archieclement
Colonel
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2011
- Location
- mo
We know the platform to prohibit slavery in territories widened and inflamed the divide leading to secession/war.
See some on here say slavery was dying by 1860, not sure exactly true, but it certainly had its limitations, and states not needing a slave economy and labor had been ending it. We know from hindsight going west from 1860 no states we're suited for slave economy, as geographicly/climate they weren't suited for the labor intensive crops of cotton, tobacco, hemp, sugar, rice. So even if admitted slave states, would likely ended it themselves in a revelativity short time.
Would these things been obvious in 1860? If so the platform would been rather unnecessary and superfluous. Was it meant to simply agitate and divide?
See some on here say slavery was dying by 1860, not sure exactly true, but it certainly had its limitations, and states not needing a slave economy and labor had been ending it. We know from hindsight going west from 1860 no states we're suited for slave economy, as geographicly/climate they weren't suited for the labor intensive crops of cotton, tobacco, hemp, sugar, rice. So even if admitted slave states, would likely ended it themselves in a revelativity short time.
Would these things been obvious in 1860? If so the platform would been rather unnecessary and superfluous. Was it meant to simply agitate and divide?
Forum Host
Bringing the