I not only grasp what you're saying, I can see that what you're saying is conjecture based on cherry picked items that you think prove your point.
I've presented the facts, from the confederacy's own documents.
Look dude, the abolitionist movement was a teeny tiny collection of kooks in 1861. The Northern states did have a dominant public opinion of wanting slavery gone, but it was mostly "meh." They wanted slavery to go, but they didn't feel strongly about it, and they did not want it gone because they cared about the slaves. Only the die hard liberal kook abolitionists claimed to care about the slaves.
Over the next four years of constant propaganda, the Northern opinion shifted to strongly wanting slavery gone, but most of them wanted it gone because they saw it as the root cause of the conflict, which is exactly what the government insisted they believe.
So the original abolitionists were kooks, and the rest came to support abolition because of government propaganda. I'm not sure that nonsense even requires an answer.
Pay closer attention to what I say. I said in the "hotbeds" of anti slavery sentiment. Places like Boston. And yes, those same liberal places in 1861 are liberal places in 2020. In 1861 the rest of the nation felt about abolition the way we do nowadays about transgender nonsense.
There's a big difference. The abolitionists were right. The leftists who think that a man can become a woman by slicing it off are wrong.
The point was *ECONOMIC THREAT* to the Wealthy men of the North.
I get it. They lost, and the abolitionists won.
Under existing US law at the time, they absolutely did. You may not like it, but it is the ugly truth. If you are incapable of comprehending this fact, then there is no further point in discussing this with you.
It came as no shock to me that you snipped the real question I was asking you, but it won't be that easy. Here it is again.
Did the south have the right to own slaves. Not was it a right under the law at the time, because so was everything Hitler and Stalin did and no one would say they had the right to do what they did. Did the south have a fundamental right to own slaves? Yes or no.
Slavery accounted for the vast bulk of their economic activity at the time. What you are suggesting makes as much sense as demanding modern Americans stop using gasoline. It's utterly silly, and indicative of an unserious understanding of events.
I'm sure many on the left equate using gasoline to having slaves, but I don't.
And the free states were able to do without slaves. So was the south once slavery was abolished. They could have made it easier on themselves in the long run by just freeing their slaves, assuming this wasn't about slavery of course.
I'm getting the impression that you really don't have a good grasp of American history. There is a solid ideological chain from abolitionists to modern liberals, you just have to know enough about the subject matter to realize how it all connects together throughout American history.
Maybe that's because FR has plenty of Conservatives who would oppose slavery but don't support the modern leftists agenda. That chain is fictitious.
Ping. Here is an example of how constant pressure and propaganda combine to get people to adopt ideas which the government wants them to adopt.
Like the confederacy convincing its citizens to defend slavery?
The abolitionists never answered what would happen to them if they did, and we're still finding out.
Gross revenues from trade are not "cherry picked". They are the relevant economic numbers. You have better numbers to suit your argument? You trot out those numbers and lets have a look.
I get it. They lost, and the abolitionists won.
The powers of the US Government were unconcerned with whether or not the abolitionists won or lost. They were very concerned about whether the wealthy men of the North won or lost. Abolition was an afterthought, not a primary goal.
Did the south have the right to own slaves.
Yes, the South had a g*dd@mned right to own slaves under the laws of the United States. Did you not grasp this answer the first time I told you?
Did the south have a fundamental right to own slaves? Yes or no.
Fundamental under US law? Yes they did. Do you not believe in US Law?
And the free states were able to do without slaves.
This is a lack of understanding on your part. The Northern "slaves" were Irish immigrants and others working in sweat shop factories and with no recourse if they were killed or injured in a factory mishap. The wealthy men of that era learned that it was cheaper in the long run to just exploit their endless supply of immigrants and shift all the burdens for their well being onto them rather than pay for it themselves.
If they got injured, which was all too common, they were shown the door and sent out to starve or die of their injuries. A lot of the abuse of workers in the North is what helped to kick off the Labor movement and subsequent labor unions.
Like the confederacy convincing its citizens to defend slavery?
If your wife was a drug addict, and someone broke into your home to assault your wife for failing to pay her drug bill, if you rose to defend her, you would be defending drug usage, even though that's not what you are doing at all.
That's what you mean when you say they rose up to defend slavery. No, they rose up to defend their homeland, which just happened to have slavery in it.
Would you have defended the United States in 1850, or would you say "I shall not defend my country because it has slavery and I don't approve of slavery." ?