Similarly, slavery as an institution had no bearing on the socioeconomic systems of the Northern States, but it was quite essential to the Southern States. All the US was (at the time) was a Union of all of those States. The concept didn't really exist at the US level, and insofar as it did exist, it was in the form of an incentive to abolish slavery. The foundational pillars of the United States were simply a Federal union of States with a bicameral legislature, a set of enumerated powers, and a set of limitations on the Federal government. That's it. Just because it did nothing to abolish slavery at its founding does not mean that slavery was itself a foundational pillar of the institution. By that logic, <insert atrocity committed by UN member country> is a foundational pillar of the United Nations. A totally unserious argument.
My question wasn't rhetorical. I actually do not know the history. If monarchy was indeed both socioeconomically important and a deal-breaker for founding the EU to a comparable extent as slavery in the United States, then I would think it's fair to call it a founding pillar.
> Similarly, slavery as an institution had no bearing on the socioeconomic systems of the Northern States, but it was quite essential to the Southern States.
That isn't the impression I've gotten from my admittedly non-expert reading of history, but I'm willing to be shown how I'm wrong. My impression is that the textile industry (which was intimately tied to Southern cotton production) was hugely important to the North for at least 50 years after the northern states had started restricting slavery. And from what I can tell, Pennsylvania was the first of the colonies to "abolish slavery," and that wasn't until 1780 and more importantly it didn't free existing slaves. It abolished importing slaves, and made children subsequently born to slaves indentured servants.
> By that logic, <insert atrocity committed by UN member country> is a foundational pillar of the United Nations. A totally unserious argument.
No, again, it's not about the mere existence of a phenomenon. I'm not claiming that wearing a tricorne hat was a founding pillar of the United States because it was common at the time of founding. I think I've been clear about that.
The disagreement is that it's not accurate to call it a founding pillar even in such cases. "The founding pillar" of most unions has nothing to do with the specifics of members of that union, unless explicitly stated. And in fact, as I pointed out above, the Framers added systems to incentivize its abolition, so not only is it inaccurate to argue that slavery was a foundational pillar, it's arguably the opposite.
We actually have a rich set of literature outlining what the so called "founding pillars" were, and they were the Federalist Papers. The outlined "founding pillars" were (in no particular order): federalism, bicameralism, minority rights, republicanism, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
> My impression is that the textile industry (which was intimately tied to Southern cotton production) was hugely important to the North for at least 50 years after the northern states had started restricting slavery. And from what I can tell, Pennsylvania was the first of the colonies to "abolish slavery," and that wasn't until 1780 and more importantly it didn't free existing slaves. It abolished importing slaves, and made children subsequently born to slaves indentured servants.
There was certainly trade between Southern and Northern States, but the North was overwhelmingly industrialized, whereas the South was an agrarian slave-driven economy. When the Civil War ended, the North continued to prosper, while the South's economy was decimated; in fact when slavery was abolished, the GDP of the US increased(https://www.econlib.org/archives/2014/09/ending_slavery.html).
And although you're correct that Pennsylvania didn't abolish slavery until 1780, the US Constitution wasn't drafted until 1787; until then the States were governed by the Articles of Confederation. By 1787, every single Northern State except New Jersey (1806) had abolished slavery. And FYI, abolition meant freeing existing slaves, not just banning the importation. By 1806, all former slaves in the Northern states were free.
And another FYI, slavery was abolished in the Northern States before it was abolished in France, the UK, and the Netherlands. No reasonable person would call slavery a "founding pillar" of either of those countries.
Um, that's not remotely close to what's being contended here. What we're talking about is tradeoffs; i.e. what do you do when you want to coerce other States to abolish a regime that's politically unpopular in your State, but politically popular in the State in question? You can either do nothing, and let that system continue to exist (in perpetuity), or you can set up a new system that enables us to eventually abolish that institution from the top-down.
You have to consider the alternative: Founders that didn't create a Union, an independent South, and no real incentive or force to act as a check on slavery, and potentially allowing it to exist in the South beyond the 1860's. This is a hypothetical that's pretty easy to imagine considering that those Southern states tried creating a Confederation with slavery literally being enshrined in its Constitution (a "founding pillar", to use your framing) in 1861.
A world in which the South just agrees to join the Union in 1787 and also simply agree to abolish slavery is a fantasy. A world in which the North creates a slavery-free Union without the South is one in which slavery exists in a Confederate constitution well past the 1860's. Given those options, I'll take our reality any day of the year: the one where we created a Union that allowed us to eventually outnumber the South, elect Abraham Lincoln, and abolish slavery once and for all. That was the Founders' gambit, and the Confederates admitted just as much in their Cornerstone Speech I cited above.
Thought experiment: a state that actively uses the death penalty applies to join the EU...
In fact, it should be quite clear from that comment that not only was slavery NOT a foundational pillar of the United States, it was the opposite of a foundational pillar since its abolition was a long-run goal, the Founders placed Federal incentives to drive its abolition, and ultimately hoped that later generations would be able to do so across the entire Union once and for all.