free soilers: their goal was to prohibit slavery only in new territories- many were unconvinced that the whole institution of slavery could be eliminated, some were northerns who did not want to compete economically with slavery in the new territories, others were racist and did not want blacks, free or enslaved, playing a role in westward expansion abolitionists: their goal was to abolish slavery completely they were more into the moral aspect of the issue and generally supported social equality
True
The strife in "Bleeding Kansas" was associated with a conflict between _____ and _____.
Most free-soilers objected to slavery primarily because they believed it threatened the economic opportunities and social mobility of white laborers in the expanding western territories. They argued that slavery would undermine the free labor system by allowing slaveholders to dominate the economy and political landscape, making it difficult for free men to compete. Additionally, many free-soilers held moral objections to slavery, viewing it as an inhumane institution that contradicted the principles of freedom and equality. Thus, their opposition was rooted in a combination of economic interests and ethical considerations.
no the couldn't be or else they wouldn't be abolitionists no the couldn't be or else they wouldn't be abolitionists
Union - though most Unionists were never Abolitionists
No, they were not. Free-Soilers wanted to stop the spread of slavery, while abolitionists wanted to abolish it alltogether.
This question can not be answered. It is not a question and needs a subject added.
Abolitionists wanted to end slavery, while "Free Soilers" were more interested in making sure the state they lived in was not a slave state. Some people were both, but there were Free Soilers who (perhaps through believing that slavery could not be done away with completely) had only the goal of making sure the new territory they had moved into entered the Union as a free state.
false
True
Free-Soilers were Northerners who wanted to contain slavery, as in keep it from spreading to new territories. Free-Soilers were alright with keeping the existing slavery where it was already prevalent. They're opinions were based on more political aspects.Abolitionists wanted to completely get rid of existing slavery and prevent it from becoming legal in new territories. They're opinions were based more on moral aspects.
The Free Soilers were a political party founded in 1848 that opposed the expansion of slavery into new territories. They were not necessarily abolitionists, as their primary goal was to prevent the spread of slavery rather than advocate for its immediate end. Abolitionists, on the other hand, were individuals and groups who sought the immediate emancipation and abolition of slavery.
Northern abolitionists and free soilers would have been concerned about the potential spread of slavery into new territories with the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act in 1854. This act allowed for popular sovereignty in these territories, which could have led to the expansion of slavery into areas where it had previously been prohibited.
Abolitionists believed in the immediate and total abolition of slavery, viewing it as morally wrong. Free Soilers focused on preventing the expansion of slavery into new territories, believing it threatened white labor opportunities. Know Nothings opposed the spread of slavery but were motivated more by nativist concerns about immigrants.
Free Soilers
The slogan of the Free Soil Party.
For the region to have no slavery and only whites be the ones living