On what do you base this remarkable assertion?
By the end of the war, slaves had been freed by state action in all Union states except Kentucky (about 20,000, if I remember correctly) and Delaware (at most a couple hundred). Which northern slaves were the DY elitists going to KEEP. There weren't any.
Then for some reason the DY elitists passed constitutional amendments against slavery and in favor of black equality, forcing southern states to ratify them. Why do you think they did that, if they were planning to keep the slaves they had already freed?
Anywho, I would imagine DY elitists were a little thin on the ground in the border states, the only part of "the North" where slaves remained when the war started, much less when it ended.
DYs of the time may indeed have been hypocrites, but you can't prove it by their actions. They said they would preserve the Union, and they did. They said they would free the slaves, and they did.
How exactly is this hypocritical?
1.frequently the ONLY thing that the union army freed the slaves from was BEING ALIVE. THOUSANDS of slaves in dixie were raped,assaulted,tortured & murdered by the invading union army. this was especially true if you happened to be a "comely, light-skinned, female slave" who was "available" to the invading yankee soldiers (generally NOTHING was done by the union high command to rapists/robbers/looters/murderers, IF the victim(s) were NON-white/poor/Jewish/"Chinese"/Latino/Roman Catholic/Quaker/"lower class"/uneducated/a slave.===> NOTE: my family had at least 92 members = mostly elderly men,women & children under the age of 10YO, as the able-bodied men/older boys were "away with the forces", robbed/raped/looted/assaulted/tortured/murdered just because they were NON-white/poor/available to the "filth in blue that flowed down from the north".),
2. MANY northern slavers sold their slaves (both in the north & in dixie) SOUTH to "the islands", rather than freeing them,
3. there are several documents from prominent "antislavery individuals" (who actually OWNED slaves), which clearly states that the owners had NO interest in freeing the slaves that THEY owned, but that they SAID that they planned to free those slaves, who were in SOUTHERN hands &
4. there is a letter from MG Benjamin (THE BEAST) Butler to Secretary Stanton that clearly states Butler's intent to use the "former bondsmen" for "volunteer, forced, labor under military discipline" (NICE OXYMORON, don't you think???) if such slaves came under the control of the union army until such time as "other arrangements could be made for their new owners", as Butler believeed that the "natural condition of the bondsman" was to BE a slave FOREVER. (the reply of Stanton to "the beast's plan of action" is UNKNOWN.)
fwiw, your question (unlike that of MOST of the unionists/DYs here at least shows a few signs of "brains".)
free dixie,sw
could it be that you KNOW the answer & are UN-comfortable with telling everyone here???
the CS Marine Corps was ALWAYS desegregated (and about 20% NON-white) from 1861-1865.
the US Marines swore in their FIRST Black Marines in 1943.
80 years surely seems an awfully long time to wait for Black US Marines, don't you think???
free dixie,sw