real life wrote:Abolitionists, motivated by Christian belief, pushed spineless Northern politicians to oppose expansion of slavery in the new states.
This is an extremely naive statement. It is typical of oversimplified views which focus, for whatever reasons of personal agenda of those making the statement, on an historical factor which the author would purport is the only significant factor.
I've already pointed out that a great deal of immigration in the period 1848-61 was by Europeans whose hopes for political justice had been crushed with the failed Socialist uprisings. They opposed both the institution of slavery and the expansion of slave states on the basis of their political ideology.
Southern planters opposed any protective tariffs which would have raised the cost, or even allegedly raised the cost, of manufactured goods to themselves. Northern industrials, and even simply those who wished to become industrialists, who might and quite likely never gave a damn what happended to black men, women and children, opposed the expansion of slavery on that basis.
Small producers of products produced in the South, such as tobacco growers in Connecticutt, who already suffered from an unfair competition, opposed the expansion of slavery--and there is no reason to assume that their opposition was rooted in "christian love."
Northern politicians who loathed the unnatural political clout given Southern slave holders by the pernicious three-fifths compromise of constitution opposed the expansion of slavery on that basis, and there is no reason to assume that they gave tinkers damn about black men, women and children. These politicians in particular had an extremely good reason to oppose the expansion of slavery, even if they loathed and publicly stated that they loated black men.
Within the South itself, many small holders and small craftsmen who could not rise above economic subsistence because of an unfair competition with slave holders opposed the expansion of slavery. This was such a notable effect that entire regions abstained from joining the secessionists, and in fact, often joined the Federal cause in the war. The western counties of Virginia seceded from the state, and became a state on their own in 1863--West Virginia. The eastern counties of Tennessee were so adamantly Unionist, that the Confederate military authorities felt moved to lay seige to Knoxville, thousands of Tennesseans from that region joined Federal armies, and Lincoln's second term running mate and successor in the Presidency, Andrew Johnson, was from that region. There is no reason to assume that they were motivated by a christian love for black people.
The abolitionists of whom you speak were a distinct minority. Many of their leading figures, such as Harriet Beecher Stowe, author of
Uncle Tom's Cabin (which was not just abolitionist, but also grossly racist) were the beneficiaries of the wealth obtained by their grandfathers and great grandfathers--sometimes even their fathers--in the slave trade with the west coast of Africa. Their motivations might have been guilt, or remorse, or christian love, but they were often hypocritical in the extreme.
Therefore, the following statement:
Quote:Subtract the Christian abolitionist movement from 19th century America and there would have been no civil war. Period. No freed slaves. Period.
--is errant historical claptrap. Writing the word period, and capitalizing it, does not make the statement correct. Events subsequent to the American Civil War clearly showed that there was no love of black people in the North--the lynchings, the murderous race riots, the Jim Crow laws.
You simply wish to indulge this historical fantasy because you've gone out on a limb with the slavery issue, and are alarmed at how easily others have begun to saw off the limb. You're falling, clutching at twigs on the way down, and can't admit it.
