So the idea that a territory could declare itself pro or con on allowing slavery was one cause of unrest or at least heartburn to men in states that were already established? If that is the case, it makes sense. Sort of like us saying if you want to fish without a license you have to move to a territory such as Puerto Rico because it's not allowed in a state. While I can see how it may have been a logical thing to do, I'm not living in that time so it's not as big an issue. The principle is though. The establised states, no matter where they stood on the issue of slavery at that time, were thinking they were taking a back seat to the new bunch. The states had been established, for the most part, before this one issue became a pariah. Those voters who were in the states wanted territories to follow the same guidelines the states did. Pro or Con, even though the guidelines were set up before most of those voting were born and they didn't want anyone to cut in line.
Also, just wondering---if there had been fewer candidates to choose from, would it have made a real difference in the numbers that elected Lincoln? That he wasn't even on the ballot in some states is enough to lead one to believe too many cooks running for top chef do not really help any one of them but may well have aided one if the others weren't in the kitchen. It's a shame that women weren't voting. It may well have been a different story and possibly no war. Then again, women have had the right to vote for a number of years now, even the right to run for office, but we still have too many cooks trying to win the blue ribbon for the best turkey. It's hard to remember who slung what slur, but I guess it was just as ugly back then too.
Pam