THE REBELLION: No Movement of the Armies of the Potomac; Wholesale Arrests of Members of the Maryland Legislature; Important from Gen. Fremont’s Column (9/19/1861)

The real truth is abolitionists included nearly all our Founders, even Virginians like Washington, Jefferson, Madison & Patrick Henry.

These "abolitionists" never abolished their own slave ownership. The "powerful" abolitionists never abolished slave trading in Washington, D.C. down the road from the White House until 1862. D.C. was under the sole legislation of the federal Congress.

the right of Northern states to declare visiting slaves freed, if their masters stayed too long (i.e., Dred Scott).

Dred Scott involved a slave in the slave state of Missouri. He was determined to be a slave in the Supreme Court of Missouri. In the Supreme Court of the United States, his case was dismissed for want of jurisdiction, and remanded to the lower court with instructions to dismiss for want of jurisdiction in that court.

A slave taken to a free state, while in that free state, might successfully sue for his freedom, but should he return to a slave state, as did Etheldred Scott, he resumed his status as a slave. This was upheld in English as well as American law. There is ample precedent to support the holdings of the Court. See, e.g., Somerset v Steward, 1 Lofft 1 (1772); The Slave, Grace,, 2 Hagg. Adm. 94 (1827); Amy (a woman of colour) v. Smith, 11 Ky. 326 (1822); Lemmon v. The People, 20 NY 562 (1860), Strader v. Graham, 51 U.S. 82 (1851).

In January 1849 Congressman Lincoln drafted his own bill to abolish slavery in Washington DC, with compensation for slaveholders.

January 10, 1849. The draft was entitled, "A bill for an act to abolish slavery in the district of Columbia, by the consent of the free white people of said District, and with compensation to owners."

What happened? Didn't the free white people of the District consent?

Lincoln claimed "that he was authorized to say, that of about fifteen of the leading citizens of the District of Columbia to whom this proposition had been submitted, there was not one but who approved of the adoption of such a proposition. He did not wish to be misunderstood. He did not know whether or not they would vote for this bill on the first Monday of April; but he repeated, that out of fifteen persons to whom it had been submitted, he had authority to say that every one of them desired that some proposition like this should pass." The record reflects, "[Several voices: 'Who are they? Give us their names.']"

The draft included the following provisions:

Section 4. That all persons now within said District lawfully held as slaves, or now owned by any person or persons now resident within said District, shall remain such, at the will of their respective owners, their heirs and legal representatives: Provided that any such owner, or his legal representative, may at any time receive from the treasury of the United States the full value of his or her slave, of the class in this section mentioned, upon which such slave shall be forthwith and forever free: and provided further that the President of the United States, the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of the Treasury shall be a board for determining the value of such slaves as their owners may desire to emancipate under this section; and whose duty it shall be to hold a session for the purpose, on the first monday of each calendar month; to receive all applications; and, on satisfactory evidence in each case, that the person presented for valuation, is a slave, and of the class in this section mentioned, and is owned by the applicant, shall value such slave at his or her full cash value, and give to the applicant an order on the treasury for the amount; and also to such slave a certificate of freedom.
Section 5 That the municipal authorities of Washington and Georgetown, within their respective jurisdictional limits, are hereby empowered and required to provide active and efficient means to arrest, and deliver up to their owners, all fugitive slaves escaping into said District.

Lerone Bennett, Jr. observed, "What did this mean to a slave living in the District in January 1849? It meant that Abraham Lincoln had given him a life sentence and that the slaveowner could hold and whip him or her for seventy or eighty years, or could at his, the slaveowner's discretion, free him at the peak of the market and receive his 'full value.'"

On January 13, 1849 Lincoln gave notice of his intent to introduce his bill. He never did introduce it. He never identified the 15 anonymous consultees who purportedly gave unanimous support.

It was in 1849-50 that the Lincoln family employed the services of Ruth Burns, later known as Ruth Stanton, the slave property of John Bradford. Said Ruth, "Mrs. Lincoln belonger to the Episcopal Church, and so did the Bradfords... Mrs. Bradford sent me over to help Mrs. Lincoln every Saturday, for she had no servant and had to do her own housework." And in 1849, age 14, Ruth Burns was sent "to live with the Lincolns." Mrs. Lincoln told the Bradfords, "One thing is certain; if Mr. Lincoln should happen to die, his spirit will never find me living outside the boundaries of a slave state."

Mr. Lincoln addressed the abolition issue repeatedly.

October 16, 1854:

I wish to MAKE and to KEEP the distinction between the EXISTING institution, and the EXTENSION of it, so broad, and so clear, that no honest man can misunderstand me, and no dishonest one, successfully misrepresent me. (CW 2:248, Lincoln's emphasis)

August 21, 1858, at the first Lincoln-Douglas debate:

I will say here, while upon this subject, that I have no purpose directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. (CW 3:16, italics added)

August 31, 1855:

When I was at Washington I voted for the Wilmot Proviso as good as forty times, and I never heard of any one attempting to unwhig me for that. I now do no more than oppose the extension of slavery, (CW 2:323, Lincoln's emphasis).

