Replies

Nonsense, the south wanted to keep their slaves and the only way to do that was ensure there were enough slave states to block an eventual Constitutional amendment to abolish slavery.

Are you amenable to reason, or do you just want to believe stuff because it makes you feel better?

There were 16 slaves states in the Union in 1861. It takes a 3/4ths majority of the states to pass a constitutional amendment. That means whatever number of states are opposed, it takes three times that number to override their objections.

So what is 3 times 16? It's 48. It would take 48 states to override the objection of 16 states. How many states in the Union would that require? We would have to have 16 + 48 states in the Union, which would be 64 states. We don't have 64 states right now!

We had 34 states in 1861. There is no way in hell that 34 states could pass a constitutional amendment abolishing slavery, and if you believe that could happen, you absolutely do not grasp the political situation in that era.

The Corwin Amendment, which does the very opposite of what you think might have happened, would have easily passed had the Southern states voted to ratify it. The United States would have had permanent slavery, thanks to the Northern Republicans who passed that amendment through the House and Senate.

That was the reason they wantd to annex Cuba, expand slavery to Kansas, and maybe annex more of Mexico.

They didn't want to "expand" slavery to Kansas, they wanted Kansas to side with them in congress so that they could roll back the laws that were costing them so much money and benefiting the North at their expense.

Yeah, they wanted Cuba and Mexico for slavery, because slavery was making lots of money for them, so of course they wanted to expand into places that could actually grow cotton and other valuable products.

But you couldn't do any of that in Kansas.

The free states were against expanding slavery.

That's what they told the rubes, but the reality was they were against allowing the South to have any more political power in Washington DC, because they were making *LOTS OF MONEY* by outvoting the South on laws that made them rich at the South's expense.

That’s what the fight was about, slavery.

That's what the Liberals told the stupid people to get them to support it. The fight was over money and power, just like the fight today is not about Illegal immigrants, it's about money and power which they get through keeping the border open and getting census apportionment from the illegals, and illegal votes from the illegals.

If you think the modern fight is about "illegals", you are naive. The *LIBERALS* don't care about the illegals, just like the *LIBERALS* didn't care about the slaves. They are just useful tools to get them power and money, and that is all the *LIBERALS* care about.

All the other arguments: tariffs, the Pacific railroad, homesteading, etc. were offshoots of the slavery fight.

They were offshoots of the *MONEY* fight. If your Northern *LIBERALS* cared so much about the slaves, why did they vote to keep them in chains forever? (See Corwin Amendment.)

They literally voted to perpetuate slavery indefinitely. They weren't trying to free slaves. They were trying to keep the South controlled so it couldn't vote it's way out of the financial system they created, but they didn't actually care about the slaves at all.

Yes, Sumner did insult Brooks’ rlative but as I said the anger and rancor was from the slavery controversy, not about money.

You should read more history. Andrew Jackson shot men for insulting his wife. In those days, an obnoxious mouth would get you killed. People absolutely would not put up with someone talking shit at them.