Well the qualifier “almost every northern state” was of little consolation if you were working on a plantation. The plain truth is the union states that preserved slavery did so longer than their southern brethren. The emancipation proclamation ended slavery in the states that seceded once those states were defeated. The 13th amendment ended it in the rest, although I would argue as did several other abolitionists at the time that it was already unconstitutional under the original bill of rights particularly with regard to pernicious legislation such as the federal fugitive slave act.
That the slavers were scum is to me a given. I simply disagree that the reasons for the invasion of the south were primarily due to some noble desire to emancipate the slaves. There was already a model for peaceably eliminating slavery that was successfully implemented by Britain. Namely paying for the slaves that were freed. That such a model was not seriously pursued prior to the invasion of the south strongly suggests that the motivation for said invasion was less noble than the historical revisionists would like to acknowledge.
There were no plantations in the north. Virtually every northern slave served as domestic help.
The plain truth is the union states that preserved slavery did so longer than their southern brethren.
Another obscene distortion of the truth. Every northern state had a plan for emancipation, zero southern states would even seriously contemplate it.
I simply disagree that the reasons for the invasion of the south were primarily due to some noble desire to emancipate the slaves.
I know of no one, other than southern apologists, who claim that.
There was already a model for peaceably eliminating slavery that was successfully implemented by Britain. Namely paying for the slaves that were freed.
Several parties from the north, including Lincoln, proposed precisely that but southern leaders would have none of it. The only revisionists I see are playing for the Rebs.
“disagree that the reasons for the invasion of the south were primarily due to some noble desire to emancipate the slaves”.
Yes, slavery is use to divert, to try and shame but it doesn’t work on Southerners ever!!
Northerners just don’t get that, and probably never will! That in itself, has it’s on problems.
“Slavery started the war” has been parroted by the sheeple, trained to force people away from the North’s illegal attack on the South. It’s nothing but a deception, watch for it because it never stops.
BUT WHY do people jump straight to slaves when it is documented that it was not about slaves.
Slaves may have been a part of the South and would have gone with the South but THAT WAS LEGAL. There were GIVE OUR TAKE 3 reasons spelled out CLEARLY as to why the South left the Union and...started a new country.
It happen.
I’ll try to put it together as it would be used in a court room...
In like I would like to illegally change an existing old contract that I don’t like. My name is no where on the Doc. but I want change it because I’ll “feel” better.
I WANT TO change the way slave is used in the top part of that old contract DOC. that has ALREADY BEEN SIGNED AND AGREED TO by other people.
I would agree with you that the reasons for the "invasion" of the South had nothing to do with slavery and everything to do with the war that the South started. You take the fighting to your opponent wherever he may be. If the Union troops were in Virginia or Mississippi or Georgia then that's because the Confederate army was there.
Namely paying for the slaves that were freed. That such a model was not seriously pursued prior to the invasion of the south strongly suggests that the motivation for said invasion was less noble than the historical revisionists would like to acknowledge.
Compensated emancipation plans would need buy in from the slave holders and a willingness on their part to sell their slaves to the government. Even assuming such a plan was feasible from a financial standpoint, there was no evidence the Southern slave owners were willing to sell.