Don Tiny wrote:
I would suspect that a salve state would be populated largely by lepers and those with other skin-related diseases.
| Chicago Fanatics Message Board http://chicagofanatics.com/ |
|
| Historians do another list http://chicagofanatics.com/viewtopic.php?f=47&t=105129 |
Page 15 of 15 |
| Author: | Harvard Dan [ Sat Feb 25, 2017 9:23 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Historians do another list |
long time guy wrote: 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? I'd say to preserve the institution. Either there would be an equal balance or a slight slave state advantage in the Senate that would have kept slavery protected. |
|
| Author: | long time guy [ Sat Feb 25, 2017 9:29 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Historians do another list |
There was a political component yes but it wasnt merely about that. Land erosion and the constant need to find fertile land for farming were being considered also. |
|
| Author: | Juice's Lecture Notes [ Sat Feb 25, 2017 9:33 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Historians do another list |
long time guy wrote: There was a political component yes but it wasnt merely about that. Land erosion and the constant need to find fertile land for farming were being considered also. So, you're saying Georgia was looking to start Georgia II on the other side of the Mississippi? You've evaded this question for long enough: Outside of political power, what exactly about Kansas being a slave state would be of vesting interest to, say, South Carolina? |
|
| Author: | long time guy [ Sat Feb 25, 2017 9:36 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Historians do another list |
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote: long time guy wrote: There was a political component yes but it wasnt merely about that. Land erosion and the constant need to find fertile land for farming were being considered also. So, you're saying Georgia was looking to start Georgia II on the other side of the Mississippi? You've evaded this question for long enough: Outside of political power, what exactly about Kansas being a slave state would be of vesting interest to, say, South Carolina? If you answer the question about Cuba I will answer your question. |
|
| Author: | Harvard Dan [ Sat Feb 25, 2017 9:40 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Historians do another list |
long time guy wrote: There was a political component yes but it wasnt merely about that. Land erosion and the constant need to find fertile land for farming were being considered also. Well wouldn't the economics issue there be pushing the political component? I mean slavery for the south be their version of, "It's the economy, stupid..." moment? |
|
| Author: | Juice's Lecture Notes [ Sat Feb 25, 2017 9:46 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Historians do another list |
long time guy wrote: Juice's Lecture Notes wrote: long time guy wrote: There was a political component yes but it wasnt merely about that. Land erosion and the constant need to find fertile land for farming were being considered also. So, you're saying Georgia was looking to start Georgia II on the other side of the Mississippi? You've evaded this question for long enough: Outside of political power, what exactly about Kansas being a slave state would be of vesting interest to, say, South Carolina? If you answer the question about Cuba I will answer your question. The Ostend Manifesto was an effort to enter another salve state into the union circumventing the Missouri Compromise and the iffy-nature of popular sovereignty brought about by the Kansas-Nebraska Act. Acquiring Cuba would give Southern slave states additional power in the Senate to preserve the legality of slavery and nix any legislative attempts at abolition. |
|
| Author: | long time guy [ Sat Feb 25, 2017 9:55 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Historians do another list |
Harvard Dan wrote: long time guy wrote: There was a political component yes but it wasnt merely about that. Land erosion and the constant need to find fertile land for farming were being considered also. Well wouldn't the economics issue there be pushing the political component? I mean slavery for the south be their version of, "It's the economy, stupid..." moment? Obviously they are linked. It just seems simplistic to suggest that the Civil War could have been avoided if there had simply been sectional balance. I know it has been states explicitly but it is easy to connect the dots. |
|
| Author: | long time guy [ Sat Feb 25, 2017 9:58 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Historians do another list |
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote: long time guy wrote: Juice's Lecture Notes wrote: long time guy wrote: There was a political component yes but it wasnt merely about that. Land erosion and the constant need to find fertile land for farming were being considered also. So, you're saying Georgia was looking to start Georgia II on the other side of the Mississippi? You've evaded this question for long enough: Outside of political power, what exactly about Kansas being a slave state would be of vesting interest to, say, South Carolina? If you answer the question about Cuba I will answer your question. The Ostend Manifesto was an effort to enter another salve state into the union circumventing the Missouri Compromise and the iffy-nature of popular sovereignty brought about by the Kansas-Nebraska Act. Acquiring Cuba would give Southern slave states additional power in the Senate to preserve the legality of slavery and nix any legislative attempts at abolition. Expanding Slave Markets was always of interests to slave owners. Like any other business it was important to have greater access to expanding markets. That is really a no brainer. |
|
| Author: | Juice's Lecture Notes [ Sat Feb 25, 2017 10:01 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Historians do another list |
long time guy wrote: Expanding Slave Markets was always of interests to slave owners. Like any other business it was important to have greater access to expanding markets. That is really a no brainer. I asked about the vested interest of the sovereign states, not private businessmen. Of what value is slavery in Kansas to the sovereign state of Georgia? |
|
| Author: | Harvard Dan [ Sat Feb 25, 2017 10:08 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Historians do another list |
