View single post by HankC
 Posted: Sat Sep 21st, 2013 04:12 am
 PM  Quote  Reply  Full Topic 
HankC
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 6th, 2005
Location:  
Posts: 517
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

barrydancer wrote:
Hellcat wrote: If that's the case, then why apply it only to those areas in open rebellion against the federal government? The border states were slave states and the Emancipation left the slaves there in bondage...The only slave states Lincoln actually had authority over during the war were the border states, so why not free the slaves there?
I'm trying to remember my grad school lectures from 5-6 years ago, but I think Lincoln left the border states alone for a couple of reasons.  One, he didn't feel he had the authority to interfere with slavery in places not in rebellion against the Union.  Two, and I'm paraphrasing, he felt the "push and pull of war" in the border states would do the job for him, as slaves left those areas for the North of their own volition.  On the latter point he was mostly proved correct, as large numbers of slaves from Maryland, Kentucky, etc. took the opportunity provided by the war to head North, crippling slavery in those states.


though the EP freed slaves in the rebelling areas of the country, it was the next logical step up from the 1st and 2nd confiscation acts.

the 1st confiscation act allowed confederate 'property' to be siezed.

the 2nd act freed slaves of confederate officials.

the EP took the next step and freed *all* slaves in the unoccupied south, regardless of owner.

one interesting side effect is that slaves in Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri freed themselves by fleeing *south* toward the union armies...


HankC

 Close Window