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. :)
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.
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 ?