Poor Southern whites did not own slaves, and were not particularly interested in the slavery issue.
They had nothing in common with the plantocracy, and never associated with them socially. Being ranked only one step up from the blacks, they detested them with particular virulence. But they did not leap into uniform to fight for slavery.
Principally they were a warlike breed (largely descended from Ulstermen) who positively welcomed an excuse to carry a rifle, swagger about and seek the spoils of war.
If they needed a specific cause, they could feel that they were defending the homeland against the invader. And in the end, they were led by Robert E. Lee, one of the most inspiring Generals in American history.
There were any number of reasons, but some possibilities include:
There are a number of reasons that most Southerners did not want to see slavery abolished. First however, is a correction. Thar being that Souther citizens without slaves were not "loyal" to slavery. They were loyal to the structure of Southern society which placed in the poorest white person in the South a step above slaves. The other factor lies in the resentment that the typical Southerner saw with the federal government and abolitionists. They saw "interference" in the ways of the South. And, the new Republican Party, to many people in the South was a disruption to what had been the norm for decades. And, if there was any greater state loyalty in the US, it was among Southerners with ultr loyalty to their states that was not that powerful in the North.
because they might have owned slaves in the past or they didn't want to be different
OR they were more concerned with state government having more authority than federal government.
To get both the northern and southern states to agree to it. The southern states wanted slaves counted in the population for determining representation in Congress (even though slaves couldn't vote). The northern states wanted them excluded.
No he did not sopport slavery. In fact he was storngly oposed to salvery.
Penn didn't have slaves. He was a Quaker and this would have been against his belief system. The first one isn't right. After I researched this question, yes it is against his belief but he owned and traded three slaves. No one knows where he got them though.
John Jay owned several slaves, even though he supported the anti-slavery movement. Ok, wtf! answer, if he supported the anti slaves, why the hell would he own slaves? Is he sick in the head?
Whites were used as inderntured servants though blacks were mostly slaves.
To get both the northern and southern states to agree to it. The southern states wanted slaves counted in the population for determining representation in Congress (even though slaves couldn't vote). The northern states wanted them excluded.
No he did not sopport slavery. In fact he was storngly oposed to salvery.
One thing Southern reformers wanted was for slaves to learn new skills that would serve them later in life. Though, as it turned out, many Southern reformers were also in favor of racial segregation.
the speech was called the Emancipatiom Proclamation The Emancipation Proclamation did free the slaves, but it was not a speech. It was an Executive Order.
though slavery was around in some form for most of recorded history, the first slaves in America came from Africa's Gold Coast. They were captured there and transported to America to supply cheap labor for the developing southern plantations.
Penn didn't have slaves. He was a Quaker and this would have been against his belief system. The first one isn't right. After I researched this question, yes it is against his belief but he owned and traded three slaves. No one knows where he got them though.
Southern California, with most of it going to Los Angeles.
While it is never a good idea to generalize, studies have shown that large majorities of southern whites accepted slavery. Some even felt it was the right thing, because they believed that black people (then called "negroes") were inferior and meant to be slaves. But other southern whites were somewhat more ambivalent about it; we know this because even though they kept slaves, they later arranged to set them free. It is also true that the way slaves were treated varied: some owners were harsh and brutal, while others were somewhat more humane. Still, there was little public discussion about whether keeping slaves was ethical, and most southern whites seemed to support slavery as a necessity for running a plantation. Based on newspaper and magazine articles of that time, we can conclude that a large majority of southern whites were in favor of slavery, or if they had their doubts, they were not vocal about them. But it should be noted that there were a few southerners who were opposed to slavery and who did their part to try to end it. Unfortunately, their views were not the dominant ones, so slavery persisted.
The British-Americans finished taking slavery into Texas when they crossed the Mississippi River and brought their slaves with them. Spain originally owned Texas and had some slaves, though it wasn't the normal until people crossed the river from the other southern states.
They were free because they obeyed their masters.
Laborers are not classified as slaves. Forced laborers are another name for slaves though. Laborers are paid where forced laborers, or slaves are made to with no reimbursement.
Even though there aren't much around now,but in the past the Methodist Episcopal south was different from the methodist episcopal because the methodist episcopal south believed in owning slaves.