[ClearCase_guy]

For largely economic reasons, slave states wanted an expansion of slavery to other states so as to increase the market value of a slave. The slave market in officially recognized slave states was already saturated - many children born into slavery were a "surplus" that couldn't be sold because those southern planters who wanted and could afford slaves already had them.

Thanks for that.

I consider myself reasonably well educated on US history in that time period, and I know about various "Compromises" and "States Rights" issues as the question of whether or not to expand slavery was debated across many decades. However, I confess I never looked at the precise economics of it. I saw it as a philosophical question only. Your points seem very reasonable and add a dimension I had not considered.

I think History is taught very poorly (on purpose). There are aspects to historical events which are blatantly ignored or glossed over. Things are often not quite as the professors like to present.

[DiogenesLamp]

Things are often not quite as the professors like to present.

And this "expansion of slavery" theory is quite prominent among them. I used to believe it until I looked at the facts. Now I recognize it is just propaganda to justify the real motivation for containing the Southern states representation in congress. See my previous post on the topic.

[aquila48]

I think History is taught very poorly (on purpose).

Not poorly, but with a self-serving purpose in mind.

As Orwell noted...

“He who controls the past, controls the future; and he who controls the present, controls the past.”

Never truer than today.

[nathanbedford]

For largely economic reasons, slave states wanted an expansion of slavery to other states so as to increase the market value of a slave. The slave market in officially recognized slave states was already saturated - many children born into slavery were a "surplus" that couldn't be sold because those southern planters who wanted and could afford slaves already had them.

This assertion is clearly 180° contrary to the research which led me to the opposite conclusion in my about page written many years ago:

because of the cotton gin and the vast sums to be made within only three years by clearing land and planting cotton, the demand and price for slaves skyrocketed. Land was abundant and cheap and labor was scarce and expensive so, contrary to the history of Europe where the economics of labor were reversed, men counted their wealth in the humans they owned even more than by the acres they possessed. By 1861, the value of the slaves in America had reached such stunning heights that to end slavery by compensating the slaveholder for the loss of his property would have simply emptied the American treasury.

I should like to know if there is underlying support for the assertion that you quote from the article which I believe is not footnoted. For the record, I do not believe the war was solely over the issue of slavery, but I understand fully that the position I set forth does not support the idea that slavery was the sole cause. I am, however, committed to historical accuracy. Who is right?