And this somehow equates with a rebellion in order to preserve and protect slavery, how?
I think you have put your finger on it.
'What Aboutism Arguments' are always a diversion from uncomfortable conclusions. It has historical precedent. One of the arguments in favor of slavery was, 'W
hat about the living conditions of free laborers in the North & slaves?' The argument went so far as to assert that there should be very little free labor. Life under the benevolent care of an enlightened slave-holder was far superior to that under the indifferent, rapacious capitalists.
At one time I went to considerable trouble to try to understand the mind of my slave-holding ancestors. The compartmentalism necessary to be a full fledged member of that club was, at first, incomprehensible to me. One of the vociferous proponents of the ideals of slave-holding stated that,
"Slaves of the family should not be sold." They could only be happy if held within the benevolent care of their fathers, uncles, & lovers. He & his son fathered daughters with the same slave woman. The son fathered children with his half sisters. That was what the phrase '
slaves of the family' meant. His
what aboutism arguments extolling the better treatment of slaves vs free laborers leave me of two minds. He either had an absolute religious belief in what he was saying or was profoundly, absolutely cynical, I have never been able to say which.
Back to the subject of this thread; in June 1864 both of the fugitive slave acts were repealed. Almost from the moment the ink dried, there were attempts repeal the act of 1850. In South Carolina, the refusal of Northern people to cooperate with slave-catchers was cited as a justification for secession. They had demanded ever more drastic measures that would punish people who refused to give up escaped slaves in the North. I suspect that the repeal was seen as Northern people coming clean & admitting that they never intended to honor the right of South Carolinians to reclaim their property.