Which contention on your part (cite your evidentiary sources, please) doesn't account for why Compensated Emancipation was succesful in every other country where it was tried.
Here's why it was successful: once slave-holders were paid a market rate of compensation for their slaves, they took the money and shut up about it. Which means that you can argue all you want about the alleged "power-vs-profit" aspect of slavery in theory; but in practice, slave-holders were content to take the money.
Because it was forced on them. ...but in practice, slave-holders were content to take the money.
So I'll ask you this. If the government announced a plan that that they were buying every privately owned fiream in the country at market prices, and you had to sell all your firearms to them at fair value, but you could never purchase another gun ever again, would you be content to take the money and shut up about it?
It worked in other countries because the government was not in cahoots with the slave labor system as it was in the South. If the South had willingly gone along and said, “fine, every slave = x value, let’s start,” yeah, it might have worked. But when you have an oppressive government working in tandem with the slave system to control the price of the good through slave posses, the judicial system, etc., then, no, it won’t work. Hence the need for force here.