Wrong. The North didn't bring them here and wasn't responsible for them. The slave owners who controlled the South bare 100% responsibility for the war, remember no one was gonna take their slaves but they were unwilling to let their political and economic power continue to decline. Bunch of Soroses.
Opposing human bondage and not wanting indigent ex-slaves to live next door to you and take jobs in your area are not morally incongruous positions any more than opposing abortion and not supporting the government paying for every crack whore's kid are morally incongruous positions.
You try too hard to be even handed. And way too many people of Southern extraction needlessly defend that rebellion for no better reason than silly pride that their ancestors couldn't have possibly been on "the wrong side". Rebelling so slavery could be expanded is not a defensible position, which is why we always hear nonsense propaganda about how the war wasn't really about slavery. Neo-Confederate Romanticism does nothing but make us look bad.
Not quite so. The North did have slavery, too, though they abolished it state-by-state. For them, it wasn’t financially feasible, not necessarily because of higher moral standards. I guarantee if you had swapped folks from one region to the other, they could’ve easily switched positions if their financial situation were at stake. The North also benefitted from slavery, too. Northern mills and factories got the “product” from down south.
As for opposing human bondage and not wanting “those people” near you when you beat the drum of equality DOES make for epic level hypocrisy. We’re not talking about crack whores and their kids (that’s a helluva comparison, dude !), but people wanting to flee an area where they’re not welcome and perhaps in danger of their lives and likely wanting to get educated and better themselves and become prosperous. They wanted neither the indigents (understandable) nor the ones who wanted to better themselves (plain racist).
True, some of the antebellum romanticization is a bit hard to swallow (especially considering the tinderbox they were sitting on, ready to go up in flames at the first spark), but so is the farcical claim of nobility and superior morality of the North. Each had their own issues and foibles. If Northerners had been given a free decision as to whether they wished to go South to fight, if Lincoln had said, “To free the slaves”, very few would’ve done so. It had to be done under the aegis of “Union, one and inseparable.” That they could agree to.
Remember, most Southerners did not own slaves, and Lincoln badly miscalculated when he thought he could drive a wedge between the slaveholding class and non-slaveholders in getting their fellow Southerners to rise up against the former. Southerners overwhelming saw it as an invasion by a dictatorial and hypocritical North. Lincoln himself said if he could’ve kept the union together without freeing a slave, he’d have done it. That was still the old Whig in him straddling the fence.
As for trying too hard to be even handed, I consider that a compliment. After all, if I’m attempting to analyze it through a historian’s perspective, shouldn’t I be ?