At about this time history students across the United States are going through several slow chapters on the antebellum years. In my AP US History class we've been going over them for two months probably. Of course the biggest issue for this time is slavery and its expansion to the new territories and how this coincided with shifting sectional political allegiances, rise and fall of political parties, et cetera. So my question is: was the North's population's opposition to slavery mostly economic/political or moral?

It seems kind of complicated to me, perhaps a mix of all of them. The reason Southern states so furiously pursued the expansion of slavery was because it would allow them to control the senate, which they in turn wanted because their economic (and thus political) needs had grown radically different from the North's over the past several decades. However at the same time, the economic opposition from the North was intertwined with the moral concept that slavery was the antithesis of the American dream. Also, by this time the famous abolitionist movement had gained widespread fame, especially among the rapidly growing northern evangelical middle class. While its easy for one cynical about the role common people and idealists can play to dismiss this, one has to remember that it was abolitionists who fought slave holders in Bleeding Kansas.

Either way, what are your thoughts on this?

I would suppose that a good NES would solve these questions, and more! ;)

anyway, for a real answer- my own mind is that economic reasons didnt factor into many peoples minds- that si to say, while political figures may have seen the overall effect, particuraly on government and economics, the actual driving force behind, at least in the norths case, was thier own veiws on morality; not the economy at large, but as I said early, it wa slikelly th emore political, such as buiness owers, and politicans at large who soon came to patronage of many of these efforts because they saw how the over goal woudl be of benifit to them.

as for the south, it was a case of economics- they knew that slavery was thier economy, to lose it, as we rightlly saw after the civli war, woudl mean the collpase of the souths economy.

Much of the North opposed slavery on religious reasons. At this time, it was the north, not the south, that was the hotbed of religious fundamentalism. And religious fundamentalists had slavery as their #1 target.

Both. Freeing slaves wouuld make more factory workers, and the religious also did not like slavary.

I'd like to add a third reason, politics. With the emancipation proclomation, the North sucessfully fended off any hint of European intervention for the duration of the war. The proclomation was not anywhere near perfect, but it did do some significant effect to the way the war was seen from outside the two countries. Realistically, France would never intervene without Britain. Britain was highly unlikely to intervene from that time on because it was hypocrisy to openly support a major slave holding nation when you yourself had made slavery illegal in your own colonies. The slavery issue gave a moral justification outside the continent for fighting the war that preserving the union would never do. Had the US fought the war based purely on an issue of the Union, her support would probably have been less.

I don't claim it's the only, or even the major reason. IMO Lincoln etc were more than willing to remove slavery asap, but realistically they were political animals. They realised that doing so without a victory (hence the wait for Antietam) would sound like desperation, but once Antietam was fought, the slavery issue became the moral rallying cry behind which the North could shelter.

I'd like to add a third reason, politics. With the emancipation proclomation, the North sucessfully fended off any hint of European intervention for the duration of the war. The proclomation was not anywhere near perfect, but it did do some significant effect to the way the war was seen from outside the two countries. Realistically, France would never intervene without Britain. Britain was highly unlikely to intervene from that time on because it was hypocrisy to openly support a major slave holding nation when you yourself had made slavery illegal in your own colonies. The slavery issue gave a moral justification outside the continent for fighting the war that preserving the union would never do. Had the US fought the war based purely on an issue of the Union, her support would probably have been less.

I don't claim it's the only, or even the major reason. IMO Lincoln etc were more than willing to remove slavery asap, but realistically they were political animals. They realised that doing so without a victory (hence the wait for Antietam) would sound like desperation, but once Antietam was fought, the slavery issue became the moral rallying cry behind which the North could shelter.


I was about to talk about Britain. They kind of depended on cotton from the SOuth, but less so than in years past. SO it would be hypocritical to support the south.

It was mainly a moral crusade, but the economic fact that someone using paid vs slave labour would be at a disadvantage there was an economic rationale to combating slavery with evil. This was the case in states such as Kansas. In the more industrialised east and north-east the opposition wouldn't rest at all upon economic grounds, but entirely moral.

As SeleucusNicator wrote, the population then were compelled by their religion to oppose slavery and like in Britain, religious evangelism was an extremely powerful force.

Beyond this, you had the fact that the slaver states dominated control of power in the Union prior to the civil war and to be frank, politically the northern states were glad of an opportunity to reverse this.

I'd like to add a third reason, politics. With the emancipation proclomation, the North sucessfully fended off any hint of European intervention for the duration of the war. The proclomation was not anywhere near perfect, but it did do some significant effect to the way the war was seen from outside the two countries. Realistically, France would never intervene without Britain. Britain was highly unlikely to intervene from that time on because it was hypocrisy to openly support a major slave holding nation when you yourself had made slavery illegal in your own colonies. The slavery issue gave a moral justification outside the continent for fighting the war that preserving the union would never do. Had the US fought the war based purely on an issue of the Union, her support would probably have been less.


