View single post by Hellcat
 Posted: Sat Feb 25th, 2012 10:09 pm
 PM  Quote  Reply  Full Topic 
Hellcat
Root Beer Lover


Joined: Tue Nov 15th, 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 831
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

I don't think it's selling him short by saying it was about politics. You yourself said he didn't include the slaves in the border states because that would have been more likely to cause them to side with the Confederacy. That's not some devotional conviction, that's political. Kentucky and Missouri actually tried seceeding in October and November 1861 so we know they would have sided with the Confederacy even without the Emancipation. Maryland was under matrial law so we have to think that maybe it may have sided without EP. WV may have sided with the Confederacy because of the EP. That leaves just Delaware which there was no question of Delaware siding with the North. So why fear Delaware siding with the South if your moral conviction is to free the slaves? Delaware rejected the 13th Amendment in 1865 and only ratified it in 1901, suggesting that politically Delaware could have sided with the Confederacy had the Emancipation applied to the border states as well.

If you're moral conviction is that the war is god's punishment over slavery, then you should make all slaves free, not just those in areas in open rebellion. That's political, you're politically saying that slavery should not exist in areas openly rebelling against the government but it's perfectly alright for them to exist in places not in open rebellion.

 Close Window