Hey there Younger,
Looks like a new thread that would have done just fine in the old one, but not to worry.
To look at some of your claims, yes, there was a ton of racism that went on in years past, and some might say even today. Should people of the past be absolved of this? Of course not. At the same time, I might suggest looking up the term cultural relativism, it is a very helpful anthropological tool when looking at previous eras and other cultures. One is most definitely able to bring up untold examples of it in the North, such as factories saying "Help Wanted, no Mics or N***rs need apply," or examples of legislation like the Compromise of 1850 and its Fugitive Slave Act, or here in my native Oregon and how it had some very racist laws on the books paralleling those you mention from Illinois.
But you possibly forget that it was in the north that - due to various factors that stem back to the very foundation of the colonies - you have all sorts of abolitionist groups like Williams Lloyd Garrison's and the Underground Railroad, and the abolition of the practice of slavery in their states since before the Revolution in some cases. While economically they did benefit, I would argue that was more out of necessity than want. The south was the premier supplier of cotton for the entire world until Britain had Egypt and India set up their own farms, and those came on line during the Civil War, which was part of the reason for their not using the outrageous prices being charged by Blockade Runners.
You forget that those in the North hated the Fugitive Slave Act, either the one from 1793, or the stricter version from 1850. Various cities and states in the north purposefully circumvented that law, as according to research by Thomas D. Morris in his 1974 book Free Men All: The Personal Liberty Laws of the North, 1780-1861. He showcases various "personal liberty laws" or laws that did not allow local jails to be used to assist the recapture of fugitive slaves. In Prigg v. Pennsylvania of 1842, the Supreme Court ruled that states did not have to offer aid with hunting or recapturing slaves, in relation to the earlier law. For one so for states' rights, I would assume you would be for this lesser-government stance? Furthermore, the 1850 version was deemed unconstitutional by the Wisconsin state supreme court in Glover v. Booth, though that was later overruled by the US Supreme Court in 1859.
Another example comes from Vermont, which I will quote from the Wikipedia article for the basic rundown of the event:
"In November 1850, the Vermont legislature passed the "Habeas Corpus Law," requiring Vermont judicial and law enforcement officials to assist captured fugitive slaves. It also established a state judicial process, parallel to the federal process, for people accused of being fugitive slaves. This law rendered the federal Fugitive Slave Act effectively unenforceable in Vermont and caused a storm of controversy nationally. It was considered a "nullification" of federal law, a concept popular in the South among states that wanted to nullify other aspects of federal law, and was part of highly charged debates over slavery."
Link
If the North was so complicit, as you say, then surely there would not have even been a debate over slavery, and surely there never would have been abolishing of it in the North to begin with?
In relation to the 3/5ths Compromise, it was not something that was initially wanted by Northerners. While both sides liked the idea of a population-based elected representatives for the House, the Southerners did not have as much of a free white population as the north to stay competitive, and those in the North originally proposed that only free men should be counted for the number of seats, because of their opposition to slavery. During the Articles days, it was Benjamin Harrison of Virginia and several New Englanders that proposed a one-half compromise, though that failed, and it was replaced by a 3/5ths proposed by James Madison, though that ultimately failed too because New York and New Hampshire refused to sign it. It came up again in the Constitutional Convention, and due to different priorities, was able to be passed.
Finally, I will mention that the south was intentionally given an unfair balance all the way until when they decided to try and leave with the Civil War. The only reason they wanted the slaves to be counted fully in the representation was to continue to have that over-representation of slave states vs. free states in the legislature rather than from any conviction of equality. How many quotes should I relate from Southern folks from the time to that affect? As shown with examples like tariff law, they had something short of free reign exempting push-back to do as they pleased. With the 1860 election, they were looking to get control of the executive branch as well, and truly have free reign. Yes, while Lincoln only had 40%, even with several southern states not even including him on their ballots, he still was the majority winner. And you are right, he did not want to end slavery, but Southerners were still afraid of the rhetoric of the Whigs and Lincoln because they wanted to stop it from spreading west. I believe there was recent wording along the lines of "suck it up, he won" for the most recent president? If that is supposed to be an accurate line of reasoning, could that not be equally applied before?
I will leave one last quote here from the mouth of the Vice-President of the Confederacy, Alexander Stephens, and his famous Cornerstone Speech:
"The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions — African slavery as it exists among us — the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution... Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."
I don't know of any better example to put this matter to rest. Considering how much you are pushing back against this idea, it feels more like you are trying to convince yourself more than anyone here.