>It wasn't about freeing any type of slavery. Slavery wasn't
>an issue for either the North and the South. They didn't care
>about slavery. The issues at the table were protecting the
>union.

OK, but *why* did they have to protect the Union? What was the issue that divided the Union? It was slavery, point blank.

>Slavery was an add-on for the war. The North didn't care that
>the South had slaves, that wasn't the reason for the secession
>and the Civil War.

The North did care that the South had slaves, but they were willing to accept it as a necessary evil to keep the Union together. But at the same time they did not want to perpetuate it any further, so they did not want slavery to spread outside of the south.

Which leads us to the reason for the secession: Lincoln wanted to ban new slave states from entering the Union. The South saw this as a threat because as new free states entered the Union the South would be at a political disadvantage, and they feared that abolition would then be forced on them. That's why they seceded.

>You honestly think if the North could've figured out a way to
>benefit from slavery in industrialization that they would've
>abolished it...no way.

No, but the fact that the North didn't depend on slavery allowed them to come to grips with the immorality of it, without having to rationalize it because their way of life depended on it like they did in the South. So no, the North was not inherently more moral than the South, it's just that they were in a position to look at the morality of it from a more detached, objective position, whereas the south was not.

--------------------------------------------------
"If your music was any good it would've
been stolen by the white man by now."

- Triumph the Insult Comic Dog