I now believe this "We had to prevent EXPANSION of slavery was just made up astro turf crap to prevent congressional representation that would ally itself with the Southern states. More representation in the Congress would upset New York and Washington DC's sweet deal where the bulk of Southern export profits fed the appetites of both cities. No real possibility of slavery expanding into the territories was ever going to happen.
You nailed it. It was all about votes in the Senate. Once the Southern states were out, they couldn't have cared in the least about expansion into the Western states. They no longer needed votes in the US Senate to protect their economic interests....ie to keep themselves from being exploited even worse than they already were. I've posted this before but it bears repeating:
In 1860, in the New Mexico Territory, an area which encompassed the area presently occupied by the States of New Mexico and Arizona, that there were a grand total of 22 slaves, only 12 of whom were actually domiciled there. If the South intended to be a “Slave Power,” spreading its labor system across the entire continent, it was doing a pretty poor job of it. Commenting on this fact, an English publication in 1861 said, “When, therefore, so little pains are taken to propagate slavery outside the circle of the existing slave states, it cannot be that the extension of slavery is desired by the South on social or commercial grounds directly, and still less from any love for the thing itself for its own sake. But the value of New Mexico and Arizona politically is very great! In the Senate they would count as 4 votes with the South or with the North according as they ranked in the category of slave holding or Free soil states”.
Well, that's not quite true:
So slavery was more important in New Mexico than some Lost Causers wish to admit.
I might be able to wake them up a bit by pointing out what Lyndon Baines Johnson did. They might be able to see this because it's so disconnected from what they want to believe about the political machinations of 1860, so they don't have an emotional interest vested in believing certain things that are clearly not supported by history.
Lyndon Baines Johnson was a racist Southern Democrat who clearly had no love for black people. After Republicans pushed through the 24th amendment that allowed non-taxpayers to vote, Johnson immediately put forth his "War on Poverty". Did Johnson do this out of a deep abiding concern for black people, or did Johnson do this because the "poor" had just become a massive new voting block which could be ridden to power in Washington DC?
Who among you supporters of the war against the South believe that Johnson suddenly had a change of heart and just wanted to help black people?
Again, if you people think the "milk of human kindness" is what motivates power blocks to move huge amounts of money and resources in efforts to gain and hold power, you are laughingly naive.
It's about power. It's *always* about power, because power is how you get the money.