Lincoln: The Founders did not make America racist or slaver. They inherited it that way

PGA Weblog ^

[ProgressingAmerica]

See the Lincoln-Douglas debate #6.

Stephen Douglas:

We then adopted a free State Constitution, as we had a right to do. In this State we have declared that a negro shall not be a citizen, and we have also declared that he shall not be a slave. We had a right to adopt that policy. Missouri has just as good a right to adopt the other policy. I am now speaking of rights under the Constitution, and not of moral or religious rights. I do not discuss the morals of the people of Missouri, but let them settle that matter for themselves. I hold that the people of the slaveholding States are civilized men as well as ourselves; that they bear consciences as well as we, and that they are accountable to God and their posterity, and not to us. It is for them to decide, therefore, the moral and religious right of the slavery question for themselves within their own limits. I assert that they had as much right under the Constitution to adopt the system of policy which they have as we had to adopt ours. So it is with every other State in this Union. Let each State stand firmly by that great Constitutional right, let each State mind its own business and let its neighbors alone, and there will be no trouble on this question. If we will stand by that principle, then Mr. Lincoln will find that this Republic can exist forever divided into free and slave States, as our fathers made it and the people of each State have decided. Stand by that great principle, and we can go on as we have done, increasing in wealth, in population, in power, and in all the elements of greatness, until we shall be the admiration and terror of the world. We can go on and enlarge as our population increase, require more room, until we make this continent one ocean-bound republic.

Abraham Lincoln:

Judge Douglas asks you, "Why cannot the institution of slavery, or rather, why cannot the nation, part slave and part free, continue as our fathers made it forever?" In the first place, I insist that our fathers did not make this nation half slave and half free, or part slave and part free. I insist that they found the institution of slavery existing here. They did not make it so, but they left it so because they knew of no way to get rid of it at that time. When Judge Douglas undertakes to say that, as a matter of choice, the fathers of the Government made this nation part slave and part free, he assumes what is historically a falsehood. More than that: when the fathers of the Government cut off the source of slavery by the abolition of the slave-trade, and adopted a system of restricting it from the new Territories where it had not existed, I maintain that they placed it where they understood, and all sensible men understood, it was in the course of ultimate extinction; and when Judge Douglas asks me why it cannot continue as our fathers made it, I ask him why he and his friends could not let it remain as our fathers made it?

The Founding Fathers could not undo in just a few short years what the King spent over a century doing.

Because of the false teachings of progressivism, it has become one of the greatest of ironies that the "Great Emancipator" was also one of the most ardent defenders of the Founding Fathers - specifically on the topic of slavery.

[DiogenesLamp]

You are missing the obvious. The Texans did it anyway. So too would have anyone else if there was a profit in it, or do you not grasp how profit motivates people to break laws or customs?

There was no profit in it in New Mexico territory (which means Arizona and part of Nevada too.)

There was no profit in it in any of the territories, except perhaps a tiny bit of Kansas.

[ProgressingAmerica]

"You need to read more.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Era"

Your link:"Historians have moved back in time emphasizing the Progressive reformers at the municipal and state levels in the 1890s."

I'm not sure what you think "at about 1900" means, which is what I said in post 125. Or what "which started roughly at 1900", which is what I said at 86. That means about 1896, 1897, etc. Could even be 1892. Somewhere in the mid 1890s is "about 1900".

You need to read more, not I. You didn't even read your own link.

Fabian Freeway - High Road to Socialism in the USA

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2970415/posts

By trying to connect progressivism to the civil war, you are tilting at windmills. Phantoms.

[DiogenesLamp]

Of course you don’t care because it doesn’t support your argument.

What two relative nobodies thought or did has little significance in the larger scope of things. Jefferson Davis barely matters, because he was not driving events. I can think of very little that traces back to him that has any significance more so than when the Federal prosecutors dropped all charges against him.

The Declaration of Independence is based on the natural law of the right of rebellion.

Did a quick search of the document. The word "rebel" or "rebellion" is not in there at all. The idea of Independence is only "rebellion" to a nation that does not believe that people should be allowed independence from a larger Union.

We were in rebellion to England, which did not recognize any right to independence, but Southern states leaving the Northern states is not "rebellion", because this nation was founded on the right of Independence.

