deafsg1
Member
This is from another posting over at the TFL archives, regarding Texas' right to secede from the Union.
-------------------------------
Harvard Prof. William Gienapp uses Texas as why the CW wasn't about slavery.
A lot of the "educated" slavery argument goes that there weren't going to be any more slave states south of the Mason Dixon, so the south felt pinned in, as such, that caused the war.
Gienapp's argument is that it was all economical. Slavery could have expanded in 3 additional state(Texas splitting) or into Mexico, which many though would end up part of the US.
----------------------------
I would like to add some nitroglycerin to the fire, if it's indeed possible to do so. I read in my pol-sci class that the slavery issue was used as a front, an unpalatable reason to keep European countries from getting involved and taking advantage of the situation. I realize it was just one of several things involved, but that point of deception really stuck out after all these years...
-------------------------------
Harvard Prof. William Gienapp uses Texas as why the CW wasn't about slavery.
A lot of the "educated" slavery argument goes that there weren't going to be any more slave states south of the Mason Dixon, so the south felt pinned in, as such, that caused the war.
Gienapp's argument is that it was all economical. Slavery could have expanded in 3 additional state(Texas splitting) or into Mexico, which many though would end up part of the US.
----------------------------
I would like to add some nitroglycerin to the fire, if it's indeed possible to do so. I read in my pol-sci class that the slavery issue was used as a front, an unpalatable reason to keep European countries from getting involved and taking advantage of the situation. I realize it was just one of several things involved, but that point of deception really stuck out after all these years...