Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: DoodleDawg; BroJoeK
You and your cohort seem to be the only ones saying it was over slavery.

Here we go again. Another denial that the vast majority of Americans believe and repeat the claim that the war was about slavery.

And what you and your friend continue to ignore about the Corwin Amendment is the fact that while it protected slavery where it existed it did not guarantee the expansion of slavery.

Slavery could not expand within the United States, even if a law to do so had been passed by that Congress which BroJoeK says was under the Control of the Democrats which were committed to slavery.

You couldn't set up plantations in the territories because slave intensive cash crops wouldn't grow there.

It couldn't grow in west Texas or beyond without modern irrigation systems, so it was impossible to grow it there in the 1860s. This whole allegation about "expansion" I now think was just a load of propaganda.

Expanding it into the Caribbean (it was already there) or Mexico, would have been outside the prerogative of the US to control anyway, so is therefore irrelevant.

496 posted on 04/24/2018 12:47:20 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 489 | View Replies ]


To: DiogenesLamp
Here we go again. Another denial that the vast majority of Americans believe and repeat the claim that the war was about slavery.

I can't be responsible for what you and the majority of Americans believe in spite of all evidence. Unless, of course, you're saying the South rebelled over slavery. Then you would actually be right on something.

Slavery could not expand within the United States, even if a law to do so had been passed by that Congress which BroJoeK says was under the Control of the Democrats which were committed to slavery.

So what was in it for the South so far as the Corwin Amendment was concerned?

You couldn't set up plantations in the territories because slave intensive cash crops wouldn't grow there.

The majority of slaves never saw the inside of a cotton field.

Expanding it into the Caribbean (it was already there) or Mexico, would have been outside the prerogative of the US to control anyway, so is therefore irrelevant.

But not outside the dreams of the Confederate States.

513 posted on 04/24/2018 3:17:00 PM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 496 | View Replies ]

To: DiogenesLamp; DoodleDawg
DiogenesLamp: "This whole allegation about 'expansion' I now think was just a load of propaganda. "

Well first of all, your map (reproduced below) is yet another crock of nonsense:

This map has nothing whatever to do with 1860 except possibly show where future slavery may have expanded, i.e., west Texas, Arizona and California.

A look at 1860 actual production is more like this:

DiogenesLamp: "Expanding it into the Caribbean (it was already there) or Mexico, would have been outside the prerogative of the US to control anyway, so is therefore irrelevant."

Such an odd thing to say since Southerners made numerous efforts, called "filibusters", to do just that, and even supported Federal government efforts to, for example, purchase Cuba.

Slave holders clearly had their eyes on any and all possibilities for expanding slavery beyond its 1850s limits.

607 posted on 04/28/2018 2:22:20 PM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 496 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson