Sure they did, and all confined to a small contingent of kooks who are little different from "transgender rights" types today. Till it became in their economic interest to embrace these ideas, they simply ignored them.
When they saw that they could use them to further their own economic interests, they did.
Those are what caused Northerners to outlaw slavery in their own states and in western territories.
Dominant factor was not the immorality of slavery. The dominant factor was hatred of black people, and hatred of slaves competing with laborers for work. The last thing anyone cared about was the immorality of forcing black people to work.
What united a majority of Northerners behind Republican antislavery ideas was the perceived threat of explanded slavery after the SCOTUS 1857 Dred Scott ruling.
As I have pointed out before, Dred Scott expanded nothing. Dred Scott merely reiterated what the laws and agreements to create a constitution actually said, but which northern states had simply been ignoring for decades.
Article 4 pretty much means you can't keep slaves out of a state because to do so would deny the citizens of other states the immunities and privileges they deserved when the all the states agreed to make a compact with other slave states.
Dred Scott just simply signaled, "Enough of this pretending you can keep slavery out of your state. You can't. "
If they didn't want to abide by their agreement to allow the Union to be a slave Union, they should not have made that agreement.
Pretending they could restrict something they agreed to was disingenuous, but modern liberals do it all the time. It is simply what they do.
DiogenesLamp: "Sure they did, and all confined to a small contingent of kooks who are little different from "transgender rights" types today.
Till it became in their economic interest to embrace these ideas, they simply ignored them."
That's nonsense because there were plenty enough Northern abolitionists to outlaw slavery in their own states.
And so long as they believed their own abolition laws were sound, most Northerners were content to vote for national parties (i.e., Democrats, Whigs) that tolerated slavery in the South.
It was only when they felt abolition in the North threatened (1857) that Northern majorities began voting for the anti-slavery Republicans.
DiogenesLamp: "The Dominant factor was not the immorality of slavery.
The dominant factor was hatred of black people, and hatred of slaves competing with laborers for work.
The last thing anyone cared about was the immorality of forcing black people to work."
That is simply anti-American garbage talk, the kind of rubbish Democrats teach their children on why to hate their own country.
The real truth is that even our Founders knew that slavery was morally wrong and should be eventually abolished because it did not comport with our Declaration ideals.
That had nothing to do with either economics or racism.
The real question here is, why does Diogeneslamp hate his fellow Americans so much you can't imagine anything for them beyond the basest of base motives?
DiogenesLamp: "Dred Scott expanded nothing.
Dred Scott merely reiterated what the laws and agreements to create a constitution actually said, but which northern states had simply been ignoring for decades."
So here's how you yourself could figure out that those words are total complete nonsense, you wouldn't need me to explain it to you: just check out what our Founders said & did at the time.
Did any ever express the opinion you claim here?
I'll save you the time of searching for it -- the answer is "no".
No Founder ever expressed your opinion, or the SCOTUS Dred Scott ruling, and therefore they are garbage, period.
DiogenesLamp: "If they didn't want to abide by their agreement to allow the Union to be a slave Union, they should not have made that agreement."
The insane SCOTUS Dred Scott ruling, and your endorsement of it, notwithstanding no Founder ever agreed to what you claim, period.