Talk:Slave Power

Semi-classic Russel B. Nye article and book on the reality of the Slave Power
I kind of forgot that Russel B. Nye wrote a 1946 article "The Slave Power Conspiracy: 1830-1860" in the journal Science and Society, which was later somewhat incorporated into his 1948 book Fettered Freedom: Civil Liberties and the Slavery Controversy 1830-1860 as chapter 8. Obviously it's not the latest scholarship on the subject, but it still may be of interest (probably more so than anything Charles Beard may have written on the subject, though Beard is the bigger name). His overall evaluation of the reality of the Slave Power is expressed more clearly in the article than the book: AnonMoos (talk) 09:35, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Nye wrote in 1946; "'Was there a Slave Power, and were the abolitionists correct in ascribing to it the evil designs which formed so large and important a part of the abolitionist propaganda? In the sense of the term as used by Wilson, Goodell, Bailey, Garrison, and others -- a secret and highly-organized group with conscious aims of imposing restrictions on traditional liberties -- the Slave Power conspiracy probably had no real existence. … However, it is clear that among Southern leaders there was unity of belief that slavery was a good system, probably the best, and that it should be retained and extended; the events of the period from 1830-1860 showed that in preserving and extending it the South was willing to infringe upon basic civil and personal rights, free speech, free press, free thought, and constitutional liberty. … While the 'conspiracy' of which the abolitionists warned was no doubt a natural alliance of common political and economic interests, its threat to liberty, North and South, was more than idle. …the abolitionists were not so far wrong in believing that its existence seriously jeopardized, for the first time since the founding of the republic, the American tradition.'"

General Complaint

This whole article, and the opening in particular, sounds like original research and analysis, with a point of view no less. The point of view feels like it is attempting to minimize the extent to which the slave interests in the U.S. South was extremely powerful and did promote slavery and undermine compromise at every turn. If the power was merely "perceived," perhaps that should be cited? A reader of this article might imagine there was no popular sentiment against things like enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act, when in fact MORAL sentiment was high. In any event, there are far too many statement here that are not cited and are controversial.Sjlebl (talk) 05:35, 18 May 2020 (UTC)