Replies

LS: "Slavery in the territories---which the south understood to be SLAVERY---was indeed "on the ballot." "

Agreed. Slavery in the territories, and fugitive slave laws in non-slave states were important to both sides.
But these had nothing to do with slavery in slave states, and simply reflected the highly aggressive, expansionist nature of the Southern Slave Power, which held any restrictions on slavery's expansion to be threats against SLAVERY itself.

I think, the aggressiveness of the old Democrat Slave Power (S.P.) equates closely to that of today's Democrat Secular Progressives (S.P.) who claim that any attempt to restrict the powers of Government is a "war on women" or racism, or "attack on the elderly", etc.

So, relating back to this thread's theme, traditional Conservatives now find our strongest support in the Republican South.

Given that, we're not so surprised to see the current appeal of "northerners with southern values" -- among whom all three non-Romney candidates grew up in southern Pennsylvania, an area which historically produced Doughfaced "northern men of southern principles".

Thanks for a great discussion.

Well, this is where I think we do have a disagreement. You have to look at James Huston's book "Calculating the Value of the Union" to see specifically how the definitioni of property as property rights in people---which could NOT be just a "state" right or in "certain territories"--- ultimately would become a national fight.

It is the same today with "gay marriage." You CANNOT have this be a "states' rights" thing because of the constitutinally embraced principle of "comity"---that all things considered, one state agrees to observe the most basic laws of other states.

Lincoln saw this when he said we would be a "house divided," but either all slave or all free. That is precisely what the South saw---that property rights would be the constitutional issue, and sooner or later property rights in IA would have to be the same as those in AL.

But these had nothing to do with slavery in slave states, and simply reflected the highly aggressive, expansionist nature of the Southern Slave Power, which held any restrictions on slavery's expansion to be threats against SLAVERY itself.

In a sense it was. Without expansion, the Old South would have choked and died under it's Slave System.... If it hadn't had its head split open in the middle of the night during a slave rebellion.

They knew damn well they needed to expand the system or it would rise up and kill them, either financially or physically. .