In addition to the other points made in response to your question, a national law abolishing slavery would have needed to pass the US Senate, where each state got two votes, regardless of population. By the time abolition was something that might plausibly have passed the popular vote, the Southern states had formed a unified bloc on the issue. Admission of new states into the Union was explicitly evaluated on the basis of the balance of the Senate until this principle came into too much conflict with the principle of popular sovereignty.
a national law abolishing slavery
I was thinking state laws. It doesn’t seem like a national issue, and it was banned in several states pretty early.
By the time abolition was something that might plausibly have passed the popular vote, the Southern states had formed a unified bloc on the issue.
The question isn’t why the north didn’t outvote the south. It’s why the south voted against it in the first place.
In addition to the other points made in response to your question, a national law abolishing slavery would have needed to pass the US Senate, where each state got two votes, regardless of population. By the time abolition was something that might plausibly have passed the popular vote, the Southern states had formed a unified bloc on the issue. Admission of new states into the Union was explicitly evaluated on the basis of the balance of the Senate until this principle came into too much conflict with the principle of popular sovereignty.
I was thinking state laws. It doesn’t seem like a national issue, and it was banned in several states pretty early.
The question isn’t why the north didn’t outvote the south. It’s why the south voted against it in the first place.