Jump to content

Menu

Recommended Posts

:iagree:

 

Wonderful point.

To add to the Emancipation Proc. issue - Lincoln waited for a VERY long time to pass this. He was anti-slavery, but was afraid more border states would leave the Union if he outright banned it. Obviously this was a political issue - but still - Lincoln certainly didn't have the welfare of the slaves at the forefront of his mind. He was trying to keep the US together as one nation, not free slaves. Also - for quite a while as well, the Union military was required to return slaves who had run away to their "owners" (I hate using that term). Many in the North were more concerned about the economy and the Union, and had very little concern for the slaves. They just happened to be on the "right" side of the border historically.

 

It wasn't that those states wanted to be with the Union, but that they were divided. Kentucky tried to declare itself "neutral" but then some pretty bloody fighting occurred there. Missouri had two different governments and as most know also had some pretty severe fighting, St Louis was more loyal...but Western Missouri was full tilt fighting for the South.

 

They weren't perfectly loyal-but-slave states sending soldiers to the Union army. Kentucky and Missouri were sending soldiers to both. They had representation in both.

 

The border states were not cotton states and not as beholden to slave labor, their economies did rely on trade with the North so they were more divided.

 

And though the Emancipation Proclamation did not free the slaves in those states Missouri and Maryland did end it within their borders before the end of the war. Delaware did in December of 1865. Kentucky did not ratify the 13th amendment until 1976 (but before Mississippi in 1995)

 

Some of the bloodiest battles happened in states that were omitted in the emancipation proclamation, Antietam (Maryland), Stones Rover (Tennessee), Fort Donelson (Tennessee) and Shiloh (Tennessee)

 

And while the Proclamation did only free those slaves being held by the Union as "contraband" and those in occupied areas it did serve its purpose.

 

It ended any sympathies for the confederacy in Europe.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 651
  • Created
  • Last Reply

To add to the Emancipation Proc. issue - Lincoln waited for a VERY long time to pass this. He was anti-slavery, but was afraid more border states would leave the Union if he outright banned it. Obviously this was a political issue - but still - Lincoln certainly didn't have the welfare of the slaves at the forefront of his mind. He was trying to keep the US together as one nation, not free slaves.

 

Lincoln's contemporary writings make it clear that he didn't think the president had the power or authority to free the slaves. His personal views were abolitionist, but he wrote that he understood that being the president didn't entitle to codify his personal views as law.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...