September 4, 1858:

We have no right to interfere with slavery in the States. We only want to restrict it to where it is. (CW 3:87)

September 16, 1858

We must not disturb slavery in the states where it exists, because the constitution, and the pease of the country, both forbid us. (CW 3:435)

October 7, 1858:

Nothing in the Constitution or laws of any State can destroy a right distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution of the United States.
The right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution of the United States;
Therefore, nothing in the Constitution or laws of any State can destroy the right of property in a slave. (CW 3:231)

October 13, 1858

I expressly declared in my opening speech, that I had neither the inclination to exercise, nor the belief in the existence of the right to interfere with the States of Kentucky or Virginia in doing as they pleased with slavery or any other existing institution. (CW 3:277)

Octber 15, 1858:

Now I have upon all occasions declared as strongly as Judge [Stephen] Douglas against the disposition to interfere with the existing institution of slavery. (CW 3:300)

July 10, 1858:

I have said a hundred times and I have no no inclination to take it back, that I believe there is no right, and ought to be no inclination in the people of the free States to enter into the slave States, and interfere with the question of slavery at all. I have said that always. (CW 2:492, italics added).

If he said it a hundred times, he said it a thousand times.

June 23, 1858

I have declared a thousand times, and now repeat that, in my opinion, neither the General government, nor any other power outside of the slave states, can constitutionally or rightfully interfere with slaves or slavery where it already exists.. (CW 2:471)

September 13, 1858

He asserted positively, and proved conclusively by his former acts and speeches that he was not in favor of interfering with slavery in the States where it exists, nor ever had been. (CW 3:96)

A Yankee who always seems fall on the side of the Confederacy.

woodpusher: "I am not a Lost Causer but a Yankee who insists on history being based on facts and not the fictional, ahistoric tales partican hacks, such as yourself, persist in spinning."

And that is yet another total lie -- in fact you are a committed Lost Causer, to the core, here to sell us the whole panoply of Lost Cause lies by wrapping them up in lengthy quotes and specious arguments.

woodpusher: "The Confederacy did not surrender in April 1865.
The Army of Northen Virginia surrendered at Appomatox."

Johnson surrendered to Sherman in April 1865, so the war was effectively over, though it's true that some Lost Causers to this very day continue the battle to redefine Civil War issues and its outcome.
In that sense, the Civil War is not yet over, though you seem to have missed my point here, namely, that some Lost Causers (DL) argue that slavery should have again become legal after Confederate surrenders in 1865 and before the 13th's ratification.

woodpusher: "The United States Supreme Court in the case of The Protector, 79 U.S. 700 (1870)
there were two proclamations declaring that the war had closed, one issued on the 2d of April, 1866..."

Since when has any Lost Causer ever respected a SCOTUS ruling regarding the Civil War?
Certainly DiogenesLamp does not, when he insists that slavery in Confederate states should have been (or even in fact was) legal again, once they surrendered, before the 13th's ratification.

woodpusher: "The end of the war, regardless of what date is made up for it, did not establish the legal end of slavery anywhere.
The Emancipation Proclamation did not automatically declare the end of slavery in any state.
Neither did the end of the war."

And here we see another Lost Cause Liar furiously spinning to deny the truth of history.
The fact is that, first, Lincoln's Emancipation declared all slaves in rebel regions freed and, second, by the time of Confederate surrenders in April 1865, slavery itself was declared abolished in every state except two: Kentucky and Delaware.
1) In Kentucky, about 10% (to 20%) of its 1860 slave population remained enslaved, while in
2) Delaware, never a major slave state, there remained roughly 2,000 slaves.
These remained for the 13th Amendment to de jure abolish.

woodpusher: "During the war, it was declared that slaves were considered property and could be seized as contraband property.
Slaves seized as property became Union property and were set free by their new owner.
Slaves not seized as contraband property had no legal status as free.
The end of the war (the actual end) signified the end of any authority to seize any slave as contraband, and it ended any Federal government authority to seize slaves as contraband property and set them free."

And so, here woodpusher comes as close as he dares to confirming DiogenesLamp's claim that slaves freed during the war should have been returned as slaves after Confederate surrenders.

woodpusher: "Your assertion that slavery was somehow abolished by the end of the war has no basis in reality.
The implied cause and effect is fiction.
Slavery was abolished by the 13th Amendment; a sovereign act of the people."

And here woodpusher still furiously working to obscure and obstruct the basic facts, which are that Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation had, by April 1865, de facto freed virtually all slaves in the Confederacy.
Even Texas, which had roughly 200,000 slaves in 1860, was spinning out of Confederate control by May 1865, and most slaves would not need Union General Grange's General Order 3 (Juneteenth) to consider themselves freed.

woodpusher: "Slavery in New Jersey continued up to the 13th Amendment.
In 1865, New Jersey did not ratify, but rejected the 13th Amendment."

