Not and include the Southern states.
Instead of voting against slavery when they had the chance, they voted to ratify a constitution with slavery. There was a reason they did this: they considered it in their best interest.
Explain their "best interest".
History records that some people north and south had early qualms about slavery. But not enough people had enough concern to outlaw the practice at the get-go.
Does history record whether perhaps the North or the South had the most qualms? Which would you say was more proactive?
By some accounts slavery started in the north about 1629. It ended in the north in 1865, a time span of 236 years. I get the impression that you don't like to be confronted with the fact that the north had slaves for 11 generations.
From 1629 to 1776 "the North" was an area of British Colonies. Black slaves were foisted upon these colonies by the British. Precisely with the inception of the Declaration of Independance the abolition of slavery was commenced in "the North". With statehood came self determination and the Northern States determined to eventually be slave free. I don't see how they could have acted more quickly than they did. I think this deeply cuts into your 236 years claim. Lay most of those years on the Brits. As soon as the Northern States had the power, each began the process of abolishing slavery. You can not say that about any Southern State. So, therefore, the Northern States were responsible for slavery existing in their borders, from 1776 to 1865, and throughout that time period it was being phased out till it could hardly be said it had very much of any existence at all by 1865. I will grant you that Slavery did come to an end in the South before it did in the North.
It does seem you are more comfortable viewing slavery - and racism - as a “southern problem.”
What I am uncomfortable with is you using your lost cause memes and hyperbole in an attempt to besmirch the North and drag it down to be worse than the South. I particularly resent your referring to the recent unpleasantness as, "Lincoln's War". I am glad that you have finally acknowledged the divergence between "racism" and "slavery". Do you know who was the first acknowledged American to be racist and to be anti-slavery? The guy you call a white supremacist, Abraham Lincoln. A much greater man than you or I. He wanted to colonize the blacks. He did not see that they would ever be able to live in peace and harmony with the whites. But, even while having those views, Abraham Lincoln was wise enough to know that it was wrong for one man to earn his bread off the sweat of another man's back. Think about that. Read up on Frederick Douglass and his views on Lincoln. They are pertinent.
Then consider Davis' War. Davis ordered Beauregard to fire on the flag of The United States of America! And then claimed Fort Sumter! Bad idea Jeff.
You do know the northern states voted to cite the King's interference with slavery as one of the reasons independence from Britain was needed, don't you?
“From 1629 to 1776 “the North” was an area of British Colonies. Black slaves were foisted upon these colonies by the British.”
Blame shifting.
The first recorded instance was in the Garden of Eden.
From Genesis 3(The Living Bible Paraphrased):”Have you eaten fruit from the tree I warned you about?”
“Yes, Adam admitted, “but it was the woman YOU gave me who brought me some, and I ate it.” (emphasis added)