No, that's a lie, just one among many our Democrat Lost Causers post.
The real truth is abolitionists included nearly all our Founders, even Virginians like Washington, Jefferson, Madison & Patrick Henry.
They all said they wanted to abolish slavery, and some, like Jefferson took action toward abolition.
Northern Founders by 1787 had already begun to abolish slavery in their own states, and within a few years all Northern states had begun abolition.
So abolition was a big deal in 1787 and it became a bigger deal all across the North -- virtually every Northerner was an abolitionists in his own state.
In the South it became a different story, but as late as the 1830s, Virginia was still trying to live up to the Founders' promises.
Only when Virginia failed at abolition did Southerners generally give up on the idea and begin to advocate slavery as a positive good moral thing.
This lead Southern Democrats to oppose abolition not just in their own states but also in Western territories, and in the right of Northern states to declare visiting slaves freed, if their masters stayed too long (i.e., Dred Scott).
Now it's true that most Northerners were content to let slavery abide in the South, but no Northerner wanted slavery in the territories, much less in their own states!
And that's what the Republican party was based on.
Regardless, for Southetn Democrat Fire Eaters, even one radical Northern abolitionists (i.e. John Brown) was plenty enough to justify secession & war against the United States.
And so the war came and slavery was destroyed by men who did care less about slavery than about Union, but nevertheless understood that for the Union to survive, slavery must necessarily be destroyed.,
And that's the real truth, FRiend.
The real truth is abolitionists included nearly all our Founders, even Virginians like Washington, Jefferson, Madison & Patrick Henry.
These "abolitionists" never abolished their own slave ownership. The "powerful" abolitionists never abolished slave trading in Washington, D.C. down the road from the White House until 1862. D.C. was under the sole legislation of the federal Congress.
the right of Northern states to declare visiting slaves freed, if their masters stayed too long (i.e., Dred Scott).
Dred Scott involved a slave in the slave state of Missouri. He was determined to be a slave in the Supreme Court of Missouri. In the Supreme Court of the United States, his case was dismissed for want of jurisdiction, and remanded to the lower court with instructions to dismiss for want of jurisdiction in that court.
A slave taken to a free state, while in that free state, might successfully sue for his freedom, but should he return to a slave state, as did Etheldred Scott, he resumed his status as a slave. This was upheld in English as well as American law. There is ample precedent to support the holdings of the Court. See, e.g., Somerset v Steward, 1 Lofft 1 (1772); The Slave, Grace,, 2 Hagg. Adm. 94 (1827); Amy (a woman of colour) v. Smith, 11 Ky. 326 (1822); Lemmon v. The People, 20 NY 562 (1860), Strader v. Graham, 51 U.S. 82 (1851).