tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9506140.post5502984701157249993..comments2024-03-22T03:22:38.270-04:00Comments on Elektratig: "In such State or States . . . slavery . . . shall be prohibited"Elektratighttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05703096671081292287noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9506140.post-74825905491204557122010-06-15T20:46:41.196-04:002010-06-15T20:46:41.196-04:00CW,
Just to be clear, it does not surprise me tha...CW,<br /><br />Just to be clear, it does not surprise me that southerners would vote to the extend the Missouri Compromise line with respect to territories - even though they maintained that the federal government had no power to prohibit slavery in any territory, and even though they recognized that a slave-free territory would almost inevitably become a slave-free state. They did so all the time.<br /><br />What I had not focused on, and what I found really startling, was the fact was that the Texas resolution specifically provided that states to be created - not territories - would be prohibited from permitting slavery as a condition of their admission.<br /><br />Isn't this a fundamental difference? Are there other instances in which southerners voted to bind states, not territories? What am I missing?<br /><br />eElektratighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05703096671081292287noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9506140.post-91687495227305064662010-06-15T16:27:00.753-04:002010-06-15T16:27:00.753-04:00Of course, southern sectionalists could not explai...Of course, southern sectionalists could not explain away their vote on this occasion, nor the myriad of similar assertions of federal authority over the decades(see the nice overview in Lincoln's Peoria Address). They could deny it, bluster it away, threaten and thunder, or--when all those options failed--secede.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04616106414422271836noreply@blogger.com