“They wanted a big country. They didn’t want to have a competing country a few miles away.”
Agree, but there is more. They wanted secure borders. They wanted more allied states in the event of war. They wanted trading partners and a larger economic market. They wanted, as you say, a big country, to produce prosperity and wealth.
They wanted, in a word: money.
And that’s why northern states wrote slavery into the constitution - until their accountants convinced them they could make more money with a different workforce model (combined with monopolies).
Ten seconds after that, they found that it was morally wrong for economic and political rivals in the southern states to own slaves.
Over simplified? Yes, but not by much.
Not just "over simplified", total rubbish & nonsense.
Americans' motivations for Union in 1776 and 1787 were doubtless multiple, but focused first on their need for a united front against Britain and other powers.
All understood that a single stick can easily be broken, while a bundle of weak stick became much stronger.
Beyond that, even though economics in 1787 were vastly different from, say, 1860, still Founders understood the utility of a large common American market.
As for the economics of slavery, nobody in 1787 understood the hugely profitable asset slavery would grow to be by 1860, so huge it prevented most slave-holders from even discussing abolition.
Nor did most Northerners in 1860 consider slavery less economically viable than abolition.
So in 1860 there was no economic argument -- none -- for abolition in the South.
Instead, American abolitionism in 1860 was based on morality, morality found ultimately in the Bible.
It was also a matter of economic self-interest: after Dred-Scott Northern workers didn't want Southern slaves brought into their states to take away their jobs.
Of course, most had no economic objections to slavery in the South, so long as it stayed there.
So the number one driver for Northern abolitionism was not economics but rather morality based in a religious revival rooted in the Bible.
Virtually all White Americans -- and Europeans -- were "white supremacists" in the 19th century. But differences between individuals were striking and important.
The issue was slavery. People who believed that "the White race" should remain on top, could have very different attitudes toward slavery and the rights that Blacks might have.
It's not wrong to point out that many Britons of the day had a serious blindspot. Like you guys, they may have "opposed" slavery. They might not have "believed" in it. But they hated abolitionists and Americans more than they hated slavery.
Agree, but there is more. They wanted secure borders. They wanted more allied states in the event of war. They wanted trading partners and a larger economic market. They wanted, as you say, a big country, to produce prosperity and wealth.
They wanted, in a word: money.
You start out saying "but there is more" and end up reducing it to a lot less. Concern for secure borders and a peaceful, united continent was a lot more than just desire for money.
And that’s why northern states wrote slavery into the constitution - until their accountants convinced them they could make more money with a different workforce model (combined with monopolies).
You show your bias saying "northern states wrote slavery into the Constitution." That was a decision of the entire convention. It was largely done to keep South Carolina and Georgia inside the country, rather than having them outside as rivals and enemies.
Ten seconds after that, they found that it was morally wrong for economic and political rivals in the southern states to own slaves.
Over simplified? Yes, but not by much.
Massively oversimplified. We're a rich country. We oppose a lot of things done in other countries. But it's not just about money. Morality does come into play. Or do you think we only oppose what ISIS is doing now just because we're a rich country?
Sure, you can't grow cotton in Maine or New Hampshire. If you feel the need to needle some kind of "Northern hypocrisy," fine. That's your problem. Nobody else cares. But it doesn't make slavery right, or secession justified or abolition less of a moral achievement.