No (@KevinHarris1488)

@TheAnomalousHost Indeed, plantations comprised a large part of the economy, just as factory farms do here in America today, and like today you see agriculture corporations with the largest voices in policy decisions allowing all manner of anti-farming economic policies because they can bear the burden of them whilst the small family farm cannot. It's like Walmart supporting raising minimum wage politically so as to put small businesses out of business. Much of what the plantations supported politically was detrimental only to the small freeholder farmer and not really to them. Many freeholder farmers opposed slavery themselves, because it gave an unfair advantage to the large plantations they were competing with economically. But again, please understand and fact check this, the abolition of slavery was for the new States in the West, there was no movement politically to end slavery in the South, or the North. There were abolitionists that wanted to free slaves in the South, and North, but there was no political will to do that. In the North for that matter there was quite a bit of slavery as well. The Iroquois nation were some of the largest slave holders outside of the South. And again (and you can fact check this) the emancipation proclamation only freed Southern slaves. Slavery persisted long after the proclamation in the North.