Changes

'''Slave Power''' was pejorative - but deserved, and accurate - term used by opponents of slavery in the U.S. to identify the corrupting influence that [[slavery]] had on the [[United States of America]]. The [[Republican Party]] made it a main theme of the 1850s, arguing that the slave owners had seized control of most of the national government and were using it to their own ends.  The Republicans argued this violated [[Republicanism]]--that is, it violated basic American political values.  

'''Slave Power''' was pejorative - but deserved, and accurate - term used by opponents of slavery in the U.S. to identify the corrupting influence that [[slavery]] had on the [[United States of America]]. The [[Republican Party]] made it a main theme of the 1850s, arguing that the slave owners had seized control of most of the national government and were using it to their own ends.  The Republicans argued this violated [[Republicanism]]—that is, it violated basic American political values.  

The [[American Civil War]] destroyed the "slave power" and the Republican policies during [[Reconstruction]] were specifically designed to totally erase its influence.

The [[American Civil War]] destroyed the "slave power" and the Republican policies during [[Reconstruction]] were specifically designed to totally erase its influence.

The "Slave Power" (often called the "'''Slaveocracy'''") was in common use in the Ante-Bellum era 1840-1860 as a pejorative to identify and denounce the political power of the [[Plantation|slaveholding]] class in the South. The argument was that this small group of rich men had seized control of their own states and was trying to take over the national government in illegitimate fashion to use it to expand and protect slavery.   

The "Slave Power" (often called the "'''Slaveocracy'''") was in common use in the Ante-Bellum era 1840-1860 as a pejorative to identify and denounce the political power of the [[Plantation|slaveholding]] class in the South. The argument was that this small group of rich men had seized control of their own states and was trying to take over the national government in illegitimate fashion to use it to expand and protect slavery.   

The issue was not the treatment of slaves.  It was fear of slave oligarchs. Men and women could differ on scores of issues, hate blacks or like them, denounce slavery as a sin or promise to guarantee its protection in the Deep South, and still attack the "Slaveocracy."  It mattered not where one stood on the other issues. One could still hate the slavemasters with a passion. <ref> Leonard L. Richards, ''Slave Power: The Free North and Southern Domination, 1780-1860'' (2000) p. 3)</ref>

The issue was not the treatment of slaves.  It was fear of slave oligarchs. Men and women could differ on scores of issues, hate blacks or like them, denounce slavery as a sin or promise to guarantee its protection in the Deep South, and still attack the "Slaveocracy."  It mattered not where one stood on the other issues. One could still hate the slavemasters with a passion.<ref>Leonard L. Richards, ''Slave Power: The Free North and Southern Domination, 1780-1860'' (2000) p. 3)</ref>

The term was popularized by antislavery intellectuals such as John Gorham Palfrey, Josiah Quincy, Horace Bushnell, [[James Shepherd Pike]],  [[Horace Greeley]] and Henry Wilson. They showed through a combination of emotive argument and hard statistical data that the South had long held a disproportionate level of power within the nation.  Did the slave power really exist? Millions in the North thought so, and acted upon it. However the notion was ridiculed by Southerners at the time, and rejected as false by historians of the 1920s and 1930s, who stressed that the South was internally divided before 1850.<ref> See Chauncey S. Boucher, "In Re That Aggressive Slavocracy," ''Mississippi Valley Historical Review'' Vol. 8, No. 1/2 (Jun., 1921), pp. 13-79; Craven (1936) </ref> The idea that the Slave Power existed has partly come back at the hands of [[neoabolitionist]] historians since 1970, and few historians now disagree that it was a powerful factor in the beliefs of Northerners.

The term was popularized by antislavery intellectuals such as John Gorham Palfrey, Josiah Quincy, Horace Bushnell, [[James Shepherd Pike]],  [[Horace Greeley]] and Henry Wilson. They showed through a combination of emotive argument and hard statistical data that the South had long held a disproportionate level of power within the nation.  Did the slave power really exist? Millions in the North thought so, and acted upon it. However the notion was ridiculed by Southerners at the time, and rejected as false by historians of the 1920s and 1930s, who stressed that the South was internally divided before 1850.<ref>See Chauncey S. Boucher, "In Re That Aggressive Slavocracy," ''Mississippi Valley Historical Review'' Vol. 8, No. 1/2 (Jun., 1921), pp. 13-79; Craven (1936)</ref> The idea that the Slave Power existed has partly come back at the hands of [[neoabolitionist]] historians since 1970, and few historians now disagree that it was a powerful factor in the beliefs of Northerners.

