That was the implication of the poster, another DS, posting the claim the slave ships were "protected" by the US flag attempting to deceive one into believing it was the policy of the US government to protect slavers' ships.
Desperate to make others believe the fantasy that the Northern anti-slavers were just as bad as the southern slavers they regularly resort to such nonsense.
Ad hominems in code are still pretty base.
posting the claim the slave ships were "protected" by the US flag attempting to deceive one into believing it was the policy of the US government to protect slavers' ships.
Slave ships were "protected" by the US flag, to the extend that foreign slave ships would fly the stars and stripes when the saw an approaching vessel in order to prevent boarding and inspection. Most of the discussion revolving around the inability to board and inspect revolves around the slave trade, but I'd be willing to listen to other alternative explanations. Certainly your continued assumption that it was driven by the need for Southern labor expansion falls flat when you consider where the human cargo was offloaded; it appears as though money interests dominated the continued illegal trade and as such, equal guilt can be dished to both Northern slavers and investors and the Southern counterparts who were willingly complicit in allowing it's continuance.
Desperate to make others believe the fantasy that the Northern anti-slavers were just as bad as the southern slavers they regularly resort to such nonsense.
It is not nonsense, as has been posted. Slavers used (abused) the stars and stripes to protect their human cargo as has been indicated. Calling it nonsense is a weak rebuttal.