"State" in the sense it had it's own governor. Of course it was a vassal of Spain, but you only put out your nitpick because you want to nitpick, and not for any reason of advancing the discussion.
Yes, Cuba was a "State" in which Slavery was already established. It was therefore a slave "State."
But if did allow states to prohibit slavery within their borders.
No it didn't. States trying to exclude slavery from inside their borders were clearly violating the privileges and immunities clause. Sure, a state had a right to abolish any laws within their state that created slaves, but it had absolutely no right to do anything about slaves created by other state's laws. It also had no right to exclude people with slaves from another state.
Of course, liberal "penumbra" seekers interpreted the constitutional law in a manner that suited what they wished to believe, and then simply declared it to be so.
It was not so, and Justice Tanney straightened them out on that point. The liberals howled about how this horrible strict constructionist judge made them adhere to the original intent of the constitution instead of what they wanted it to believe.
They are still bitching about it today.
Cuba and points south.
As I have pointed out, it was already in Cuba. It was also already in "points south." Slavery wouldn't have been "expanded", it would have just continued.
So again, the claim that there would be an "expansion of slavery" was just a lie.
Nevermind that the West was totally unsuited for Cotton or Tobacco production. So....they were really motivated by the desire to spread slavery and they seceded so that they could spread slavery...even though when they seceded they made utterly no claim to the territory of the US and left only with their own sovereign territory within their own state borders. Their "solution" to the problem of not being able to spread slavery was....to give up any chance of spreading slavery.
Wait. What????
It was a colony of Spain, not a state. Or is that too nit-picky?
Sure, a state had a right to abolish any laws within their state that created slaves, but it had absolutely no right to do anything about slaves created by other state's laws. It also had no right to exclude people with slaves from another state.
LOL! The Court would disagree with you on that. In Corfield v Coryell Justice Washington said that right was not absolute. And if a state can deny a outsider the ability to harvest clams it can deny him the ability to move in with his slaves, especially is such a right is denied the state's citizens.
Hey Diogenes Lamp. I thought you were gone. But I see you are back. Since you seem to be an expert on all things Civil War, I will repeat a question I asked a while back.
Why did the South secede? What reasons did they give in their official documents? Please note that I consider their official documents to be the Articles of Secession that each state legislature put out (if you do not consider the Articles of Secession to be their official position, I would like to understand why, and what their official position was). I’m really interested in what you think Mississippi’s reason for secession was was (don’t forget South Carolina, either).
I’m really looking forward to hearing your succinct position as to why the South seceded, as I am sure many other posters are.
To quote Chester Nimitz, “The world wonders”.