What was "rebellion", was fighting against states seeking Independence. This was completely inconsistent with the meaning of our own founding document. It was in fact, a great fear of the time, listed in Anti-Federalist paper #29. They were reassured this wouldn't happen, yet Lincoln made it happen.

Even Lincoln acknowledged this when he was a congressman.

Lincoln said that any people anywhere had a sacred right to independence. He said words to this effect twice. Once in 1848, (About Texas leaving Mexico) and again in 1852. (About Hungarian independence.)

To postulate that a "right" is only a "right" if you can beat someone in combat, makes it not a right. It is "Might makes right", which is like the very opposite of a higher principle. It's just brutal force, and if that's all it ever is, there is no need for flowery words or written laws. It's simply becomes strong man dominance.

Now apply your idea to slaves. My position is that slaves had a right to be free, even if it was beyond their power to defeat their masters. You see, their rights had nothing to do with their strength, and everything to do with their humanity.

Weak people have rights too. "Rights" are not just for the strong, they are for everyone.

People, including you and me, also have a right to look at the causes and reasons put forth by both sides and make a moral determination on who is in the right and who is in the wrong.

Do you get a moral veto for laws you don't like?

My position is that laws mean what they mean until they are changed in a lawful manner. Even those laws I disagree with should be respected until they are replaced.

We don't get to come along and say "I think this law is immoral, so I accept people breaking it."

The Confederates were completely within the law in doing what they did. They held a vote. The majority of their people chose to leave, and they left.

The same thing with their holding of slaves. It was completely lawful at the time they did it. The states could have pressured their congressmen and senators into passing a law to change this, but they never did.

People coming along and claiming "the law that allows them to do this is immoral, so we should not tolerate this", are making themselves into little dictators trying to force other people to do what they want.

If you are unfamiliar with this concept, see "slavery."

Small groups of people who believe something do not get to override what the majority chooses to do. The onus is on the minority opinion holders to convince the majority to their way of thinking, not to declare their position to be the law over the objections of the majority.

[Pikachu_Dad]

Oh look, cotton-brained Slo-Joe makes a tiny concession.

...except perhaps a tiny bit of Kansas...

A wee bit of Kansas is it?

The democrat slavers had been fighting for control of Kansas for ten years before they started their insurrection. That would probably explain why you have avoided mentioning Bloody Kansas up til now.

Oh, and I had already mentioned the obvious - the Texas government had allowed and encouraged slavery.

But carry on, carry on with your cotton-brained fantasies. Leave the real world to the adults.

[OIFVeteran]

“...That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form,...”

You can very rarely abolish something with kind thoughts and words. We may all agree that there are natural rights given by the creator, but for most of human history only a small percentage of people enjoyed such rights. The rest were peasants, serfs, or slaves with little to no say in what happened to them.

In this world might does make right. Without winning the revolution by force of arms most of the founding fathers would have been hung as traitors. Sadly not every group that has the might has a good cause and not every group that doesn’t have the might have a bad cause, and vice versa. When viewing these events in history it is up to us to use our brains to make a determination on who was in the right and who wasn’t.

There is no mention of secession in our constitution. No mention at all of any mechanism for a state to leave the union. But it does state that congress has the power “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;.”

On top of that Presidents prior to Lincoln had already set the precedent of using power in either words or deeds. First being George Washington when he called out and lead the militia to suppress the Whiskey rebellion. Then later when Andrew Jackson threatened to march down to South Carolina during the nullification crisis of 1832 and hang the leaders that were talking of secession.

[DiogenesLamp]

The democrat slavers had been fighting for control of Kansas for ten years before they started their insurrection. That would probably explain why you have avoided mentioning Bloody Kansas up til now.

Yeah, they might have gotten a few hundred slaves into Kansas to work that tiny little bit in South West Kansas where they can grow cotton today.

Nearly half a million in Mississippi, but that Kansas cotton would have really been super important or something.

I think i've explained this to you, but in case you didn't understand it the first half dozen times I mentioned it, I'll say it again. It's about political power in Washington DC, not about making profit from slavery in Kansas.

If Kansas allied with the slave state delegation, they could help them get laws that would share some of the tax burden with the Northern states. If Kansas went with the New York coalition, the laws that had the Southern states paying 73% of all the taxes in the nation would remain in place.

Or did you know about that? You don't like slavery, but how about tax slavery? Is it reasonable for one group of people to pay 73% of the taxes, while the other group, with 4 times the population, only pays 27% of the taxes?

