[af_vet_rr]

You seem to fail to realize that England held colonies wherein numerous forms of human bondage were not just practiced but legally enforced, and that English merchants profited from the slave trade despite the near absence of them in England.

I do not dispute that England caused the problem, however once the bullets started flying and England started to lose control of the Colonies, the opportunity was there. 1777 - Vermont prohibits slavery. In 1780, John Adams helped write abolition into the Massachusetts Constitution, a few years before the American Revolution was over and before the USA was independently recognized. The year the American Revolution was over, the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that you could not enslave another human being. There comes a point at which you have to stop blaming England and start blaming the slave owners themselves, even George Mason, who talked about how slavery was the worst thing to affect the colonies and then United States, but who refused to free his own slaves, even upon his death, thereby perpetuating the thing he viewed as so evil.

[RegulatorCountry]

1777 - Vermont prohibits slavery.

A real sacrifice on their part, no doubt. Rather like England abolishing slavery domestically.

Well, no, Massachusetts would be more like England, since Boston rivalled Charleston as a slave port at one point in the colonial era, but they didn't keep many there, just profited from the sale of them, sent them south and bought the goods produced by the labor of the slaves they'd sold.

Yes, 'twas very brave. Pure as the driven snow, too.