It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 5:06 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 449 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 11, 12, 13, 14, 15  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2017 10:31 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Oh hey, look, this is from LTG's source--the Texas secession declaration--saying exactly what I have been saying (and what LTG has been arguing against) all along:

Quote:
The controlling majority of the Federal Government, under various pretences and disguises, has so administered the [federal territories] as to exclude the citizens of the Southern States, unless under odious and unconstitutional restrictions [editor's note: "unconstitutional restrictions" means the prohibition on slavery], from all the immense territory owned in common by all the States on the Pacific Ocean, for the avowed purpose of acquiring sufficient power in the common government to use it as a means of destroying the institutions of Texas and her sister slaveholding States. . . .



Again you ignore the other portion of the text.

I will leave it this one also since Kansas Nebraska issue plays no role. Republican Party formed during the same year that Kansas Nebraska Act passed. You still see no connection though. Ironically born because of the Kansas Nebraska Act itself.

The Republican Party Founded | History Today
https://www.historytoday.com/richard-ca ... ty-founded

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2017 10:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 2:39 pm
Posts: 19521
pizza_Place: Lou Malnati's
long time guy wrote:
WaitingforRuffcorn wrote:
long time guy wrote:

If that were the case victory was claimed a while ago with the whole me the "historian". You have gotten so much wrong that it is futile to go back and extract it. I will end with you on this point. Lincoln had a role in ending slavery but Southern slaveowners played a far greater role in ending it. I will agree to disagree on that one.


Let's raze the Lincoln Memorial and build one for Southern slaveholders then. :lol:


Do you think the people fighting for the Reestablishment of the Confederacy would disagree? :lol:


I don't think that anyone is fighting for the Reestablishment of the Confederacy. Actually fighting.

_________________
Why are only 14 percent of black CPS 11th-graders proficient in English?

The Missing Link wrote:
For instance they were never taught that Columbus was a slave owner.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2017 10:47 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:46 pm
Posts: 20573
pizza_Place: Giordano's
long time guy wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Oh hey, look, this is from LTG's source--the Texas secession declaration--saying exactly what I have been saying (and what LTG has been arguing against) all along:

Quote:
The controlling majority of the Federal Government, under various pretences and disguises, has so administered the [federal territories] as to exclude the citizens of the Southern States, unless under odious and unconstitutional restrictions [editor's note: "unconstitutional restrictions" means the prohibition on slavery], from all the immense territory owned in common by all the States on the Pacific Ocean, for the avowed purpose of acquiring sufficient power in the common government to use it as a means of destroying the institutions of Texas and her sister slaveholding States. . . .



Again you ignore the other portion of the text.


:lol: I'm reading the parts that continually and persistently clown your ass. But really, what about the part I quoted doesn't mean that Texas thinks abolitionists want to limit slavery expansion as a means to end slavery throughout the country?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2017 11:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Oh hey, look, this is from LTG's source--the Texas secession declaration--saying exactly what I have been saying (and what LTG has been arguing against) all along:

Quote:
The controlling majority of the Federal Government, under various pretences and disguises, has so administered the [federal territories] as to exclude the citizens of the Southern States, unless under odious and unconstitutional restrictions [editor's note: "unconstitutional restrictions" means the prohibition on slavery], from all the immense territory owned in common by all the States on the Pacific Ocean, for the avowed purpose of acquiring sufficient power in the common government to use it as a means of destroying the institutions of Texas and her sister slaveholding States. . . .



Again you ignore the other portion of the text.


:lol: I'm reading the parts that continually and persistently clown your ass. But really, what about the part I quoted doesn't mean that Texas thinks abolitionists want to limit slavery expansion as a means to end slavery throughout the country?



3 of 4 states clearly state that they were seceding because of the North's refusal to allow slavery into Western territory. You have repeatedly stated that they didn't. You were easily proven wrong yet you persist anyway. The overall survival of slavery depended upon Western or expansion in general so it really isn't a relevation that they believed that it would effect the system.


You have already been proven wrong because you really didn't know or chose to ignore the history. You openly stated that Lincoln wasn't concerned about expansion when his words and actions stated otherwise. His Political Party was founded for just that purpose yet you keep denying it. Have a good one.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2017 11:47 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
long time guy wrote:
As I previously stated the Union didn't even want to create the perception that the Civil War was about ending slavery. That being the case how can we now make the statement that it was about ending slavery?


