The Northern Colonies, originated from a **single** root being the English Crown; has the responsibility of most of the institution. For not only did the English profit from the slave trade, but even expanded it within the American colonies they boldly boasted of; the use of Indian, African slaves and Forced labor of criminals it experimented with a multitude of different forms.
The South at this time was under domain of the Spanish and French Crowns. Of whom records will show differ in the institution. It is nonsense and based on lies to say the South had participation in the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade, for the South did **not exist** during it's duration. Not only do y'all not even address my points- merely brushing them aside with any conveinent excuse such as claiming "irrelevancy" without reasoning for justification, but do not even bother to address the origins of the institution.
It is a failure, on your faction of this argument to ignore the origins. And what of the Africans who were enslaved? Their ethnic groups being: The BaKongo of the Democratic Republic of Congo and Angola, The Mandé of Upper Guinea, The Gbe speakers of Togo, Ghana, and Benin (Adja, Mina, Ewe, Fon), The Akan of Ghana and Ivory Coast, The Wolof of Senegal and the Gambia, The Igbo of southeastern Nigeria, The Mbundu of Angola (includes both Ambundu and Ovimbundu), The Yoruba of southwestern Nigeria, The Chamba of Cameroon, and The Makua of Mozambique. These, being the most ten prominent out of the forty-five African ethnic groups who were purchased by slavers or exchanged for.
