I wouldn’t say the north and abolitionists had “no stakes in slavery”. My wife majored in history decades ago and Civil War was a particular interest to her. At the time I was working evenings putting her through college. When she had a particularly good professor she would insist I go hear a “special lecture”. I particularly remember one. It was the last lecture of the semester on the Civil War. The guy made a 60 minute compelling case that the Civil War was fought over a railroad.
He talked fast for an hour with facts, figures, and footnotes. (I swear I missed my calling, shoulda been a Southern Baptist preacher). Before the war the South was where the money was. The industrialists of the North had really yet to rise. In fact, it was probably arming the North (at a nice profit) that gave the Northern Industrialists the boost they enjoyed later. The real point of contention from an economic standpoint was where would the rails be laid to exploit the new resources in the west? The Southern politicians who held the money and power insisted that those rails start in Atlanta. The Northern politicians new they had neither the money or power to cause any other outcome. So they found a way to negate the political power and money of the South. End result? The rails started in Ohio and Chicago. And the rest, as they say, is history. From an economic standpoint 600,000 soldiers and who knows how many civilians died to decide where a railhead would be.
Interesting lecture! Would any of it be found in a history book?