Quote:
Well then somebody should have told the Confederate States this, because all their declarations of secession deal chiefly with their perceived right to own slaves, and the attacks thereupon by the government.



False.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2017 11:47 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:46 pm
Posts: 20573
pizza_Place: Giordano's
long time guy wrote:
The overall survival of slavery depended upon Western or expansion in general so it really isn't a relevation that they believed that it would effect the system.


I want you to answer this question, and this question only, for the time being: what was the specific vesting interest of Georgia's in slavery existing in Kansas?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2017 11:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:46 pm
Posts: 20573
pizza_Place: Giordano's
Gerogia wrote:
. . . In 1820 the North demanded that the State of Missouri should not be admitted into the Union unless she first prohibited slavery within her limits by her constitution. After a bitter and protracted struggle the North was defeated in her special object, but her policy and position led to the adoption of a section in the law for the admission of Missouri, prohibiting slavery in all that portion of the territory acquired from France lying North of 36 [degrees] 30 [minutes] north latitude and outside of Missouri. The venerable Madison at the time of its adoption declared it unconstitutional. Mr. Jefferson condemned the restriction and foresaw its consequences and predicted that it would result in the dissolution of the Union. His prediction is now history. The North demanded the application of the principle of prohibition of slavery to all of the territory acquired from Mexico and all other parts of the public domain then and in all future time. It was the announcement of her purpose to appropriate to herself all the public domain then owned and thereafter to be acquired by the United States. The claim itself was less arrogant and insulting than the reason with which she supported it. That reason was her fixed purpose to limit, restrain, and finally abolish slavery in the States where it exists. The South with great unanimity declared her purpose to resist the principle of prohibition to the last extremity. This particular question, in connection with a series of questions affecting the same subject, was finally disposed of by the defeat of prohibitory legislation.


:lol: LTG getting torched by the sources he very clearly doesn't read...again. :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2017 12:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
long time guy wrote:
The South rebelled because Lincoln wouldn't allow slavery to expand.


quote]The notion that South Carolina seceded because Minnesota wasn't allowed to have slaves is ludicrous. Why would governments in the South potentially start a war because the Union reinforced their monopoly on a certain means of production?


False

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2017 12:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
long time guy wrote:
The Civil War was forced upon him by a slaveowning elite seeking expansion for their evil and immoral system.


Quote:
Stop saying this, it isn't true. Georgia didn't fight a war because Wisconsin was free. In fact, Dred Scott was decided in 1857, which ruled that outlawing slavery in federal territories was unconstitutional, it was a huge win for Southern constitutionalists, who didn't actually care about slavery in the expansion territories, but cared about the representation and preservation of their slavery.



False

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2017 12:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
long time guy wrote:
The Civil War was forced upon him by a slaveowning elite seeking expansion for their evil and immoral system.



Quote:
Right, because SCOTUS declared the Missouri Compromise--specifically the outlawing of slavery in federal territories--as outside the scope of authority of Congress.

None of this means that Southern states gave a shit about slavery becoming the norm in the expanding territories. They wanted to prevent laws outlawing slavery in those territories from being turned on them. You have yet to answer why Mississippi would give a shit about slavery in land acquired via the Louisiana Purchase.



False

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2017 12:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:46 pm
Posts: 20573
pizza_Place: Giordano's
Mississippi wrote:
It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction.

It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.

...

Utter subjugation awaits us in the Union, if we should consent longer to remain in it. It is not a matter of choice, but of necessity. We must either submit to degradation, and to the loss of property [editor's note: "property" means slaves] worth four billions of money, or we must secede from the Union framed by our fathers, to secure this as well as every other species of property.


LTG's own sources have LTG on the run! :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2017 12:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
long time guy wrote:






Quote:
Here is LTG's own source saying the South feared outlawing slavery in the expanded territories because it would eventually be used as a tool to outlaw the practice in their own states. It had nothing to do with "expanding slavery". Thanks, buddy!



False. In 3 of the 4 Secession Declarations that I cited they clearly state that they had a problem with not being allowed to take slavery into the territories. One stated that they believed that it should be allowed to spread as far as the Pacific yet you keep spewing this. If they feared that they'd eventually be trapped in some weird form of triangulation who knows. The immediate issue was the expansion of slavery which had been an issue as far back as 1820.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2017 12:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:46 pm
Posts: 20573
pizza_Place: Giordano's
long time guy wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Here is LTG's own source saying the South feared outlawing slavery in the expanded territories because it would eventually be used as a tool to outlaw the practice in their own states. It had nothing to do with "expanding slavery". Thanks, buddy!



