Yes, at this point, our readings may seem to be repetitive, but perhaps that's the point. This chapter, from Hummel's Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men highlights the degree to which westward expansion (particularly the annexation of Mexico) reshaped the political parties in the United States.
This begs the question--is it all about money and politics? Is slavery--an institution that we undeniably regard as a social one today--only considered with regard to its economic and political ramifications?
Use examples from the text--they always make your discussion hold more water.
For the most part yes, it was all about the money and politics. Although the abolitionists were examples of those who did it for both moral economic reasons. It could be argued that the political side of slavery comes from the fact that North morally condemned slavery. In essence the political argument has moral beginnings, which were in a way giving more claught and substance in politics through the use of economic reasons. In politics is and was rare for morals to take a huge roll. Usually the decisions were made mostly based on facts and logic(whether these were true, fabricated, or false). So during that time period for slavery to really get a foothold as a political subject worthy of serious debate it needed something beyond simple morals, it economic implications for example. An example of the politics using morals as bases for more politcal/logical reasons: "Although Lundy's abolistionism was not representative of Northern opinion, his concern about the political power of slave states was."
ReplyDeleteSlavery was all about money and politics. Slavery was most popular in places where it was most economically beneficial. In the south, slaves were perfect for working on plantations because of their African ancestry and not having to be paid wages. Most abolitionists did not crusade for social equality either, they simply wanted the abolition of slavery. After it was abolished, black people were still not equal. It seemed that the main argument against slavery was that the constitution said all men should be free, and slavery goes completely against that.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the emancipation of slavery was based on politics. The emancipation of slaves was intended to restrict the income of the South, as terrible as this might sound. Slaves were voted as non-human, even by most states in the North, so its difficult to think that the North just changed its mind about this. I believe, as many things are in politics, fueled by money. If the South gets less, the North gets more, simple as that.
ReplyDeleteI believe that slavery was about both money and politics but mainly money. As aweful as it may sound, African Americans were the perfect canidates for the southern work force. The whites didn't want to pick all that cotton and harvest all that food, who else better to do it than these blacks. And better yet, they didn't have to pay them a dime. But on the flip side, the power of slavery could also be used in politics. The presidential canidates and other political leaders can support or abolish slavery which can potentially win them votes.
ReplyDeleteSlavery is undoubtedly all about money and politics and is only considered with regard to its economic and political developments of the south. With the ambivalent cultures and economy of the north and south, the southern lifestyle revolved around the gratuitous usage of African Americans as slaves. Northerners and abolitionists sought other routes in order to sustain a thriving economy, such as innovations and development of industry. The Annexation of Texas is a suitable example of why slavery was an ingredient towards money and politics. The controversy of Texas being either a slave state or free state "linked the country's traditional hatred of Britain with the southern fear of an abolitionist plot to destroy the peculiar institution."
ReplyDeleteWhat seemed really funny and surprising to me is that the text mentions that Texas was actually not suitable for cotton production. So why should Southeners bother when they can't use the territorries to build plantations and letting slaves work on them? Because this would mean that the North would “get” the land, it would be urbanized and industrialized and its territorieal government would be on the side of the northern. The equilibrium in the Congress would be gone and Southeners had no chance to accomplish what they wanted. This shows that Slavery was mainly a political issue, it was inseparably combined with the economical ideals of the southeners because slaves were first of all cheap and worked more steadily.
ReplyDeleteSlavery, like all other industries throughout history, was based on how much money could be made. Slaves were not treated as human, but rather as a tool in which to get the cotton out of the ground, as terrible as it does sound. The slave owners saw an opportunity to get free labour and they used it to their full advantage; they sold cotton for almost no costs as the sleeves were poorly housed and fed.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with Dave when he said that presidential candidates could use their views of slavery to potentially win them votes, or detract from the popularity of their opponents.
I do believe that slavery was primarily an economic issue during the 19th century. The article clearly states that the "southern slaveholders did feel that their future political security hinged upon the annexation" of Texas. Therefore, the South used slavery as a way to gain political dominance in the US. By spreading the institution westward, they gain money and more political support from new territory "on their side". No where in this controversy states the moral issues of slavery. Even in the North the opposing the issue of slavery was just a method to further their economic and political interests. A prime example in the text is William Lloyd Garrison, a white man who had a passion his "abolition movement". Why would he oppose slavery as a moral issue when he is a rich, white man from the North?? Was he really in it to abolish slavery or was he just using it as an excuse to further advocate Northern political ideals.
ReplyDeleteSlavery was most certainly a economic issue leading up to the Civil war period because of the enormous amounts of revenue that was being collected by the southern planation owners. Slavery was also a way of life for southerners and that is why texas was such a big deal along with mexico. there was a lot of conspiracies going through the states. one such one was that if texas were to be added to the union the state would deprive the south of a major source of farming land which would be a cause for increased slaves and more money or vis versa, but that it would also break the Missouri Compromise line, "If the extensive territory that texans claimed was added to the union, it might become as many as four or five new states and carry slavery north of the Missouri compromise line." The annexation of texas was a huge problem for the north and south alike because fot he slavery question and weather or not each side was playing a "secret" card they could use later if war did break out.
ReplyDeleteMoney and politics were the major factors in the continuation of slavery. The political jostling of the presidential candidates and the push for either the North or the South to be the dominate half of the country cause many problems. Texas being one of them, the decision to annex it or to ignore it was a point for both sides. Those that sought to annex it wanted to use it for several slave states or to abolish slavery in Texas. This debate lasted for many years and other countries such as Britain chimed in. Both sides were jostling for position so they could be the winners of a war should it break out (and really it was inevitable.)
ReplyDeletei would describe the economy and politic as two physical factor that triggered the dispute and the civil war between north and the south. In case of slavery, seems to be emotional reason for the conflict. So the situation was like two kid who are argued at each other, got even amount of candy on their hands, finally got an hassle for the last candy-Texas.
ReplyDeleteAbraham Lincoln is a perfect example of how emancipation is merely political. Before 1855, Lincoln was not vocally opposing slavery. Once his life's compass pointed toward the direction of political issues to rally votes for his campaign, Lincoln began his emancipation campaign, and his opinion strengthened against slavery as time passed. Slavery itself was founded on the human characteristic of greed. Maximizing profits for Southern slaveholders is the motivation for acquiring more slaves. The Southern whites appreciated the fact that they remained above the class of blacks, and were strong proponents for slavery because of the prosperity that came from the practice.
ReplyDelete