The early Repulicans were the equivaalent of present day libs. After agreeing to the Compromise of 1850 as Whigs, they started a new party so they could denounce the law.
Just like Hillary, Lurch, and Biden voted for the Iraq war resolution and immediately started criticizing it when Bush employed its provisions.
Just like modern libs want Israel to give up some tangible and permanent (West Bank land) for a promise of future peace (an intangible), the South accepted the promise of stricter enforcement of the fugitve slave laws for the admission of California as a state.
If you must negotiate with statists, avoid accepting an unenforceable promise for a tangible. (Now that I think about it, sounds kinda like GWH Bush accepting the promise of future spending cuts for today’s tax increases - or maybe the 1986 promise of border enforcement for legalizing 3 million - or Wimpy’s “I’ll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today.”
The South should have seceded in the early 1850s - when there were plenty of constitutionalists on both sides of the Mason-Dixon line. Much better chance of reconciliation and compromise then.
Well, no. It was Kansas-Nebraska that they were objecting to (the Dred Scott decision, too).
It was Southern slave owners who wanted to overturn the Compromise of 1820, so maybe they were the equivalent of present day libs.
If you must negotiate with statists, avoid accepting an unenforceable promise for a tangible.
Slavery wasn't a form of "statism"?