1. Welcome to the CivilWarTalk, a forum for questions and discussions about the American Civil War! Become a member today for full access to all of our resources, it's fast, simple, and absolutely free!
Dismiss Notice
Join and Become a Patron at CivilWarTalk!
Support this site with a monthly or yearly subscription! Active Patrons get to browse the site Ad free!
START BY JOINING NOW!

Northern arguments

Discussion in 'Civil War History - Secession and Politics' started by jgoodguy, Oct 19, 2016.

  1. CSA Today

    CSA Today Colonel

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2011
    Messages:
    14,675
    Location:
    Laurinburg NC
    ?
     

  2. (Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)
  3. Lost Cause

    Lost Cause Sergeant Major

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2014
    Messages:
    2,227
    No, an example contradicting a blanket statement.
     
  4. unionblue

    unionblue Brev. Brig. Gen'l Member of the Year

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2005
    Messages:
    24,807
    Location:
    Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
    :smile:
     
  5. atlantis

    atlantis First Sergeant

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2016
    Messages:
    1,070
    As the North evolved so did its arguments, let us not forget in response to the war of 1812 New England briefly flirted with secession. After the nullification crisis with SC what pressure were northern leaders under from voters to take a firm line in dealing with slave states? Was it a case of a vocal anti slavery minority or was there a broad fed up with compromising with slave states feeling?.
     
  6. rpkennedy

    rpkennedy Major

    Joined:
    May 18, 2011
    Messages:
    8,488
    Location:
    Carlisle, PA
    Over the course of the 1840s, there was a minority, but growing, anti-slavery view in the North. Traditional allies of Southern politicians began working against them, particularly those from New England and the Northeast. The real breaking point was the Mexican War which was seen by many Northerners as a naked land grab by the South to expand slavery. From that point, both sides began hardening their ideological positions and compromise became less and less realistic.

    Ryan
     
    O' Be Joyful and unionblue like this.
  7. OpnCoronet

    OpnCoronet Major

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2010
    Messages:
    8,946


    As was mine.
     
  8. uaskme

    uaskme Sergeant

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2016
    Messages:
    637
    In 1860 the Republicans were the Anti Slavery Party. Democratic rhetoric was very different. The Moral Response by the Abolitionist had fail by the 40s. Thus began the Political Response. The Liberty Party failed mainly because it called for equal rights for Blacks. The Free Soil movement took over the antislavery campaign which removed the Party Plank of equal rights for Blacks. Most of the Free Soilers, especially the Westeners and northern Democrats who joined the Party wanted Blacks Excluded. The Republican Party evolved from the Free Soilers and eliminated the Nativist rhetoric so as not to be so offensive to Western Immigrants. The Radicals in the R Party argued that the South was Un-American. Their view of the Constitution didn't include the South. The Rs were able to convince enough Northern and Western Voters that Blacks and Southern Culture were a threat to their Prosperity. This is the Majority of the Northern Argument in 1860.
     
    Last edited: Mar 12, 2017
    CSA Today likes this.
  9. OpnCoronet

    OpnCoronet Major

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2010
    Messages:
    8,946





    What, exactly, are you saying, that in Ante-Bellum America, those who opposed slavery were really racist Even if true,

    Even if true, what does this say about those same people, fighting to preserve the Union?

    If you want to go that route. Historically, Northern racists defeated southern racists and freed the Slaves?
     
    CW Buff and rpkennedy like this.

(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)

Share This Page


(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)