The North was willing to leave slavery in the hands of the States. Maybe without the pressure of a reccession the South would have accepted that compromise, and we had seen a quite different story of the USA until today.
Wasn't slavery already outlawed in the Northern states? I thought one of the main points of tension was the refusal of Northern states to recognize slaves that fled to the North as "property" and "return them to their owners".
> The North was willing to leave slavery in the hands of the States.
The South was unwilling to accept that the North didn't recognise slavery in its territory.
Southerners wanted slavery to be recognised and enforced throughout the US.
> I thought one of the main points of tension was the refusal of Northern states to recognize slaves that fled to the North as "property" and "return them to their owners".
That was the official line — and rather obviously against the concept of states' rights.
But for my money the main issue for the "gentlefolks" was that they couldn't bear not being waited on hand and foot by their slave retinues while enjoying the trapping of the north: they had to pick between those trappings and having an enslaved retinue, as any slave they brought up north was a jump and skip away from freedom.
And they really couldn't handle the "inconvenience" and "degradation".
