Civil War Abolitionists

Though initially considered to be a ‘compromise’ and intended to lessen the tensions between the North and South, the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 ultimately served as a vehicle to fight against slavery. Common citizens rebelled against their supposed responsibilities to return slaves to their masters, and resisted the punishments handed down. By polarizing the nation in such a way,

The North is popularly considered the catalyst of the abolitionist movement in antebellum America and is often glorified in its struggle against slavery; however, a lesser-known installment of the Northern involvement during this era is one of its complicity in the development of a “science” of race that helped to rationalize and justify slavery and racism throughout America. The economic livelihood of the North was dependent on the fruits of slave labor and thus the North, albeit with some reluctance, inherently conceded to tolerate slavery and moreover embarked on a quest to sustain and legitimize the institution through scientific research. Racism began to progress significantly following the American Revolution after which Thomas

Before 1861 there were many compromises between the North and the South many of which had to do with the economy or slaves. Every time there was a compromise before 1861, it was because an even distribution of power made it was the easiest way to solve the problem that would otherwise go unsolved. The reason the North and the South could not compromise is 1861 was because there were better options for the South that would give it more power if it decided not to compromise with the North. The North had more power so the South would not be able to win any votes in Congress, and also the North trying to end slavery which is what most compromises were about before 1861.

The South had just seceded and was extremely patriotic of their “new country”. The South would attack any one who threatened their vulnerable nation. The North’s desire to abolish slavery frightened them and they were

The South threaten leaving the Union, because of the election of 1860 with Lincoln winning it. The South did not want to lose their way of life and felt the only way would be to leave the Union. The similarity in polarization of the two periods is that the farmers both times were on the side of rebellion. The differences is that the American Revoulation was an east verves west, for example North Carolina. The farmers who live in the west hated anything that the eastern city folks supported. The eastern normally supported the British government and big business, so the farmers in the west would just hate the British, because of the fact that people in the eastern supported them. The led up to the Civil War was north verves south. This is showed through all of the compromises leading up to the secession, for example the the Great Compromise of 1850. The North wanted California to enter as a free state. The South feeling that their will lose power in Congress wanted the North to pass stricter laws that would enforce the Fugitive Slave laws. The north got California and the south got the Fugitive Slave Act of

Unfortunately before during this time, the slave population was growing rapidly, by almost 50,000 slaves each year. Most abolitionists came from cities and factory towns in the North, but some came from the upper South. One of the abolitionist’s main goal was to reach the “highest moral ideals of the Revolutionary generation. At first, the abolitionists just tried to convince the slaveholders of how immoral slavery was through newspapers, tracts, and circulated petitions. Abolitionists claimed that slavery had disobeyed the Declaration of Independence, because slaves were not allowed the right to

Throughout the history of mankind, slavery has existed in one form or another. Since the times of ancient civilizations to modern era subjugations, there have forces who feel strongly of its necessity and purpose, while others have devoted themselves to seeing the ideas and acts of slavery abolished. America is not an exception to the concept of slavery and during the nation’s early history, parties from both sides have been made famous for their beliefs in the continuation or the denouncement of slavery in the United States. To understand the contrasting views of pro-slavery advocates versus abolitionists in antebellum America, a comparison of the individual positions must be made to further understand the goals of each party.

Although historians disagree on its political impact, abolitionism unquestionably helped define slavery as a pressing moral problem (Sellman). Abolitionists played a key role in setting the terms of the debate over slavery and in making it a convincing moral issue, still they had remarkably little influence in the North. Very few Northerners were abolitionists, and many regarded abolitionists as dangerous radicals. What made their case telling was the South's violent reaction. Extreme Southern responses appeared to confirm abolitionist warnings about a conspiratorial "Slave Power." (Larkin) By the 1850s, however, the escalating sectional conflict had largely taken on a force of its own, one that owed less and less to

The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 was part of the Compromise of 1850 that allowed slave catchers to seize alleged fugitive slaves without a trial and prohibit the assistance of fugitives and/or impeding their retrieval (“Abolition, Anti-Slavery Movements, and the Rise of the Sectional Controversy”). As a result, many former slaves were captured and forced to return to their masters. For example, Anthony Burns, a slave from Virginia who escaped slavery and established a new life in Boston, was detained by a federal marshal (Fraser 360). The arrest incited uprisings and protests by Boston’s white and colored abolitionists (Fraser 360). Nevertheless, public opinions of the Fugitive Slave Act varied depending on the country’s region. On one hand,

Abolitionists are an American group who fought endlessly for the immediate emancipation of slaves. Many abolitionists were devout religious people who believed that slavery violated the divine law. Most of them came from the northeast, northwest, or the upper south. Other than religious reasons, several of these men were driven by the ideals of the American Civil War. These men were not participants in the war and wanted to be apart of the fight for the rights of slaves. Slavery was mainly focused in the south and began in the early colonies in 1619. By 1812, the Abolitionist Movement had begun. Abolitionist newspapers and other published works became a commonplace in several U.S. states. These writings were intended

One of the most, if not the most, controversial and heated debates following the United States independence was regarding the institution of slavery. In the introduction to his book Half Slave and Half Free, Bruce Levine quotes Carl Schurzs’ observation as the “slave question not being a mere occasional quarrel between two sections of the country divided by a geographic line, but a great struggle between two antagonistic systems of social organization (p.15)”. The Nouthern states that allowed slavery benefited from the agricultural labor that those slaves provided. The Northern states that prohibited slavery did so for moral and pragmatic reasons; they felt it was morally wrong to deny another human any form of rights, and did not like the economic advantage it gave to the Southern states. With the use of slavery largely concentrated in the South, the movement against it came from the North and was led by abolitionists; those who were committed to bringing an end to the practice. In this course we have defined “Practice” as the conduct of policy, such as opinion, election, parties and law-making (Lecture). We define Policy as the goals of politics, those being sovereignty, defense, and a collective well-being (Lecture). The following analytical essay will examine antislavery sentiment and practices in the Northern states and the reaction of Southern states. Additionally how the pressures from both sides influenced the Policy of the United States following independence then

The North and the South had a growing tension between them for many reasons, and the northern abolitionists encouraged a Civil War through their actions of protest. Abolitionists foresaw a Civil War because the growing tensions between the North and the South became apparent in political and social changes, slavery issues, and the growing occurrence of rebellions.

This investigation will assess to what extent did the Fugitive Slaves Acts impacted slavery in America. This will primarily focus on how the acts were executed and what havocs arose from them. The laws brought controversy amongst the Northern and Southern States which includes how the Northern States, which were the Free states, reacted to the acts. The investigation will consist of an abolitionist’s argument against the acts. It will also include the basics of the Fugitive Slaves Acts and as to what their intentions were. Most of the evidence will be provided by historical summaries. This will also include a primary resource from abolitionist William Lloyd George.

Abolitionists thought the Southern’s way of life was immoral. These differences on moral reforms, women’s rights, and the abolishment of slavery caused many social differences between the North and the

American society began ever since first immigrant from Great Britain settled. Historically, United States always fought for the freedom and rights of society and one. Especially for the blacks, the struggles they suffered are indescribable; however, they went through countless trials and gained the liberation from the segregation and slavery. Not only that black’s efforts accomplished to the stage of equality for themselves, but it is undeniable that abolitionists played big role for eradicating the