Because in 1860, the motives were different. The North wanted absolute domination of the country. What better way to dominate the country than to put the South out of business and buy up their land?
Weaponization of virtue out of self interest is an old trick. The modern liberal claims to want socialism out of kindness, to mitigate poverty. When in reality, because it results in people working for free to no benefit for themselves, the liberal really wants a slave class.
I can see the power classes of the north weaponizing the slave issue for a short-term loss because, in the long-term, they can own the land of the South. It’s hard for the South to argue against that because they have to argue for slavery which puts them at a disadvantage. The South gives in, because they can’t win. Their costs go up, because they are now paying wages, they lose thwir plantations. Suddenly, the North goes, “Hey, look at all this land for sale cheap!”
I’m sure it’s just a coincidence.
You say “Hey, look at all this land for sale cheap!” So, who's land? Who bought it?
Name names, dates, places, that you "can see" or else you're just hypothesizing a cause with no evidence of it actually being true.
I've given you lists of industries, business moguls, people who meet the definition of "power interests" in your last post that did the things you are supposing, but you still just reply with your emotional appeal that you are correct without substantiation.
-PJ
Yes- the motives were quite different. And in the end, the Radical Republicans got rid of their “hero” Abraham Lincoln— who wanted to quickly re-unite the Union (while these Radicals wanted the spoils of “war”, like land and industry and selective laws to prevent entire groups of people from keeping their heritage and business ownerships, changed as they were).
The assassination of Lincoln and the attempt to remove his Southern VP Johnson who maintained Lincoln’s Reconstruction goals which Radicals definitely did not want, is one more proof to your observations.