It is often taught in history class rooms that the North Emancipated slaves...but this is not at all true.  The North ended slavery in the North, they sold their slaves to the south.

The black population of the northern states was almost decimated completely by this process of "emancipation" which was to make slavery so unprofitable in the north that northern slaveholders had only the option to sell to southern slaveholders.

Therefore it is unfair for a student to believe that the South was "morally wrong" for not emancipating their slaves.

The South had no where to emancipate their slaves to (understanding that emancipation works by selling your slaves to someone else and simply getting rid of all the slaves...profitably).

Because it happened state by state there was no large outcry against this policy, it was difficult to understand that the North was liberating themselves of slavery at the expense of the South which was becoming more and more burdened by it.

The South was basically the last one standing in a dirty game of musical chairs on which both sides were absolute racists either wanting to remove blacks from their world entirely (the North) or wanting to keep blacks subjugated permanently (the South).

"There is another popular idea of emancipation, which is unjust,
fallacious, and impossible of application. It is known by the specious
though plausible appellation of gradual or prospective emancipation;
by which it is proposed to destroy, by legislation, the productiveness
and the value of this species of property, after a limited period, by
declaring the _confiscation of its increase_. This has been tried by
mistaken philanthropy, or by organized duplicity, with no other effect
but to transfer the slaves from State to State, and from the North to
the South; but while this process has been going on, the number of
slaves in the United States has increased more than four-fold,--from
less than one to more than four millions."

"Local places
of exchange decline, and great cities take their place; and with the
growth of centralization grows the slave trade, North and South.
Palaces rise in New York and Philadelphia, while droves of black
slaves are sent to Texas to raise cotton, and white ones at the North
perish of disease, and sometimes almost of famine. "We could tell,"
says a recent writer in one of the New York journals--

 "Of one room, twelve feet by twelve, in which were five resident
 families, comprising twenty persons of both sexes and all ages, with
 only two beds, without partition or screen, or chair or table, and
 all dependent for their miserable support upon the sale of chips,
 gleaned from the streets, at four cents a basket--"

Look up the US Census that is evidence enough between the first and the 1860 Census.

But, if contemporary proof is not enough (people of the time citing the evidence and stating the facts) then what is?

Also the idea that Northern Slavery was not profitable is utterly ridiculous, and how would free wage be any cheaper unless the slaves lived better than their free labor counterparts?  Use some critical thinking.  Factory slavery was proven to work and was used in the South as much as in the North before "Emancipation".  One may think the South was industrially small but only compared to the industrial giant that was the North, the South had over 10,000 factories at the time of the Civil War and they didn't use free labor fully.  There's an argument in Conflict of Northern and Southern Theories of Man and Society Great Speech, Delivered in New York City by Beecher that fully illustrates that in the North the lack of abundance of blacks encouraged racist attitudes, the fact that the laws of the North also precluded blacks from entering cities or holding jobs that they previously held as slaves shows the disdain for any blacks remaining in the region.  This gave rise to the notorious black dock gangs of the early 1800s New York City.  If Emancipation were the liberation of slaves then why do everything in your power to get rid of blacks from your state?

If the means with which to end slavery was to raise taxes, to hold a person to slavery only until a certain time past their 21st birthday (which allowed certain individuals to remain slaves until the 1860s in the North) then how was the consequence not intended; the mass sale of individuals South?

Do you think that emancipation in the North simply occurred and that blacks one day woke-up and were free?

Your assertion that the North had a more sustainable economy is also just flat out retarded.  The North's economy was heavily indebted (330% of the North's GDP, even today's debt burden is only a fraction of the GDP) and relied purely on Southern revenues to pay the debts.

You didn't think the Civil War was seriously about maintaining the "Union" did you?

You can find the obvious figures which I provided a contemporary statement from from a simple yahoo search.

The figures of US debt are public I'm sure - but I had a specific source I'm still looking for; it was highly against Slavery but it was very uneducated in Economics so the author posted a lot of economic figures but misinterpreted them...and misunderstood just how devastating the Northern outstanding debts were against their obviously superior GDP to the South compared with Southern profits and thus capital flow to the North.

The slave trade, domestic and foreign Why It Exists, and How It May Be Extinguished by Carey is my other source.

How could that possibly be evidence without some help in teasing out the numbers?  Massive immigration of Irish, German, and French Canadian immigrants(virtually all of whom went to the North) make such comparisons tricky to say the least.  Incidentally this immigration showed the vitality of the Northern economy for enriching the masses rather than a narrow aristocracy.  Had the South's economy been as advantageous, they'd have gone there in the early and mid-19th century too, but they mostly didn't.

The very number of factories belies their true nature.  Most of the "factories" you refer to were over-glorified cottage industries, not "factories" in any sense of the word we'd recognize today.  Evidence of this was seen in the relative shoddiness of Confederate artillery shells among other things.  About the same percentage of labor worked in agriculture in 1860 as did in 1800, hardly the hallmark of a diversifying, industrializing or innovative economy (see McPherson's books on the Civil War).
   What?  You're conflating a number of different phenomena here.  Believing slavery immoral doesn't mean you can't be a racist.  It doesn't even mean you plan well for what the formerly enslaved are to do, nor does it prevent racism toward those who were slaves or the descendants of slaves.  As for the lack of abundance, the small numbers of Northern slaves to begin with, the over-representation of blacks in nautical occupations, the small number of escapees, the existence of the Fugitive Slave Act which made escapees less likely to want to be visible and some of the free at risk of being kidnapped, and most of all the massive immigration rates made it unsurprising that blacks were a small percentage of population and as visible members of a community were largely invisible. I never said emancipation was instant.  In fact phased emancipation was quite common in the Northeast and Midatlantic states. I haven't argued with that idea, but I saw little reason to bother bringing it up.

If you have the figures, produce them.  I'm not about to do your work for you.  However, I can suggest some helpful reading on the social, political, and economic impacts of slavery and its aftermath.

• Reconstruction:America's Unfinished Revolution by Eric Foner
• American Slavery by Kolchin
• American Slavery, American Freedom by Edmund S. Morgan
• Celia, A Slave by Melton M. McLaurin
• Ordeal by Fire: The Civil War and Reconstruction by James McPherson
• Numerous slave narratives   Harriet Ann Jacobs and Frederick Douglass both have good ones

What do you think the Civil War was about?  It sounds like you'll say economics, but I'll wait for your answer.

Incidentally I'd like to address this strange notion you have that the way to know what really went on is to consult books from the era while ignoring contemporary historical research(which uses such old books among other things as source material for drawing conclusions).  By relying too slavishly on such sources you make yourself open to a good number of errors if you're not careful.  First, how do you know the validity of their conclusions or even the soundness of their economical theory?  Historians spend a good deal of time in checking and cross-checking a variety of sources from a wide variety of people and groups, some reliable, some not to come up with their judgment on where the truth lies.  How to you expect to get the truth by diving in mell-pell into an era you are less familiar with than they are while holding their more contemporary conclusions as suspect?  It is obvious that you have a little experience with primary source materials, but I'm not at all convinced you have a grasp on the contemporary historical debate on these issues.  Good historians and students of history read both.

Prove it.
Do you know how ridiculous you sound here.  It's not about economics, but it is about the high valuation of slaves.     As for the relative weakness of the southern economy the lower rates of urbanization and immigration speak for themselves.  It also seems odd that the "dependent" Northern economy wasn't the one that melted down economically during the war.  In fact things were going well enough with the Northern economy that immigration actually increased the adult population despite the hundreds of thousands who died as a result of the war.