Why did the northerners believe that slavery would threaten the North?

Question

During the Civil War period

I need a lot of info. I'm supposed to debate this topic tomorrow in front of my class!

Answer 1

~Slavery was protected by the Constitution of United States (Article I, section 2; Article IV, section 2). The Fugitive Slave Law did not "expand slavery into the north. The Constitution itself, until 1865, mandated that

"No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."

The only way slavery could be abolished was by constitutional amendment (see Amendment XIII, ratified December, 1865) No one (white) feared it. It was an accepted fact of life. Until after the Civil War, no significant effort was made to so amended the constitution. Only by coercion and fraud did the amendment attain ratification in 1865. [The rebel states were not allowed back into the union unless they ratified the amendments (13, 14 and 15) and carpetbaggers were appointed to office to make sure the job got done.]

True, some northerners opposed slavery. However, they were not a majority and if Lincoln had run on an abolition platform, he'd have never gotten the nomination let alone won the election. His own party was divided on the issue and the northern Copperhead Democrats were probably as anti-abolition (or more) than many southerners.

Slavery was NEVER viewed as a threat in the north. In the north, it was neither necessary nor economically feasible. That is why (on paper) by 1829 (but in actuality not until 1846) slavery had been abolished in New Jersey, the last northern state to do so.

An attempt to use emancipation as a weapon was made against the south during the war. Lincoln surmised that if he could free the slaves in the rebellious sections of the country, it would cause grave economic and social upheaval, turmoil and insurrection in those areas. It was not a humanitarian gesture, but a tool of war.

That he lacked the constitutional power didn't stop him from trying. Repeating what he had said all throughout his campaign, he said in his first inaugural address:

"I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."

He also made it clear he was aware of the the constitutional sanctity of the institution when he said:

"I acknowledge the constitutional rights of the States — not grudgingly, but fairly and fully, and I will give them any legislation for reclaiming their fugitive slaves."

Then he ignored himself, the law and the constitution and he issued the Emancipation Proclamation. The Proclamation was not original and it simply repeated that which congress had already done months earlier. In each instance (Lincoln and Congress) , the act was unconstitutional. In each instance, it was done to wreak havoc in the south and to garner support for the war in the north. In each instance, the only slaves affected were those who were beyond federal power and the slaves in the border states and in occupied regions of the south remained in bondage. In neither case was even a single slave freed.

Some northerners were opposed to the expansion of slavery because they coveted the free land that was available for the taking out west for the cost of a few bullets (to remove the natives in occupation). A small farmer could not compete with a megafarm as represented by the plantation and the free labor of the slaves. If plantations were established in the west, the free land that the railroads didn't gobble up would have gone to the few rich planters who could cultivate it by slaves and overseers without ever setting foot on it.

The northerners did feel threatened by emancipation. They knew what would happen if a couple million suddenly free slaves migrated north. They would be homeless. They would be unemployed. They would have no education and no job skills. They would have no family structure (since historically mothers and fathers were separated by their owners and children sold off for punishment and profit). They would have little choice but to resort to crime to survive since there were no jobs for them and no housing. The northerners wanted no part of the social upheaval that a massive influx of newly freed slaves would cause. The northern 'slaves', the miners, millworkers and factory workers particularly, were afraid they'd lose their jobs to ex-slaves who would work for even less than the pittance they were earning.

Since you have chosen to let me do your homework, do you really dare use any of this in class? How do you know what may be true and what may be false? A slave in the 1860's would have killed for the education and opportunity you are wasting.

Answer 2

Probably because slavery presented a threat to the new industrialization of the North. The South needed the man (and woman) power to continue their agricultural dominance in the country. The North had to rely on recent immigrants from Europe. Isn't it ironic that the South would eventually come to discriminate against the same demographic that previously had brought them to power???

hmmmmmmmm???

French???....lol

Answer 3

I'm not sure if they viewed it as a threat so much as they viewed it as morally wrong. What divided the north and the south was that the North had no real need for slaves. All of the plantations were in the south and they were ran by the slaves and without them the south's economy would fall. The united States government banned slavery and its country was divided by the people who were morally opposed to slavery and by the people who were too selfish to care. The obvious border for this was the "masen dixon line".

Answer 4

The South utilized the cheapest labor force of all time. Also, with the threat of the abolition of slavery, northern white men would have competition for jobs with freed slaves coming north looking for work.

Answer 5

Slavery wasn't a threat to the North, it was a secondary excuse that came later, much later. The beginning was the threat of industrialization.

The North held the Industrialization, the South the cotton and the means of materializing it.

The real reasons I believe were "who's going to be the leader?" we have the cotton, you have the machinery.

This of course led to other things that have been building up over the years. Most of it political and, this usually led to other things.

Answer 6

Let's start with State's Rights. The Fugitive Slave Act, by enforcing slavery in the northern states, effectively expanded slavery, enforced by federal law into the north.

Answer 7

What? Where did you get that idea? The South started the War, because they wanted to do their own thing. Sorta like why we started the Revolution with England.
There never was the notion that slavery threated the North. The North did NOT need slavery, because the people in the North were willing to do their own work.
Sorta like the situation with the Mexicans now.

Answer 8

This is a very BOBesque topic that should be debated in French rather than English. Also, Microsoft should buy the copyright and domain name of Bob from me. So follow me into the French side...

Ainsi, sur les habitants du Nord. Ils étaient très cool par rapport à la
Sud. En fait, ils ont été radicule. En fait, une personne nom jared
Est plus froid que vous. Vivre avec. Le nord du pays a été un grand espace
Parce qu'ils ont payé des gens, et le sud avaient des esclaves. Les esclaves sont
Refroidir personnes. Oui, oui, oui.

Answer 9

Slavery threatened the new economy spawned by the industrial revolution. Slaves didn't earn paychecks they could spend and it also unemployed those who did earn paychecks to spend. Just one reason, there are most certainly others