Human nature is human nature, if that’s what you mean.
But the abolition of slavery was central to this war, even if current-generation revisionists in the South want to deny it.
Oh, aye. It most certainly was.
That is not what we were discussing. Strawman.
No one honestly believes that slavery is/was more likely in Peru than Brazil because it is further south.
There are just as many good people(per capita) In South Dakota as North.
The willingness to enslave is not determined by something so ludicrous as a compass point.
It is the people who assert that Abolition of Slavery was central to this war who are revising history. Lincoln flatly contradicts this view.
When the war started, there was no intention by the Union to abolish slavery at all. This was simply a later developed war tactic that they dragooned into service as a fig leaf to explain their determination to press so hard as to kill 600,000 men.
After killing so many people, they had to have a D@mned good reason, and so they started pushing the "To Abolish Slavery!" propaganda. People wanted to believe men fought and died for some noble cause, and simply did not want to hear that they didn't.
But this view is a revision of history, and is not true at all.
The men of the Union fought to stop independence, and they only abolished slavery as a War tactic, as Propaganda, as Punishment to the south for putting up such a fight, and as ex post facto justification for the bloodshed they caused.