How did slavery become one of the most crucial components in the 19th century?

Question

How did slavery lead up to the civil war. I know that it was fought because one side was slavery and other was anti but what factors cause slavery to increase more and more in some states and less in less in others? Also, how did each era starting from the 17th century with the Transatlantic slave trade to the south in the 19th century transform slavery amking it so prominent?

Answer 1

~Rather than to go into my usual diatribe about how the war, at least at the beginning, had nothing to do with slavery, or that slavery was recognized by the constitution and ownership of slaves was a constitutional right or that a majority of Americans during the antebellum years opposed emancipation of the slaves and to a lessor extent, opposed abolition, even if they opposed the expansion of slavery into the new territories being carved out of the Indian lands of the west, or how slavery could only be abolished and slaves emancipated by constitution amendment, or how support for such an amendment was not going to be sufficient for at least a generation or longer, I'll simply suggest you read the Declarations of Causes promulgated by each state that passed an Ordinance of Secession. At least then you'll have an idea of why those states said they were opting out of the Union.

While slavery may have been one of the focal points of the State's Rights issue, it was the issue of state sovereignty which was the cause of the secession of the Confederate States. The Constitution was intended to have created a weak central government and the autonomy and significant independence of the several states was to be preserved. The federal government was to insure that constitutional strictures were obeyed in dealings between the states. As the economy changed in the north and west and the country expanded and grew, the south was left behind and southern rights and interests were ignored and trod upon. Issues concerning slavery were the lightening rod of southern discontent, but the complaints were far, far deeper. The federal government, in the eyes of the slave holding states, had breached its duty to the states and in accordance with the precepts of the Declaration of Independence, the states had the right, if not the duty, to change the government or to leave the union.

Slavery was dying a natural death in any case. It was only financially feasible on large plantations with labor intensive crops. The smaller Northern farms with their less laborious crops and the farmers and families who were willing to do the the work themselves or who could hire temporary help when needed didn't require slaves. The industries and mercantile endeavors were much better off using hired help who received subsistence wages and who did not have to be fed or housed. The paid slaves of the coal mines and factories did not fare much better than the slaves in bondage in the south - but, they were free.

The Republican platform of the 1860 campaign had three major planks which alienated the South. They promised to prevent expansion of slavery into the territories (but acknowledged the absolute constitutional right of slavery to exist were it was already in place), they promised to enact homesteading legislation which would give free land to settlers in the west, and they promised to impose protective tariffs to the benefit of (northern) industry at the expense of the southern planters. The Democrats, on the other hand, not only could not come up with a platform, they couldn't nominate a candidate. The party split, (over the slavery issue, actually) pretty much handing the election to Lincoln/Hamlin.

To say the war was caused by slavery ignores 60 years of factional strife between the regions of the country and ignores the forgotten goals and intentions of the framers when they drafted the constitution.


Edit to b b:

The south had no fear of losing their slaves. Read the Constitution, Article II, section 2, Article 4, section 2. You are just plain wrong if you think the CSA constitution differed from the US constitution in that regard as slave ownership was recognized and guaranteed in the US constitution. Congress could not legislate slavery out of existence (although individual states could and, outside the south, did). There was not nearly enough support in the north, forget the south, to push a Constitutional Amendment for abolition and emancipation through. There wouldn't have been for at least another generation, probably 2, maybe 3. The issues to which you refer had a lot to do with the expansion of slavery into the territories. The war was not going to change the facts of life there, either. If the territories joined the union, Congress had to ratify the territorial constitution in the process. There were probably enough votes in the Senate, and likely in the House, to reject any territorial constitution that permitted slavery. Texas is the exception to prove that rule. The Guerrero Decree of 1829 abolished slavery in Mexico. The Texas Republic brought it back. There were too many reasons to bring Texas into the Union to preclude statehood over slavery. (The would be akin to voting against a candidate with whom you agree across the board except for his or her stand on abortion or gay rights. Stupidity gets you only so far in life, and cutting off your nose to spite your face is not cosmetically sound.)

More importantly, for economic reason, the territories were going to join the Union, not become independent republics or align with the Confederacy. Most settlers were and were going to be anti-slavery, whether they were abolishionists or not. Slavery as a rule would have been adverse to the economic interests of the vast majority of the settlers - not to mention the financial impracticality of slave ownership to a homesteader who was only going to own a section of land. A farm that small with the crops that could be grown militated against trying to operate it with slaves. Slavery never made sense in factories, mines or the local general store. Paying employees when they are needed is far, far cheaper, and the production of a wage-earner is better.

The example of Robert E. Lee is probably the best explanation of secession. Responding to a speech by President Franklin Pearce in 1856, he wrote:

"There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil. It is idle to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it is a greater evil to the white than to the colored race. While my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more deeply engaged for the former. ... Is it not strange that the descendants of those Pilgrim Fathers who crossed the Atlantic to preserve their own freedom have always proved the most intolerant of the spiritual liberty of others?"

