To what degree was the argument against slavery economic political and moral?

Answer 1

I am not a historian but I believe it was almost entirely moral. I don't see why it would have been politically or economically useful to denounce slavery.

Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves, but years before Thomas Jefferson tried to end slavery in the declaration (that part was removed, probably because it would have been politically costly, and we might've lost the revolutionary war had the south been divided over the issue of slavery).

The Bible was used heavily to justify slavery, since the old and new testaments condone it, as well as the story of Ham and his descendant's curse to forever be slaves was interpreted as the reason africans have black skin, and a justification for our owning them as work animals.

So there was actually a moral argument (as inconcievable as it is today) to keep slavery going.

Actually, the conflict over slavery was more political and economic. The south on depended on slavery to grow cotton. Only 25% of the south actually owned slaves and only 1% had more than 100 slaves, yet those who owned the slaves were the southern politicians so they fought politically to keep slavery as it was essential to their personal economic goals. The north saw slavery as more of a moral bad, but they still profited from it. Overall, it was a social, economic, and political conflict, but only the north relied upon morals to denounce it. Additionally, the south disliked the blacks as a race but like individual blacks, whereas the north disliked the individuals but liked the race. Furthermore, in the north, slaves were not totally free and they were still oppressed, and the south pointed to treating slaves better because they were a Hugh economic investment and felt they were treated better than the northern "wage slaves" as in the north the factories didnt care about the hungry and sick workers cause they could easily be replaced.