Skip to main content

What was the debate surrounding abolition vs. equality and how did it lead to the Civil War? Why were there significant fears about the impact of...

Abolitionists, or people who supported the emancipation of slaves, were divided into different camps, from radicals or "immediatists" who espoused immediate abolition in the years before the Civil War to "gradualists," who supported the gradual emancipation of the slaves. Some gradualists belonged to the Free Soil party, which only wanted to stop the spread of slavery but did not want its immediate end in the areas where it already existed. The Free Soil adherents believed that slavery would end if its spread were stopped. In addition, some abolitionists supported full social and political equality for former slaves, while other abolitionists did not. These forces were able to join forces in the years before the Civil War. Agreements such as the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, which gave the people in those territories the right to decide if they wanted slavery or not, made the Free Soil party join forces with more radical abolitionists, as the Free Soil people feared that slavery was spreading.


However, many people in the north feared the abolition of the slaves. Many people who worked in factories in industrial cities such as New York and Boston were members of the Democratic party, not the Republicans (which was then the party of Lincoln). These working people, many of them union members, feared that freed slaves would threaten their livelihoods if freed slaves went north after the Civil War. Working people felt as though they had a great deal to lose. In general, wealthy northerners supported abolitionism, in part because of civic and religious convictions that convinced them that slavery was wrong but also because the freed slaves would not threaten their position or livelihoods. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.