 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 22nd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2027 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
There is ample, albeit inconclusive, evidence that the fire-eaters did sabotage the democratic convention so as to guarantee a republican victory.
And we agree that it was the election of Abraham Lincoln that set off secession. But it could have as easily been Cameron or any other republican because the platform of the republican party did have a plank that opposed expansion in the territories. This plank was the killer.
I still do not understand why the question of expansion was so crucial. The territories were not hospitable to the use of slaves. Cain't grow cotton in Kansas. Or Nebraska. Or New Mexico. Or Arizona. It was more like, "You can't tell me what I can't do." Even though it was a specious argument.
So then we come back to the idea that there was a powerful will to secede, no matter what. Reason had nothing to do with it. Lincoln's election had nothing to do with it.
ole