The article was interesting but rather unfair to Douglas and history. Douglas' weakness was not his intelligence but the boundaries in which it was applied. But

The article was interesting but rather unfair to Douglas and history. Douglas' weakness was not his intelligence but the boundaries in which it was applied. But the greatest flaw of this - and most analyses of the antebellum era - is that it does not sympathize with the problems of the past. In 1840, every step of cotton production involved human or animal power. There would be no technological solution delivered in time to avert a crisis. Consider the following possibilities if abolition had won a bloodless political victory - 1) former slaves compensated for their labor at market rates = US cotton production no longer economically viable, requiring a huge readjustment (i.e. recession.) And / or 2) slaves owners receiving compensation under amendment 5 of US Constitution = probably bankrupting the country. Stated more simply, the abolitionist position was ultimately a question of whose back would bear the burden of emancipation. The other fear - of whites whose labor was not cost-competitive in slave states, also could not be ignored in 1840. Adding to this was the stream of European migrants - who were also poor - into the North, whose only realistic choice was to move West. So, fellow HNers, what would you do in such a situation? Taking unilateral military action off the table of course. Without compromise, would the North been able to handle the South better in 1840 than 1860? Keep in mind our military strength relative to Mexico and Canada was not as lopsided as it is today. A political rupture in 1840 might have proved fatal as opportunists took advantage - consider how much blood France had to spill fighting off enemies after its revolution. The war did provide two political benefits - it mostly settled the slavery question, and it did not shift the burden entirely upon the South; the North had to put a little of its own skin in the game.