long time guy wrote: Harvard Dan wrote: long time guy wrote: There was a political component yes but it wasnt merely about that. Land erosion and the constant need to find fertile land for farming were being considered also. Well wouldn't the economics issue there be pushing the political component? I mean slavery for the south be their version of, "It's the economy, stupid..." moment? Obviously they are linked. It just seems simplistic to suggest that the Civil War could have been avoided if there had simply been sectional balance. I know it has been states explicitly but it is easy to connect the dots. I don't think it would have been, but at that time it would seem that's what southerners with a vested interest in slavery seemed would keep things alive. Obviously in hindsight you can't keep kicking the can down the road in perpetuity (hello social security, Illinois Pension Issue)... |
|
| Author: | long time guy [ Sat Feb 25, 2017 10:09 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Historians do another list |
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote: long time guy wrote: Expanding Slave Markets was always of interests to slave owners. Like any other business it was important to have greater access to expanding markets. That is really a no brainer. I asked about the vested interest of the sovereign states, not private businessmen. Of what value is slavery in Kansas to the sovereign state of Georgia? Probably nothing. Your argument has shifted though. You went from saying that slave owners weren't concerned about expansion to saying they were only concerned because of sectional balance. Regardless of the reasons they still wanted to expand. |
|
| Author: | long time guy [ Sat Feb 25, 2017 10:16 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Historians do another list |
Harvard Dan wrote: long time guy wrote: Harvard Dan wrote: long time guy wrote: There was a political component yes but it wasnt merely about that. Land erosion and the constant need to find fertile land for farming were being considered also. Well wouldn't the economics issue there be pushing the political component? I mean slavery for the south be their version of, "It's the economy, stupid..." moment? Obviously they are linked. It just seems simplistic to suggest that the Civil War could have been avoided if there had simply been sectional balance. I know it has been states explicitly but it is easy to connect the dots. I don't think it would have been, but at that time it would seem that's what southerners with a vested interest in slavery seemed would keep things alive. Obviously in hindsight you can't keep kicking the can down the road in perpetuity (hello social security, Illinois Pension Issue)... Lincoln was interested in seeing slavery die a slow death. He was content with slavery as it'd previously existed. He was not interested in seeing it expand. That much is evident. I just have a problem with the acclaim he receives for ending slavery. |
|
| Author: | Juice's Lecture Notes [ Sat Feb 25, 2017 10:18 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Historians do another list |
long time guy wrote: Juice's Lecture Notes wrote: long time guy wrote: Expanding Slave Markets was always of interests to slave owners. Like any other business it was important to have greater access to expanding markets. That is really a no brainer. I asked about the vested interest of the sovereign states, not private businessmen. Of what value is slavery in Kansas to the sovereign state of Georgia? Probably nothing. Thank you. That makes your argument that the states seceded from the Union because of their desire to expand slavery a pretty silly one. |
|
| Author: | Harvard Dan [ Sat Feb 25, 2017 10:20 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Historians do another list |
long time guy wrote: Harvard Dan wrote: long time guy wrote: Harvard Dan wrote: long time guy wrote: There was a political component yes but it wasnt merely about that. Land erosion and the constant need to find fertile land for farming were being considered also. Well wouldn't the economics issue there be pushing the political component? I mean slavery for the south be their version of, "It's the economy, stupid..." moment? Obviously they are linked. It just seems simplistic to suggest that the Civil War could have been avoided if there had simply been sectional balance. I know it has been states explicitly but it is easy to connect the dots. I don't think it would have been, but at that time it would seem that's what southerners with a vested interest in slavery seemed would keep things alive. Obviously in hindsight you can't keep kicking the can down the road in perpetuity (hello social security, Illinois Pension Issue)... Lincoln was interested in seeing slavery die a slow death. He was content with slavery as it'd previously existed. He was not interested in seeing it expand. That much is evident. I just have a problem with the acclaim he receives for ending slavery. Well sure since the Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in rebellious states (all he could do under Constitutional authority in an Executive Order) and was more done for an at that moment political reason (England wouldn't actively interfere in a war said to be about slavery). |
|
| Author: | long time guy [ Sat Feb 25, 2017 10:25 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Historians do another list |
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote: long time guy wrote: Juice's Lecture Notes wrote: long time guy wrote: Expanding Slave Markets was always of interests to slave owners. Like any other business it was important to have greater access to expanding markets. That is really a no brainer. I asked about the vested interest of the sovereign states, not private businessmen. Of what value is slavery in Kansas to the sovereign state of Georgia? Probably nothing. Thank you. That makes your argument that the states seceded from the Union because of their desire to expand slavery a pretty silly one. You are sort of delusional. They stated in their declaration statement that they sought to expand slavery into the territories. Why wouldn't I think that if it weren't explicitly stated? The other issue which you completely ignore is the vested interest that Anti Slavery advocates had in preventing slavery into territories. The Free Soilers were entirely interested in the economic factors involved in keeping states free. |
|
| Author: | pittmike [ Sat Feb 25, 2017 10:34 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Historians do another list |