In the 1790 census New Jersey reported 11,423 slaves.
In the 1860 census New Jersey reported 18 slaves.
Of those 18, 16 remained to be freed by the 13th Amendment in 1865.

Bottom line: the 13th Amendment's ratification in December 1865 actually de facto freed fewer than 5% of the ~4 million slaves in the 1860 census.
The rest had already been freed by Lincoln's Emancipation, by Union state abolitions, or their own actions.

woodpusher: "These "abolitionists" never abolished their own slave ownership.
The "powerful" abolitionists never abolished slave trading in Washington, D.C. down the road from the White House until 1862.
D.C. was under the sole legislation of the federal Congress."

Sure, but Founders did support abolition of international slave imports and abolition in the Northwest Territories.
Similar Republican anti-slavery views were used by 1860 Democrat Fire Eaters to argue for secession from the "anti-slavery" United States.

woodpusher: "A slave taken to a free state, while in that free state, might successfully sue for his freedom, but should he return to a slave state, as did Etheldred Scott, he resumed his status as a slave.
This was upheld in English as well as American law. "

Missouri courts before Dred Scott were known to have recognized claims of freedom by slaves kept too long in free-states.

"It was expected that the Scotts would win their freedom with relative ease since Missouri courts had heard more than ten other cases in which they had freed slaves who had been taken into free territory.[14]
Furthermore, the case had been assigned to Judge Alexander Hamilton, who was known to be sympathetic to slave freedom suits.[13]"

woodpusher: "January 10, 1849. [Lincoln's] draft was entitled, "A bill for an act to abolish slavery in the district of Columbia, by the consent of the free white people of said District, and with compensation to owners.""

And so yet again our typical Lost Cause Liar, woodpusher, here argues that since Lincoln was not a modern "woke" Leftist 1619er, therefore Lincoln was not "anti-slavery" enough.
But the truth remains that young Lincoln, like our Founders, was anti-slavery, wanted it abolished peacefully, lawfully, and did what he could to make that happen, in 1849, in Washington, DC.

Lincoln's anti-slavery opinions were, indeed, less radical than those of fellow Republicans like John Fremont, so Lincoln was considered a "moderate" on slavery, but that didn't matter to Southern Democrat Fire Eaters who thought any Republican anti-slavery opinions as plenty grounds enough to justify secession from the United States.

I read the article you linked. It is a good read.

Perhaps this line from the article helps to justify why I got things so wrong in my post 92: “We need to remember what Franklin helped Americans to forget, how he did so, and why.”

The war ended with slavery still lawful in several northern states. The fully taken abolition of slavery in the United States was a step not taken until adoption of the 13th Amendment.

And the manner in which that was done was a farce. All the people in the conquered states were not allowed to vote. This was a denial of the rights of the people and the 13th amendment was rubber stamped by a puppet "Vichy" government.

No amendment should have been possible until the normal civil order was restored, and I am quite confident that if the actual will of the people was made manifest, the 13th amendment would never have passed.

DL quoting woodpusher: "The war ended with slavery still lawful in several northern states. "

Noooo, by April, 1865, only two Union states had not passed abolition laws: Kentucky & Delaware.
Kentucky reported ~225,000 slaves in the 1860 census (yes, I looked it up), of whom it's estimated around 40,000 remained to be freed by the 1865 13th Amendment.
The rest had been freed, or freed themselves and 24,000 had served in the Union Army.
Delaware's slave population had been falling for decades and in 1860 was reported as ~1,800 of whom ~1,000 remained in 1865 to be freed by the 13th Amendment.

So here are the key dates in US abolition laws:

Slavery in Washington, DC, was abolished by law on April 16, 1862.
Every Union territory was covered by the June 19, 1862 Abolition in Territories Law.
Confederate states were emancipated by Lincoln's 1863 proclamation:
Union slave-states of Missouri, Maryland and West Virginia passed their own abolition laws in 1864 and early 1865.

Bottom Line: "The [13th] amendment was ratified by the legislatures of enough states by December 6, 1865, and proclaimed 12 days later.
There were approximately 40,000 slaves in Kentucky and 1,000 in Delaware who were liberated then.[28]"

DiogenesLamp: "And the manner in which that was done was a farce.
All the people in the conquered states were not allowed to vote. "

All the people in the conquered states who declared allegiance to the United States, including some former slaves, were allowed to vote.
Confederates, having declared themselves non-citizens, were temporarily disenfranchised.

DiogenesLamp: "No amendment should have been possible until the normal civil order was restored, and I am quite confident that if the actual will of the people was made manifest, the 13th amendment would never have passed."