Oh, and I had already mentioned the obvious - the Texas government had allowed and encouraged slavery.

If there was profit in it, the New Mexico government would have done exactly the same. I wouldn't think I would have to explain profit motive to people on a conservative website, but the reality of life is that profit will make things happen.

But carry on, carry on with your cotton-brained fantasies. Leave the real world to the adults.

What you have now is a cotton brained fantasy, and you more than most need to grow up and stop acting like a child. Do you think your name calling has any useful effect on my responses to you? Do you think you win an argument by calling people silly names?

Again, grow the f*** up. Your preference to use name calling in the place of argument doesn't impress me at all.

I don't think it impresses anyone else either.

[DiogenesLamp]

There is no mention of secession in our constitution.

The Declaration was only 11 years old when the Constitution was written. It articulates an absolute right to secession. Do you think the founders had forgotten it after 11 years?

Even so, three states specifically assert the right to take back their powers from the Federal government in their ratification statements. They are New York, Virginia (the two most powerful states at that time) and Rhode Island.

No one objected to their inclusion of this language in their ratification statement, and the fact that these three states explicitly stated that secession would always be an option for them indicates that neither they, or anyone else saw the prospect of taking back their power as a contradiction to the US Constitution.

There is quite a lot of proof that the founders always saw secession as ultimately legal, and very little proof that the constitution forbade it.

“To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;.”

So if you call a tail a leg, it becomes a leg? (to Paraphrase Lincoln's famous quip.)

Secession is not "rebellion." When an entire state votes to leave, calling it "insurrection" is a lie. Calling it "rebellion" is a lie.

Lincoln only called it such to unlock powers he would need to keep the South under control. He literally called a tail a leg, and then locked up anyone who disagreed.

[x]

Your Friday posts to me were saner and more sensible than most of what you post here. I don't know if you are actually learning things or just aren't feeling well. A few comments, though:

I suspect a lot of cherry picked evidence was provided in this effort to influence them.

"Cherry-picked" implies something unfair was going on. It's true that abolitionists did choose the facts that put slavery in the worst light, but the most even-handed presentation of information might still make people without a personal interest one way or the other find slavery abhorrent.

My understanding is that Julia Ward Howe presented "good" and "bad" slaveowners in Uncle Tom's Cabin, but the result was to put slavery in a very bad light, because the "good" didn't outweigh the "bad" in many Northerners' minds.

>> If you did hate Black people, you might well thank slaveowners for keeping them far way and in chains.
> I think that if anyone thought that, they were very few indeed.

Enough people thought that way to give Democrats wins. Look at the slogan they used after the war:

The dominant reason for keeping slavery out of the territories was to keep more congressional representatives away from allying with the Southern states.

And the drive to allow slavery in the territories was what? Noble and disinterested? No, it was to ensure support for slavery in Congress.

You have a habit of making everything Northerners did self-interested and ignoring the self-interest of Southern slaveowners.

I consider myself to be a free person. I want to live in a society of free people. Therefore, I would not want to live in a society with slavery.

I don't see how that is more self-interested or ignoble than wanting to live in a society where I could buy and sell and work slaves.

[DiogenesLamp]

For example, Slo cannot fathom why the slavers were trying to expand into the territories.

I know fully well why they were trying to make certain the territories were slave states. You are the one that seems unclear on the reasons.

As I've pointed out to you, they couldn't grow much in the way of cash crops in the territories, so they must have had some reason for wanting the territories to become "slave" states.

Representation in Congress. That's it. That's all it was ever about. It's no coincidence that the "Free Soil" party was founded in New York city instead of Podunk Kansas where the actual land was. It was founded in New York to insure that the territories would have congressional representation that would side with the New York wealth making system already in place.

So long as no more "slave" states could be added, New York kept the existing laws that funneled 230 million dollars per year of Southern produced money through the pockets of New York and Washington DC.

Everybody likes a law that forces other people to send money into their pockets.

And they've still got naive people like you believing it had something to do with morals. :)

[DiogenesLamp]

By trying to connect progressivism to the civil war, you are tilting at windmills. Phantoms.

You don't think Northern Liberals were "Progressive" in 1860?

Of the two sides, which do you think better fits the pattern of "progressive"?

[DiogenesLamp]

And the drive to allow slavery in the territories was what?

