The North had absolutely no intention of changing slavery so long as they kept getting the money from it.
Right, because like the Borg, Northerners didn't have separate minds and personalities and ideas. They only had one consciousness and only acted as one 20 million headed creature.
You are still writing in cliches and overgeneralizations and not seriously considering the diversity of opinion that prevailed in the free states. People voted as they did for different reasons, some noble, others not. Only a bigot or a hack propagandist reduces those reasons to one oversimplified motivation.
You create a straw man of a pure moral North and then knock it down with your own straw man of a racist, mercenary North. You talk about "caring." The 19th century spoke about principles. If we had to wait for everyone to act in loving kindness before any injustice or abuse could be ended, we would still have slavery.
Read a book sometime.
When the Corwin Amendment was on the table, the slaves were being tossed out of the bargain. When the Emancipation proclamation was on the table, the Slaves were tossed back into the bargain.
Looks to me like old Charles Dickens pretty much nailed the political reality of this era. And by the way, he was vehemently anti-slavery.
Right, because like the Borg, Northerners didn't have separate minds and personalities and ideas. They only had one consciousness and only acted as one 20 million headed creature.
I ask you to consider the fact that New York city voted for Barack Obama by 83%. Hillary got 79% in 2016.
They are not exactly the Borg, but to a large extent, they do indeed work similar to a hive mind, and they always have. Getting your information from the "New York Times" and the News Networks, it's easy to see how they are so badly misinformed.
New York is the herd leader. Whatever the New York bull decides to do, the other Liberal cows follow.
You are still writing in cliches and overgeneralizations and not seriously considering the diversity of opinion that prevailed in the free states.
There was a teeny tiny minority that opposed slavery because they believed it to be morally wrong. They have been made to appear far larger than they were through subsequent propaganda highlighting their role. The vast majority of northerners hated black people, didn't care what happened to them so long as it was far away from them. They hated slavery because they saw it as an economic threat to their own interests, and because they hated the idea of black people being in their country.
Are you aware of any other category of northern American that hated slavery? It pretty much boils down to those two categories, with the later being the by far dominant position of most Americans in the North.
People voted as they did for different reasons, some noble, others not.
Most were not noble. You can see it in state laws passed to control black immigration and residency in their states. There were quite horrible laws passed in many northern states, and they clearly indicate what the public really thought of associating with black people.
Only a bigot or a hack propagandist reduces those reasons to one oversimplified motivation.
You think it is oversimplified? I think I just cut out all the bullsh*t. I have divided northern hatred into two categories. If you wish to suggest another or even more categories for why Northern people wanted slavery abolished, I would like to hear them.
You create a straw man of a pure moral North and then knock it down with your own straw man of a racist, mercenary North.
It isn't a straw man when I can point you to the laws the Northern states enacted. By no stretch of the imagination can you conceive of these laws being motivated by the same morality that motivated the radical abolitionists.
Nolu Chan has posted quite a lot on the subject, but I have been told he was banned and suspended because people were offended over his quotes of past historical figures and their laws.
If we had to wait for everyone to act in loving kindness before any injustice or abuse could be ended, we would still have slavery.
The USA usually acts when the rice bowl of the wealthy New Yorkers get threatened. Such was the case in 1861. Then they slapped a claim of "morality" on the entire affair, and have been hammering this claim ever since.