By 1860, public opinion had shifted enough from 1783 that northerners were no longer willing to compromise on fugitive slaves, or on the expansion of slavery into new territories. Two points.
First point. There was no compromise on the issue of fugitive slaves. The US Constitution REQUIRED they be returned to their masters. The only choice states had was whether they were going to obey constitutional law, or refuse to obey constitutional law. (Which is rebellion.)
Second Point. Slavery was not going to "expand." There was no place where plantation slavery could go to add new cotton crops beyond where it already existed.
This is not absolutely true. A teeny portion of southern Kansas can grow cotton in modern times, but it doesn't amount to much in the larger cotton crops, and there is no guarantee it could have grown cotton then.
Cotton cannot be grown in any other territory in 1860. It was actually impossible. No cotton, no "expansion" of slavery into the territories.
The whole thing it appears, was a lie created for the purpose of keeping the Southern representation a minority in Congress. The entity most responsible for spreading this claim of "slavery expansion" was the "Free Soil Party."
Which was headquartered in New York New York.
It wasn't in Kansas. it wasn't even in Chicago. It was in the city which stood the most to gain by keeping the Southern representation in Congress as small as possible.
It was a thousand miles away from the territory in question.
There wasn’t yet a majority for abolition,
And there never was going to be in this era. They wouldn't have been able to even pass the 13th amendment without putting guns in the backs of legislators and forcing them to vote for this thing which all the Northern side has been claiming ever since the South was fighting to prevent.
We are led to believe that the Southern states fought only to keep slavery, and yet they would simply give it up willingly by a vote?
No. Without duress, it was impossible to reach the required 3/4ths majority to pass the 13th amendment.
All the Southern states which voted for it were simply puppets of the DC government, and they were voting as they were ordered to do instead of espousing the actual will of the people.
That is *NOT* how the founders meant for amendments to be passed. When they are coerced, they are illegitimate.
DiogenesLamp:
"Second Point. Slavery was not going to "expand." There was no place where plantation slavery could go to add new cotton crops beyond where it already existed." And yet, in the 1850s slavery was lawful in several western territories, including Kansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico/Arizona, Nebraska & Utah.
How many of those were admitted as "slave states" would effect the voting powers of Democrats in Washington, DC.
DiogenesLamp: "No. Without duress, it was impossible to reach the required 3/4ths majority to pass the 13th amendment.
All the Southern states which voted for it were simply puppets of the DC government, and they were voting as they were ordered to do instead of espousing the actual will of the people."
Here's the real truth: there was no "duress" or "coersion" because all of those who had declared themselves no longer US citizens were not permitted to vote to elect representatives to ratify the 13th, 14th & 15th Amendments.
A few years later, when those self-declared Confederates were again permitted to vote, they elected Democrats who effectively nullified those amendments for most of the next 100 years. ![]()