To get representation in Congress, which would give them the power to change laws that were hurting them.

The existing status quo benefited the New York coalition. It had the effect of causing all Southern trade to be controlled by people in New York, with Washington getting it's cut at the docks.

The result was that the Southern states were paying the vast majority of the taxes, even though they had 1/4th of the population of the country.

Now you may say that both sides are equally motivated by greed, but I think it is a very different thing for people to want to keep more of their lawfully earned money than it is for someone to use their numerical majority to take lawfully earned money from other people through the use of the law.

The North East has always favored tax and spend policies, and the 1860s were no different. They most benefited from government spending, and they used the money redirected from the South to build their industries and infrastructure.

You have a habit of making everything Northerners did self-interested and ignoring the self-interest of Southern slaveowners.

I am not ignoring the self interest of the Southern slave owners. I am simply pointing out that while their production system was immoral, it was legal under the laws of the United States, and they were legally entitled to the money for the goods their system produced.

In terms of using the force of law to confiscate the wealth of others, the North Easterners were the aggressors. They liked the system that had evolved to their advantage and which had Southern production flowing through their own pockets. They liked it very much.

I consider myself to be a free person. I want to live in a society of free people. Therefore, I would not want to live in a society with slavery.

In 1860, your choices were to leave, convince enough people, many of which were making money off of slavery, to get rid of it, or you had to tolerate it. The rules to amend the constitution to abolish slaver required 3/4ths of the states to agree, and this was simply impossible to obtain at that time.

It was only accomplished in 1868 by a kabuki theater pretense, with everyone accepting the pretense as real.

I don't see how that is more self-interested or ignoble than wanting to live in a society where I could buy and sell and work slaves.

The New York coalition may have claimed to be motivated by opposition to slavery, but considering the Corwin Amendment was passed by five Northern states, and Seward assured everyone that he could deliver New York's vote on the matter, it becomes clear that the powers that be in the North did not have a problem with actual slavery, but merely used it as an excuse to gain and hold power.

Slavery was astro turf for both sides. The Northerners used it to rouse their voters, and so did the Southerners, but there really was no danger of any significant degree of slavery in any of the territories. As I said, Pennsylvania and Delaware probably had more slaves than the territories ever would.

[x]

Now you're back to nutty. I don't know if that's a good thing or not.

The result was that the Southern states were paying the vast majority of the taxes, even though they had 1/4th of the population of the country.

*Sigh* We both know that isn't true. Too bad you don't want to admit it.

I think it is a very different thing for people to want to keep more of their lawfully earned money than it is for someone to use their numerical majority to take lawfully earned money from other people through the use of the law.

…

I am simply pointing out that while their production system was immoral, it was legal under the laws of the United States, and they were legally entitled to the money for the goods their system produced.

If you are making money by immoral means, constitutional, democratically elected governments may decide to disadvantage your immoral business. That happens all the time.

The North East has always favored tax and spend policies, and the 1860s were no different. They most benefited from government spending, and they used the money redirected from the South to build their industries and infrastructure.

Always? From about 1890 to 1960 or so, the Northeastern states were for less taxes and less spending than the Western or Southern states. During the Progressive era, New England was anything but a bastion of progressivism.

In 1860, your choices were to leave, convince enough people, many of which were making money off of slavery, to get rid of it, or you had to tolerate it. The rules to amend the constitution to abolish slaver required 3/4ths of the states to agree, and this was simply impossible to obtain at that time.

Nice Northerners were willing to let Southerners make up their own minds about what they wanted, but weren't opposed to disadvantaging slavery in the competition with free labor. I'm not sure they really did disadvantage slaveowners that much, but slaveowners who complained that that was unfair didn't realize how good a deal they were getting.

The New York coalition may have claimed to be motivated by opposition to slavery, but considering the Corwin Amendment was passed by five Northern states, and Seward assured everyone that he could deliver New York's vote on the matter, it becomes clear that the powers that be in the North did not have a problem with actual slavery, but merely used it as an excuse to gain and hold power.

Once again, you aren't being logical. Northerners were willing to make concessions to the slaveowners to save the Union. And before the Civil War, most Republicans believed that the South should be able to decide whether it wanted slavery or not.

That didn't mean they didn't care. They just recognized that it would be too hard to abolish slavery nationally. It would have to be done on a state-by-state basis. The South would have to abolish slavery itself. I guess just trying to be nice just doesn't pay off.

