Replies

So no, you would have had an explosion of rage if anyone had attempted to use slaves to do that kind of work. I bet the US government would have stepped in and put a stop to it.

Diogenes, you are daft as ever. Arizona and New Mexico were sparsely settled and had a history of slavery going back to the Spaniards and the Indians. If pro-slavery Southerners got there first, they would have been able to impose slavery and use slaves in the mines and as domestic servants.

The point of getting slavery in the territories was to get the votes in Congress to protect slavery in the areas where slavery was profitable. Missouri was a microcosm of this. There were small areas where cotton-growing and slavery were profitable, but slavery was maintained in other parts of the state to produce proslavery votes in Congress and prevent the state from tipping into abolition.

Indian slaves, and yes, used mostly as domestic servants. Not much profit in that. A black slave in that era cost about $1,000.00 in 1860 dollars. Putting him in a cotton field in Mississippi or Louisiana would bring a significant return on investment. Having him clean horse stables in New Mexico would bring in not much of anything.

That's why if you go look at the Wikipedia entry on "New Mexico Territory" you will see that it mentions there were never more than a dozen black slaves in "New Mexico territory" throughout it's entire existence as a US territory. And this is when "New Mexico territory" spanned from Texas to California.

So if they were valuable in mines, why weren't there more than a dozen slaves in the territory making their owners rich?

The point of getting slavery in the territories was to get the votes in Congress to protect slavery in the areas where slavery was profitable.

Well that's the propaganda anyways, but would it also not protect the Southern states from all other laws that were detrimental to them, but beneficial to the Northern states?

Yes, the point for the Southern states was to have political allies in the government in Washington DC, and this was also the point of the Northern coalition to prevent this from happening, and *LYING* about the possibility of slavery in the territories if it was necessary to help them keep political power.

What it wasn't about is actual slavery. There wasn't going to be any significant slavery in the territories because it was economically unprofitable.

Missouri was a microcosm of this. There were small areas where cotton-growing and slavery were profitable, but slavery was maintained in other parts of the state to produce proslavery votes in Congress and prevent the state from tipping into abolition.

I think this is actually correct. Yes, people try to manipulate politics to create a result that protects their interests.

But the fear of slavery in the territories was just used for manipulation of people who did not know that it wasn't practical. It was all to manipulate voters into supporting the Northern coalition in congress.