[DiogenesLamp]

So let's see if I "get" this: DiogenesLamp wishes us to excuse slavery in South Carolina because it was lawful there, but condemn abolition in New Jersey because it didn't happen fast enough to suit DiogenesLamp??

I said nothing regarding you. I merely pointed out that New Jersey was being a hypocrite, while South Carolina was not. New Jersey saw it as wrong, yet did not end it completely, while South Carolina didn't see it as wrong.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "I merely pointed out that New Jersey was being a hypocrite, while South Carolina was not.
New Jersey saw it as wrong, yet did not end it completely, while South Carolina didn't see it as wrong."

According to this site New Jersey reduced the number of slaves from 12,000 in 1800 to just 18 in 1860, while the number of freed-blacks rose from 4,000 to 25,000.
So by 1860 New Jersey had over 1,000 freed for every slave African American.
In South Carolina, by contrast, the number of slaves rose from 150,000 in 1800 to 400,000 in 1860, while the number of freed-blacks rose from 3,000 to just 10,000.
So South Carolina's ration of slaves to freed-blacks remained about 40 to one.

In view of the facts, your concern for New Jerseyans' "hypocrisy" is misplaced.