Oh hey, look, this is from LTG's source--the Texas secession declaration--saying exactly what I have been saying (and what LTG has been arguing against) all along:

This is going to reach a head pretty soon.

Do you think the people fighting for the Reestablishment of the Confederacy would disagree?

For instance they were never taught that Columbus was a slave owner.

Again you ignore the other portion of the text.

I'm reading the parts that continually and persistently clown your ass. But really, what about the part I quoted doesn't mean that Texas thinks abolitionists want to limit slavery expansion as a means to end slavery throughout the country?

This is going to reach a head pretty soon.

This is going to reach a head pretty soon.

The overall survival of slavery depended upon Western or expansion in general so it really isn't a relevation that they believed that it would effect the system.

. . . In 1820 the North demanded that the State of Missouri should not be admitted into the Union unless she first prohibited slavery within her limits by her constitution. After a bitter and protracted struggle the North was defeated in her special object, but her policy and position led to the adoption of a section in the law for the admission of Missouri, prohibiting slavery in all that portion of the territory acquired from France lying North of 36 [degrees] 30 [minutes] north latitude and outside of Missouri. The venerable Madison at the time of its adoption declared it unconstitutional. Mr. Jefferson condemned the restriction and foresaw its consequences and predicted that it would result in the dissolution of the Union. His prediction is now history. The North demanded the application of the principle of prohibition of slavery to all of the territory acquired from Mexico and all other parts of the public domain then and in all future time. It was the announcement of her purpose to appropriate to herself all the public domain then owned and thereafter to be acquired by the United States. The claim itself was less arrogant and insulting than the reason with which she supported it. That reason was her fixed purpose to limit, restrain, and finally abolish slavery in the States where it exists. The South with great unanimity declared her purpose to resist the principle of prohibition to the last extremity. This particular question, in connection with a series of questions affecting the same subject, was finally disposed of by the defeat of prohibitory legislation.

quote]The notion that South Carolina seceded because Minnesota wasn't allowed to have slaves is ludicrous. Why would governments in the South potentially start a war because the Union reinforced their monopoly on a certain means of production?

This is going to reach a head pretty soon.

This is going to reach a head pretty soon.

This is going to reach a head pretty soon.

It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction.

It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.

...

Utter subjugation awaits us in the Union, if we should consent longer to remain in it. It is not a matter of choice, but of necessity. We must either submit to degradation, and to the loss of property [editor's note: "property" means slaves] worth four billions of money, or we must secede from the Union framed by our fathers, to secure this as well as every other species of property.

This is going to reach a head pretty soon.

False. In 3 of the 4 Secession Declarations that I cited they clearly state that they had a problem with not being allowed to take slavery into the territories. One stated that they believed that it should be allowed to spread as far as the Pacific yet you keep spewing this.

This is going to reach a head pretty soon.

It was difficult to accomplish this seeing that they weren't states at the time

This is going to reach a head pretty soon.

.


Rhetorical sleight of hand "Restrict slavery" was paraphrased to denote something entirely different from what Lincoln and the Republican Party's stated intentions were. SHould have read Platform restricting slavery in new territories.

Secession was actually "spurred" by the Formation of the Republican Party 6 years earlier.

States seceded from a Union because a political party was formed? You get deranged when you're embarrassed.

This is going to reach a head pretty soon.

Political party whose stated goal was to stop the spread of slavery. You probably also think that George Kennan's Containment policy helped lead to the end of the Cold War too don't you?

The Scooter of presidential history

Grant wrote what is universally recognized as the greatest Presidential memoir so he must have had a few talents.

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.

The future holds the possibility to be great or terrible, and since it has not yet occurred it remains simultaneously both.

JLN and Ruffcorn, can you please use avatars? I'll loan you some of mine.

I'm a big dumb shitlib baby

I already tried. They won't do it.

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.

This is going to reach a head pretty soon.