The abolitionists had a number of reason for condemning slavery. what were some reason?

In the years prior to the civil war South Carolina relied heavily on the institution of slavery,Many of the state's residents argued that owning slaves was necessary to run the plantations, and that abolishing the practice would ruin South Carolina's economy. on the other hand, there were plenty of abolitionists (especially in the north)who argued against the practice of slavery. the abolitionists had a number of reasons for condemning the practice. Explain those reasons.



Thanks :)The abolitionists had a number of reason for condemning slavery. what were some reason?
~Actually, abolitionists were a minority faction. Although vocal, they never had widespread support.



Slave ownership was a right guaranteed by the US Constitution (see Article I, Sections 2 and 9, Art IV, Sec 2, Amendments IV, V, IX and X). It could be abolished only by constitutional amendment or by state law. No constitutional amendment for abolition was ever proposed before 1864 for the very simply reason that it lacked the support for ratification in the North, forget the South. In fact, the Republican dominated northern majority in Congress in 1861 passed the Corwin Amendment. If ratified, Corwin would have prohibited any future attempt to introduce an abolition amendment. Rather than to stick around and ratify Corwin, the southern states seceded. Then, with the south absent, an abolition amendment was introduced in Congress in 1864. It failed and was never submitted to the ratification process.



Had it gotten out of Congress, the amendment would not have been ratified. Slavery was still legal in Missouri, Kentucky, Tennessee, Delaware, Maryland, West Virginia and those regions of Louisiana and Virginia that were under USA control. Imagine the effect on the economy and stability of the nation if millions of slaves were suddenly freed, uneducated, homeless, unemployed and unemployable because they lacked marketable job skills and with no money and no means of support. It was to create that very turmoil and chaos that Lincoln had in mind when he issued the redundant (Congress had beat him to the punch by several months with the Confiscation Acts) and illegal and unconstitutional Emancipation Proclamation (it violated the foregoing constitutional provisions as well as his oath of office to preserve, defend and protect the constitution). After the war, the reasons for the Acts and the EP remained extant. That is why Amendment XIII was introduced and why ratification was coerced.



No, this doesn't answer you question. It wasn't intended to. You seem to suffer under the common misconception that the war (which was by no means a civil war) was about slavery and that the southern states seceded to protect a right that was guaranteed to them under the constitution and a right that the north had offered to guarantee permanently through Corwin.



So why did the CSA states secede? It was their absolute right to leave a government that no longer served, defended and protected the rights and interests of the governed. That is the very heart and soul of the Declaration of Independence and when the 13 nations created when Great Britain granted them independence by the Treaty of Paris, 1783, and they decided to form a confederation of nations, they did not discard the principle over which they had just spent 8 years fighting a war (and that war WAS a civil war; by no rational definition of the term could it be called a revolution). The right to secede was an understood given, implicit if not express in the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison said as much when they authored the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions in 1798. The New England states knew it when they threatened to secede in 1803, again in 1812, yet again in 1814 and yet even again in 1815. States in the north, south and west alike knew it when they threatened to secede over the illegal and unconstitutional Missouri Compromises of 1820 and 1821. South Carolina knew it when she threatened to secede during the Tariff Act/Nullification Act crisis of 1837. Abe Lincoln knew it when he argued in favor of the right on the floor of Congress on January 12, 1848. States in the north, south and west knew it when they threatened to do it over the 1852 Dred Scott decision (which, incidentally, was absolutely correct as a matter of constitutional law). The largest secession movements fostered by the Taney Court decision were, once again, in New England. To understand why the CSA states did secede, read South Carolina's complaints of 1837. Those conditions not only did not improve, but they worsened and by 1860, the southern states had been totally disenfranchised and had lost all say in the federal government. Common sense said it was time to opt out. Of course, Tennessee seceded as a matter of self-preservation and joined the CSA in the foolish belief that perhaps Tennessee would not become the bloody battleground she must inevitably have become if Tennessee remained in the USA coalition. Virginia joined reluctantly because her national interests were more aligned with the CSA than with the member nation-states of the USA. North Carolina seceded as much out of the necessity occasioned by geography as anything.



If your essay is connected with some foolish lesson plan of your "teacher" that demands you to believe that a) the CSA states seceded over the slavery issue and b) the war was a civil war and was fought by the south to protect and preserve the "Peculiar Institution", why not educate the teacher and write a worthwhile essay that explains the lie of the myths and legends?



If you are going to simply answer the questions, the reasons to oppose slavery are obvious and self-evident. The practical, legal, economic, social and financial reasons to oppose sudden and immediate abolition are equally clear. Add to them the religious arguments and the sociological arguments and it is no wonder that the abolitionists formed such a small minority faction.