This was largely the reasoning behind the emancipation proclaimation, a single action taken during the Civil War. It does not, however, explain the decades-long abolition crusade that existed in the North well before there was any sign of an impending Civil War.

This was largely the reasoning behind the emancipation proclaimation, a single action taken during the Civil War. It does not, however, explain the decades-long abolition crusade that existed in the North well before there was any sign of an impending Civil War.

I don't believe that the crusade was a major factor in the war or the proclomation either. Lincoln and many in the north may have been morally against slavery, but I believe he knew the political reality of the situation would not have permitted him to bring about change to the extent he wished it to. If Lincoln couldn't have politically made the proclomation, or it would have damaged the war, I don't believe he would have opposed slavery to that extent. It does impact on the extent to which the Northern politicians opposed the south, it shows that for some and Lincoln especially, the crusade aspect took second place to political reality, therefore it wasn't just an issue of moral opposition. I don't doubt there was a moral, political and religious reason behind that cause for those decades, I do doubt that it drove Lincoln and others to the extent that it became an all powerful crusade that drove their actions.

I urge you all to remember that the emancipation proclimation only free slaves captured by the Union army, since enemy good swere contrabnd in the united statesm, and, at leas tin that case government property.- the slvae holding states still in the union, liek maryland for instance, coudl still keep thier slaves with no fear.

Neither. It was political. The nations of Europe were on the brink of recognizing the C.S.A. as a legitimate nation (hell, the Europeans liked their cotton). The Emancipation Proclaimation, not only considered to be the epitomy of American righteousness, effectively turned the Civil War into a Northern crusade against slavery. No European nation in the 1860s would have dared to fight on the pro-slavery side of this newfound crusade.

Looks like people are muddying the waters...the Emancipation Proclamation wasn't Northern opposition to Southern slavery (the topic at hand), but a result of that and more importantly the war. Northern opposition to slavery occured far before the war took place and formed one of the reasons why war was brought about.

Thus, Amenhotep7, whilst the Emancipation Proclamation was a political act, the opposition of the North to Southern Slavery was not. Indeed, had it also been that the Emancipation Proclamation was to keep other countries out of the war, it would have been done AFTER a defeat, not after a major victory.

It really varied on where you were in the North. Massachusetts, for the most part, was opposed for moral reasons, but that might be attributed to it's Puritan roots. However, many lower class Northerners were opposed to slavery primarily because slaves and freed africans held a monopoly on manufacturing jobs.

I think that the Europeans were on the verge of recognising the Confederacy just before Antiem. Military losses cost the south recognition as much as the slave issue.

It really varied on where you were in the North. Massachusetts, for the most part, was opposed for moral reasons, but that might be attributed to it's Puritan roots. However, many lower class Northerners were opposed to slavery primarily because slaves and freed africans held a monopoly on manufacturing jobs.

Indeed, it is perhaps more correct to split the "Northern states" into the industrial Northeast and the agricultural Midwest. In the Midwest, economic reasons generally played a greater role than in the Northeast because of the perception that slavery provided southern farmers a competitive edge in production costs, resulting in depressed prices in the grain markets. This perception was no where near as strong in the Northeast, since slavery did not greatly effect labor prices, especially given the steady supply of immigrant labor. Consequently, religious and moral values generally played a greater role in the northeast.

It was purely economic.

The Northern states had an economy based on industry. Unskilled free workers were not what they wanted. Slavery would have been a bad thing for the north.
The Southern states had an economy based on agriculture. They needed slaves badly.
And both sides were fine by it. The southern states allowed slavery, the northern states disallowed it, but noone really cared.
One mustn't forget that there were no "Americans" yet. Only Pensylvanians, French, Irish etc.
The problems started when the Western states joined. There was discussion on whether it should become industrial (hence no slaves) or agricultural (hance slavery).
When the south broke away (I'm not exactly sure why, but it had little to do with slavery) the north still didn't care about slaves. The north just didn't want a competitor so close.

The north won the war; thus the northern side dictate on how the history should be written. Slavery was used as an excuse to give the war some kind of moral justification.

It is easy to make a link to the modern US-Iraq war. Morals, who didn't play a role in the decision making, playing a role as an excuse for conquest.

An interesting part to the economic aspects of slavery is that the continued industrial revolution would have virtually bankrupted the entire slavery system.

Slavery, by it's nature, it best suited for minimal-skill, laborr-intensive work. Agriculture is by far the best example of this. While the labor is "free" with slaves, overseers must be hired (costing money), shelter provided (costing money), food provided (costing money), clothes provided (costing money), not to mention the need to purchase more slaves as needed. Add into that the need to watch for escapes and potential revolutions, and slaves were not the "free" labor source, just a cheap labor source.