False. In 3 of the 4 Secession Declarations that I cited they clearly state that they had a problem with not being allowed to take slavery into the territories. One stated that they believed that it should be allowed to spread as far as the Pacific yet you keep spewing this.


:lol: You don't read your own sources. I posted the relevant portions of them. They all view prohibition in the Territories as a means to extinguish slavery altogether. All of the declarations say this. This is undeniable. You are wrong. Go away.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2017 12:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Nas wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
Nas wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
Nas wrote:
This is solely about my belief that he is overrated and shouldn't be ranked higher than 4th on any list.


The United States would VERY likely not exist in anything close to its current form without him. I think that FACT supports the case that he is minimally number 2.


That's not a fact.

It's very likely not true either


If Lincoln loses the the south doesn't secede and slavery isn't prohibited in the new territories.


Quote:
Slavery wasn't prohibited in the new territories before Lincoln was elected,



It was difficult to accomplish this seeing that they weren't states at the time

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2017 12:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:46 pm
Posts: 20573
pizza_Place: Giordano's
long time guy wrote:

Quote:
Slavery wasn't prohibited in the new territories before Lincoln was elected,



It was difficult to accomplish this seeing that they weren't states at the time


So not only do you not thoroughly read your own sources, you don't know how dual federalism works?

The Territories were controlled by the federal government. The Missouri Compromise was a federal law which prohibited slavery in any new territories north of a certain point. The Kansas-Nebraska Act rolled that back. The Dred Scott decision negated the Missouri Compromise.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2017 12:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
long time guy wrote:
If you read any history book it will state that expansion into the territories was central factor in the Civil War.


Quote:
No, they won't, because people understand that secession was the central factor in the Civil War, and it (secession) was spurred by Lincoln running (and winning, wihtout carrying a single Southern state) on a platform of restricting slavery
.


Rhetorical sleight of hand "Restrict slavery" was paraphrased to denote something entirely different from what Lincoln and the Republican Party's stated intentions were. SHould have read Platform restricting slavery in new territories.

Secession was actually "spurred" by the Formation of the Republican Party 6 years earlier. Question over Kansas/Nebraska "spurred" the formation of the Republican Party. You repeatedly stated that Kansas Played no part.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2017 12:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:46 pm
Posts: 20573
pizza_Place: Giordano's
long time guy wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
long time guy wrote:
If you read any history book it will state that expansion into the territories was central factor in the Civil War.


Quote:
No, they won't, because people understand that secession was the central factor in the Civil War, and it (secession) was spurred by Lincoln running (and winning, wihtout carrying a single Southern state) on a platform of restricting slavery
.


Rhetorical sleight of hand "Restrict slavery" was paraphrased to denote something entirely different from what Lincoln and the Republican Party's stated intentions were. SHould have read Platform restricting slavery in new territories.

Secession was actually "spurred" by the Formation of the Republican Party 6 years earlier.


States seceded from a Union because a political party was formed? You get deranged when you're embarrassed.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2017 12:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
long time guy wrote:
If you read any history book it will state that expansion into the territories was central factor in the Civil War.


Quote:
No, they won't, because people understand that secession was the central factor in the Civil War, and it (secession) was spurred by Lincoln running (and winning, wihtout carrying a single Southern state) on a platform of restricting slavery
.


Rhetorical sleight of hand "Restrict slavery" was paraphrased to denote something entirely different from what Lincoln and the Republican Party's stated intentions were. SHould have read Platform restricting slavery in new territories.

Secession was actually "spurred" by the Formation of the Republican Party 6 years earlier.


States seceded from a Union because a political party was formed? You get deranged when you're embarrassed.



Political party whose stated goal was to stop the spread of slavery. You probably also think that George Kennan's Containment policy helped lead to the end of the Cold War too don't you?

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2017 12:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:46 pm
Posts: 20573
pizza_Place: Giordano's
long time guy wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
long time guy wrote:
If you read any history book it will state that expansion into the territories was central factor in the Civil War.


Quote:
No, they won't, because people understand that secession was the central factor in the Civil War, and it (secession) was spurred by Lincoln running (and winning, wihtout carrying a single Southern state) on a platform of restricting slavery
.


Rhetorical sleight of hand "Restrict slavery" was paraphrased to denote something entirely different from what Lincoln and the Republican Party's stated intentions were. SHould have read Platform restricting slavery in new territories.

