You can find capitalism, free-trade and entrepeneurship also in Denmark and Sweden, as well as in the United States or any other Western capitalist country, social mobility in Scandinavian nations is even better than in the United States.
The United States were founded on liberal principles but practically didn't already follow them in 1776 nor in 1787, of course it takes a lot of time to make a real revolution. On what point you say slaveholders would have given freedom since they themselves started a war to preserve slavery?
You can't be pro-freedom and defend the right to own slaves against government, it's against any kind of liberal principle promoted by Locke and other fathers of classical liberalism (Declaration of Indipendence included); it would be like if a Bolschevick fought againt collectivization after fighting the Civil war against the White army.
Dear Lm.. I am not defendind the right to own slaves.. I am defendend the right of ownership.... Slaves didn´t become slaves when Lincoln arrived... Slaves existed from early Neolitic communities....for sure in Egypt and Summer....Also in Adam Smith´s UK were slaves....So.... If a man wanted to make slaves in 1861 in USA. that was against laws.. but if a man had slaves from always.... maybe from 1800 or from 1779 or from 1602... or from 1510.... he had a right... a ownership right... what I say it is nobody have the power to steal his ownership. Only the owner had the right to give up his rights... I think...nobody can give up what he doesn't have... and lincoln didn´t have the right of ownership!!! If you don´t ike the word slaves.. Ok... forget the word and imagine we are talking about Ferrari or horses or custard apple! If Lincol didn´t have the rights about Curstard Apples... Lincold didn´t have the right to ban the other people´s rights on custard Apples!!!!
From my point of view.. Lincoln was a socialist...not a Marxist... but yes a guy could be manipulated by Marx (more intelligent than "abe").. I think Marx supported North because he intuited the illegal decision to interfere with legitimate property rights .. were an open door for the future entry of Marxist socialism.
Anarchist or if you prefer BAKUNIN supported CSA or Southern Confederation because Russian intellectual intuited CSA defended individual rights opposited the State (or maybe because his natural opposition to Marx!).. in any Case... BAKUNIN wrote about the South Cause was... the Cause of the Freedom!!! the cause of individualism oppossite the Lobbies... and the States... Man´s cause opposite System´s cause... in a word... South symbolizes the freedom of human beings against the oppression of the North (Bakunin)... in Spanish. (Reasons because anarchism supported Confederate States of America)
That´s the reason because from 19th Century.. Confederate Flag (the famous War Flag) also is worn by Anarchist groups...
This flag is symbol of Freedom for Anarchist groups from 19th Century. However, USA flag is seen as an oppresive flag (as Soviet one).
So, dear Lm... as you can see... some people (as Bakunin, anarchist, some European countries etc) saw in the South.. the defence of the individual rights opposite Northern Lobbies in Public administration...in the end.. nobody in Alabama or in Georgia pretended to change the ways of life of the ugly spinsters in Philadelphia or Boston and New York industrialist men... Don´t you think so?