This idea plays a much bigger role than I appreciated in the debates over slavery in the territories that dominated so much of the US Congress's business during the late 1850s. In fact, both sides seem to have taken it for granted that slavery would never thrive in Nebraska or even Kansas, even if it were legal to own slaves there. (That did not keep them from fighting over the principle of the matter. By that point they wanted to fight.)
I don't understand why this would be. The horrors of slavery already thrived not only in deep south states such as Mississippi and Alabama, but also in border south states like Kentucky and Missouri. The main slave-holding counties in Missouri lay along the namesake river, pretty far north in that state. Conditions couldn't have been that different due west in Kansas, or slightly northwest in Nebraska. And why shouldn't the economics work just as well with a midwestern crop as it did with sugar and tobacco? Never mind working in a factory as slaves did in Richmond's Tredegar Iron Works.
Just to be clear, if this was merely a myth, but one that helped contain the spread of American slavery, I'm glad and grateful. I would just still like to clarify that it's a myth.
Thanks in advance.
I know with the passing Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 that the government left it up to "popular sovereignty" to decide whether Nebraska would have slaves. Originally there were 81 slaves reported in Nebraska, 15 of which were slaves.^1 However they did abolish slavery in the state in 1861.^2 Why? I'm sure there are many reasons; but for the reason of the climate not being favorable for the slave, I highly doubt. For one, why would slave owners care that much for their property if they could make them money?
It just doesn't seem logical or likely that the settlers who voted not to have slavery in their state did so for such a reason.. Could you cite some sources as to where you found this claim? You seem fairly certain when you say,
In fact, both sides seem to have taken it for granted that slavery would never thrive in Nebraska or even Kansas, even if it were legal to own slaves there.
But then you contradict the statement by pointing out that they fought over the territories, if they agreed as you say, would they fight for it?
I've spent much of my undergraduate studies studying slavery and the Civil War and have yet to come across such reasoning. If indeed there is substantial evidence that this was indeed a reason then I would love to know! It would be very interesting if it were the case and someone with knowledge about Nebraska during that time should jump on it to help the rest of us out!
[1] http://nebraskahistory.org/exhibits/we_the_people/slave_or_free.htm
[2] ibid.