Not all slave states were in the south. NY was a slave state. The southern states were making trade deals with our mortal enemy Great Britian. GB was against slavery, but ran the slave trade.
What the south was doing was unconstitutional. No state is to enter a trade agreement. Especially, with a hostile nation. Let’s say North Dakota decided to trade Bakken oil for North Korean workers.
The compromise would have been something like this: Stop trading with our enemies or we will make you stop.
The Southern States told the Northern States to go fornicate themselves. The Northern States carried through on thier promise.
Total nonsense, by 1860 all Northern states had gradually abolished slavery and by the 1860 census only New Jersey still showed a handful -- 18.
New York's last slaves (4) were reported on the 1840 census, none thereafter.
PJammers: "GB was against slavery, but ran the slave trade."
To the contrary, after about 1840, the British navy enforced abolition of the international slave-trade on the high seas.
PJammers: "What the south was doing was unconstitutional.
No state is to enter a trade agreement.
Especially, with a hostile nation."
That is pure nonsense.
Before 1861 there were no separate trade treaties and the Brits were far from a hostile nation.
What's certainly true is that Deep South cotton exports totaled roughly half of all US exports and were very important not only to the Deep South, but also to Northern cities like New York.