Normal civil order was restored when Confederates surrendered, primarily in April 1865.
Those loyal to the Union did vote to ratify the 13th Amendment.
After the disputed 1876 election, former Confederates returned to political power and effectively nullified the 13th, 14th & 15th Amendments for most of the next 100 years.

But, slowly, times do change and even Mississippi's 1865 rejection of the 13th Amendment was reversed in 1995, Mississippi's ratification confirmed in 2013.

A Yankee who always seems fall on the side of the Confederacy.

An idiot who always seems to descend into greater idiocy. As you appear incapable of making any point and sustaining it, you are quite irrelevant to any serious discussion.

woodpusher: "The Confederacy did not surrender in April 1865.
The Army of Northen Virginia surrendered at Appomatox."
Johnson surrendered to Sherman in April 1865, so the war was effectively over, though it's true that some Lost Causers to this very day continue the battle to redefine Civil War issues and its outcome.

As detailed in my #100, and by the U.S. Supreme Court as quoted from The Protector, the Civil War was most certainly did NOT end with the surrender of the Army of Northern Virginia.

As is your crazed wont, you now appear to maintain that the U.S. Supreme Court is a Lost Causer. Desperate measures for a desperate mythologer.

woodpusher: "I am not a Lost Causer but a Yankee who insists on history being based on facts and not the fictional, ahistoric tales partican hacks, such as yourself, persist in spinning."
And that is yet another total lie -- in fact you are a committed Lost Causer, to the core, here to sell us the whole panoply of Lost Cause lies by wrapping them up in lengthy quotes and specious arguments.

Of course, you are a blustering mythologer, incapable of defending your regurgitated mythology on its merits.

woodpusher: "The United States Supreme Court in the case of The Protector, 79 U.S. 700 (1870)
there were two proclamations declaring that the war had closed, one issued on the 2d of April, 1866..."
Since when has any Lost Causer ever respected a SCOTUS ruling regarding the Civil War?

As the Supreme Court opinion in The Protector demolishes your mythology, you must resort to claiming that your mythology somehow overrules the U.S. Supreme Court, because Lost Cause.

The Supreme Court interpreted the Constitution to hold that abortion (Roe) and same-sex marriage (Obergefell) are rights protected the Constitution. After Plessy, seperate but equal was the law of the land. After Brown, sepearate but equal was unconstitutional. Regardless of your opinion, or that of anyone else, the Supreme Court opinion is the law of the land.

The fact is that, first, Lincoln's Emancipation declared all slaves in rebel regions freed and, second, by the time of Confederate surrenders in April 1865, slavery itself was declared abolished in every state except two: Kentucky and Delaware.
[...]
In the 1860 census New Jersey reported 18 slaves.
Of those 18, 16 remained to be freed by the 13th Amendment in 1865.

If 16 slaves remained in New Jersey, to be freed by the 13th Amendment, it is obvious even to a moron that slavery continued in New Jersey until the 13th Amendment.

Lincoln's proclamation NEVER proclaimed all slaves in rebel regions to be free. It exempted the entire state of Tennessee, various parishes of Louisiana, and 55 counties of Virginia. It did not even pretend to have any affect on slaves in states not in rebellion.

It was a proclamation, not a law. It has no more legal significance than your beloved Joe Biden bestowing the National Medal of Freedom to Corn Pop.

The 13th Amendment was adopted to free the slaves who had not been freed by the war; to ensure the legal status of those who had been freed; and to avoid a legal challenge in court to the proclamation.

woodpusher: "During the war, it was declared that slaves were considered property and could be seized as contraband property.
Slaves seized as property became Union property and were set free by their new owner.
Slaves not seized as contraband property had no legal status as free.
The end of the war (the actual end) signified the end of any authority to seize any slave as contraband, and it ended any Federal government authority to seize slaves as contraband property and set them free."
And so, here woodpusher comes as close as he dares to confirming DiogenesLamp's claim that slaves freed during the war should have been returned as slaves after Confederate surrenders.

What a steaming pantsload. I have never voiced my support of returning freedmen to their prior owner. You are welcome to quote me doing so if you can find your fictional bullshit.

Congress readily admitted in debate that one of the reasons the 13th Amendment was required was the dubious legality of the Emancipation Proclamation. In addition were those slaves in Union states such as New Jersey, Delaware and Kentucky.

Now therefore I ... by virtue of the power in me vested as Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy ... in time of actual armed rebellion … , and as a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said rebellion, do … order and designate … the following [as rebellious districts], to-wit:

Try comprehending the authority sought to be invoked by Lincoln. It was that of Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, not Chief Executive.

See James G. Randall, Constitutional Problems Under Lincoln, University of Illinois Press, 1951, pp. 378-80, footnotes omitted.

