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.
No, the Constitution made the States a union of states, and that union was meant to be indivisible.
"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."
-MacDorcha
Well said and well worth saying.