[rhombus]

The Civil War was about protectionism, not slavery. Slavery was a throw in, a bargaining chip. The protectionists won the Civil War.

Um...yeah... and John Brown broke into the arsenal at Harper's Ferry to fight Walmart. Uh huh, yeah that's it.

But yes, the industrial and manufacturing North generally supported free trade. In fact even earlier than the Civil War, many New Englander's contemplated secession (see the Hartford Convention) because they hated Thomas Jefferson's anti-foreign trade policies, particularly the Embargo Act of 1807 and James Madison's Non-Intercourse Act of 1809.

[brownsfan]

“Um...yeah... and John Brown broke into the arsenal at Harper’s Ferry to fight Walmart. Uh huh, yeah that’s it.

But yes, the industrial and manufacturing North generally supported free trade. ... “

I don’t present myself as an expert. But what I have read, and been taught, supports that the real tensions of the Civil War revolved around the North’s desire for the South’s cotton crop. The South wanted the better price that England was paying. The North needed cotton to fuel their textile mills, but couldn’t match England’s price.

So, apparently the North was pro free trade, until it was their ox that was being gored. (Not unlike most free traders).

As for slavery, there were abolishonists, and some of them were violent. But the North was ready to make a deal and would have “grandfathered” slave states, with no slavery in any new state.

That’s what I was taught.