In considering the grounds on which Lincoln himself justified the proclamation, we must remember that he really favored emancipation by State action with Federal compensation to the owners, but realized that there was no prospect of this proposal being adopted by the seceded States. We must remember, also, that prior to the issuance of the proclamation he had been “prompt and emphatic in denouncing any interference by the general Government with the subject.” On various occasions he declared his conviction that Congress (even during the war) had no legal power to strike at slavery in the States. He thought, however, that the executive had powers which Congress did not have.
He based his proclamation solely upon the “war power.” He issued it “by virtue of the power in me vested as Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy
Having observed the basis upon which the proclamation rested, we must now inquire as to its legal effect and validity. In this connection the limitations within the proclamation itself should be carefully noted. Those portions of Confederate territory which were within the control of the military forces of the Union were, in general, excepted from the terms of the proclamation. These exceptions were made, as President Lincoln said, because “military necessity” did not require the application of the proclamation in these regions. Largely for this reason, the proclamation has been frequently described as a measure having little or no effect.
“Immediate practical effect it has none,” said the New York World, “the slaves remaining in . . . the same condition as before.” “So long ... as the present political and military status continues, the freedom declared by this proclamation is a dormant, not an actual freedom. . . . The proclamation is issued as a war measure. . . . But that cannot be a means of military success which presupposes this same military success as the condition of its existence.” “We show our sympathy with slavery,” Seward is reported to have said, “by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them, and holding them in bondage where we can set them free.”
The Emancipation Proclamation is commonly regarded as a measure which marked a distinct change in the purpose of the war, so that from the time of its issuance the war was pursued with the object of overthrowing slavery. There is truth in this view, and one does note after the proclamation an increasing determination on the part of the Government to conduct the conflict as a war against slavery; but if the seceded States had done all that Lincoln asked and returned to the Union in response to his preliminary proclamation of September, 1862, there was nothing in the proclamation to prevent the war from ending with slavery still preserved. Preservation of slavery in non-rebellious regions seemed to be implied in the proclamation. Russell made a true observation when he said that Lincoln’s proclamation contained “no declaration of a principle adverse to slavery.”
Comments by Lincoln’s critics on the futility of the proclamation were common enough; but we read with wonder the following language of Lincoln himself, uttered after the proclamation had been presented in Cabinet and decided upon as a policy of the administration: “What good would a proclamation of emancipation from me do?” was the President’s question to a church delegation. “I do not want to issue a document that the whole world will see must necessarily be inoperative, like the Pope’s bull against the comet. Would my word free the slaves, when I cannot even enforce the Constitution in the rebel States? Is there a single court, or magistrate, or individual that would be influenced by it there?”

It appears you may have to add Abraham Lincoln to your ever growing list of Lost Causers.

Bottom line:

Bottom line: you blather endlessly while remaining utterly ignorant of your chosen subject matter.

My #111 was supposed to be in response to BroJoeK #104 rather than #105.

This was upheld in English as well as American law. "

Missouri courts before Dred Scott were known to have recognized claims of freedom by slaves kept too long in free-states.

Your lack of knowledge of history is only exceeded by your utter anc complete non-comprehension of law. The most RECENT decision of a court prevails as precedent; not the oldest decision you can find.

When the Supreme Court of Missouri ruled in Scott v. Emerson, any prior ruling of any Missouri court in confilct with that decision was struck down. Deal with reality.

See the U.S. Supreme Court in Scott v. Sandford at 452-54:

As Scott was a slave when taken into the State of Illinois by his owner, and was there held as such, and brought back in that character, his status, as free or slave, depended on the laws of Missouri, and, not of Illinois.
It has, however, been urged in the argument, that by the laws of Missouri he was free on his return, and that this case, therefore, cannot be governed by the case of Strader et al. v. Graham, where it appeared, by the laws of Kentucky, that the plaintiffs continued to be slaves on their return from Ohio. But whatever doubts or opinions may, at one time, have been entertained upon this subject, we are satisfied, upon a careful examination of all the cases decided in the State courts of Missouri referred to, that it is now firmly settled by the decisions of the highest court in the State, that Scott and his family upon their return were not free, but were, by the laws of Missouri, the property of the defendant; and that the Circuit Court of the United States had no jurisdictlion, when, by the laws of the State, the plaintiff was a slave, and not a citizen
Moreover, the plaintiff, it appears, brought a similar action against the defendant in the State court of Missouri, claiming the freedom of himself and his family upon the same grounds and the same evidence upon which he relies in the case before the court. The case was carried before the Supreme Court of the State; was fully argued there; and that court decided that neither the plaintiff nor his family were entitled to freedom; and were still the slaves of the defendant; and reversed the judgment of the inferior State court, which had given a different decision. If the plaintiff supposed that this judgment of the Supreme Court of the State was erroneous, and that this court had jurisdiction to revise and reverse it, the only mode by which he could legally bring it before this court was by writ of error directed to the Supreme Court of the State, requiring it to transmit the record to this court. If this had been done, it is too plain for argument that the writ must have been dismissed for want of jurisdiction in this court. …
Upon the whole, therefore, it is the judgment of this court, that it appears by the record before us that the plaintiff in error is not a citizen of Missouri, in the sense in which that word is used in the Constitution; and that the Circuit Court of the United States, for that reason, had no jurisdiction in the case, and could give no judgment in it. Its judgment for the defendant must, consequently, be reversed, and a mandate issued, directing the suit to be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

The stupid, it burns.

