[capitan_refugio]

Based on the 1860 Census, there were fewer than 300 slaves in New Jersey and about 3,000 slaves in Delaware. Kansas recorded 2. Nebraska recorded 15. In the other Northern States slavery had been abolished. (This is not to say that furtive slavery did not exist in places like southern Ohio and Illinois - but it was in very small numbers and was illegal.)

Compare this with the approximately 3,890,000 slaves that show up in the 1860 census from the Southern and border states. The border states are defined as Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri. The CSA "claim" Ky and Mo as their own, so that leaves Maryland. Maryland had over 87,000 slaves and nearly seceded.

So you compare fewer than 100,000 (most in one state) versus 3.8 million.

For the South, slavery was very much the issue with regard to secession. It is in every secession document and was on the tongue of every secession leader. The South wanted political parity, at least in the Senate, so it could preserve its "peculiar institution." When it was apparent that the slave-holding states would eventually lose parity because "free" states were beginning to enter the Union on the Plains and in the West, the South bolted. Notions of "States rights" and "State sovereignty" are just blowing smoke.

[Arkinsaw]

Notions of "States rights" and "State sovereignty" are just blowing smoke.

Again, you attempt to tie the political concepts of States Rights and State Sovereignty to the slavery issue for all time. This is very similar to the folks who attempt to ban all firearms because somebody got killed once. Ignoring the fact that firearms can also serve useful purposes and are not inherently evil in and of themselves.

[Blood of Tyrants]

So because they had fewer slaves, they were morally superior? How far will you go to try to make up history? That is like saying a person who rapes only two children is morally superior to one who rapes 50!