And *THIS* I believe is the dominant reason why so much of the Northern population hated it. It wasn't out of concern for the black man, it was out of concern for their own labor and wages issues. I can think of nothing more offensive to a man who works for a living than the thought that someone else gets free labor, and through it gets rich.
You are holding people of that era up to a higher standard than people today and faulting them for not coming up to an ethical standard that we don't reach ourselves -- and that virtually no one could have reached at the time. Most people most of the time put their self-interest first -- do you think slave-owners and other Confederates didn't? If they do come around to considering the well-being of other people in some way, that's all one can ask for. That actually was the case for some abolitionists. My point, though, was that slave labor undercut the developments that would produce a modern economy, just as serfdom (and later Communism) did in Russia.
Charleston would likely never have developed into a port as well suited as New York, because of the Hudson river among other reasons, but it would certainly have developed sufficiently to seriously hurt New York's competing business. It probably would have taken at least half of New York's existing Trade.
Look at the map. Charleston didn't have the kind of population in its hinterland that Northern cities had.
Virginians and North Carolinians would be better served by the ports of Norfolk or Baltimore than Charleston. Alabama had Mobile (and New Orleans was closer than Charleston). There just wasn't the (free) population in the surrounding area to make the city a major center. Nor given slavery, was the city and state likely to attract a free immigrant population (or to grow on its own to the size of other cities and states). You backed the wrong horse when you kept slavery.
You are holding people of that era up to a higher standard than people today and faulting them for not coming up to an ethical standard that we don't reach ourselves -- and that virtually no one could have reached at the time. To the contrary my friend. All my life I had been taught that the Civil War was a moral crusade to eradicate slavery because it was evil. This makes it implicit that the objections to slavery were moral objections, not self-interest objections. Look at Battle Hymn of the Republic:
In the beauty of the lilies, Christ was born across the Sea,
With a glory in His bosom that transfigures you and me;
As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free,
While God is marching on.
[Chorus]
Glory, glory! Hallelujah!
Glory, glory! Hallelujah!
Glory, glory! Hallelujah!
While God is marching on.
Invading other peoples lands to abolish slavery was "God's Work", or at least so we had been led to believe.
And now when I look at the facts of the relevant history, I discover most people in the North didn't really care about the slaves, they cared about wage and labor issues (same as today) and they hated "the man" (envy) who was getting wealthy from free/cheap labor. (Same as today.)
My point is that we have been misled, not to portray these people as bad simply because they had an opinion that derived from their own self interest. Most rational people do.
do you think slave-owners and other Confederates didn't?
The Wealthy slave owners were most certainly interested in their own self interest. The reason slavery spread through the Americas was the result of people looking out for their own self interest at the expense of others; A Constant human curse. (same as today)
If they do come around to considering the well-being of other people in some way, that's all one can ask for. That actually was the case for some abolitionists.
The abolitionists were the "true believers", the morally motivated folk, but they were a tiny minority compared to the rest. Today their equivalent would be the "Eco Warriors" and the "Animal Rights" kooks. Still moralizing at others, but commanding no significant following. (same as today)
My point, though, was that slave labor undercut the developments that would produce a modern economy, just as serfdom (and later Communism) did in Russia.
I am not following here. What you say might be true, but i'm not seeing exactly how it may be true. By what mechanism would a slave or serf economy inhibit development? Presumably the large contingent of free populace could do the same thing they did in the North.
Look at the map. Charleston didn't have the kind of population in its hinterland that Northern cities had.
No it didn't, but economic advantages can often work wonders. Las Vegas made the Desert bloom because the laws allowed for that sort of Development. Had Charleston an economic advantage over New York, the population and development would have been forthcoming.
Virginians and North Carolinians would be better served by the ports of Norfolk or Baltimore than Charleston. Alabama had Mobile (and New Orleans was closer than Charleston).
The way things stood prior to 1861, that is true, but in absence of conflict, and with trade developing between Europe and Charleston, that infrastructure would have developed in the subsequent years.
Now of course if Maryland had seceded with the rest of the South, they would likely be *the* major port of the Confederacy because they were much closer to the Existing European Trade.
Because they would have been different Nations, that law banning cargo shipments on Foreign Ships between US Ports would no longer have come into play. Ships could have unloaded/loaded cargo in New York, and carried it to Baltimore, Norfolk, or Charleston without being penalized by that law.
My point here is that the Wealthy elite of New England saw Southern independence as a fiscal threat to their businesses, and pushed the President to stop it. (same as today.)