Your bullcrap remains irrelevant. Etheldred Scott lost his case in the Supreme Court of Missouri. His case in the U.S. Circuit Court was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court where it was held that Missouri state law prevailed to the exclusion of all other law; and the Circuit Court lacked jurisdiction to issue any judgment in the case, and the case was remanded to the Circuit Court with mandate directing the Circuit Court to dismiss the case for want of jurisdiction.

In Missouri, the laws of Missouri are not overruled by the laws of any other state. Your citation of the absurdly ridiculous is expected, but not impressive.

As for "free states," here is a revealing look at the "free state" of Indiana, circa 1864:

https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=064/llcg064.db&recNum=625

Congressional Globe, February 10, 1864, page 554, Debate on AbOlition of Slavery

Mr. POMEROY. I think, Mr. President, the Senator is mistaken in saying that Indiana is a free State. I never heard of that, because I have noticed that white men in Indiana are not free. There is a law in that State which prohibits white men from employing colored men unless they were in the State at the adoption of the constitution. Colored men who happened to live in Indiana at the time the State constitution was adopted can be employed as laborers; but if any white man in that State employs a colored man who has gone in since, he is subject to a fine and also to a forfeiture, and I believe imprisonment. If that makes Indiana a free State it is not such a free State as I would make if I were to make one.
Mr. CLARK. I think the Senator from Indiana has mistaken the resolution. I understand him to characterize this as a resolution to force the negro into the cars. I understand it to be a resolution to prevent you from forcing him out—not to force social equality, but to prevent an outrage upon him.
Mr. HENDRICKS. Mr. President, I did not intend to say another word, and I should not now say anything except for the remarks of the Senator from Kansas in respect to the policy which Indiana has seen fit to adopt. In this Chamber, sir, it is not a part of my labor to defend the policy that the people of that State see fit to adopt; but I will simply say this: we lie alongside of the State of Kentucky, and free negroes were constantly coming into our State, and our people thought we would have the negro there neither as a free man nor as a slave, and they decided in favor of that policy by the largest vote that was ever given in the State upon any question sub-mitted to the people—by a majority, I think, of ninty-three thousand. That has been the policy of Indiana; and in this connection I will simply add that under that policy the colored population of Indiana between 1850 and 1860 increased but about one and a half per cent., while in the adjoining State of Ohio, in which they had no such protection to free white labor, the negro population increased, I believe, about forty-one per cent.

There's free and there's Indiana Yankee free.

woodpusher: "January 10, 1849. [Lincoln's] draft was entitled, "A bill for an act to abolish slavery in the district of Columbia, by the consent of the free white people of said District, and with compensation to owners.""
And so yet again our typical Lost Cause Liar, woodpusher, here argues that since Lincoln was not a modern "woke" Leftist 1619er, therefore Lincoln was not "anti-slavery" enough.
But the truth remains that young Lincoln, like our Founders, was anti-slavery, wanted it abolished peacefully, lawfully, and did what he could to make that happen, in 1849, in Washington, DC.
Lincoln's anti-slavery opinions were, indeed, less radical than those of fellow Republicans like John Fremont, so Lincoln was considered a "moderate" on slavery, but that didn't matter to Southern Democrat Fire Eaters who thought any Republican anti-slavery opinions as plenty grounds enough to justify secession from the United States.

Seek treatment for your mental disorder.

Roy P. Basler was executive secretary and editor-in-chief of the Abraham Lincoln Association from 1947 to 1952. He joined the staff of the Library of Congress in 1952 and later chief of the manuscript division, holding the library's chair in American history. Basler's definitive collection of Lincoln's writings (The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln) was published in 1953 and a supplement was released in 1974. It has been described as "the principal source" and "the most invaluable work of all" for Lincoln studies.

Despite this pedigree, it appears you must add Mr. Basler to your ever-growing demented list of Lost Causers.