==Southern power==

==Southern power==

Slave Power derived from a combination of factors. The "three-fifths clause," (counting 100 slaves as 60 people for seats in the House and thus for electoral votes) gave the South additional representation at the national level.<ref> Garry Wills, ''"Negro President": Jefferson and the Slave Power,'' (2005) </ref> Parity in the Senate was critical, whereby a new slave state was admitted in tandem with a new free state. Regional unity across party lines was essential on key votes.  In the Democratic party, the a presidential candidate had to carry the national convention by a two-thirds vote to get nominated.  It was also essential for  some northerners--"Doughfaces"<ref>Most Doughfaces were [[Jacksonian Democracy|Jacksonian Democrats]] like [[Franklin Pierce]] and [[James Buchanan]]; few were Whigs.</ref>--to collaborate with the South proved crucial, as in the debates surrounding the three-fifths clause itself in 1787, the Missouri Compromise of 1820, the gag rule in the House (1836-1844), and the wider subject of the [[Wilmot Proviso]] and slavery expansion in the Southwest after the Mexican war of 1846-48.<ref> Richards (2000) </ref>  However, the North was adding population--and House seats--much faster than the South, so the handwriting was on the wall. With the implacable Republicans gaining every year, the secession option became more and more attractive to the South.  Secession was suicidal, as some leaders realized--and as [[John Quincy Adams]] had long prophesied.  Secession,  argued  James Henry Hammond of South Carolina, reminded him of "the Japanese who when insulted rip open their own bowels." And yet when secession came in 1860 Hammond followed. Richards concludes, "It was men like Hammond who finally destroyed the Slave Power. Thanks to their leading the South out of the Union, seventy-two years of slaveholder domination came to an end." <ref> Richards (2000) pp. 214-15. </ref>  

Slave Power derived from a combination of factors. The "three-fifths clause," (counting 100 slaves as 60 people for seats in the House and thus for electoral votes) gave the South additional representation at the national level.<ref>Garry Wills, ''"Negro President": Jefferson and the Slave Power,'' (2005)</ref> Parity in the Senate was critical, whereby a new slave state was admitted in tandem with a new free state. Regional unity across party lines was essential on key votes.  In the Democratic party, the a presidential candidate had to carry the national convention by a two-thirds vote to get nominated.  It was also essential for  some northerners--"Doughfaces"<ref>Most Doughfaces were [[Jacksonian Democracy|Jacksonian Democrats]] like [[Franklin Pierce]] and [[James Buchanan]]; few were Whigs.</ref>—to collaborate with the South proved crucial, as in the debates surrounding the three-fifths clause itself in 1787, the Missouri Compromise of 1820, the gag rule in the House (1836-1844), and the wider subject of the [[Wilmot Proviso]] and slavery expansion in the Southwest after the Mexican war of 1846-48.<ref>Richards (2000)</ref>  However, the North was adding population—and House seats—much faster than the South, so the handwriting was on the wall. With the implacable Republicans gaining every year, the secession option became more and more attractive to the South.  Secession was suicidal, as some leaders realized—and as [[John Quincy Adams]] had long prophesied.  Secession,  argued  James Henry Hammond of South Carolina, reminded him of "the Japanese who when insulted rip open their own bowels." And yet when secession came in 1860 Hammond followed. Richards concludes, "It was men like Hammond who finally destroyed the Slave Power. Thanks to their leading the South out of the Union, seventy-two years of slaveholder domination came to an end." <ref>Richards (2000) pp. 214-15.</ref>  

==Threat to republicanism==

==Threat to republicanism==

==Activists==

==Activists==

Blue (2006) explores the motives and actions of those who played supportive but not central roles in antislavery politics—those who undertook the humdrum work of organizing local parties, holding conventions, editing newspapers, and generally animating and agitating the discussion of issues related to slavery. They were a small but critical number of voices who, beginning in the late 1830s, battled the institution of slavery through political activism. In the face of great odds and powerful opposition, activists insisted that emancipation and racial equality could only be achieved through the political process. Representative activists include: Alvan Stewart, a Liberty party organizer from New York; [[John Greenleaf Whittier]], a Massachusetts poet, journalist, and Liberty activist; Charles Henry Langston, an Ohio African American educator; [[Owen Lovejoy]], a congressman from Illinois, whose brother was killed by a pro-slavery mob; Sherman Booth, a journalist and Liberty organizer in Wisconsin; Jane Grey Swisshelm, a journalist in Pennsylvania and Minnesota; [[George W. Julian]], a congressman from Indiana; David Wilmot, a congressman from Pennsylvania whose [[Wilmot proviso]] tried to stop the expansion of slavery in the Southwest; [[Benjamin Wade]] and Edward Wade, a senator and a congressman, respectively, from Ohio; and Jessie Benton Frémont of Missouri and California, wife of the Republican 1856 presidential nominee [[John C. Frémont]].<ref> See Blue (2006)</ref>

