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

To: DiogenesLamp

What I discovered is that slavery could not have spread. Neither Cotton nor Tobacco will grow in any of the territories slavery could have expanded to, at least not for another 60 years or so it would take to make modern irrigation pumps.

The simple truth is that in 1860, slavery could not spread. It was literally impossible.


Those are your statements which are incorrect. Plenty to do in the west and the use of slaves would save money. Shipping, Mining, constuction, farming, cattle sheep and so on.

The problem is that for 25 years the south was fighting to do one and one state admissions. That would be one slave and one free state to keep the balance in the congress so that slavery would not be abolished.

When Lincoln ran he was not for continuing one and one admissions and the south was worried. Thats why southerners tried to assassinate him at the Baltimore train station when he switched trains coming to DC for the first inauguration. Pinkerton unraveled the plot and probably saved Lincoln’s life.

But stay there was no use for slaves is inaccurate and a false assumption tying that use to just tobacco and cotton.


251 posted on 05/27/2019 8:26:06 PM PDT by morphing libertarian ( Use Comey's Report; Indict Hillary now; build Kate's wall. --- Proud Smelly Walmart Deplorable)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 247 | View Replies ]


To: morphing libertarian
No. If slaves were financially viable in the territories, they would have been there. It's really that simple.

When enough people are the same kind of nuts, they aren’t nuts.

Bullsh*t. If you had bothered to spend an actual 5 seconds contemplating his, you would realize that with 15 slave states in the Union, it would take an additional 45 states in the Union to abolish slavery. 3/4ths vote for amendments, remember?

Slavery wasn't going anywhere, and all the bullsh*t i've heard over the years about "expanding" it is just that. Bullsh*t.

The facts of the case are this. New York and Washington DC had acquired enough power in congress to control virtually al the south's export production and import money. They had rigged the system so the south was paying the vast majority of all the taxes, while also enriching the New York power barons.

Allowing any other state to elect representatives that were allied with the Southern states might break up this flow of money they had rigged, and they were *NEVER* going to allow that to happen.

The South was producing 3/4ths of all trade with Europe, and New York and Washington DC people were getting rich off of it. So long as they could keep control of congress, they could make sure the South remained their milk cow. Southern independence threatened to break up this little money game, and *THAT* is why the North went to war.

Lincoln offered them even further protection for slavery, but it didn't change their minds at all. It did prove one thing. The Northern states did not give a crap about the continuation of slavery. And why not? They were making more money off of slavery than were the Southern states!

256 posted on 05/27/2019 8:44:15 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no o<ither sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 251 | 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