YES, i know about the slave revolt on Hispaniola & that SUPPOSEDLY slavery was outlawed in both Haiti & in the DR. the REALITY was QUITE different!
the colonies of France had "de facto slavery" until well after 1900 = the slaves were called (i think, my HS French "leaves a lot to be desired"!!):"Enchainees ceux".
the "Dutch islands" HAD "de facto slavery" well into the 1880s.
further, i was stationed (with USASOCOM) in Venezuela in the 1980s & know, for a FACT, that "Los Obreros" of the 1920s were IN ACTUALITY slaves, despite the FACT that slavery was outlawed over 80 years before.
"de facto" & "de jure" are often QUITE different. IF you are "laboring under the lash" & WITHOUT WAGES, you ARE a SLAVE, regardless of what you are called.
free dixie,sw
You are ignoring the difference between peonage and chattel slavery.
Whether people lived under slave-like conditions in these countries is quite beside the point.
Your statement was that massive numbers of slaves were sold to the Caribbean by northerners during the WBTS.
While peonage and other slave-like conditions may have been tolerated, this does not mean the local authorities would allow a foreign ship to drop anchor, offload hundreds of shackled blacks and hold a slave auction.
You have still presented no evidence whatsoever that northerners sold slaves to the Caribbean during the war. Please do. Anecdotes about social conditions on Caribbean islands do not constitute evidence that specific northerners did these things.