Nobody in the United States was owning slaves just for the sake of owning slaves. They owned slaves to make profit out of them. If you think slavery wasn't about money, you are a fool.
Breckenridge and his fellow democrats were very clear with their stated intentions.
And the facts are very clear that this is irrelevant. There would *BE* no significant slavery in the territories regardless of what anyone said, because there was no profit in it.
Economics always wins. It's why socialism doesn't work. The economics of it doesn't work, or are you too stupid to understand economics?
Nobody in the United States was owning slaves just for the sake of owning slaves. They owned slaves to make profit out of them. If you think slavery wasn't about money, you are a fool.
Really?
ROFLOL, that is your answer?
Let me look that your 'owners manual' for your slaves
...Diogenes Lamp can only purchase this slave for the purpose of planting and harvesting cotton to make money. All other uses are hereby prohibited to Diogenes Lamp. Prohibited uses: Building pyramids; Construction; Brick making; Accounting; Fornication; Reproduction; Fighting as a gladiator; Using to propel ships; Blacksmithing; Butlering; Manservant; etc. etc. etc....
Well looky there.
No wonder you have such a limited view on how you can use your slaves. You signed a limitation on their use when you purchased them.
Breckenridge and his fellow democrats were very clear that they wanted to be able to freely take their slaves into the territories if they wanted to.
That was why the infamous Douglas (D) sponsored and got passed the Kansas-Nebraska act. The act which allowed these two territories to vote if they were to be free or slave!
The act which causes a ten year bloody conflict in Kansas as both sides fought for supremacy
Quick side bar: Pst, there are more territories than just 'New Mexico'
Why even a blind mole knows that the Republican party formed in 1854 in direct opposition to the democrats Kansas-Nebraska act !
The Republicans were opposed to the expansion of slavery into the territories. The democrats were so scared of the Republicans that they quit the Union and started a civil war rather than submit to a split government with the Republicans controlling the Presidency and the House and them controlling the Courts and the Senate.
You would be surprised.
There have been two basic types of slavery throughout recorded history. The most common has been what is called household, patriarchal, or domestic slavery. Although domestic slaves occasionally worked outside the household, for example, in haying or harvesting, their primary function was that of menials who served their owners in their homes or wherever else the owners might be, such as in military service. Slaves often were a consumption-oriented status symbol for their owners, who in many societies spent much of their surplus on slaves. Household slaves sometimes merged in varying degrees with the families of their owners, so that boys became adopted sons or women became concubines or wives who gave birth to heirs. Temple slavery, state slavery, and military slavery were relatively rare and distinct from domestic slavery, but in a very broad outline they can be categorized as the household slaves of a temple or the state.
The other major type of slavery was productive slavery. It was relatively infrequent and occurred primarily in Classical Athenian Greece and Rome and in the post-Columbian circum-Caribbean New World. It also was found in 9th-century Iraq, among the Kwakiutl Indians of the American Northwest, and in a few areas of sub-Saharan Africa in the 19th century. Although slaves also were employed in the household, slavery in all of those societies seems to have existed predominantly to produce marketable commodities in mines or on plantations.