the TRUTH is that slave-OWNERS, north & south, were "garbage", imVho. they ultimately got what they deserved =RUIN!
nonetheless, the TRUTH is that neither region CARED enough to do anything to end the slave trade, as too many powerful people/institutions, NORTH & SOUTH, we heavily invested IN the slave trade. essentially ALL of the "financial end" of 'the flesh trade" was IN the north, including shipping/leasing/transportation/purchasing/etc. MANY northern banks/financial institutions/trading companies/insurance companies/railroads/shipping companies were involved. it was ABOUT $$$$$ & nothing more than that.period. end of story.
thankfully however, slavery was DYING by 1860. the SMART people knew it;only the "willfully blind" did not know that.
the Industrial Revolution was coming to agriculture & slavery was on the threshold of being UNPROFITABLE! (slavers cared about NOTHING but profit. steam-powered engines & teams of mules/oxen/horses are CHEAPER to feed/clothe/house than slaves.) absent profit, slavery would (absent the war) have ended & soon.
my GUESS is that slavery would have died out within a generation & more likely within 5-10 years, based on my reading.
given that a LARGE portion of the MILLION dead of the WBTS were Blacks (both slave & free), ending slavery a few years earlier than it would have naturally ended,seems a REALLY high price for a few years of "status quo".
free dixie,sw
As I said before, the North made a fortune off slavery, but was quite content to live with it as long as it was confined to the South. This may be hypocrisy, but people are content to be hypocrites when money is involved.
If the institution was dying, why did the South cling to it so obstinately?