So what? It was never ratified, and it came too late to change anything.
And how is this relevant? There were states that still allowed slavery which remained in the US.
Slaves from the confederacy escaped to the North. How many slaves in the North escaped to the confederacy?
How does this address the fact that there was widespread mistreatment of Blacks by Federal troops?
I was clear. As imperfect as the North was, it was still better from their point of view than being slaves in the confederacy. BTW, over 100,000 escaped slaves served in the Union forces. What do you think they were fighting for?
"blah blah blah blah I'm just going to spam you with the same crap I've posted 30 times already because I don't have any good answers."
The racists comments in the declarations of secession were my answer. You want to condemn the racists who were in the North but excuse the Southerners for being products of their environment.
There was massive racism and ill treatment of Blacks in the North. I could post all kinds of examples of the "Black Codes" or even entire states which barred Blacks from living there. No, not slaves. All Blacks.
I never said the North was all righteous, either during or after the Civil War. On the contrary, I acknowledge that this was a problem the abolitionists had to deal with.
By the same token, there were abolitionists in the South, who helped the slaves escape. Why aren't you pointing to them as positive examples of the South?
This is an outright lie. The US still had slavery. Even areas of the Southern states that were occupied by federal troops still had slavery. There was no "war of abolition" as Northerners went to great pains to say. They did not start the war to free slaves.
That's because they didn't start the war, but they did free the slaves when it was over. Your tortured logic to get around that is something to behold.
No, slavery was legal in multiple states that remained in the union. It was legal in Washington DC during the war.
Was it legal after the war? No.
There were some Brits who felt the way you describe. Britain had a democratic form of government and a long history of free speech so people held all sorts of opinions just as they did in the Southern states and the Northern states. Funny how you ignore what many of the leading political figures and newspapers on both sides were saying - ie that it was about money not slavery.
I don't ignore it, I just don't agree with it, at least not fully. As I have said, not everyone in the North was for abolition and it took some major politicking to get it done. Frederick Douglas wrote on that, and I've admitted it, yet you keep coming back to that.
Dickens was a leading political commentator, not just an author.
He was also all over the map on that issue. I want to research further.
Its not that it came "too late". Its that slavery was not their real concern. If it had been, then they would have happily indicated they would come back were it passed. Instead they turned it down flat. This wasn't a timing issue.
Slaves from the confederacy escaped to the North. How many slaves in the North escaped to the confederacy?
Slavery was still legal in some of the states that remained in the US yes or no?
I was clear. As imperfect as the North was, it was still better from their point of view than being slaves in the confederacy. BTW, over 100,000 escaped slaves served in the Union forces. What do you think they were fighting for?
Many blacks were treated horribly by by the federals. So much for any claims about it being "about slavery".
The racists comments in the declarations of secession were my answer. You want to condemn the racists who were in the North but excuse the Southerners for being products of their environment.
False. I've never argued there wasn't massive racism in the South. Its that it was awful in the North too. So much for the claims about it being "about slavery". Northerners hated Black people. They weren't about to go to wear for their liberation - especially when they were the ones who sold the slaves in the first place.
By the same token, there were abolitionists in the South, who helped the slaves escape. Why aren't you pointing to them as positive examples of the South?
There were abolitionists, but they were very few in number North or South before the war or even during it.
That's because they didn't start the war, but they did free the slaves when it was over. Your tortured logic to get around that is something to behold.
Ah but they did start the war. Deliberately. Yes the 13th amendment passed after the war. Nobody has denied it.
Was it legal after the war? No.
AFTER. So much for the war being "all about slavery"
I don't ignore it, I just don't agree with it, at least not fully. As I have said, not everyone in the North was for abolition and it took some major politicking to get it done. Frederick Douglas wrote on that, and I've admitted it, yet you keep coming back to that.
Because I do think that's what was motivating most on both sides. Most people were indifferent to slavery. A small minority in the Southern states owned slaves. Only a small minority in the Northern states concerned themselves with the existence of slavery.
He was also all over the map on that issue. I want to research further.
He wasn't all over the map. He was a noted abolitionist. He went around and gave speeches - yes including in the Southern states - before the war urging abolition. Britain had after all, gotten rid of slavery in 1838.
Britain abolished slavery when Dickens was 21, so he hadn’t been much of a crusader for abolition. He didn’t like American slavery, but that wasn’t unusual for someone coming from a country that had already abolished slavery. His opinions on the US were also affected by his disputes with American publishers over copyrights. Dickens was quite chauvinistic and bloodthirsty in supporting British repression of rebellions in Jamaica and India, so he’s probably not somebody I’d cite as an anti-racist or a reliable judge of what was going on in the world.