You jumped into the conversation defending New York. New York had a 200 year history of shame. Deal with it.How about you point to the post where I said anyone **** didn't stink? Take your time and be thorough. And to keep with your analogy, everyone's **** did stink, noone denies that, but the **** stunk far worse in the south.
What I was replying to? How about this:
You might want to read of the history of slavery in New York and other Northern states. New York clung to slavery as doggedly as the Southern states did
That is what started this.
Noone clung to slavery like they did in the south. I said in my very first post to you on this thread that NY was far from perfect but to claim they clung to slavery as doggedly as the south did is rediculous. Noone clung to slavery like the south.
Then you started trying to argue when i posted that NY was moving toward abolition within 10 years of this country becoming a country.
You can look up the details. NY had free blacks within 5 years. By 1781 NY state officials voted to free some slaves. By 1790 1 in 3 blacks in NY were free. Most state rulings freed more steps toward abolition freeing more slaves in 1791. Again, as I have said in every post, NY was far from perfect, but they were working toward abolition far before the south was. Slaves fled the south and headed north where they would have a chance. They didn't flee the south because it was sooooo much better there. As far as your claim of profitability goes, there were slaves being freed while slavery was profitable. And furthermore, when was slavery not profitable? It was free labor.
When it comes to slavery and the historic treatment of blacks, yes every states **** stinks (which noone has denied) but the south stunk far worse. It isn't even close.