[woodpusher]

Illinois abolished slavery but instituted 99-year indentured servitude."

{sigh} Here we go, yet again, teaching simple lessons to deaf children...

You couldn't teach anybody anything unless it appears Wikipedia.

https://www.propublica.org/article/slavery-existed-in-illinois-but-schools-dont-always-teach-that-history

But then as early as 1803, a loophole was created that [essentially] said: “Bring your slaves to Illinois. It’s fine. Just go through the formality of an indenture contract.” Some contracts were for 99 years.

But most indentured people really weren’t given a choice. If your master, or someone who’s claimed to be your master, or has told you they were your master for, you know, 20, 30, 40 years, tells you to put your mark [signature] on a paper that says you’re willing to continue as my indentured servant, it’s not likely that someone would refuse.

The Illinois slaves were like Etheldred Scott. They worked in Illinois but were the slaves of another state. In other words, after Illinois proclaimed itself slave-free, slaves in Ilinois were sheep-dipped in another state.

https://slavery.princeton.edu/stories/legislating-slavery-in-new-jersey

It was not until April 18, 1846 that the state legislature passed “An Act to Abolish Slavery,” declaring:

That slavery in this state be and it is hereby abolished, and every person who is now holden in slavery by the laws thereof is made free, subject, however, to the restrictions herein after mentioned and imposed.

This act, like the Gradual Abolition Act of 1804, did not actually emancipate enslaved people in the state. It instead turned the remaining enslaved peoples into “apprentices for life.” Thus, "New Jersey retained slaveholding without technically remaining a slave state."

At the outbreak of the Civil War, New Jersey slaveholders owned eighteen apprentices for life—or, as the federal census more accurately classified them, “slaves.” A Princeton professor, Albert B. Dod owned a slave as late as 1840, one of the last men in the state to do so.

Because of these limitations on emancipation, it was not until the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment in 1865—which New Jersey reluctantly ratified in January of 1866—that the remaining sixteen slaves in the state were forever freed.

Perhaps you should have tried reading my linked paper from Princeton University. I know Princeton is not up to your usual Wikipedia standards, but some of us make do.

What I responded to was a claim that "Slavery ended in NJ in 1809." You could try to address the actual topic rather than just deposit your usual pile of bullsplat.

Finally, indentured servitude was also abolished by the 13th Amendment, in 1865, but is a very different matter from African slavery, since something like half of immigrants from Europe arrived here under some form of temporary indenture.

A lifetime apprenticeship of New Jersey differed so little from African slavery that the official census ignored the bullflop and listed them as what they really were — slaves.

https://slavery.princeton.edu/stories/legislating-slavery-in-new-jersey

At the outbreak of the Civil War, New Jersey slaveholders owned eighteen apprentices for life—or, as the federal census more accurately classified them, “slaves.”

- - - - -

Gradual abolition was seen as the compromise which could accomplish every goal with a minimum of unpleasant side effects.

Second, as practiced, gradual abolition began in states with the fewest slaves and proceeded, one by one, to states with ever more slaves.

In 1799 it was New York's "turn", in 1802 Ohio's new state constitution abolished slavery, in 1804 it was New Jersey's "turn", in 1820 the US Supreme Court freed any slaves in Indiana, in 1827 New York freed any remaining slaves and in 1845 Illinois supreme court freed any remaining indentured ex-slaves.

Not one of your alleged court cases was linked, cited, or quoted. It is very doubtful you even know what cases you are talking about, much less what is in them.

Of course, slaves in New Jersey, Delaware, Kentucky and Missouri, not to mention Washington, D.C., are inconvenient facts.

The fact that the 1860 census showed more free blacks in the slave states than in the free states gives the lie about the northern slaves having been set free. They were not living as free men in the North. They were sold South.

Another inconvenient fact is that the Underground Railroad ran all the way to Canada for some reason.

in 1820 the US Supreme Court freed any slaves in Indiana

Nonsense. Cite the U.S. Supreme Court decision that did this. Where did you cut and paste this crap from? Let me guess. Wikipedia? On what legal basis did the Federal U.S. Supreme Court free any slaves in Indiana? The fact is that you have no clue what you are talking about.

Let me help a brother out. Below is a link to a full copy of U.S. Reporter, Volume 18, which contains the official published opinion of every U.S. Supreme Court case in 1820. Select the one you think did what you claim.

https://www.loc.gov/collections/united-states-reports/?fa=partof:u.s.+reports:+volume+018

[BroJoeK]

woodpusher: "You couldn't teach anybody anything unless it appears Wikipedia."

It's true that I don't try to depend on my own memory to keep the facts straight, and Wikipedia is a convenient source, mostly free and ad-free, of "common knowledge."
And unlike some younger people, I don't have access to whole electronic libraries full of useful data.
Maybe someday I'll figure out how they do that, but one problem is, we are already at the point of overloading with far too much information for the average person to absorb.

