|View single post by ole|
|Posted: Wed Apr 4th, 2007 05:51 pm||
|Texas Defender wrote:
Ole, what I was saying was that if the southerners had given up on the idea of maintaining the balance of power by trying to expand slavery to the territories, they might as well have fought the Civil War itself thirty years earlier. That would have resolved the question of how much power the federal government had over the states a generation earlier. (The US population in 1830 was only 40% of what it was in 1860).
Thanks for the fast feedback. I didn't say that "they had given up on the idea of maintaining the balance of power" (did I?). I think I was maintaining that it wasn't a viable idea. Although losing the legislative clout would have been scary, I don't see where new slave states within the US border would have been possible.
The whole idea strikes me as that adolescent chip. The slaveowner wanted what he was forbidden to have. If he had it, he couldn't use it. On the other side, forbidding the expansion was also fruitless -- slavery wasn't going to expand into the new territories in any case.
That the south was going to lose its legislative dominance was a given. Without ingesting Cuba and sundry Central-American countries, the slaveholder was faced with eventual extinction -- natural or legislated.
However, I ramble. From my modern standpoint, I don't see the problem. If I were a wealthy planter in 1855, I would certainly be concerned.