In 1860, three-fourths of the whites in the South owned no slaves, yet they supp

Question:In 1860, three-fourths of the whites in the South owned no slaves, yet they supported the institution of slavery. Why would they support slavery so rigorously? What social and cultural factors went into this support? What role did social mobility play in the general support of slavery?

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker: In 1860, three-fourths of the whites in the South owned no slaves, yet they supported the institution of slavery. Why would they support slavery so rigorously? What social and cultural factors went into this support? What role did social mobility play in the general support of slavery?

It wasn't so much the idea of fighting for the institution of slavery, but more the idea that they were fighting for the abilty to govern themselves as states... it's very much the same issue that many states are now facing about firearms laws, and even more the issue of gay marrige... some states allow it, others make it illegal, and the laws change back and forth due to court rulings here or there, apeals and all such things. The other things that the south had issues with were the fact that the politicians on both sides held grudges from all kinds of old issues against one another, and just got sick of politics. The everyman of the south was fighting not only for States Rights - which they still claim as what the bars and stars (confederate flag) stands for, despite what the NAACP cries about - but also for the idea that they knew that the next step from ending slavery was that the blacks would start down the road as equals... they did not view blacks socially as equals - and some still don't... we still have racism. But overall, the majority of southern soldiers fought because they were poor, or had lost thier jobs, and decided that fighting "would be fun" figuring that the war wouldn't last as long as it did, and would be "a noble endevour"... which of course war never is.

At the time slavery was still and economic answer to a labor shortage on the farms and plantations. It was supported at that time by non-slave owning southerners because slavery and the work or products produced kept the economy afloat. Without someone to bring in the crops or do the manual labor the economy would suffer. The large farm and plantation owners benefited from an extremely low cost labor force putting more expendable income in their pockets that they in turn put into circulation.

Owning "help" at the time meant you were wealthy. So socially to own a slave at the time gave you some social stature. As you accumulated more wealth the more slaves you could afford to purchase, house and feed. Slavery has never really ever been about dominating a particular race. Its always been about economics.

As vile and disgusting as enslaving anyone it really is just about the money.