Great post BILL3, well put and well written.
I do not necessarily want to oppose or challenge the thoughts that you put forward; they are relevant points, and points that are not often discussed.
Consider this analogy: Bob are living in the US in 1850 in the south. Bob comes to the strong realization that slavery is immoral and wrong and should be put to an end. So Bob goes about convincing others about the immorality of slavery.
But Bob does little to nothing about creating "post slavery" facilities; Bob seems to HAVE NO IDEA what the freed slaves will do, or where they will stay after the end of slavery.
Is Bob AT FAULT?
If Bob simply wins the minds of some people, has Bob done SOMETHING WRONG?
Doesn't Bob first have to win THE ARGUMENT about what is truly happening to the slaves? Doesn't Bob first have to GET PEOPLE TO RECOGNIZE THE IMPLICATIONS OF THEIR DAILY ACTIONS before Bob should proceed to lay the foundation for the aftermath of abolition?
It seems illogical for Bob to proceed to step 2: provide for freed slaves.