Does anyone really believe that those Southern states actually ratified the 13th amendment of their own free will? If so, I have a bridge in San Fransisco that i’d like to sell you.
Well, to the extent that ratification was per accidens a necessary means for attaining an end that they wanted, it still qualifies as an act of free will, but a very good argument could be made that the coercion ought to render the action null and void.
That said, the poster to whom I was responding claimed that the 13th was ratified entirely by the “O so Virtuous” non-Southern states. At least half of the six that did not ratify had actually rejected, and my point was that the amendment only “passed” on the strength of Southern participation, be it coerced or otherwise.
If you are twisting someone's arm, you can hardly regard it as an act of free will when they agree to the terms you demand for ceasing the arm twisting.
I regard this as just another example of where people who claim to support freedom, don't actually believe in it.
That said, the poster to whom I was responding claimed that the 13th was ratified entirely by the “O so Virtuous” non-Southern states. At least half of the six that did not ratify had actually rejected, and my point was that the amendment only “passed” on the strength of Southern participation, be it coerced or otherwise.
I think your point is that it didn't have all that much support in the North either, and wouldn't have passed but for the arm twisting on the Southern States.
If this is your point, then it demonstrates that the non-ratifying Northern states were also being forced into something against their will. Their own votes were being overridden by the Southern proxy legislatures controlled by the Union troops.
In other words, they were also denying fair democracy to the non-committed Northern states.