So far I’ve found three FR posters with bees in their bonnets about Southern slavery.
The argument I had with the first one about a month ago was interesting, in that he thought Wilberforce was absolutely wonderful for outlawing slavery peacefully, but THE SOUTH was HORRIBLE for perpetuating it.
Something that never crossed his little leftist-poisoned mind: his heroes in the North didn’t outlaw it. They let it continue when they COULD have simply made slavery illegal and retained that superb piece of moral high ground that leftists and South-haters love to prattle on about so much.
Why didn’t the North do it, like Britain had done it?
Money, plain and simple. They were making too much money off of the 6% of Americans who owned slaves, ON TOP OF the sugar cane business in the slave Caribbean Isles. Politicians and money, forever and ever and always.
Moral high ground? More like high horse.
Northern states did pass individual state laws outlawing slavery or defining a plan for emancipation. They couldn't "simply make slavery illegal" - they knew that would take an amendment to the Constitution.
I point this out every time one of these arguments comes up. The unmitigated facts are that the Union didn't fight the war to end slavery, they fought it to end Independence for Southern states. Ending slavery was just a revenge tactic and a sop to the Abolitionists.