Roy P. Basler, The Lincoln Legend, (1935) pp. 211-13

On August 22, 1862, Lincoln wrote a letter in reply to Greeley’s ‘Prayer of Twenty Million' which, among other things, had complained of the policy of the Administration in upholding slavery. In this letter Lincoln defined his purpose as follows:
I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the National authority can be restored, the nearer the Union will be ‘the Union as it was.’ If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves,T would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that. What I do about slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.
At the time Lincoln wrote this letter he had already determined that it must be by ‘freeing some and leaving others alone.’ On September 22, 1862, he called a Cabinet meeting at which he gave notice of his resolve to issue the proclamation immediately in preliminary form. The story of that meeting has been told in an earlier chapter. The reception accorded the proclamation was possibly not what Lincoln had expected. Many Abolitionists were disappointed at the restricted area in which the proclamation was effective. Many thought the move a piece of chicane, for, it was contended, the only places over which the United States maintained any authority were not included. The proslavery element was outraged. Yet this was the act which was to become ‘the central act of Lincoln’s Administration.’
In no less than half a dozen places Lincoln’s letters reiterate the position which he took from the beginning; namely, that the proclamation was merely a war measure. What he did for the negro race, he did only because it benefited the cause of the Union.
Now, before the legend is considered in relation to this one act, it may be well to ask finally what Lincoln really considered to be his duty in regard to slavery, aside from the question of preserving the Union. It is futile to contemplate what might have been, but there is at least nothing on which to base any supposition that if there had been no secession Lincoln would have done more than contribute his support to any attempts to prevent the spread of slavery and to any attempts to procure gradual emancipation with compensation. The latter was the most radical view taken by Lincoln, even under the stress of war, until he saw that it would not be acceptable to the only slaveholding States in the Union. What he finally did was far-reaching in effect, and he was anxious that legislation should be passed which would make the freedom conveyed by his war measure more than a temporary matter. His support of the bill for the abolition of slavery by a constitutional amendment was strong and open. His chagrin at its first failure in June, 1864, was great. When the passage of the amendment was effected by Congress after Lincoln’s election in 1864, he looked forward with satisfaction to the certainty of a Union without slavery.
Lincoln had enunciated his belief in regard to the evil of slavery in a passage long since famous: ‘A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the house to fall — but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other.’
With this belief as a key, Lincoln’s policy becomes clear. From beginning to end, his purpose was to preserve the Union. The final abolition of slavery by constitutional amendment, Lincoln urged because it was his belief that the only hope of the Union was in the abolition of slavery.
How strange are the twists of reputation: Lincoln is ‘the World Emancipator,’ and yet his Emancipation Proclamation and, indeed, all that he did for the freedom of the slaves was done, not for them, but for the preservation of the Union. Alexander Stephens said that the Union with Lincoln, rose in sentiment ‘to the sublimity of a religious mysticism.’ Perhaps it did.

At page 216:

It is impracticable to enumerate, much more to discuss, the many works which misinterpret Lincoln as the anti-slavery prophet. There are three epics and many short poems, short stories, and novels. The usual plan is to present Lincoln's early life as a period of preparation for the one divine event. The myth of the New Orleans slave market is utilized along with other fictitious incidents in which young Lincoln is either assisting slaves to escape from their masters or is chastising in righteous wrath the upstart Southern gentleman who has come to recapture the slaves. … In the anti-slavery epics Lincoln's chief supporters in governing the country are, of course, the Abolitionjists. One poet enumerates the 'great, godlike minds' who aided Lincoln as Sumner, Beecher, Fremnt, Philips, Lovejoy, and Garrison. It would be hard to find a group who were Unionists and yet helped him less.

Congress readily admitted in debate that one of the reasons the 13th Amendment was required was the dubious legality of the Emancipation Proclamation. In addition were those slaves in Union states such as New Jersey, Delaware and Kentucky.

And I often point out the dubious legality of declaring the legitimate electorate disenfranchised and then passing an amendment through a "Vichy" state government which is nothing but a rubber stamp for Washington DC and does not represent the actual will of the people.

An amendment relying on usurped powers should be regarded as invalid.

Noooo, by April, 1865, only two Union states had not passed abolition laws: Kentucky & Delaware.

You are a sick man. Seek help.

[BroJoeK #104 posted on 10/3/2021, 12:52:06 PM]

In the 1860 census New Jersey reported 18 slaves.
Of those 18, 16 remained to be freed by the 13th Amendment in 1865.

Have your short term memory checked.