I'm not certain it helps arguments to load them down with very lengthy quotes from obscure sources...

woodpusher: "But then as early as 1803, a loophole was created that [essentially] said: “Bring your slaves to Illinois.
It’s fine.
Just go through the formality of an indenture contract.”
Some contracts were for 99 years."

Right, I totally understand your point here, but my point totally sailed right over your head, didn't it?

My response was:

"...in 1845 Illinois supreme court freed any remaining indentured ex-slaves."

So, your 99 years turned out to be something considerably less, didn't it?

woodpusher: [slaves] "They worked in Illinois but were the slaves of another state.
In other words, after Illinois proclaimed itself slave-free, slaves in Ilinois were sheep-dipped in another state."

Right, and before the 1857 SCOTUS Dred Scott ruling, such practices were often disciplined by state courts, even in the South, who recognized Northern states' laws automatically manumitting slaves who were kept too long in a Northern state.
Those are the grounds on which Dred Scott sued for his freedom and which SCOTUS Chief Crazy Roger Taney struck down in his insane opinions.

woodpusher quoting: "At the outbreak of the Civil War, New Jersey slaveholders owned eighteen apprentices for life—or, as the federal census more accurately classified them, “slaves.”
A Princeton professor, Albert B. Dod owned a slave as late as 1840, one of the last men in the state to do so."

Right, and while Northern states like New Jersey and Illinois gradually abolished slavery in accordance with our Founders' original intentions, in Southern states, the numbers of slaves increased 6-fold, from 654,121 in 1790 to 3,950,511 in 1860, while Southern agitations to increase legal protections for slavery never even slackened.

woodpusher: "Perhaps you should have tried reading my linked paper from Princeton University.
I know Princeton is not up to your usual Wikipedia standards, but some of us make do."

Well, two points on this:

1. I'm not such a big fan of Princeton, seems to me they've always been a bit "off", even going back to the days when an aristocratic Son of the Confederacy, a very progressive Democrat named Woodrow Wilson, was Princeton's president.

2. The quotes I truly treasure say the most with the fewest words, and nothing I've ever seen posted by woodpusher meets that criterion.

woodpusher: "A lifetime apprenticeship of New Jersey differed so little from African slavery that the official census ignored the bullflop and listed them as what they really were — slaves."

And so, turns out, the alleged official hypocrisy which has you so highly agitated, did not, in fact, exist -- actual slaves were counted as what they really were.
And, in the meantime, while New Jersey's slaves dwindled from 11,423 in 1790 to 18 in 1860, in the South, slaves increased 6-fold, from 654,121 in 1790 to 3,950,511 in 1860.

woodpusher: "Not one of your alleged court cases was linked, cited, or quoted.
It is very doubtful you even know what cases you are talking about, much less what is in them."

If you can prove me wrong here, I'll submit your proofs to Wikipedia and ask them to correct their mistakes.

woodpusher: "Of course, slaves in New Jersey, Delaware, Kentucky and Missouri, not to mention Washington, D.C., are inconvenient facts."

Naw, that's just Lost Cause crazy-talk because, first of all, Delaware, Kentucky, Missouri and Washington, DC, were all slavery-legal with no laws restricting slavery and many laws supporting it.
New Jersey after 1804 was simply following the pattern previously set by Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Wisconsin.
Why that should so trigger your agitations is, frankly, a mystery to me.

woodpusher: "The fact that the 1860 census showed more free blacks in the slave states than in the free states gives the lie about the northern slaves having been set free.
They were not living as free men in the North.
They were sold South."

Naw, now you're just hallucinating.
Reality is that while Southern states grew numbers of slaves 6-fold by 1860, in northern states slave totals were reduced from 40,086 in 1790 to 18 in 1860, while the number of free-blacks grew 8-fold, from 27,034 in 1790 to 225,961 in 1860.

So, your whole idea that Northerners "hated blacks" and "sold them down the river" is just crazy-talk, projections from more typical Southern behaviors.

woodpusher: "Nonsense.
Cite the U.S. Supreme Court decision that did this.
Where did you cut and paste this crap from?
Let me guess.
Wikipedia?
On what legal basis did the Federal U.S. Supreme Court free any slaves in Indiana?
The fact is that you have no clue what you are talking about."

Wrong again, but unlike you, I do think there's a huge value to brevity and eliminating unnecessary words.
In this particular case, to quote exactly:

"Indiana -- the supreme court orders almost all slaves in the state to be freed in Polly v. Lasselle."

Polly v Lasselle was in Indian state court and was appealed to the Indiana Supreme court as State vs Lasselle, which ruled in 1820:

"The ruling was made on July 22, 1820,[1] based upon the Indiana Constitution, 11th article, section 7,

'There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in this state, otherwise than for the punishment of crimes, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.
Nor shall any indenture of any negro or mulatto hereafter made, and executed out of the bounds of this state be of any validity within the state.'[6]"

The case was further appealed to the US Supreme Court, which refused to hear it, thus confirming the Indiana ruling.