Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Bubba Ho-Tep
I've noticed that people will often find some teeny tiny exception to the rule, and then try to use it to claim the general rule is incorrect.

You are grasping at a straw. No significant cotton can be grown in any of those places today without serious irrigation systems being employed.

If it cannot be done today, no serious amount of cotton could have been grown in those places back in 1860. The idea that those states represented a massive addition to the propagation of slavery is just false.

As I pointed out in the Wikipedia article on the Crittenden compromise, both sides acknowledged that slavery wasn't going to be significant anywhere in New Mexico or Arizona or Nevada.

486 posted on 03/27/2019 8:57:06 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 485 | View Replies ]


To: DiogenesLamp; Bubba Ho-Tep
DiogenesLamp: "As I pointed out in the Wikipedia article on the Crittenden compromise, both sides acknowledged that slavery wasn't going to be significant anywhere in New Mexico or Arizona or Nevada."

According to this source by 1860 the number of slaves in New Mexico was already at least hundreds if not thousands.

The key feature of Crittenden was it reestablished the old Missouri Compromise 36-30 line between slave & free territories.
Democrats liked it, but Republicans opposed expanding slavery beyond states where it was already lawful.

"Raw power"?
Maybe for some, but people like Abe Lincoln also believed slavery was morally wrong and should be opposed where possible.

504 posted on 03/27/2019 2:40:20 PM PDT by BroJoeK ((a little historical perspective...))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 486 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson