An element in the creation of a united southern solidarity, was the shaping of a struggle with anti-slavery and slavery factions into a conflict of southern interests vs. northern interests. Leading up the eventual war, abolitionists provided the perfect foundation for this argument. Promoting the idea that abolitionists were taking “control of the pulpit, of the schools… and the press,” in the 1830s Calhoun and other southern radicals wanted to frame the North as wholly abolitionist, to “engineer proslavery solidarity.” (118) Although this was far from the truth, this narrative would continue to resurface until the eventual birth of the confederacy. Eventually, by 1850, many southern voters elected politicians more inclined to take on the “abolitionist” North. This was evidenced in a North Carolina congressman Thomas L. Clingman. In 1845, he waged a campaign as a pragmatic Southern Whig, who was labeled soft, running as a moderate. He would learn from this mistake, and would run again in …show more content…
Early in the 19th century churches began to divide on the principle of slavery. (108) Southern churches “rallied” in the defense of slavery. Ministries compared the idea of abolition with “heresy.” Furthermore, Southern churches found justification in biblical verses. (109) This led to, for Presbyterians, a division between and “Old” and “New School.” While New School Presbyterianism “promoted…man’s own agency to overcome sin,” the Old School concentrated in the South maintained the New School was “poisonous.” This idea of sectional divide fed the forces of southern solidarity and helped propel the southern states that much closer to