Secession was actually "spurred" by the Formation of the Republican Party 6 years earlier.


States seceded from a Union because a political party was formed? You get deranged when you're embarrassed.



Political party whose stated goal was to stop the spread of slavery. You probably also think that George Kennan's Containment policy helped lead to the end of the Cold War too don't you?


Is that from another source you didn't read and don't understand fully which will ultimately embarrass you?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2017 12:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2005 2:35 pm
Posts: 79851
Gentlemen, can we have your closing statements and wrap this up. It seems like there is ample information to make either argument

_________________
O judgment! Thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2017 4:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2014 6:40 pm
Posts: 136
pizza_Place: None at all
good dolphin wrote:
lifesucks wrote:
Grant gets a bad wrap due to the scandals that kept popping up with his administration, but it was the beginning of the Gilded Age, and money started influencing politics like never before. He also tried to pick up Lincoln's ideas for reconstruction that Johnson had shit on at every turn being that he was a white supremacist.

Grant did a lot to protect the rights of freed slaves as well as to work with Native Americans that he believed were being treated horribly. Unfortunately, he's been painted as a weak drunk which couldn't be further from the truth.

/Grant rant


The Scooter of presidential history


Good response. Thanks for the input.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2017 5:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 11:19 am
Posts: 23917
pizza_Place: Jimmy's Place
Grant wrote what is universally recognized as the greatest Presidential memoir so he must have had a few talents.

_________________
Reality is your friend, not your enemy. -- Seacrest


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2017 5:34 pm 
Offline
100000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:06 pm
Posts: 76678
pizza_Place: 773-684-2222
Hatchetman wrote:
Grant wrote what is universally recognized as the greatest Presidential memoir so he must have had a few talents.


Was he sober?

_________________
Nas: Blago, who has single handedly destroyed CFMB?

Blago: https://youtube.com/shorts/Lftdxd-YXt8?feature=share

"You can’t love your country only when you win." -President Biden

https://youtu.be/R6e4ruziZBI?si=1G4W1vbh0eGQuHfU


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2017 8:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2010 7:11 pm
Posts: 3548
Location: Home of Dick Tracy Days
pizza_Place: Georgio's--Crystal Lake
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
long time guy wrote:

Quote:
Slavery wasn't prohibited in the new territories before Lincoln was elected,



It was difficult to accomplish this seeing that they weren't states at the time


So not only do you not thoroughly read your own sources, you don't know how dual federalism works?

The Territories were controlled by the federal government. The Missouri Compromise was a federal law which prohibited slavery in any new territories north of a certain point. The Kansas-Nebraska Act rolled that back. The Dred Scott decision negated the Missouri Compromise.


Before Dred Scott the concern of the southern states was keeping a free/slave state balance in the Senate. If slavery were to be restricted in the territories, those territories would come in as free states and upset the balance in the Senate which concerned the slave states as they knew they could never control the House. I hope that answers why a slave state would be concerned why stopping the spread of slavery into a territory might cause (in their mind) the opportunity for slavery to be outlawed.

_________________
An unjust law is no law at all--St. Augustine of Hippo

Cause tried and true
I see the light in you
Oh, can you dig in my soul?
Could you smell my whole...
life?--Gener and Deaner


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2017 8:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:46 pm
Posts: 20573
pizza_Place: Giordano's
Harvard Dan wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
long time guy wrote:

Quote:
Slavery wasn't prohibited in the new territories before Lincoln was elected,



It was difficult to accomplish this seeing that they weren't states at the time


So not only do you not thoroughly read your own sources, you don't know how dual federalism works?

The Territories were controlled by the federal government. The Missouri Compromise was a federal law which prohibited slavery in any new territories north of a certain point. The Kansas-Nebraska Act rolled that back. The Dred Scott decision negated the Missouri Compromise.


Before Dred Scott the concern of the southern states was keeping a free/slave state balance in the Senate. If slavery were to be restricted in the territories, those territories would come in as free states and upset the balance in the Senate which concerned the slave states as they knew they could never control the House. I hope that answers why a slave state would be concerned why stopping the spread of slavery into a territory might cause (in their mind) the opportunity for slavery to be outlawed.


This is exactly what I have been arguing. They had no particular interest in slavery expanding outside of their ability to preserve the legality of slavery at home.

