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.
Then why didn't they free their slaves? If it wasn't about slavery, they could have taken that issue off the table and forced the Union's hand.
Because it was about slavery. They said so themselves.
Slavery was still legal in some of the states that remained in the US yes or no?
Yes, although I would say it wasn't illegal. I know, same thing from different angles.
What you seem to miss is that those states stayed with the Union. They didn't go seceding over claims of states rights to hold slaves. They didn't quit when the EP was announced. And at the end, slavery was abolished in all states.
Many blacks were treated horribly by by the federals. So much for any claims about it being "about slavery".
What does treatment by some feds on some slaves have to do with what the war was about? I've noted that everyone in the North wasn't with the good guys, as did Frederick Douglas, yet you keep throwing that strawman out there.
Everyone in the North wasn't with the good guys, everyone in the South wasn't with the bad guys, and slavery was abolished.
False. I've never argued there wasn't massive racism in the South.
I never said you did. What I said is that you excused it because they were products of their environment.
There were abolitionists, but they were very few in number North or South before the war or even during it.
That wasn't my question. I'll repeat. Why aren't you pointing to abolitionists as positive examples of the South?
Ah but they did start the war.
Ignoring the fact that it was the South who fired first on Federal property, don't you think taking slaves is an act of war against them?
AFTER. So much for the war being "all about slavery"
Meaningless. Of course the slaves couldn't have been freed by the federal government after the slave holding states (their words) had seceded, so yes, it would not have happened until after the war.
Because I do think that's what was motivating most on both sides.
So I have Frederick Douglas, a man who was a slave, escaped, and became an abolitionist who worked with President Lincoln on one side, and you on the other. Which to choose?
He wasn't all over the map. He was a noted abolitionist.
You might want to read up on what he said about India before using him to prove your point.