True enough, but the choices was Moral or Northern Interests. The Morality of slavery was one of the Northern Interests, in opposing slavery in the territories and 'whatever' the reasons of any individual northerner's opposition to slavery in the territories, the means of political opposition remained the same, in this case, resisting its expansion by restricting it.
Who is to say, that morality, did not play a bigger part in this political process than in many another political process?
All exactly right. Opposing slavery on moral grounds was one of those "Northern interests." So was opposing the expansion of slavery for racist reasons. So was opposing expansion of slavery to keep free labor wages higher. So was opposing expansion of slavery to control Congress. They were all "Northern interests."
This is why the entire question was incompetent from the beginning.
Political Power
The North controlled the House of Representatives.
They won the Presidency in 1860. Untrue All they needed to control the government was the Senate. They still had enough power in the senate to enact laws favorable to them and to block laws unfavorable to them. Territories become states. Additional senators from these new states would eventually tip the balance of power. This may be true. At least many historians play up the fear of losing legislative power.
Quote:
Slavery By and large the North had no intent to disturb slavery where it then existed. After consolidating control of the government they could enact any legislation they preferred- tariffs, railroads, etc., anything. Largely in line with what many historians describe as "slaveholder paranoia. Congratulations! The "slave power" (as they would say) would not be able to obstruct them anymore. And then you blow away the points you've earned. During the period between 1789 and 1860, the south pretty much had its own way in all branches of the government. I've seen no reference to southern legislative obstruction in discussions of keeping slavery out of the territories. Perhaps you can point me to where I might find same?
Quote:
So it all comes down to-
__________________
POWER & MONEY
You haven't clearly shown that this is what it all comes down to. Saying it don't make it so. I will look at your evidence.
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
The North controlled the House of Representatives.
False.
-----
35th Congress, House of Representatives, 1857-1859:
Democrats: 132
Independent Democrats: 1
Republicans: 90
American (Know-Nothing): 14
Total members: 237
Needed for a majority: 119
-----
36th Congress, House of Representatives, 1859-1861:
Democrats: 83
Independent Democrats: 7
Anti-Lecompton Democrats: 8
Independent Opposition: 19
Republicans: 116
American (Know-Nothing): 5
Total members: 238
Needed for a majority: 120
-----
37th Congress, House of Representatives, 1861-1863:
Democrats: 44 (56 missing secessionists)
Independent Democrats: 1
Constitutional Unionist: 2
Union: 2
Unionist: 28 (10 from seceded states)
Republicans: 108
American (Know-Nothing): 5
Total members: 183 due to missing secessionists
Needed for a majority: 92 due to missing secessionists If no secession: Total members: 239
Needed for a majority: 120 ----- So when, exactly, did the Republicans EVER control the House of Representatives?
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
Stop it! Me and a whole bunch of folks like me are gonna stand up and say enough is enough someday.
Good thing I'm not holding my breathe... The south has been rising again for ohhh on about 130 years now... Must be some real slow rising yeast down there...
__________________ "In mortal combat, a man may and will become so infuriated by the din and dangers of a bloody fight that his heart will turn to stone and his every de sire [be] for blood."
John Hadley, 7th Indiana after the battle at Port Republic
False.
-----
35th Congress, House of Representatives, 1857-1859:
Democrats: 132
Independent Democrats: 1
Republicans: 90
American (Know-Nothing): 14
Total members: 237
Needed for a majority: 119
-----
36th Congress, House of Representatives, 1859-1861:
Democrats: 83
Independent Democrats: 7
Anti-Lecompton Democrats: 8
Independent Opposition: 19
Republicans: 116
American (Know-Nothing): 5
Total members: 238
Needed for a majority: 120
-----
37th Congress, House of Representatives, 1861-1863:
Democrats: 44 (56 missing secessionists)
Independent Democrats: 1
Constitutional Unionist: 2
Union: 2
Unionist: 28 (10 from seceded states)
Republicans: 108
American (Know-Nothing): 5
Total members: 183 due to missing secessionists
Needed for a majority: 92 due to missing secessionists If no secession: Total members: 239
Needed for a majority: 120 ----- So when, exactly, did the Republicans EVER control the House of Representatives?
Tim
You did notice I wrote the North.
__________________ POWER & MONEY
"Your New-York bankers and merchants are shrewd people, but I never gave them credit for so much sagacity as when they took the Government Loan. It was not merely patriotism, it was a high stroke of policy. It has saved the Government, and what they will regard as equally important, saved them from a great financial disaster."
House of Representatives is apportioned according to population. Immigrants weren't going South, to a certain extent, the South causes its own demise in the House of Representatives.
The Democratic Party is still getting a majority of the popular vote. Of course, the ticket gets split between Douglas and Breckinridge.
It remains that the North didn't control Congress in 1860. There were still plenty of Northern dough-faces to allow the south to put up an effective resistance to any Republican legislative push.
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
House of Representatives is apportioned according to population. Immigrants weren't going South, to a certain extent, the South causes its own demise in the House of Representatives.
Here is a simple solution that I am sure the South would be unwilling to contemplate seriously: free the slaves and make them citizens so they can count as a full vote for representation instead of a partial one. How many seats in the House of Representatives do the 15 slave states gain as a result? How many do the other states lose as a result?
Quote:
Originally Posted by cw1865
The Democratic Party is still getting a majority of the popular vote. Of course, the ticket gets split between Douglas and Breckinridge.
This split is caused by the deliberate action of Southerners, the Fire-Eaters.
Regards,
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