Blue (2006) explores the motives and actions of those who played supportive but not central roles in antislavery politics—those who undertook the humdrum work of organizing local parties, holding conventions, editing newspapers, and generally animating and agitating the discussion of issues related to slavery. They were a small but critical number of voices who, beginning in the late 1830s, battled the institution of slavery through political activism. In the face of great odds and powerful opposition, activists insisted that emancipation and racial equality could only be achieved through the political process. Representative activists include: Alvan Stewart, a Liberty party organizer from New York; [[John Greenleaf Whittier]], a Massachusetts poet, journalist, and Liberty activist; Charles Henry Langston, an Ohio African American educator; [[Owen Lovejoy]], a congressman from Illinois, whose brother was killed by a pro-slavery mob; Sherman Booth, a journalist and Liberty organizer in Wisconsin; Jane Grey Swisshelm, a journalist in Pennsylvania and Minnesota; [[George W. Julian]], a congressman from Indiana; David Wilmot, a congressman from Pennsylvania whose [[Wilmot proviso]] tried to stop the expansion of slavery in the Southwest; [[Benjamin Wade]] and Edward Wade, a senator and a congressman, respectively, from Ohio; and Jessie Benton Frémont of Missouri and California, wife of the Republican 1856 presidential nominee [[John C. Frémont]].<ref>See Blue (2006)</ref>

==Impact of Democratic Free Soilers==

==Impact of Democratic Free Soilers==

The Democrats who rallied to [[Martin Van Buren]]'s "Free Soil Party" in 1848 have been studied by Earle (2003). Their views on race occupied a wide spectrum, but they were able to fashion new and vital arguments against slavery and its expansion based on the [[Jacksonian Democracy]]'s long-standing commitment to egalitarianism and hostility to centralized power. Linking their antislavery stance to a land-reform agenda that pressed for free land for poor settlers -- realized by the Homestead Law of 1862--in addition to land free of slavery, Free Soil Democrats forced major political realignments in New York, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Ohio. Democratic politicians such as Wilmot, Marcus Morton, John Parker Hale, and even former president Van Buren were transformed into antislavery leaders.  Many entered the new Republican party after 1854, bringing along Jacksonian ideas about property and political equality, helping transform antislavery from a struggling crusade into a mass political movement that came to power in 1860.<ref> See Earle (2003)</ref>

The Democrats who rallied to [[Martin Van Buren]]'s "Free Soil Party" in 1848 have been studied by Earle (2003). Their views on race occupied a wide spectrum, but they were able to fashion new and vital arguments against slavery and its expansion based on the [[Jacksonian Democracy]]'s long-standing commitment to egalitarianism and hostility to centralized power. Linking their antislavery stance to a land-reform agenda that pressed for free land for poor settlers—realized by the Homestead Law of 1862—in addition to land free of slavery, Free Soil Democrats forced major political realignments in New York, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Ohio. Democratic politicians such as Wilmot, Marcus Morton, John Parker Hale, and even former president Van Buren were transformed into antislavery leaders.  Many entered the new Republican party after 1854, bringing along Jacksonian ideas about property and political equality, helping transform antislavery from a struggling crusade into a mass political movement that came to power in 1860.<ref>See Earle (2003)</ref>

* Ashworth, John. "Free Labor, Wage Labor, and Slave Power: Republicanism and the Republican Party in the 1850s," in ''The Market Revolution in America: Social, Political and Religious Expressions, 1800-1880'', edited by S. M. Stokes and S. Conway (1996), 128-46.  

* Ashworth, John. "Free Labor, Wage Labor, and Slave Power: Republicanism and the Republican Party in the 1850s," in ''The Market Revolution in America: Social, Political and Religious Expressions, 1800-1880'', edited by S. M. Stokes and S. Conway (1996), 128-46.  

* Blue, Frederick J. ''No Taint of Compromise: Crusaders in Antislavery Politics'' (2004) [http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0807132055/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-4827826-5463040#reader-link  excerpt and text search]

* Blue, Frederick J. ''No Taint of Compromise: Crusaders in Antislavery Politics'' (2004) [http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0807132055/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-4827826-5463040#reader-link  excerpt and text search]

* Boucher, Chauncey S. "In Re That Aggressive Slavocracy," ''The Mississippi Valley Historical Review'' Vol. 8, No. 1/2 (Jun., 1921), pp. 13-79 [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0161-391X%28192106%2F09%298%3A1%2F2%3C13%3AIRTAS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-V in JSTOR]

* Boucher, Chauncey S. "In Re That Aggressive Slavocracy," ''The Mississippi Valley Historical Review'' Vol. 8, No. 1/2 (Jun., 1921), pp.&nbsp;13–79 [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0161-391X%28192106%2F09%298%3A1%2F2%3C13%3AIRTAS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-V in JSTOR]

