To get representation in Congress, which would give them the power to change laws that were hurting them.
The existing status quo benefited the New York coalition. It had the effect of causing all Southern trade to be controlled by people in New York, with Washington getting it's cut at the docks.
The result was that the Southern states were paying the vast majority of the taxes, even though they had 1/4th of the population of the country.
Now you may say that both sides are equally motivated by greed, but I think it is a very different thing for people to want to keep more of their lawfully earned money than it is for someone to use their numerical majority to take lawfully earned money from other people through the use of the law.
The North East has always favored tax and spend policies, and the 1860s were no different. They most benefited from government spending, and they used the money redirected from the South to build their industries and infrastructure.
You have a habit of making everything Northerners did self-interested and ignoring the self-interest of Southern slaveowners.
I am not ignoring the self interest of the Southern slave owners. I am simply pointing out that while their production system was immoral, it was legal under the laws of the United States, and they were legally entitled to the money for the goods their system produced.
In terms of using the force of law to confiscate the wealth of others, the North Easterners were the aggressors. They liked the system that had evolved to their advantage and which had Southern production flowing through their own pockets. They liked it very much.
I consider myself to be a free person. I want to live in a society of free people. Therefore, I would not want to live in a society with slavery.
In 1860, your choices were to leave, convince enough people, many of which were making money off of slavery, to get rid of it, or you had to tolerate it. The rules to amend the constitution to abolish slaver required 3/4ths of the states to agree, and this was simply impossible to obtain at that time.
It was only accomplished in 1868 by a kabuki theater pretense, with everyone accepting the pretense as real.
I don't see how that is more self-interested or ignoble than wanting to live in a society where I could buy and sell and work slaves.
The New York coalition may have claimed to be motivated by opposition to slavery, but considering the Corwin Amendment was passed by five Northern states, and Seward assured everyone that he could deliver New York's vote on the matter, it becomes clear that the powers that be in the North did not have a problem with actual slavery, but merely used it as an excuse to gain and hold power.
Slavery was astro turf for both sides. The Northerners used it to rouse their voters, and so did the Southerners, but there really was no danger of any significant degree of slavery in any of the territories. As I said, Pennsylvania and Delaware probably had more slaves than the territories ever would.
The result was that the Southern states were paying the vast majority of the taxes, even though they had 1/4th of the population of the country.
*Sigh* We both know that isn't true. Too bad you don't want to admit it.
I think it is a very different thing for people to want to keep more of their lawfully earned money than it is for someone to use their numerical majority to take lawfully earned money from other people through the use of the law.
…
I am simply pointing out that while their production system was immoral, it was legal under the laws of the United States, and they were legally entitled to the money for the goods their system produced.
If you are making money by immoral means, constitutional, democratically elected governments may decide to disadvantage your immoral business. That happens all the time.
The North East has always favored tax and spend policies, and the 1860s were no different. They most benefited from government spending, and they used the money redirected from the South to build their industries and infrastructure.
Always? From about 1890 to 1960 or so, the Northeastern states were for less taxes and less spending than the Western or Southern states. During the Progressive era, New England was anything but a bastion of progressivism.
In 1860, your choices were to leave, convince enough people, many of which were making money off of slavery, to get rid of it, or you had to tolerate it. The rules to amend the constitution to abolish slaver required 3/4ths of the states to agree, and this was simply impossible to obtain at that time.
Nice Northerners were willing to let Southerners make up their own minds about what they wanted, but weren't opposed to disadvantaging slavery in the competition with free labor. I'm not sure they really did disadvantage slaveowners that much, but slaveowners who complained that that was unfair didn't realize how good a deal they were getting.
The New York coalition may have claimed to be motivated by opposition to slavery, but considering the Corwin Amendment was passed by five Northern states, and Seward assured everyone that he could deliver New York's vote on the matter, it becomes clear that the powers that be in the North did not have a problem with actual slavery, but merely used it as an excuse to gain and hold power.
Once again, you aren't being logical. Northerners were willing to make concessions to the slaveowners to save the Union. And before the Civil War, most Republicans believed that the South should be able to decide whether it wanted slavery or not.
That didn't mean they didn't care. They just recognized that it would be too hard to abolish slavery nationally. It would have to be done on a state-by-state basis. The South would have to abolish slavery itself. I guess just trying to be nice just doesn't pay off.
But in fact, the Corwin Amendment wasn't ratified. Lincoln and the government may not have been big advocates for Corwin's plan. It might just have been a way of keeping the country together - a last minute "Hail Mary pass." Look back over history and you will find leaders making all kinds of last-minute offers in order to preserve the peace. Those offers aren't a reflection of what those leaders would prefer under ideal circumstances.