Ah, Texas history, to go along with the Texas logic.
LK and Eskimospy got it right.
The two-fifths reduction in slaves being counted for representation had nothing to do with that being a 'two-fifths start to recognizing them as people'.
This was simply two groups of states - slave and non-slave - fighting over how much representation in the federal government slave states would get.
More representation gave slave states more power, less representation gave non-slave states a larger share.
The treatment of slaves as people wasn't affected - that was still 'zero' either way.
The north's interest wasn't in protecting the 'rights' of slaves, in 'starting their freedom that would end in the civil war'; it was just negotiating for more power.
Both sides had some interest in forming the United States; the South was apparently willing to not form it, if not given more power, based on its slave population.
The three-fifths is nothing but naked negotiation compromise making no more sense than Solomon actually chopping a baby in half for each of two claims to it.
The actual part of the constitution addressing slavery is much less well-known - it's a provision that the importation of new slaves could not be banned for 20 years.
As that 20 year mark approached, President Thomas Jefferson and Congress passed a law banning slave importation to take effect on the first day the constitution allowed.
That was 1808.
The civil war was started primarily over the ongoing conflicts between the north and south on *economic* matters, with the south angry at its treatment by the majority non-slave states - being the unfortunate member in a democracy with under 50% - and therefore zero - representation.
There was a minority movement against slavery - just as there is a minority 'peace' or progressive movement today in the US - but the North's policies such as opposing more slave states had more to do with not creating more allies and power for the slave states than protecting slaves. They could have voted to end slavery from 1808 to the 1860's and did not. The north was extremely racist.
Wars benefit from a moral cause, and they are often invented when needed; the role of 'freeing the slaves' was greatly exaggerated to make the war more 'justified'.
Changing times around the world did mean slavery was on the way out, as it ended in country after country after country in the 19th century.
By the way, on its one factual claim, the Gettysburg address was incredibly wrong - that the world would forget what Lincoln said.
Perhaps the most ironic thing in Washington, D.C., are the words 'the world will soon forget' the speech etched into stone at the Lincoln memorial.
I've never been impressed by the speech much, for what it's worth. JFK for peace, FDR against the wealthy interests exploiting - those are great speeches.
Regardless, Lincoln's main motivation was preserving the union; the South's was ending the abuse of power by the majority for its own interests at their expense.
Slavery had a lot of things to it - identifying the group of Southern states, economic, as well as moral.
Lincoln's campaign speeches reassuring northern voters that he would NEVER permit 'social equality' for the clearly inferior blacks show the 'moral' situation.