"Tour." "Temporary Residency." "In depth study."
Who knows what is the best term to describe it? But "visit" is an effort to substantially underplay what he did and how much he knew of the situation.
He knew quite a lot, and in a manner not so very different from Alexis de Tocqueville, who many people think did such a great job in understanding and explaining American culture of that era.
Over 20 years? I'd say there were changes, yes.
Regarding people's attitudes about slavery? Really? You think people changed their minds about that in 20 years?
This demonstrates that the Northern Congress was more interested in keeping control of the South than it was in helping the slaves, and I believe that is also a fact.
That is your opinion.
Pray tell give us another interpretation of how Congress would be expressing their concern for the slaves by passing an Amendment to make slavery virtually permanent?
This I gotta hear!
Why would I want to do that?
To support your claim that my version is an "opinion." If mine assertion is an opinion, let's hear your "opinion" of how congress was benefiting the slaves through the passage of this amendment.
I say the mostly Northern Congress didn't care about the slaves at all, you claim that is an "opinion", so fine, explain how they weren't indifferent to the slaves in the passage of this amendment.
LOL!. Of course you would.
Who knows what is the best term to describe it? But "visit" is an effort to substantially underplay what he did and how much he knew of the situation.
He knew enough that he hated slavery and hated the South for it's support of it. We know he left the U.S. badly disappointed. Interestingly economics was never mentioned in his American Notes
Regarding people's attitudes about slavery? Really? You think people changed their minds about that in 20 years.
In the North perhaps. Between 1842 and 1860 the abolition movement in the North picked up steam, particularly after the publication of Uncle Tom's Cabin in 1852. Legislation trying to weaken the fugitive slave acts in the wake of the Prigg v. Pennsylvania increased. In the South, however, not so much. They continued as before with the devotion to slavery that so disgusted Dickens to begin with.
This demonstrates that the Northern Congress was more interested in keeping control of the South than it was in helping the slaves, and I believe that is also a fact.
LOL! You do so love spouting your opinions as if they were facts, don't you?
Pray tell give us another interpretation of how Congress would be expressing their concern for the slaves by passing an Amendment to make slavery virtually permanent?
It was a futile, knee-jerk reaction to restore the Union by giving the South at least part of what they were seceding over. Doomed to failure from the start since the Southern states had already adopted a constitution that protected slavery far more than the Corwin amendment ever could.
I say the mostly Northern Congress didn't care about the slaves at all, you claim that is an "opinion", so fine, explain how they weren't indifferent to the slaves in the passage of this amendment.
I agree in large part with your opinion that Congress didn't care about slaves. It was the South who were willing to leave over their slave institution. And they tried.