the territories, and to enforce on the unwilling northern states. Not states rights, but slavery for all to further the demands of the rich”
I’ve read that analysis before in a copy I have of the ‘American Civil War’ by Marx and Engels.
Wasn’t impressed by it the first time coming from the two original marxists.