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 has all been interesting reading and Harvard Dan brings up my thought train. While some want to use the southern states opposing rules against slavery in territories and beyond as them wanting to expand their own interests to literally expand. My belief it was to not be simply amended out after the balance in government changed. So they had to go to war. Furthermore I don't see any need to lessen Lincoln's impact. |
|
| Author: | long time guy [ Thu Mar 02, 2017 5:42 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Historians do another list |
Yep. economics played no role in preventing westward expansion of slavery. Sure it didn't. Free Soil Party - Ohio History Central http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/w/Free_Soil_Party Bleeding Kansas http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h84.html |
|
| Author: | long time guy [ Thu Mar 02, 2017 5:48 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Historians do another list |
long time guy wrote: Yep. economics played no role in preventing westward expansion of slavery. Sure it didn't. Free Soil Party - Ohio History Central http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/w/Free_Soil_Party Wasn't going to let this one continue to roll without clarification. |
|
| Author: | good dolphin [ Thu Mar 02, 2017 9:22 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Historians do another list |
IT LIVES! |
|
| Author: | Juice's Lecture Notes [ Thu Mar 02, 2017 11:41 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Historians do another list |
What, did Quora contradict you, too? |
|
| Author: | long time guy [ Wed Dec 13, 2017 2:16 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Historians do another list |
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote: long time guy wrote: Juice's Lecture Notes wrote: long time guy wrote: Expanding Slave Markets was always of interests to slave owners. Like any other business it was important to have greater access to expanding markets. That is really a no brainer. I asked about the vested interest of the sovereign states, not private businessmen. Of what value is slavery in Kansas to the sovereign state of Georgia? Probably nothing. Thank you. That makes your argument that the states seceded from the Union because of their desire to expand slavery a pretty silly one. I will bump it again in order to clear up the requisite ambiguity. Here are one my not so credible sources that was completely ignored by you. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_geosec.asp |
|
| Author: | Juice's Lecture Notes [ Wed Dec 13, 2017 2:29 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Historians do another list |
long time guy wrote: I will bump it again in order to clear up the requisite ambiguity. Here are one my not so credible sources that was completely ignored by you. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_geosec.asp The Missouri Compromise was deemed unconstitutional 4 years before this was written. Do you remember what the Missouri Compromise was about? |
|
| Author: | long time guy [ Wed Dec 13, 2017 2:35 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Historians do another list |
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote: long time guy wrote: I will bump it again in order to clear up the requisite ambiguity. Here are one my not so credible sources that was completely ignored by you. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_geosec.asp The Missouri Compromise was deemed unconstitutional 4 years before this was written. Do you remember what the Missouri Compromise was about? There was no mention of the Missouri Compromise and it has nothing to do with my point regarding Reasons for Seceding. I just caught you lying again. Let it roll and push on. Missouri Compromise wasn't in the discussion originally. You stated that it wasn't about expansion in the territories and i just provided evidence from one of my inaccurate sources. Now you're trying to change it on order to be correct. |
|
| Author: | long time guy [ Wed Dec 13, 2017 2:41 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Historians do another list |
long time guy wrote: Juice's Lecture Notes wrote: long time guy wrote: Juice's Lecture Notes wrote: long time guy wrote: Expanding Slave Markets was always of interests to slave owners. Like any other business it was important to have greater access to expanding markets. That is really a no brainer. I asked about the vested interest of the sovereign states, not private businessmen. Of what value is slavery in Kansas to the sovereign state of Georgia? Probably nothing. Thank you. That makes your argument that the states seceded from the Union because of their desire to expand slavery a pretty silly one. I will bump it again in order to clear up the requisite ambiguity. Here are one my not so credible sources that was completely ignored by you. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_geosec.asp Reasons for secession are clearly stated. You continued on nonetheless. |
|
| Author: | Don Tiny [ Wed Dec 13, 2017 2:44 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Historians do another list |
I would suspect that a salve state would be populated largely by lepers and those with other skin-related diseases. |
|
| Author: | Terry's Peeps [ Wed Dec 13, 2017 2:50 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Historians do another list |
Don Tiny wrote: I would suspect that a salve state would be populated largely by lepers and those with other skin-related diseases.
|
|
| Author: | Don Tiny [ Wed Dec 13, 2017 2:58 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Historians do another list |
Terry's Peeps wrote: Don Tiny wrote: I would suspect that a salve state would be populated largely by lepers and those with other skin-related diseases.  Hey, blame Harvard Dan for 'salve state', not me!
|
|
| Author: | Harvard Dan [ Wed Dec 13, 2017 3:32 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Historians do another list |
Don Tiny wrote: Terry's Peeps wrote: Don Tiny wrote: I would suspect that a salve state would be populated largely by lepers and those with other skin-related diseases. Hey, blame Harvard Dan for 'salve state', not me!Was that me? I had enough typing issues in this thread as it was. Good thing I don't have to read my own copy out loud. |
|
| Author: | FrankDrebin [ Thu Dec 14, 2017 3:19 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Historians do another list |
|
|
| Page 15 of 15 | All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|