But in fact, the Corwin Amendment wasn't ratified. Lincoln and the government may not have been big advocates for Corwin's plan. It might just have been a way of keeping the country together - a last minute "Hail Mary pass." Look back over history and you will find leaders making all kinds of last-minute offers in order to preserve the peace. Those offers aren't a reflection of what those leaders would prefer under ideal circumstances.

[Pikachu_Dad]

Oh poor Slo-Joe...

And they've still got naive people like you believing it had something to do with morals.

Let’s go through your ridiculous and highly flawed attempt at logic.

You have finally agreed that they were seeking to make the territories into ‘slave-states’. Good, that is a very small start on the long road back to reality !

But then you posit the claim that they would be ‘slave-states’ in name only. For the reason that there no good land to grow cotton and therefore no profit.

So then the state would only be a ‘slave-state’ by name and not reality.

Anti-slavery officials would be elected; slavery would be banned; and New York would (in your fantasy world) be in control.

So they must make the ‘slave-states’ real.

They must control maintain control of the state (50%+1) or they lose.

Which means that they must make the state a slave state in reality, and find a good economic use for their slaves in the state.

Now I know it is difficult for slavers to understand people with morals since they lack the same.

But the long and the short of the case is, it was the moral issue.

The issue of Emancipation/Slavery dominated the political debates; dominated the legislative issues; it dominated in the media and it dominated in the courts.

The Republicans continuously attempted to appease sore loser Breckinridge’s ‘fire eaters’ so that a war could be avoided and the issue resolved in an amicable and peaceful manner.

But Breckinridge’s ‘fire eaters’ wanted no compromise. They wanted a bloody war. They initiated a bloody war. And then they lost the bloody war that they had initiated.

[Pikachu_Dad]

Curious that you object to where the ‘Free Soil’ party originated and established its headquarters!

Do you object to the Fress Soil party having two Senators from Ohio and New Hampshire?

New Hampshire John P. Hale (FS)
Ohio Salmon P. Chase (FS)

Or the Free Soil party having nine elected Representatives from being from their respective States?

Connecticut Walter Booth (FS)
Indiana George W. Julian (FS)
Massachusetts Charles Allen (FS)
New Hampshire Amos Tuck (FS)
New York Preston King (FS)
Ohio Joshua R. Giddings (FS)
Ohio Joseph M. Root (FS)
Pennsylvania John W. Howe (FS)
Wisconsin Charles Durkee (FS)

Pray tell as to why you thing the ‘Free Soil party must only be elected from a State of your choosing and not one based on where their votes are located ?

[Pikachu_Dad]

clearly not the Republicans. Try again Slo-Joe

“Abraham Lincoln was “a man of profound feeling, just and firm principles, and incorruptible integrity,” wrote Civil War general and politician Carl Schurz.”

Lincoln’s greatness must be sought for in the constituents of his moral nature,” wrote John Bigelow, a New York journalist who became the American consul in Paris during the Civil War. “He was so modest by nature that he was perfectly content to walk behind any man who wished to walk before him. I do not know that history has made a record of attainment of any corresponding eminence by any other man who so habitually, so constitutionally, did to others as he would have them do to him. Without any pretensions to religious excellence, from the time he first was brought under the observation of the nation, he seemed, like Milton, to have walks ‘as ever in his great Taskmaster’s eye.’

General William T. Sherman, no sentimentalist, wrote that he left “more than ever impressed by his kindly nature, his deep and earnest sympathy with the afflictions of the whole people, resulting from the war, and by the march of hostile armies through the South; and that his earnest desire seemed to be to end the war speedily, without more bloodshed or devastation, and to restore all the men of both sections to their homes.”

“Abraham Lincoln is the greatest of all interpreters of America’s moral meaning,” wrote Lincoln scholar William Lee Miller. “Lincoln was a particularly worthy interpreter of America’s moral meaning, in the first place, because he stated it with a rare eloquence. Secondly, he was the primary voice giving the American idea received from the founders its necessary reinterpretation and fresh critical application because he dramatized the centrality of equality – specifically racial quality – as part of the nation’s essence. And in doing those things, he was able, to an unusual degree, to avoid the bane, scourge, curse, and disease that threaten all human statements of moral claims and national ideals – self-righteousness, invidiousness, moral pride and condescension.”

