why might of people from the south want to abolish slavery?

Question

i meen at the time slavery was still arround

those of you who are saying this is ignorant, your idiots. we study this in history, all of your kids study this. all i know is that some in the south also wanted to abolish slavery because the imports were too highly taxed due to slavery.

Answer 1

The answer to your question may vary depending on the TIME period you are referring to, and the PLACE. In the early years, Southern opposition was more often based on the MORAL argument; in later times the desire for the end of slavery was often driven by FEAR (though many dared not even say aloud that they secretly WISHED the slaves could be gone).

In fact, in the EARLY years of the Republic there was quite a sizable group in the South that spoke of slavery as a sort of "necessary evil" and of the hope that they could find a way to get rid of it (a number of founding fathers, like Jefferson, among them). For people of this opinion in the founding generation the moral argument was certainly a large one -- they were quite aware that slavery was not consistent with their political philosophy and rhetoric (e.g., "all men are created equal"). There were also a number of Southerners who actively lobbied for legislation that would bring slavery to an end -- arguing chiefly on moral grounds.

For that matter, up until 1831 there seemed to be a chance of such things happening. That year the legislature of Virginia considered a bill to phase out slavery, and though it failed, the number in support of the effort was significant.

________________

ANOTHER reason for at least WISHING slavery to end was FEAR of the slaves.

This was based in part on events they had experienced or witnessed not far away (perhaps exacerbated by a guilty conscience). From the slave revolt in Haiti to various attempts in the Southern U.S. itself (some very prominent, such as Vespy and Nat Turner ) not to mention the many runaway slaves (they could read the ads in the newspapers), Southerners were aware, whatever they said in public, that many of their slaves were NOT content. Given that the slaves were a significant proportion of the population, there was great fear of a bloody uprising.

Though the official solution was to keep firm control over the slave population, a number wished the whole problem/danger could somehow be disposed of, even by freeing the slaves AND sending them to colonize elsewhere. [The American Colonization Society, founded in 1816, had many supporters in BOTH North and South, though their motives varied. ] The strong reactions of vocal Southerners against Northern abolitionists from about 1830 to 1860 was fueled in part by the fear that slaves would hear (or even read) what the abolitionists said, and their would be a violent uprising.

(This fear also helps explain how violently various groups of Southern whites reacted AFTER the Civil War, when the slaves WERE free, and so helps us understand how Reconstruction fell apart. Many expected reprisals [revenge] and so acted firmly to try to regain "control" over the recently freed.)

Further evidence of WANTING slavery to somehow 'disappear' or at least shrink, is found in the rhetoric used to try to sell "filibusters", that is, free-lance military expeditions aimed at gaining new land to add to the Union. Southerners attempted a number of these (and argued for more), and part of the reasoning they offered was that gaining new lands would give them some place to SEND their slaves, so reducing their numbers in the American South.

________________

Another very important consideration -- the South was not all the same! I'm thinking here not just of the difference between the border states and Deep South (the latter much more entrenched in slavery) nor of the differences between wealthy owners of many slaves and those who owned none (with a middling group having one to a handful).

Actually, in "plantation country" many of the NON-slave owning whites were VERY supportive of slavery, whether because they recognized their economy was dependent on it, or hoped to someday be wealthy enough to buy slaves OR because in a broader sense this was part of the whole "way of life" they knew. Poor whites could regard themselves as, in one sense, equal to the wealthy, in that NONE of them were slaves -- the slave was beneath any white (in their view).

Rather, the groups more likely to be ANTI-slavery, and at the same time strongly PRO-Union were the mountain regions of several states where their whole way of life was different and few if any slaves were found. (These regions REMAINED pro-Union -- not supporting secession, sometimes 'seceding from their states', sending troops to fight in the Union army... and forming a key part of the coalition Northern Republicans put together after the war to govern these states during Reconstruction [though slandered by other groups as "scalawags"].)

These regions had little reason to support the Southern elite that had run their states for generations. Granted, some of these folks cared little for blacks --they might be of the same sort as Andrew Johnson, one of their own who was jealous of the wealthy slave-owners and blamed them for the sectional conflict... but were personally quite prejudiced and unconcerned about black rights. Nonetheless they DID see slavery as a great cause of trouble for the nation, as well as the basis for the power of the elite they so despised. So it was rather natural to wish an end to slavery.

Answer 2

The Civil War did in fact abolish slavery. While the war was initially about secession and the preservation of the union, the war escalated into a total war, and at that point slavery was part of the equation...as the South in effect became Free States as a result of being conquered by the North. Slavery, however, was not completely abolished. In Brazil, the institution persisted into the 1870's and some ex-Confederates settled there and established plantations. In the islamic world and parts of Africa, some slavery and slave trade persisted. Even today in some remote parts of Africa on a very small scale - there is still a slave trade. At the end of the war the CSA had already formally proposed to the UK that it would abolish slavery in exchange for recognition as an indep. nation - but it was too late. CSA Sen.Duncan Kenner was dispatched to the UK to make that offer. Judah Benjamin, the CSA Sec. of State had proposed a Southern emancipation in exchange for the military service of slaves then living in the South...but it was too late in the game. One could argue that slavery benefited the Southern war effor in the initial first two years of the War, but then became a hindrance to that war effort. While the Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves outside the control of the Union, it did signal to Europe that the war was about 'slavery' - and that it could be very messy if Europe was to intervene. Freedmen filled the ranks of the Union Army in the last two years of the war - and the abolition of slavery was their prime motivation for being in the fight. The institution of feudal serfdom was abolished in Russia the same year the emancipation proclamation was issued in the USA.

Answer 3

Cotton. The cotton industry, at it's might, depended on the cheap labor of the slaves, and the Confederate States were the biggest producers of cotton in the world. The power of this industry overruled the morality of the abolishment of labors issues, and, so most Southerns opposed the abolishment of slavery because they knew it would collapse the Southern economy. Economics over ruled morality. Yes, many Southern folks wanted to changed the slavery system in the South, but the consequences were too great.

After the War, slavery still existed in the cotton fields in a different form. The cotton industry still depended on the black share croppers.

Answer 4

Back then, the majority in the South WANTED slavery because of all the plantation they had. There was no way only a few people could harvest the amount of land they had which is why they needed slaves. Without harvesting, there wouldn't have been much to eat or use.

Answer 5

The south didn't want to abolish slavery. The north did.

Answer 6

In addition to the moral objections, the majority of southerners did not own slaves, and therefore they didn't share in the economic advantages.

Answer 7

because slavery is inhuman... thats a very ignorant question

Answer 8

Well, believe it or not, some had moral objections to it.