Replies

And as I said, not where it currently existed.

Yes where it currently existed is all that matters.

Not all slaves worked the fields.

There were incredibly few in those territories.

“But all this, to my judgment, furnishes no more excuse for permitting slavery to go into our own free territory, than it would for reviving the African slave-trade by law. The law which forbids the bringing of slaves from Africa, and that which has so long forbid the taking of them to Nebraska, can hardly be distinguished on any moral principle; and the repeal of the former could find quite as plausible excuses as that of the latter.”

So? When the Southern states seceded they did so without making claim to any of the territories of the US. They obviously weren’t very concerned with the spread of slavery. It was only important for votes in the Senate so long as they were in the US.

Yes where it currently existed is all that matters.

Not to the leaders of the Southern states.

There were incredibly few in those territories.

There weren't all that many in Kansas, either. That didn't stop slavery supporters from trying to bring it in as a slave state in 1857.

In 1860 the Democrat Platform called for the acquisition of Cuba. When the Southern leaders met in Montgomery for their constitutional convention in 1861 one of the first objections made was to the proposed name - The Confederate States of North America. Delegates like Alexander Stephens thought it was too limiting. You better believe Southern slave owners were concerned with the spread of slavery and had the Confederacy won its independence then there would have been expansion plans to the south and in the Caribbean.