You are either extremely naïve or extremely cynical, or most likely both at the same time. A last-minute attempt to keep the country together by giving the slaveowners the security they claimed to want didn't make the Republicans worse than the slaveowners who wanted slavery forever (or until God in his wisdom did away with it without anyone putting in any effort). I feel bad about whatever happened to you on your school trip to New York City, but I don't really know why anyone bothers to respond to your nonsensical and hate-filled screeds.
See that bolded part in your comment above? That is rationalization. You are tacitly acknowledging that it was a horrible thing, but you are justifying it as necessary.
That is not a moral stance. Nor was it a moral stance for those Northern congressmen who voted for it. It was a pragmatic stance, devoid of any moral direction.
The question not asked is why the Northern congressmen would vote for something so horrible that everyone now claims they fought the entire war to end it? And their reason is to keep the horrible slave owning people in the Union, because it was a great loss to the Union if all those horrible slave owning people left it?
Does not compute. It is nonsense on the face of it.
But taken as a matter of basic logic, you are arguing that they voted to protect slavery to keep the slave states in the Union, while most people argue they fought a war that killed 750,000 people to get rid of the thing they had previously voted to protect.
Does not compute.
Why was it so important to keep the Southern states in the Union? We let go of the Philippines and we let go of Cuba. Why did we need the Southern states? What great loss would it have been to lose them?