Replies

Nevertheless, with Southern Democrats control over the national Democrat party, their rule was much more stable, made so by their common commitment to slavery.

You would have us believe that they controlled the Congress, and had a total commitment to slavery, but for some reason didn't bother voting on a law to extend it to the territories?

Either they didn't have a "commitment" or they didn't have "control."

Your two goofy theories contradict each other, so you will have to pick which one you want to keep, and shoot the other poor bastard in the head.

Let us know which of the two turns out to be the lucky survivor. :)

DiogenesLamp: "You would have us believe that they controlled the Congress, and had a total commitment to slavery, but for some reason didn't bother voting on a law to extend it to the territories?
Either they didn't have a "commitment" or they didn't have "control." "

But they did, it was the 1850 Compromise which, among other things, defeated the Wilmot Proviso which would have outlawed slavery in US territories.

Of course slavery was an emotional issue which could sometimes override partisan loyalties.
But more mundane Washington matters such as specific tariff rates, government spending allocations or navigation rules were more subject to regular order and the power of Southern committee chairmen, the finance committee for example.