Good example. The person who actually ended slavery in the US, Abraham Lincoln, didn't support abolition until the military advantages of emancipation became obvious enough that he could sell it to the people. For a long time he supported some slavery improvements, but specifically did not support abolition - which very much helped his political career and put him in position to emancipate.

We might also note that what Lincoln did -- the Emancipation Proclamation -- abolished slavery only in areas that were not subject to the Union, making it questionable as an act of governance. Slaves in Union territory were emancipated by the 13th amendment three years later.

And slavery in prison continues to this day because of a neat little exemption in that 13th amendment.

> questionable as an act of governance

I disagree with this. You shouldn't fail to emancipate some slaves just because you can't emancipate them all.

When it’s your job, your family starving or out of work or homeless, then “suck it up buttercup” doesn’t sound so nice. The reality is the extreme poverty is lower than it has ever been, thanks to trade. Think it’s bad now? Try 50 years ago. The world is getting better despite the propaganda to the contrary. That we are even talking about this at all shows progress.