I have touched on this point many times before, and I'm thinking you either missed it, or didn't grasp it, or perhaps just refused to accept it.
There is more than one thing going on with the slavery issue regarding the strife between free and slave states.
The primary reason "free" states hated slavery is because they regarded slavery as competition for their exchange of labor for payment. The areas of the nation that are right now the hotbeds of Unionization, in those days would have regarded slaves as "scabs" who would take the bread out of their own mouths.
Yes, people have a deep and abiding hatred for the possibility of free labor undermining their wages and income.
The second main reason "free" states hated slavery, is because they hated black people. They regarded them as inferior and an abomination to normal society, and they wanted a society with no black people in it. Slavery brings black people into their society, and they did not want them. This is easily seen by looking at the northern "black codes" which were actually quite horrific in their unconcern about human rights.
The third reason why "free states" hated slavery was hatred of wealthy "elite" who owned the slaves, and therefore lived in luxury and did not have to work for a living. This same socialist style hatred of the wealthy is still geographically apparent in the same areas of the country that vote Democrat nowadays, and the same areas that voted Republican in the 1860s. Again, Geography and Demographics show the same pattern over time. Unionized (labor unions) areas of the country tend to vote for protectionism, strong government, government subsidies, and high taxes. They are the party of big government. Today they are Democrats. In 1860, they were Republicans.
The forth, and least significant reason for why "free" states opposed slavery was on the basis of being morally wrong. Only a tiny minority of people, mostly kooks in places like Massachusetts (which is still full of kooks today) cared about the morality of slavery. These people were seen as a minority of lunatics and mostly ignored, but this view of abolitionists changed over time when it became necessary to justify all the bloodshed caused by invading the South.
The propaganda organs of the North started portraying their motivation as a "moral crusade", because this has more power to sway the public than either a retaliation invasion, or an invasion to "preserve the Union." Everyone loves to get on a moral high horse and condemn other people when the "elite" crowd does it. We see this bandwagon effect over and over again throughout history. Global warming, Covid19 Transgender crap, Black Lives Matter, and so forth.
The "elite" declare a moral crusade, and the bulk of the stupid people simply follow along with it because they want to be thought "sophisticated" and of a like mind with the "elite."
But let us not fool ourselves into thinking this was their previous motivation. Their previous motivation was mostly self interest followed by intense racial hatred.
The abolitionists of the 1850s were about as popular as Animal rights activists are nowadays. They were a relatively small fringe minority.
Oh, I left out one more thing, and I believe it is the chief driver of all the organized strife between the free and slave states. That is *Control of Congress*.
The Northeast had gotten itself in the position of causing money streams from the South to flow through it's pockets, and they did this by some natural advantage in geography, but also through the usage of congressional power to pass laws favorable to their financial interests, and this is leaving out the subsidy laws they passed to favor railroad building, canals, and shipping/fishing subsidies.
Control of Congress determined if these money streams would continue as before, or get redirected back to the South.
The "Free Soil" party, which was one of the primary proponents in these free/slave fights, was headquartered in New York. I now believe it was an astro-turf sock puppet intending to disguise the motivation of New York interests in keeping the laws exactly as they were by preventing the Southern states from ever reaching a threshold of control in congress where they could overturn or change any of these laws that benefited the New York area.
Civil War history looks very different for me from what it once did. Once I started seeing the possibilities for corruption and ulterior motives, they became more and more obvious to me.
Perhaps all these things are just a coincidence and I am over-exaggerating their influence and impact, but they are mighty strange coincidences, because they always coincide with keeping the New York/Washington DC power base (same bastards still f***ing with us today) in control of power.
"Slavery" is just a smoke screen to hide their real intent, which was the continuation of power in their hands.
That post was perhaps your finest, and possibly the most verbose, avoidance of the issue at hand. It’s not Northern motivations for opposing slavery that are in question, but rather Southern motivation for secession, which as my quotes show, was clearly the preservation of slavery.
You’re a gem Dim, you truly are.
“The areas of the nation that are right now the hotbeds of Unionization, in those days would have regarded slaves as “scabs” who would take the bread out of their own mouths.”
Hmmmm….
“Planters often hired out their slaves as carpenters and other tradesmen. European shipwrights taught slave apprentices, who became skilled shipwrights themselves and trained other slaves. White artisans, however, complained that slave artisans were too prevalent in South Carolina, depressing wages and making jobs scarce. In 1744, Andrew Ruck petitioned the Carolina Commons House of Assembly for relief from the large number of slaves “employed in mending, repairing, and caulking ships. . .and working at the Shipwright’s Trade.” In 1751, the Assembly placed a tax on imported slaves, and one-fifth of the revenue was used as a bounty to encourage shipwrights to move to South Carolina.”
https://www.scseagrant.org/rise-and-fall-and-rise-south-carolinas-maritime-history/
You also oversimplify Northern racial attitudes. Some Northern states had Black Codes (as Southern states had Slave or Black Codes). Others didn't. Some Northern people were pathologically Negrophobic (as some Southerners were). Others may not have wanted to live too close to too many African-Americans (like some Whites today), but others had no problem with the Black family down the road.
You also oversimplify Northern racial attitudes. Some Northern states had Black Codes (as Southern states had Slave or Black Codes). Others didn't. Some Northern people were pathologically Negrophobic (as some Southerners were). Others may not have wanted to live too close to too many African-Americans (like some Whites today), but others had no problem with the Black family down the road.
No response from you to this. I guess you really wouldn't mind losing your job to somebody's slave, a Chinese convict or an illegal immigrant and would defend to the death the rights of slaveowners to make money off the unpaid labor of others.
Yes, people have a deep and abiding hatred for the possibility of free labor undermining their wages and income.
Not defending slavery.
First your notion that slavery was “free labor” is false. The cost to owning and maintaining slaves did not equate to “free labor”. Slave owners had to pay for the slave, build hoousing and facilities for the slave which required resources that must be bought and paid for, and on and on. I always get a kick out of the argument that the North thought that slavery was free labor and that is why the North hated the Southerners who owned slaves. That argument is factually wrong and will be wrong everytime it is brought up. The cost to purchase and own slaves was treated like any other business expense and why only individuals with money could own them.
Oh and by the way you are also considered an asset in whatever company you work. You are considered a human resource asset.
Free states hated slavery because they felt it was against God’s will in the Bible when the Egyptians enslaved the Hebrews,
Your argument is predicated on “free labor” which has been shown to be false. So your argument crumbles. Ain’t nothing in this world “free” including freedom. If you don’t believe me ask those who paid for the cost of freedom with their blood and their lives. The cost of freedom shall be paid with the blood of men who wish to see themselves a free people.
Anything else you state is discredited because you are just spouting talking points. Once you understand that slavery was not free labor then you will understand what a bunch of hogwash the majority of your arguments are.