And as has been pointed out to you before on at least one other thread: they were British colonies, chartered as such with the King as sovereign. In the realm of legality and government, the British sovereign's authority (as exercised by the King and/or Parliament) overruled the colonial legislatures de jure. That difference in opinion regarding governance was one of the factors leading to the American Revolution.
Alas, when the colonies revolted and declared independence, clearly not every colony was so keen on ending slavery as John Erskine alleges, since history dictates otherwise. Some wanted to end it; others didn't. Hence the numerous compromises.
And so, as has also been pointed out to you before, blaming the British at some point loses its sting when the Empire goes and abolishes both the slave trade and then slavery itself decades before the United States does.
No.
1619 gets completely 100% gutted. It no longer stings at all and is utterly disarmed and destroyed. Even you avoided 1619.
You should have the common decency to point out that the sting is not lost at all in regard to 1619, and do it in one single, short sentence.
I'm happy to talk with you about the rest next and I hope we can keep this going. I'm just only keeping it simple and starting at the beginning. Just one thing. 1619. It's destroyed, it's dead Jim.