tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9506140.post4880025726086467980..comments2024-03-22T03:22:38.270-04:00Comments on Elektratig: Was the Compromise of 1850 a Good Thing or a Bad Thing?Elektratighttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05703096671081292287noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9506140.post-92178937429302693082008-05-10T15:43:00.000-04:002008-05-10T15:43:00.000-04:00Elektratig,I shot you an email with regards to Bru...Elektratig,<BR/><BR/>I shot you an email with regards to Bruce Chadwick's 1858 and I wanted to let you know here as well in case it did not get through. I recently reviewed that book and I wanted your recommendations for other, better books about slavery and the 1850s.<BR/><BR/>Brett S.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9506140.post-38896578796895980062008-04-14T15:47:00.000-04:002008-04-14T15:47:00.000-04:00Anyone that criticizes Fillmore (or any of the Nor...Anyone that criticizes Fillmore (or any of the Northern Democrats and Southern Whigs supporting it) needs to be prepared to defend the entire range of contingent outcomes, and not just the "good" outcome they would wish for. There are many plausible counterfactual outcomes, and several of them are not so good. <BR/><BR/>My guess is that South Carolina may have seceded in the early 1850s had the North been more aggressive and less compromising. I do not think SC would have been able to entice GA, AL, or MS to follow at that time. Neither do I think these states would have participated in or allowed SC to be "coerced". After that.... ? <BR/><BR/>deconAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com