On the contrary, historians a century ago were very down on Northern capitalists. Google "Charles Beard Civil War" for pete's sake and you might learn something. Progressives, Marxists, and Southern revisionists actually had a similar take on rich Northern industrialists who supposedly caused the war.
So your POV isn't anywhere near as unusual or original as you might think. Over time, historians came to realize that slavery and slave owner expansionism couldn't be ignored. Also, the idea of industrialism or capitalism or Hamiltonianism as the root of all evil faded over time as historians came to understand that the world was more complex than that.
The North was extremely racist and intolerant of blacks. They *hated* them, probably more so than did Southern whites.
That is quite a generalization. WEB DuBois, who later ended up very radical and opposed to Whites, didn't have anything like that experience. There was some consciousness of race and color, but White feeling towards him was hardly unrelenting hatred. Many other African-Americans in the North had similar experiences. You are simply putting out your own simplistic generalization to replace another simplistic generalization that nobody believes anymore. You're comparing Southern gentlemen who may have professed war feeling for family servants with Northern mobs, but there were Southern mobs, and Northerners who weren't entirely focused on race (and maybe those Southern gentlemen and ladies weren't all you think they were).
I think the interests of my own family should come before much concern for others who live far away. I feel for them, but now we have our own problems.
So most Northerners would have thought at the time. That didn't mean, though, that they were indifferent to what happened elsewhere.
Because trade equations must balance. The way things were situated in 1860, the South was producing 3/4ths the value of all US exports. A huge chunk of that money was ending up in the US Treasury, and in the economy of New York.
Governments are a lot craftier than you think. Cotton mill owners recognized that their business depended on the flow of Southern cotton and thus didn't want to risk antagonizing the South, but the US government would have got along just fine.
Take that lost capital and return it to the people from whence it came, and the money would have created both development and it would attract more population.
Give it back to the slaves? I don't think the country was ready for that.
I notice that you haven't bothered to defend your absurd notion that Northern industrialists in 1860 were the Globalists of the day. Good move. Nobody who wasn't blinded by hatred and ignorance would make such an idiotic identification. True, I suppose somebody who loved Northern capitalists then and now might make such an association but that's not what we're talking about. There was a vast difference between somebody setting up a textile mill or iron foundry in the 1850s and Bill Gates and George Soros -- or Kofi Annan and Boutros Boutros Ghali -- today. The only thing they might have in common was being rich (and in fact, many pioneering capitalists ended up poor).
I'm not saying that plantation owners and secessionists leaders were "globalist" in the sense of being for a UN or world government, but they were anything but "small is beautiful" localists. They were very much tied in to the world economy. They were willing to attach themselves to the expanding British economy and empire, and many had imperialist ambitions of their own. They weren't a bunch of anti-government guys meeting in a garage to talk about guns, either, but were in favor of setting up their own government which could be as oppressive as any that they opposed. They weren't opposed to the idea of empire. They just wanted their own, or one that would pay them enough and not interfere in their own dominion.
WEB DuBois was a Liberal pet. His experience was not the norm among interactions between Northerners and blacks.
Many other African-Americans in the North had similar experiences.
A Few. Those who weren't participants of Liberal virtue signaling generally had a pretty difficult time.
Governments are a lot craftier than you think. Cotton mill owners recognized that their business depended on the flow of Southern cotton and thus didn't want to risk antagonizing the South, but the US government would have got along just fine.
This is a non-sequitur. Yes, Cotton Mills and Textile manufactures were very concerned, but this does nothing to address the larger effect of European imports paid for by Southern products. The Government ran on the money collected on these imports, but as I have repeatedly tried to make clear, the loss of revenue to the Government is the lesser issue in terms of economic impact to the North.
The larger body of Trade which was represented by those tariff collections would have mostly moved to Southern ports because this would allow both the Europeans who were buying the Southern Products and the Southerners who were supplying them, to avoid the middlemen.
Give it back to the slaves? I don't think the country was ready for that.
Okay, now this is just snark. Firstly, that many billions of dollars in lost capitalization to which I was referring is that money which was spent buying all those slaves.
Before the War Lincoln recognized this and made it clear he had no legal authority to deprive people of what was then valuable legal property.
Secondly, the legal system of that time would have clearly stated that the ownership of that money from Southern production would be the owners of the businesses that produced it.
If you are going to keep applying modern morality in an anachronistic fashion, you are just going to keep the discussion going around in circles. Stay with the zeitgeist currently in discussion.
I notice that you haven't bothered to defend your absurd notion that Northern industrialists in 1860 were the Globalists of the day.
To the contrary, that is pretty much all I have been doing since I put forth this idea. I am also at a loss as to how you cannot grasp the analogy.
New York controlled shipping for pretty much the entire country. Almost all the money funneled through New York. The Warehousing, Insurance, Shipping, and Banking Industries all involved in the European trade, and the vast bulk of their transactions revolved around goods produced by Slave Labor in the South.
Today is the same. New York ran global corporations still use third world slave labor to manufacture the products they distribute.
I'm not saying that plantation owners and secessionists leaders were "globalist" in the sense of being for a UN or world government, but they were anything but "small is beautiful" localists.
They were trying to become the globalists that the New York wealthy businessmen already were. So long as all their traffic funneled through New York hands, that was never going to happen.