[stand watie]

i'm sorry, but you post # 821 is NOTHING more than denial of the TRUTH & a SELF-serving attempt to paint southerners as "the bad guy" & WHITEWASH the HYPOCRITES of the north, who were IN the slave trade from it's first day to it's last gasp.

when slavery became UNPROFITABLE in the north (it had NOTHING to do with morality = just MONEY.), the vast majority of northern slave-owners SOLD their slaves (instead of freeing them!) to places where slavery was still profitable.

then, they "invested in" slave-trading/slave-owning, in places that slavery was still profitable/lawful through insurance companies, holding companies, banks, stock companies, etc. (for example Garrison "the famous abolitionist lion" & and publisher of THE LIBERATOR was heavily INVESTED IN a holding company that both SOLD & LEASED slaves in "the sugar islands". Stanton too was "invested heavily in" a company that OWNED slaves in the Caribbean.)

tell us all that it's BETTER & MORE MORAL to be "invested in" slavery & make money on the "flesh trade" (regardless of where the slaves ARE) than it is to directly own slaves, PLEASE, so we can all see your "selective morality".

free dixie,sw

[Blackacre]

i'm sorry, but you post # 821 is NOTHING more than denial of the TRUTH & a SELF-serving attempt to paint southerners as "the bad guy" & WHITEWASH the HYPOCRITES of the north, who were IN the slave trade from it's first day to it's last gasp.

The truth is that slavery was illegal in the North, but not in the South. You can't squirm away from that fact. Northerners couldn't make a profit on slavery where it was illegal.

when slavery became UNPROFITABLE in the north (it had NOTHING to do with morality = just MONEY.), the vast majority of northern slave-owners SOLD their slaves (instead of freeing them!) to places where slavery was still profitable.

I'm sure they did. But slavery wasn't banned in the North based on profitability, it was banned for moral reasons. If Northerners didn't find slavery abhorent, they wouldn't have bothered to outlaw the practice.

tell us all that it's BETTER & MORE MORAL to be "invested in" slavery & make money on the "flesh trade" (regardless of where the slaves ARE) than it is to directly own slaves, PLEASE, so we can all see your "selective morality".

It isn't. But the fact that a relative handful of rich, unscrupulous Northerners made money off of slavery doesn't change the fact that the South's entire economy, culture and society was based on slavery.

I'm making no excuses for Northerners who profited from slavery, but that doesn't change the fact that the only reason they could make such profits is because Southern States kept slavery legal.