Basically, the argument is that the North's support of emancipation was a smokescreen of setting an example of a government waging war against it's own citizens that don't wish to support them.

They have a point, especially since the American civil war WASN'T required. Why? Because the British set the example before where they simply reimbursed the owners for the slaves, freed them when they were under their ownership and then outlawed it. Then had a naval squadron to stop future slaves being brought in.

It's kind of hard to argue that it was at all required if buying off the slave owners wasn't just an option but an example that worked.

Basically, the argument is that the North's support of emancipation was a smokescreen of setting an example of a government waging war against it's own citizens that don't wish to support them.

They have a point, especially since the American civil war WASN'T required. Why? Because the British set the example before where they simply reimbursed the owners for the slaves, freed them when they were under their ownership and then outlawed it. Then had a naval squadron to stop future slaves being brought in.

It's kind of hard to argue that it was at all required if buying of lf the slave owners wasn't just an option but an example that worked.