Others apparently want to argue that Georgia and the like withdrew from the Union simply because there wouldn't be more slaves in new states.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2017 8:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2010 7:11 pm
Posts: 3548
Location: Home of Dick Tracy Days
pizza_Place: Georgio's--Crystal Lake
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Harvard Dan wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
long time guy wrote:

Quote:
Slavery wasn't prohibited in the new territories before Lincoln was elected,



It was difficult to accomplish this seeing that they weren't states at the time


So not only do you not thoroughly read your own sources, you don't know how dual federalism works?

The Territories were controlled by the federal government. The Missouri Compromise was a federal law which prohibited slavery in any new territories north of a certain point. The Kansas-Nebraska Act rolled that back. The Dred Scott decision negated the Missouri Compromise.


Before Dred Scott the concern of the southern states was keeping a free/slave state balance in the Senate. If slavery were to be restricted in the territories, those territories would come in as free states and upset the balance in the Senate which concerned the slave states as they knew they could never control the House. I hope that answers why a slave state would be concerned why stopping the spread of slavery into a territory might cause (in their mind) the opportunity for slavery to be outlawed.


This is exactly what I have been arguing. They had no particular interest in slavery expanding outside of their ability to preserve the legality of slavery at home.

Others apparently want to argue that Georgia and the like withdrew from the Union simply because there wouldn't be more slaves in new states.


Yes, and while Dred Scott said that Congress couldn't deny the right to someone their property (a slave) based on geography...you had Douglas running for President who was tricked by Lincoln at Freeport to say that the Supreme Court was wrong in that case (which pissed off southerners) and Lincoln whose party came from a combination of the Whig's and Free-Soiler's. In that time period take out any chance for logic or cooler heads to prevail.

_________________
An unjust law is no law at all--St. Augustine of Hippo

Cause tried and true
I see the light in you
Oh, can you dig in my soul?
Could you smell my whole...
life?--Gener and Deaner


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2017 8:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:29 pm
Posts: 54157
Location: Pearl Harbor, Waukesha, and other things that make no sense
pizza_Place: Lou Malnati's
JLN and Ruffcorn, can you please use avatars? I'll loan you some of mine.

_________________
Molly Lambert wrote:
The future holds the possibility to be great or terrible, and since it has not yet occurred it remains simultaneously both.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2017 8:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:56 am
Posts: 32235
Location: A sterile, homogeneous suburb
pizza_Place: Pizza Cucina
Curious Hair wrote:
JLN and Ruffcorn, can you please use avatars? I'll loan you some of mine.


I already tried. They won't do it.

_________________
Curious Hair wrote:
I'm a big dumb shitlib baby


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2017 9:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2010 7:11 pm
Posts: 3548
Location: Home of Dick Tracy Days
pizza_Place: Georgio's--Crystal Lake
leashyourkids wrote:
Curious Hair wrote:
JLN and Ruffcorn, can you please use avatars? I'll loan you some of mine.


I already tried. They won't do it.


Perhaps the Chairmen of the Bored could give avatar-less posters an avatar consisting of favorite personalities of this community. Larry, Big Red, Big Purp...etc...

_________________
An unjust law is no law at all--St. Augustine of Hippo

Cause tried and true
I see the light in you
Oh, can you dig in my soul?
Could you smell my whole...
life?--Gener and Deaner


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2017 9:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Harvard Dan wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
long time guy wrote:

Quote:
Slavery wasn't prohibited in the new territories before Lincoln was elected,



It was difficult to accomplish this seeing that they weren't states at the time


So not only do you not thoroughly read your own sources, you don't know how dual federalism works?

The Territories were controlled by the federal government. The Missouri Compromise was a federal law which prohibited slavery in any new territories north of a certain point. The Kansas-Nebraska Act rolled that back. The Dred Scott decision negated the Missouri Compromise.


Before Dred Scott the concern of the southern states was keeping a free/slave state balance in the Senate. If slavery were to be restricted in the territories, those territories would come in as free states and upset the balance in the Senate which concerned the slave states as they knew they could never control the House. I hope that answers why a slave state would be concerned why stopping the spread of slavery into a territory might cause (in their mind) the opportunity for slavery to be outlawed.


This is exactly what I have been arguing. They had no particular interest in slavery expanding outside of their ability to preserve the legality of slavery at home.

Others apparently want to argue that Georgia and the like withdrew from the Union simply because there wouldn't be more slaves in new states.



If slave masters in existing slave states were never interested in expanding slavery then why was there significant interest in adding Cuba as a slave state?

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 449 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 11, 12, 13, 14, 15  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group