All Lincoln wanted was to prevent slavery in any territories, future States, which then might become Southern and vote against Northern control of the Treasury and federal legislation. From the anti-slavery perspective this is a highly immoral position. At the time of the Missouri Compromise, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison said that restricting the spread of slavery was a false, politically motivated position. The best thing for the welfare of African Americans and their eventual emancipation was to allow them to spread as thinly as possible.For largely economic reasons, slave states wanted an expansion of slavery to other states so as to increase the market value of a slave. The slave market in officially recognized slave states was already saturated - many children born into slavery were a "surplus" that couldn't be sold because those southern planters who wanted and could afford slaves already had them. For those surplus slaves to have any financial value, demand had to increase - hence the economic need for expansion of slavery. It had nothing to do with spreading slaves "as thinly as possible."
Well, declaring independence would be, among other things, a bid at a “full employment for slaves” situation.
But dealing in sin is going to earn a curse.
For largely economic reasons, slave states wanted an expansion of slavery to other states so as to increase the market value of a slave. The slave market in officially recognized slave states was already saturated - many children born into slavery were a "surplus" that couldn't be sold because those southern planters who wanted and could afford slaves already had them. Thanks for that.
I consider myself reasonably well educated on US history in that time period, and I know about various "Compromises" and "States Rights" issues as the question of whether or not to expand slavery was debated across many decades. However, I confess I never looked at the precise economics of it. I saw it as a philosophical question only. Your points seem very reasonable and add a dimension I had not considered.
I think History is taught very poorly (on purpose). There are aspects to historical events which are blatantly ignored or glossed over. Things are often not quite as the professors like to present.
For largely economic reasons, slave states wanted an expansion of slavery to other states so as to increase the market value of a slave. And your proof for this is what? The fact that it has been repeated endlessly since the 1860s? I decided to investigate this claim, and I found a curious thing. The number one cash crop produced by slavery was Cotton, and Tobacco was second.
Could cotton grow in the territories? I decided to look up a modern map of cotton growing states. Guess what I found?
People in the know have informed me that cotton only grows in west Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California as a consequence of modern motor-driven irrigation systems which weren't possible in the 19th century. In other words, Cotton wouldn't grow in the "territories" for any part of the 19th century.
So what would these slaves do in the territories? Apparently not much. This article about New Mexico territory says this.
"Regardless of its official status, slavery was rare in antebellum New Mexico. Black slaves never numbered more than about a dozen"
There appears to be no market in the territories for slaves, so this makes me wonder why people claimed that it would "expand" into the territories?
I have what I believe is an explanation for what we were told, and it has nothing to do with the practicality of putting slaves in the territories to make profit.
It has to do with the balance of power in Congress in Washington DC, and what this would do to affect the existing money streams feeding New York and Washington DC.