“Mr. Lincoln believed in laws that imperiously ruled both matter and mind. With him there could be no miracles outside of law; he held that the universe was a grand mystery and a miracle,” wrote law partner William H. Herndon. “Nothing to him was lawless, everything being governed by law. There were no accidents in his philosophy. Every event had its cause. The past to him was the cause of the present and the present including the past will be the cause of the grand future and all are one, links in the endless chain, stretching from the infinite to the finite. Everything to him was the result of the forces of Nature, playing on matter and mind from the beginning of time and will to the end of it, play on matter and mind giving the world other, further, and grander results.”

“Any casual reader of Lincoln has to be struck by the consistency with which every argument, however technical or legal, or economic, took on moral dimension as well,” wrote Lincoln scholar Stewart Winger.”

“Historian James Oakes wrote that “for Lincoln there was nothing higher than the rule of law, without which there could be no real freedom.”

In his Lyceum speech of January 1838, Mr. Lincoln warned: ”I hope I am over wary; but if I am not, there is, even now, something of ill-omen amongst us. I mean the increasing disregard for law which pervades the country; the growing disposition to substitute the wild and furious passions, in lieu of the sober judgement of Courts; and the worse than savage mobs, for the executive ministers of justice. This disposition is awfully fearful in any community; and that now exists in ours, though grating to our feelings to admit, it would be violation of truth, and an insult to our intelligence, to deny. Accounts of outrages committed by mobs, form the every-day news of the times. They have pervaded the country, from New England to Louisiana; – they are neither peculiar to the eternal snows of the former, nor the burning suns of the latter; — they are not the creature of climate–neither are they confined to the slaveholding, or the non-slaveholding States. Alike, they spring up among the pleasure hunting masters of Southern slaves, and the order loving citizens of the land of steady habits. Whatever, then, their cause may be, it is common to the whole country.”

The cure for the nation’s problems, advised Mr. Lincoln in the Lyceum speech, was respect for the nation’s law: “Let every American, every lover of liberty, every well wisher to his posterity, swear by the blood of the Revolution, never to violate in the least particular, the laws of the country; and never to tolerate their violation by others. As the patriots of seventy-six did to the support of the Declaration of Independence, so to the support of the Constitution and Laws, let every American pledge his life, his property, and his sacred honor;– let every many remember that to violate the law, is to trample on the blood of his father, and to tear the [charter] of his own, and his children’s liberty. Let reverence for the laws, be breathed by every American mother, to the lisping babe, that prattles on her lap – let it be taught in schools, in seminaries, and in colleges; – let it be written in Primmers, spelling books, and in Almanacs; – let it be preached from the pulpit, proclaimed in legislative halls, and enforced in courts of justice. And, in short, let it become the political religion of the nation; and let the old and the young, the rich and the poor, the grave and the gay, of all sexes and tongues, and colors and conditions, sacrifice unceasingly upon its altars.”

See Abraham Lincoln’s Values and Philosophy
William E. Miller, Lincoln’s Virtues: An Ethical Biography
(New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2002)

[DiogenesLamp]

The result was that the Southern states were paying the vast majority of the taxes, even though they had 1/4th of the population of the country.

*Sigh* We both know that isn't true. Too bad you don't want to admit it.

I think this is the sticking point for a lot of further discussion. You say it isn't true, so how about you tell me (us) what is true?

What percentage of the total taxes came from the Southern states?

[DiogenesLamp]

You have finally agreed that they were seeking to make the territories into ‘slave-states’. Good, that is a very small start on the long road back to reality !

Here is where you have a serious dichotomy. Slave states without any significant number of slaves are not really slave states.

They are basically free states that are allied with the congressional representation of actual slave states. What is being fought over here is the power in Washington DC, not whether or not there were actual slaves in the territories.

Again, there were still slaves in Pennsylvania up until the 1840s, and slaves in Delaware up until 1865.

Which means that they must make the state a slave state in reality, and find a good economic use for their slaves in the state.

You cannot make economics work out contrary to reality. This is socialist thinking. The reason why there were nearly half a million slaves in Mississippi was because it was economically feasible. It was only economically feasible because the land, the climate, the transportation network for product were all right. Such would not have been the case in the vast bulk of the territories, and even in that little bit of Southern Kansas that nowadays grows some cotton, there likely wasn't the transportation infrastructure in 1860 to make it feasible. We have big rig trucks nowadays.

