This 4-page paper tries to answer the concept of "slave power," how the North offered solutions to the South on this, and how the South responded. Bibliography lists 3 sources.
Name of Research Paper File: D0_MTcvwrno.rtf
Unformatted Sample Text from the Research Paper:
Between the States) was basically a black-and-white issue: slavery versus freedom. The North hated slavery, while the South supported it and kept contributing to the institution. Yet when one delves
deeper into the history and reasons for the Civil War, one finds that slavery wasnt necessarily the only agenda behind the battle between the blue and gray. The North, according
to various writers who have studied the period, had its own version of so-called "slave power." Given that ideology, this paper will attempt to answer three questions: What did the
North mean by the existence of a "slave power?" What sort of political solutions to this problem were offered by the North? Were these acceptable to the South?
On the surface, "slave power" could seem somewhat simplistic; involving the shackling of Blacks (and even some lower-class Whites) into the institution of slavery,
i.e., working for no pay. However, as some historians have made clear, it may not necessarily be the idea of "black slaves"
that the North might have been referring to. In the book Divided Houses: Gender and the Civil War, Clinton and Silber, eds., author Stephanie McMurry, in her section on "Politics
of Yeoman Households" notes that in standard anti-bellum society, the white male plantation owner was the prime owner of everything; slaves, children . . . and women. Planters were also
subservient to yeomen (i.e., the aristocracy) - with even a neighbor yeoman being potentially higher in class than a particular planter, his wife and his children (Clinton and Silber 24).
The entire book, in fact, makes the argument that the entire conflict involved competing notions of masculinity - "one rooted in hard work and moral self-restraint, the other mired in