The development of agricultural machinery powered by horses/mules represented a dramatic reduction in the need for human labor. Animals are cheaper to acquire, maintain and utilize. Those farms that attempted to maintain the exclusive use of slaves would see the farms shifting to machinery out-produce at a lower cost.

From an econmic perspective, the use of slavery was going to drop eventually, probably in the next 20-30 years. The civil war merely provided a means to speed that up. It was a war that started over the powers of the states vs the power of the federal government, but the North brought slavery into it as a moral justification for the war.

-- Ravensfire

An interesting part to the economic aspects of slavery is that the continued industrial revolution would have virtually bankrupted the entire slavery system.

Slavery, by it's nature, it best suited for minimal-skill, laborr-intensive work. Agriculture is by far the best example of this. While the labor is "free" with slaves, overseers must be hired (costing money), shelter provided (costing money), food provided (costing money), clothes provided (costing money), not to mention the need to purchase more slaves as needed. Add into that the need to watch for escapes and potential revolutions, and slaves were not the "free" labor source, just a cheap labor source.

The development of agricultural machinery powered by horses/mules represented a dramatic reduction in the need for human labor. Animals are cheaper to acquire, maintain and utilize. Those farms that attempted to maintain the exclusive use of slaves would see the farms shifting to machinery out-produce at a lower cost.

From an econmic perspective, the use of slavery was going to drop eventually, probably in the next 20-30 years. The civil war merely provided a means to speed that up. It was a war that started over the powers of the states vs the power of the federal government, but the North brought slavery into it as a moral justification for the war.

-- Ravensfire

What a great post :goodjob: and right on the mark.

Both. Freeing slaves wouuld make more factory workers, and the religious also did not like slavary.

It didn't really do this (not for a long time anyway) and most former slaves stayed in the south as share croppers.

I think opposition was mostly moral. The abolition movement was started a long time earlier by Quakers. Even when the Constitution was written, many people were morally opposed to slavery (and the north at this time wasn't very industrialized, although it did rely more on commerce than the south). Of course, at this time, many people in both the north and the south thought that slavery wasn't economically practical and would soon die out. Then Eli Whitney invented the Cotton Gin...

Here’s an idea, to determine why Northerners were opposed to slavery. You would need to trace it down to an early example of them being opposed to the subject. So, we need to consider the Republican Philosophy.

When America declared independence, there was a dominant philosophy that all men are created and that it would be hypocritical for a virtuous nation to have slaves in a ‘free’ nation, especially after fresh images of being ‘slaves’ under the Parliament. The North embraced the idea because they didn’t own slaves. The South, although temporally considering the idea, ultimately rejected it due to their need for them both politically and economically. This is the moral standing that fueled into the political frustrations in 1820. The reason why the South wanted Slaves originally was due to economics.

Above all, we can’t forget the Republican Philosophy that actually held very strong imprints on what each society believed to be standard. During the 1850’s when Sectionalism kicked in, the North believed that the Constitution was based on the original ideas of the founding fathers in 1776 merged with the Republican philosophy, whereas the South believed that the Constitution was an agreement between the states in 1787. By the 1850’s, the north wasn’t against Slavery as much as they were against the South, and by stopping the expansion of Slavery; they could stop the South. This explains the public’s reason for the opposition to slavery. Politically, however, the Republicans were not so much against Slavery as they were against the South and the Democrats due to the large building of Sectionalism that was sparked by the issue of Slavery in expansion after the Missouri Compromise was annulled.

I really hope what I said made sense, and I’m sorry if it didn’t. I just wrote this in like five minutes and didn’t bother to spell check. Word. So in other words, morality was economics, and slavery sparked Sectionalism, and Sectionalism caused the Civil War.

I'd agree that Sectionalism caused the Civil War, although sectionalism certainly wasn't new and had existed throughout the history of the United States (Some states were opposed to the war of 1812, since their business was with Canada, and threatened to sucede from the Union. This forced Madison to go for a sure, but strategically useless offensive for that year, which, iirc, resulted in the burning of York, as opposed to the much riskier, but more effective, attack on Kingston harbor. The victory did, however, give support to his cause and allowed Democratic-Republican politians to be elected governor in states such as New York).

I'll admit that have been various levels of Sectionalism throughout the nation's history, which is true. However, the Sectionalism in the 1850's was full-blown, and when J. Brown commits a 'slave' rebellion in Kansas in 1859, conspiracy covered the entire area making Southerners believe that the Republicans want to impose their biased laws onto them, simply because some republicans viewed Brown as a maytr. And when Lincoln gets elected, the union dissolves.

The last time there was a conspiracy against slavery, the Doctrine of Nullification was filed by South Carolina in 1833 eleven years later. There was a conspiracy in the North agaisnt the South after the Dread-Scot decision.

It was mostly political at first, then it became moral. Economically, the North benefited from slavery, but they feared a spreading of Southern power, so they wished to contain, but not abolish, slavery, save a few radicals.