But the long and the short of the case is, it was the moral issue.

It was presented as a "moral" issue, but in reality it was an economic issue for those having the power to determine the outcome. The "moral" issue was just the hood ornament for the larger underlying money involved in the affair. It put a public face on what was at the very base of the issue, greed and Northern control of economic activity in the entire nation.

This is why they were willing to pass the Corwin amendment. They didn't actually care about slavery, they cared about keeping control of all the economic activity in the nation.

[DiogenesLamp]

Curious that you object to where the ‘Free Soil’ party originated and established its headquarters!

Curious that someone like you who thinks he knows what is going on, wasn't aware that the organization concerned about "free soil" in Kansas, was a thousand miles away in New York.

Why should New York concern itself with "free soil" in Kansas? What does New York have to do with Kansas? Shouldn't New York be concerned with it's own territory and not be worrying about territory that has no effect on it?

But wait! Is it possible that somehow Kansas would effect New York?

New York had somehow gotten control over virtually all the Southern export trade, and because of the Navigation act of 1817, virtually all the import trade to the United States came back through New York city. Washington was getting the bulk of it's tax money off of the import trade flowing through New York, and so there were a whole lot of powerful people who liked things as they were in 1860.

If Kansas joined the Southern coalition, that meant two senators and some additional congressmen that might vote for lower tariffs, or to repeal sections of the Navigation act of 1817, and a whole lot of money that flowed into New York, would start flowing back to the Southern states where the products were being produced to pay for everything.

So it was very much in the interest of the wealthy and powerful people who resided in and around the New York area to keep the Southern coalition too small to change existing law.

Could it be that the "free soil" party was just an astroturf organization created to push this "morality" mirage, when the real underlying reason for it's existence was to maintain the existing money flowing into all the right pockets in New York?

"Coffee Party." Moveon.org. "Occupy Wall Street." "Black Lives Matter". "March for our lives." "Climate Change".

The wealthy, big city liberals have *ALWAYS* done astroturf to make it appear like their agenda is being pushed by ordinary people.

Other examples.

Leftists Astroturfing the Supreme Court

10 Fake Grassroots Movements Started By Corporations To Sway Your Opinion

.

.

.

New Hampshire John P. Hale (FS)
Ohio Salmon P. Chase (FS)
Connecticut Walter Booth (FS)
Indiana George W. Julian (FS)
Massachusetts Charles Allen (FS)
New Hampshire Amos Tuck (FS)
New York Preston King (FS)
Ohio Joshua R. Giddings (FS)
Ohio Joseph M. Root (FS)
Pennsylvania John W. Howe (FS)
Wisconsin Charles Durkee (FS)

I would like you to look at this map.

Why do you suppose all of the Northern states connected to New York either by border or by commercial waterways are blue?

How much shipping goes through this system of waterways?

Like the Erie Canal?

[DiogenesLamp]

“Abraham Lincoln was “a man of profound feeling, just and firm principles, and incorruptible integrity,” wrote Civil War general and politician Carl Schurz.”

"No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State."

I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution—which amendment, however, I have not seen—has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.

[Pikachu_Dad]

Wow, your replies are always a delight to read. One can never quite anticipate the complete inanity that will be delivered.

Such as this classic Slo-Joe false claim:

Curious that someone like you who thinks he knows what is going on, wasn't aware that the organization concerned about "free soil" in Kansas, was a thousand miles away in New York.

ROFLOL

I suppose I would simply be astounded by your take on the World Wars.

So lets try again? Since you departed from the conversation to go off on a rant about waterways.

I suppose the next reply will have us counting oceans?

---- So why do you object to the Free Soil party having two Senators from Ohio and New Hampshire?

New Hampshire John P. Hale (FS)

Ohio Salmon P. Chase (FS)

and why do you object the Free Soil party having nine elected Representatives from being from Connecticut, indiana, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin?

Connecticut Walter Booth (FS)

Indiana George W. Julian (FS)

Massachusetts Charles Allen (FS)

New Hampshire Amos Tuck (FS)

New York Preston King (FS)

Ohio Joshua R. Giddings (FS)

Ohio Joseph M. Root (FS)

Pennsylvania John W. Howe (FS)

Wisconsin Charles Durkee (FS)