>At 04:29 PM 11/9/2004 -0800 d.brin wrote: >>---------- >>Some of you recall I used a metaphor - "the Union has been conquered >>by the Confederacy". Some ridiculed this, pointing to the Plains and >>Mountain states, forgetting that those areas DID allow slavery >>before the Civil War. >> >>http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v332/rundgren/FREESTATES.jpg > >Unfortunately, Dr. Brin, this appears to be an Urban Legend. It turns out that Kansas was admitted as a "free State" before the Civil War began. Meanwhile, at least one historian believes that there was no significant support for slavery in the Nebraska Territory. > > http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Kansas-Nebraska-Act > >JDG - The Washington Redskins had correlation too, Maru!\
As is usual with these Urban Legends, the errors keep mounting the closer you look. Oregon was admitted as the 33rd State in the Union (how did I miss that!) in 1859, before the Civil War began. Thus,the Oregon Territory on the map is inaccurate. Moreover, while Oregon was admitted as a free State, it's Bill of Rights also included an infamous "exclusion law", which basically made it illegal for blacks to live in the State of Oregon. (Go Blue States! ;-) At the same time, unde the Dred Scott Decision and Kansas-Nebraska Act it appears that slavery would have been permitted in Washington Territory. So this is inaccurate as well. Additionally, towards the end of the Civil War, Nevada was rushed into the Union by anti-slavery forces, because they were sure that it would provide two votes for the 13th Amendment in the Senate, as well providing an additional ratification. Thus, while technically Nevada was "open to slavery" this is an exaggeration as the Compromise of 1850 permitted each territory to decide for itself (and it was clear that Nevada was going to decide against it), and because the Dred Scott decision then essentially pushed the slavery question back from Territorial Organization to Statehood. Lastly, given that West Virginia seceded from Virginia, rather than secede from the Union, isn't it a little unfair to lump them in with the South? And of course there are the standard objections about Iowa, Indiana, Ohio, Maryland, and Delaware - all of which fail the model. >The incredible historical lunacy of anyone forgetting the savagery of >pro-slavery forces in Kansas and Nebraska territories simply is >beyond belief in any educated person. Yes, but Kansas was eventually controlled by the anti-slavery forces at the time of statehood. This hardly supports your contention that to this day a majority of Kansas is longing for the glory of the old pro-slavery Confederacy. I also think that you are confusing the Nebraska Territory with the Kansas Territory. I actually have recently spend a good deal of time reading about the history of the Dakotas and Montana this summer, and I found no evidence of "savagery" and violence in the Dakotas and Montana related to slavery. (I'll admit that I could eventually be proven wrong on this, but at this point I feel pretty confident that slavery was primarily a big issue in Kansas Territory, and was primarily a historical afterthought in the Dakotas, Montana, and Idaho - where the histories seem to make almost no mention of it.) JDG - Who thought it was bad that Kerry based his campaign on refighting the Vietnam War.... but apparently the Democrats are no refighting the Civil War... what's next, Democrats throwing tea bags into the Harbor? _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
