Slave Power Conspiracy

Before, during and after the Mexican War, notherners argued that a “slave power conspiracy” existed in government. What evidence is there to support that charge?
The northerners argued that a “slave power conspiracry” existed in the government for many reasons. One of these many reasons would be the argument of, “Was not Polk a slaveholder? Had he not been elected on a platform of enlarging slave territory by annexing Texas? “ (McPherson 51). Polk was indeed a slave holder and he would benefit the southern states much more than the northern states. He was the President of the United States which held a lot of persuasive power, however, the north believed that it was part of the conspiracy. One of the many things that was also argued against

McPherson explains the three concentric circles of the Free Soil party starting at the core and slowing expanding into the outer layers of the circle, forming three different and distinct areas of the circle. At the center of this circle had, “...abolitionists that considered slavery a sinful violation of human rights that should be immediately expiated.” (McPherson 54).At the core, there was a group of radicals who demanded for change and did not believe in the ideaology of slavery whatsoever, promoting an immediate removal of this practice from society. The next layer of the circle had people that had, “antislavery people who looked up upon bondage as an evil- by which they meant that it was socially repressive, economically backward, and politically harmful to the interests of free states.” (54). This secondary group, not being as radical as the first, believed that slavery was a corrupt practice, but they had believed that it was economically harmful and does not benefit both the Northern states and the federal government. The final outer circle did not push for change as much and, “contained all those

The North wanted to open up job oppertunities to those who did not work for free in order to benefit both the economy of the country, but the governments ability to fund itself and the states. Slavery would hurt the economy, which would be a main reason why the Notherners would rather abolish it instead of allowing for it to ruin oppertunities for those who look for jobs. However, the Southerners would change their position and act as if they were the victim, claiming that “the North would then ‘ride over us rough shod’ in Congress, ‘proclaim freedom or something equivalent to it to our slaves and reduce us to the condition of Hayti… Our only safety is in equality of POWER.’”(57) They play as if they are the victims of inequality when it comes down to the division in politics and they would fight against the idea of slavery being removed. They fight for the equality in the House, because if they didn’t, they would lose everything they had fought