A teeny tiny minority of anti-slavery liberals wanted it abolished, but the vast majority of the country didn't care one way or the other so long as black people were kept out of their states.
and those almighty power brokers to whom you attribute the power to control everything lost the revenue generated by slavery that you think they tried and clearly failed to preserve.
It's amusing that you think the export revenue is the dominant pile of money at stake. It is not. The total export revenue for 1860 was 200 million out of a 4 billion economy.
The loss of the 200 million would hurt them, but what would absolutely wreck them was the Southern willingness to allow competing European products to flood the domestic markets in the US, putting the more expensive domestic producers out of business.
Here we are not talking about 200 million shifting from the North to the South, which would also happen. We are talking about a billion or so in income being destroyed through the advent of European produced replacement products.
Additionally, the greater capitalization of Southern industries would have resulted in increasing domestic competition from Southern producers at the expense of Northern producers.
New York, the Wealthiest city in the United States, would have seen it's trade traffic shifted to Southern ports, and it would have become a hollow of it's former self.
Completely irrelevant. In 1852 they cited abolition and northern attempts to end slavery as their reason for wanting out, which proves it was about keeping their slaves.
You aren't keeping up here. They wanted out in the 1820s too. They were looking for any excuse they thought would work.
Even so, whatever their excuse was, it has nothing to do with why the North launched an invasion into the South. The only reasons that matter are those of the attackers, not those of the defenders, and the attackers were invading to protect their rich people in the Northeast, and not because they cared about the suffering of the slaves which they had been greatly profiting from for the previous several decades.
That doesn't even make sense. The abolitionists won, so they were more than "A teeny tiny minority".
Whatever the numbers of those who wanted to keep slavery alive, there weren't enough of them with enough power to prevent its abolition.
And although it seems you mean to associate the abolitionists with modern liberals, you made a technically correct point that they would have been considered liberals in their day.
The loss of the 200 million would hurt them, but what would absolutely wreck them was the Southern willingness to allow competing European products to flood the domestic markets in the US, putting the more expensive domestic producers out of business. Here we are not talking about 200 million shifting from the North to the South, which would also happen. We are talking about a billion or so in income being destroyed through the advent of European produced replacement products. Additionally, the greater capitalization of Southern industries would have resulted in increasing domestic competition from Southern producers at the expense of Northern producers. New York, the Wealthiest city in the United States, would have seen it's trade traffic shifted to Southern ports, and it would have become a hollow of it's former self.
All of this is conjecture that proves nothing, but you post it as if it was historical fact. We don't know that any of this would have happened.
We do know what did happen. Slavery was abolished.
You aren't keeping up here. They wanted out in the 1820s too.
I haven't seen any indication that it went back that far, but I'll grant that aboltion wasn't the only issue. However, it was their reason for making the decision to secede.
How Did Southerners Justify Secession?
There's plenty more where this came from if you need more.
They were looking for any excuse they thought would work.
You probably can't even see what's wrong with that.
Even so, whatever their excuse was, it has nothing to do with why the North launched an invasion into the South. The only reasons that matter are those of the attackers, not those of the defenders, and the attackers were invading to protect their rich people in the Northeast, and not because they cared about the suffering of the slaves which they had been greatly profiting from for the previous several decades.
Are you even serious? If nobody cared there wouldn't have been an abolitionist movement in the first place, and the abolitionists wouldn't have won. The readers can decide for themselves whether your conjecture refutes these facts.