And yet, the slaves in Delaware were the last to be released... (that's in the North) Could it be that the slaves were released in the South NOT for moral reasons, but as "punishment" and an economic back-breaker on the rebeling states? Could it have been a "sanction" instead? Methinks so.
Oh come on, Delware may be "North" compared to Georgia, and their slaves last to be released but they
were released. How fast do you think the Confederate States would have let them go by comparison? As for releasing the slaves on "moral" grounds, yes I DO believe morality was at the heart of the act, however slave states and the economic realities of which you spoke earlier (combined with an actual WAR) made political decisions necessary, at least as far as how to time that release.
Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland and Missouri didn't lose. Where were you going with that?
They were smart enough not to secede. They lost their slaves too.
"That's right, you only made it as far as Pennsylvania, right? Well if you wanna win a war you fight it on the OTHER guys' lands instead of your own... "
Or maybe WAR wasn't what we wanted? Maybe we wanted to be left alone?
Yeah, ALONE to keep your slaves! That wasn't going to happen. It was a BAD thing.
If I shot a burglar in my house, by your logic, I would be "killin my countryman"
If you shot a cop coming to take the people you held in bondage (let's say HOSTAGES for modern times) then you'd be a kidnapper and felon as well as a cop killer. "Burgle" is a good word. Burglars take away your property, like say the people you own.
You argued that the South was wrong and evil for leaving the Union. I countered that the Union at the time had made no such claims, and that indeed, several Union States still had slavery.
I did argue that, yes. A united America is a moral good and a boon to the world. We are lucky the Confederacy lost. The United States did claim the Confederate states
were wrong to leave and went to war over it, if memory serves.
It therefore stands to reason that if the Civi War was about SLAVES, that Delaware wouldn't have been permitted to stay with the Union, Maryland would haev been occupied territory, and Kentucky would have become a "slave state" sympathizer.
The south seceded because they could see the Abolitionist movement gaining ground and knew their slave-owning agrarian life was going to be ended sooner or later. The United States went to war to return the Confederate states to the Union and end slavery, both of which they did everywhere, EVEN in Maryland, Kentucky and Delaware.
And that was a good thing, we should thank God for it.
The rest of the post seems now to go back to my original focus: There were Union States that held slavery in part of their economy. These states were permitted to retain their slaves for several years after a select few slaves were released as a direct result of the Civil War.
If slavery was THE reason, why would the North even allow themselves to be allied with slave owning states?
"How fast do you think the Confederate States would have let them go by comparison?"
Well, according to legislation at the time, neither would have completely given it up. Ever. Lincoln took great pains to establish (IN THE NORTH!) that he was NOT intending to abolish slavery, but instead, he simply wished to prevent it from being a part of any new states.
This could be pressures from railway companies or union workers who would prefer industrialized settlements to agricultural ones. Or any other number of reasons. (I only speculate here.)
Had the Emancipation Proclamation been the true will of the Federal Government at the time, wouldn't it have been instituted at the ONSET of war/secession, and not halfway through?
The Border States that gave up their slaves did so according to their own internal laws. Had any of the States rejoined the USA, the Emancipation Proclamation would have been voided for that State, and further attempts to remove slavery would have been harder.
ALSO: The willingness of the South to Fight excercised the idea that was set forth in the Constitution- This nation is a Nation OF States, not a Nation OVER States. The will of the State (and it's people) will not be waived by any single federal power.