Very good historical point. The North broke the Constitutional agreement.
Slavery was certainly one of the bones of contention that started the civil war. If it was not the central mission at the beginning of the war, the North certainly came to demand it by war’s end.
“If it was not the central mission at the beginning of the war, the North certainly came to demand it by war’s end.”
There is still confusion over who fought for and against what.
We know: The Confederate States had slaves. And the United States had slaves.
The Confederate States had a constitution that enshrined slavery. And the United States had a constitution that enshrined slavery.
The Confederate States had a president that took an oath to defend its pro-slavery constitution. And the United States had a president that (twice) took an oath to defend its pro-slavery constitution.
After the emancipation proclamation, only one of the two presidents added a slave state to his nation.
The safest thing to say is that both nations fought for what they considered their own economic and political best self-interests.
They had made the South hate them. If they left slavery alone, the South would have used the economic power it gave them to seek further revenge on the North for all the bloodshed. By taking away their slaves, they disarmed a potential economic weapon that could have been used against them. Also by giving the Slaves voting rights while denying them to Southern whites, they acquired more power in the Congress than they would have otherwise been able to acquire.
I used to believe that these things were done for moral and benevolent reasons, but since I have come to look at this conflict as a power struggle between groups of elites, it has cast a very different light on what I had previously believed were humanitarian issues. I now ask myself, does a certain act help or hurt the consolidation of power by certain power blocks?
Usually all the acts concentrate power to the same group of people.