* Craven, Avery. "Coming of the War Between the States An Interpretation," ''The Journal of Southern History,'' Vol. 2, No. 3 (1936), pp. 303-322; rejects notion of Slave Power [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-4642(193608)2%3A3%3C303%3ACOTWBT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-8 in JSTOR]

* Craven, Avery. "Coming of the War Between the States An Interpretation," ''The Journal of Southern History,'' Vol. 2, No. 3 (1936), pp.&nbsp;303–322; rejects notion of Slave Power [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-4642(193608)2%3A3%3C303%3ACOTWBT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-8 in JSTOR]

* Davis, David Brion. ''The Slave Power Conspiracy and the Paranoid Style'' (1969)

* Davis, David Brion. ''The Slave Power Conspiracy and the Paranoid Style'' (1969)

* Earle, Jonathan. ''Jacksonian Antislavery and the Politics of Free Soil, 1824-1854'' (2004) [http://www.amazon.com/Jacksonian-Antislavery-Politics-Free-1824-1854/dp/0807855553/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195732386&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]

* Earle, Jonathan. ''Jacksonian Antislavery and the Politics of Free Soil, 1824-1854'' (2004) [http://www.amazon.com/Jacksonian-Antislavery-Politics-Free-1824-1854/dp/0807855553/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195732386&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]

* Foner, Eric. ''Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men: The Ideology of the Republican Party Before the Civil War'' (1970)], esp pp. 73-102 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=90104191  online edition]

* Foner, Eric. ''Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men: The Ideology of the Republican Party Before the Civil War'' (1970)], esp pp.&nbsp;73–102 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=90104191  online edition]

* Gara, Larry . "Slavery and the Slave Power: A Crucial Distinction" ''Civil War History'' v15 (1969), pp 5-18

* Gara, Larry . "Slavery and the Slave Power: A Crucial Distinction" ''Civil War History'' v15 (1969), pp 5–18

* Gienapp, William E. "The Republican Party and the Slave Power," in Robert H. Abzug and Stephen E. Maizlish, eds., ''New Perspectives on Race and Slavery in America'' (1986), pp 51-78

* Gienapp, William E. "The Republican Party and the Slave Power," in Robert H. Abzug and Stephen E. Maizlish, eds., ''New Perspectives on Race and Slavery in America'' (1986), pp 51–78

* McInerney, Daniel J. "'A State of Commerce': Market Power and Slave Power in Abolitionist Political Economy." ''Civil War History'' 1991 37(2): 101-119. Issn: 0009-8078  

* McInerney, Daniel J. "'A State of Commerce': Market Power and Slave Power in Abolitionist Political Economy." ''Civil War History'' 1991 37(2): 101-119. Issn: 0009-8078  

*  Richards, Leonard L. ''Slave Power: The Free North and Southern Domination, 1780-1860'' (2000), the standard scholarly history; [http://www.amazon.com/Slave-Power-Southern-Domination-1780-1860/dp/0807126004/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195730674&sr=8-5 excerpt and text search]

*  Richards, Leonard L. ''Slave Power: The Free North and Southern Domination, 1780-1860'' (2000), the standard scholarly history; [http://www.amazon.com/Slave-Power-Southern-Domination-1780-1860/dp/0807126004/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195730674&sr=8-5 excerpt and text search]

* Thompson, C. Bradley ed. ''Anti-Slavery Political Writings, 1833-1860: A Reader'' (2003)

* Thompson, C. Bradley ed. ''Anti-Slavery Political Writings, 1833-1860: A Reader'' (2003)

* Henry Wilson, ''History of the Rise and Fall of the Slave Power in America'' (in 3 volumes, 1872 & 1877) [http://books.google.com/books?id=iG4FAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=intitle:%22slave+power%22&num=30&as_brr=1 vol 2 online]; [http://books.google.com/books?id=tG4FAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=intitle:%22slave+power%22&num=30&as_brr=1 vol 3 online]

* Henry Wilson, ''History of the Rise and Fall of the Slave Power in America'' (in 3 volumes, 1872 & 1877) [http://books.google.com/books?id=iG4FAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=intitle:%22slave+power%22&num=30&as_brr=1 vol 2 online]; [http://books.google.com/books?id=tG4FAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=intitle:%22slave+power%22&num=30&as_brr=1 vol 3 online]

*[http://antislavery.eserver.org/treatises/the_slave_power.doc/file_view ''The Slave Power''] speeches of abolitionist Theodore Parker, 1841-52

*[http://antislavery.eserver.org/treatises/the_slave_power.doc/file_view ''The Slave Power''] speeches of abolitionist Theodore Parker, 1841–52

==See also==

==See also==

[[Category:United States History]]

[[Category:United States History]]

[[Category:Black History]]

[[Category:Black History]]

[[category:Jacksonian Democracy]]

[[Category:Jacksonian Democracy]]