His views on slavery were clear, and he was not in favor of it. However, when offered command of the Federal Army, he declined, resigned his commission and joined the Confederate Army. Why? He believed himself to be a citizen of Virginia first and of the USA second. Forced to choose, his loyalty was with his homeland. That was the mentality of the Southerner and Northerner when the constitution was drafted and ratified and for a majority of southerners, it never changed. States were intended to be largely autonomous with a weak central government that was intended only to provide a common defense and to establish tariffs only sufficient to maintain itself, to establish and operate a postal system, to regulate commerce and foreign relations and to establish uniform bankruptcy and patent and copywrite laws. Yeah, there were other functions but, if you've read the constitution and the writings of the drafters and their supporters, you know how weak the federal government was intended to be. The north and west grew past that and understood that, for the good of the country, the role of the federal government should be superior to that of the several states. The agrarian south never bought into the change that the county had undergone since the New England states threatened to secede in the first decade of the 19th century and were talked out of it by their southern brothers.

The limitations regarding slavery in the Constitution of the Confederate States of America pretty much proves that even the southerners weren't going to tolerate an unfettered slave trade - or any trade of human beings that were not spawned on the breeding plantations. Missouri and Kentucky, both slave states, did not secede, even if a few bootstrap zealots did manage to "pass" ordinances of secession. Jefferson Davis' Inauguration address is instructive as well. He speaks long on state sovereignty. He never once mentions slavery. The rhetoric of the antebellum years in the south is strikingly similar to that of other southern statesmen of a few generations earlier, men like Jefferson and Madison, Monroe and Lee, Washington and Henry, at least where the grievances against the tyrannical despot of a government from whom the chose to exercise their "self-evident, inalienable right" to separate themselves is concerned. Don't read into the history. I wouldn't want your fragile bubble to burst. But do bear in mind that even the 'great emancipator', Abe Lincoln, readily acknowledged the absolute constitutional right of the plantation lords to own their livestock, and he opposed emancipation on moral as well as practical grounds until the political exigencies compelled him to swing in another direction. His redundant, ineffective and pointless, as well as unconstitutional Emancipation Proclamation was a tool of war intended to denigrate the south and had nothing whatsoever to do with any feelings of compassion or sympathy for those held in bondage. Maybe that's why the proclamation did not free slaves in lands under Federal control and specifically allowed slavery to continue in those areas of the nation the were not identified as being "in rebellion". He needed Kentucky, Maryland, West Virginia, Delaware and Missouri to continue to sit the fence and he wasn't about to foist upon them the turmoil that the sudden emancipation of the slaves that the Second Confiscation Act of 1862 (which stated the same things as did the Proclamation and more - and which pre-dated the Proclamation by eons in political terms) was intended to engender. The slaves were a tool of the war, to be sure, but not a cause, at least for the first two years.

The first salvo fired in the secessionist battle was (ignoring Shay's Rebellion since the United States of America did not exist when that went down) would be john Marshall's power grab in the political games being played between the Federalists and the Jeffersonians (the democratic-Republicans) which led to the infamous ruling of Marbury v. Madison. Things continued to spiral downhill from there. Hey, but what should matter history and the documented facts when your mind is made up by blind allegiance tot the myth. There's a reason that folks on the neocon right want to burn books. And yes, the earth is flat if it makes you comfortable to believe that one too.

Answer 2

yeah the war was about state rights', however the only state right that played a role in the cause of the war was the state right to keep slaves. If the war was really about State Rights' how come the Confederate Constitution did not give the power of nullification to the states or even ban tariffs for that matter. Instead, the only serious change to the Confederate Constitution was the absolute guarantee to hold slaves.

Now that is not to say the war was fought to end slavery because it was immoral. The complaint with slavery by many Northerners was its infringement on the idea of free labor, something that historian Jennifer Burns said was close to a religious idea for many people of the time.

But to rule out the significance of slavery in the national debate leading up to the war is an argument made by people who just like to be controversial and or difficult.

Look at the long list of common events that are said to have contributed to succession:
Missouri Compromise
Nullification Crisis
Compromise of 1850
Kansas-Nebraska Act
Bloody Kansas
Dred Scott
John Brown's raid
The creation of the Republican Party
The election of 1860

Almost all had to directly or indirectly with the future of slavery in the United States.

Answer 3

The "Civil War", had nothing to do with slavery! It was about States Rights! Slavery was a "Oh, since we are one the subject", issue that came up later. It would have been far cheaper to hire a man for wages than buy a slave! Slaves were not that profitable!

Answer 4

The economy of the south was dependent on slave labor for cotton and tobacco farming. The southerners made fortunes exporting those crops to the northern states and Europe. An end to slavery in the south would have meant an end to the fortunes and livelihoods of those in power.

The economy of the northern states was less dependent on "cash crops" than the southern states, the weather for one was less conducive for growing, and they were less dependent on slave labor.

Answer 5

nicely traditionally speaking anybody that had any potential interior the south had the money. That is going for the church homes, the government, the landowners. So if the prosperous each physique is the land vendors, then they prefer slaves to artwork the fields. in the event that they run the governments, they might actually help slavery. in the event that they run the church homes, of path they'll decrease back it. Slavery additionally got here interior one in each of those indentured servants. human beings might pay for somebody to make the holiday distant places. they many times might finally end up working for that man or woman for something of their lives. Colossians 3:22 Slaves, obey your earthly masters in each thing; and do it, no longer basically whilst their eye is on you and to win their prefer, yet with sincerity of coronary heart and reverence for the Lord. it is the verse they used to justify slavery. Morally it wasn't suitable. yet those adult men weren't prepared approximately morals, they have been prepared approximately money.