When the North benefited bigly from slavery, the North was for slavery.
When the North came to believe their economic and political competitors could benefit more from slavery than they could, the North opposed slavery.
Is this what you mean by moral “plain old common sense?”
When the North came to believe their economic and political competitors could benefit more from slavery than they could, the North opposed slavery.
That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
Well here we are pushing 600 posts on a subject well discussed by both sides, politely and well referenced, my compliments.
It is easy to get lost on such a complicated subject.
Some ideas seem very clear and have the benefit of “traction”. They seem to be obvious.
Slavery would have always ended.
In SC, 1/3 owned 2/3.
That 2/3, when freed would have become full citizens. Congress would have seen to that, too many future voters and political power to ignore.
As full citizens, the 2/3, former slaves would have the right to buy guns, compete for jobs, earn money, spend at businesses they liked, elect the next sheriff, governor, mayor, representatives, etc.
Those choices certainly would be highly objectionable to the minority white population with guns.
It is reasonable that the 1/3 white ruling class knew full well what abolition meant at the time.
There would have been war, unavoidable.
The Confederacy would never make more than modest and early gains until the economic might of the Federal government destroyed the resistance and won.
None of todays discussion can change those central ideas.