https://nj.gov/state/historical/his-2021-juneteenth.shtml

Department of State
New Jersey Historical Commission
The Hon. Tahesha Way, Secretary of State
By Noelle Lorraine Williams, Director, African American History Program The New Jersey Historical Commission
This year forty-seven states including New Jersey will observe Juneteenth (also known as Freedom Day or Emancipation Day) as a state holiday—a holiday that commemorates when enslaved Blacks in Galveston, Texas learned that they were, in fact, freed by President Abraham Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation two and half years earlier. The date was June 19, 1865. Juneteenth then is a holiday of celebration and a mournful remembrance of deep injustice and loss. It reveals the injustice of slavery and the legal repression of African American freedom, extending beyond the nineteenth century.
But we must remember that there were still enslaved Black men and women in New Jersey even after Juneteenth. Imagine, New Jersey’s death grip on slavery meant that until December 1865, six months after enslaved men, women, and children in Texas found out they were cheated of their freedom, approximately 16 African Americans were still technically enslaved in New Jersey.
But Why and How?
While there were many Black, mixed-race, and white people in New Jersey who fought against slavery, most legislators refused to condemn the institution. Profits from slaveholding organizations had built and maintained the state’s major cities and regional centers like Newark and those in Bergen County.
Lincoln's 1863 Emancipation Proclamation did not free enslaved African Americans in the Northern States; it freed only those in the mostly southern "rebellious states." Two years later, New Jersey bitterly refused to ratify the Thirteenth Amendment, the United States Constitutional Amendment that abolished slavery and involuntary servitude across the country.
Slavery’s final legal death in New Jersey occurred on January 23, 1866, when in his first official act as governor, Marcus L. Ward of Newark signed a state Constitutional Amendment that brought about an absolute end to slavery in the state. In other words, the institution of slavery in New Jersey survived for months following the declaration of freedom in Texas.
To understand this historical development, one needs to take a step back to 1804 when New Jersey passed its Gradual Abolition of Slavery law—an act that delayed the end of slavery in the state for decades. It allowed for the children of enslaved Blacks born after July 4, 1804 to be free, only after they attained the age of 21 years for women and 25 for men. Their family and everyone else near and dear to them, however, remained enslaved until they died or attained freedom by running away or waiting to be freed.
In a period when the average life expectancy was 40 years old, the 1804 law essentially took more than half of these people's lives to satisfy the economic and political demands of New Jersey enslavers.
In essence, Juneteenth, not only marks the day African Americans in Texas realized that they had been robbed of two years of their freedom, following the Emancipation Proclamation. It also commemorates all of our ancestors here in New Jersey who were the last Blacks in the North to be ensnared in that bloody institution.
The New Jersey Historical Commission (NJHC), a division of the New Jersey Department of State, is a state agency dedicated to the advancement of public knowledge and preservation of New Jersey history.

Have your research checked for intrusion of bullcrap.

https://www.durandhedden.org/docs/juneteenth-exhibit.pdf

Slavery in New Jersey declined over time but did not end until after the Civil War.
Sometimes known as “Freedom Day” or “Emancipation Day,”Juneteenth is a contraction of the words “June Nineteenth.” Juneteenth commemorates the June 19, 1865, announcement of the abolition of slavery in the state of Texas, 18 months after the Emancipation Proclamation, and five months after the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment. The celebrations that followed the Union Army’s occupation of Texas began a tradition that has lasted for 154 years. Today, in cities and towns in 45 US states, Juneteenth commemorates African American freedom and emphasizes education and achievement.
[...]
In fact, some historians note that the last 16 enslaved people in New Jersey were not freed until the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment on Jan. 31, 1865, truly ended slavery in America. New Jersey, in 1866, was the last northern state to ratify that amendment.

https://www.northjersey.com/story/news/essex/montclair/2021/02/28/american-dream-paramus-nj-part-north-jersey-slavery-legacy/4212248001/

New Jersey slaveholders didn't give up this bounty lightly; the state was the last in the North to outlaw slavery. Even when legislation was finally passed in 1804, "freed" slaves were required to serve lengthy apprenticeships, which weren’t much different from slavery, according to the Princeton and Slavery Project.
The last 16 enslaved people in New Jersey were not freed until 1866, when the state reluctantly ratified the 13th Amendment.

Seek treatment for your mental disorder.

We joke about this, but I have come to realize that this business of people believing things against all evidence and common sense has become an all too common form of "mass hysteria."

We are now seeing it every day with mask mandates, vaccines, Critical Race Theory, January 6 "insurrection", trans-gender "women", and a whole host of other issues.

When I was younger, my friends and I used to discuss how it was the Germans, an otherwise rational people, went full Nazi. How did the mass hysteria get so bad that everyone accepted the Nazi ideas as valid?

When I look around at modern America, i'm seeing the same phenomena at work here and it is truly frightening. People are all too willing to believe insane things, and will deny any evidence which shows them otherwise.

We are living in an "Emperor's New Clothes" society and people have lost the ability to think rationally. They simply accept what the leading voices in society tell them without resorting to any critical thinking of their own.

And this business of what people believe about the civil war is another example of this same effect at work.

Coming from a guy who kicks his head handed to him on a regular basis by a history professor as you just did that's a pretty idiotic thing to say.

Take a good look in the mirror stupid and see who is ‘’irrelevant’’ here.

Made a typo. What I meant to say is for a guy who gets his ass handed to him a on a regular basis by a history professor (Bro Joe K)and never learns the idiot here is you.

Did North go to war to specifically end slavery? No. But it was Lincoln intention to end it. Lincoln's over riding intention was to preserve the Union. The South went to war specifically to preserve slavery. You Lost Causers can twist yourselves into knots of falsehoods and moral relativism and historic revisionism but the truth is what I just posted. Keep foaming at the mouth pal and flailing about. I'm loving it.

What I meant to say is for a guy who gets his ass handed to him a on a regular basis by a history professor (Bro Joe K)....

Of course he is. And you are his only begotten son, born of the virgin Hillary. Now, run along.