Slavery was intertwined with the Union too, but everyone seems to ignore that point. Slavery was LEGAL in the Union states of Delaware, Maryland (forced into the Union by locking up politicians who dissented), Kentucky and Missouri.
The great Emancipation Proclamation did not free ONE SLAVE in the "northern" slave states.
Yep... it was all about slavery... at least that's what we've all been told all these years and taught by those same teachers who told us that we should be Democrats because they are "for the people." Yeah... I believe it. < /sarcasm>
The point most Neo Confederates want to ignore is that the only reason the south feared Lincoln and the republicans is that they knew that sooner or later slavery was going to be outlawed in the Whole United States, and that the only way they could stop that from happening in the south was by secession.
The reason the Emancipation Proclamation did not free one slave in the Northern slave states is that it was meant to prevent the confederacy from putting blacks on the front lines as soldiers. It was a brilliant political move that removed any possibility of the South using the promise of freedom to get slaves to fight for them.
I know it's a bitter pill to swallow, but it's true
The same thing happened in Kentucky. Senator John Breckenridge, who'd just spent four years as Vice President and had unsuccessfully run for President, literally ran out the back door of his house as pro-Union forces broke through the front door. Fleeing to the Confederacy, Breckenridge joined the Confederate Army and served with valor at such battles as Shiloh and Chickamauga before becoming the last Confederate Secretary of War.
free dixie,sw
Man, you neo-confederates grab onto this one sound bite and just keep on repeating it, regardless of how stupid it makes you sound.
The EP didn't effect the slave states remaining in the Union simply because THEY WEREN'T IN REVOLT. Lincoln had no constitutional authority to proclaim slaves free in the north. He wouldn't have had any in the south, either, if they hadn't been in revolt. The proclamation was a war measure under LIncoln's authority as Commander in Chief.
Now what Lincoln could do in the north, and which you Lost Causers always neglect to mention when parroting your talking points, is to advocate for states to outlaw slavery on their own, as Maryland, Missouri and West Virginia did during the war. He could also advocate passage of the 13th Amendment, even insisting that it be included in the 1864 Republican platform. After the election it passed the House, having already passed the Senate., Lincoln signed it immediately, and it went to the states. He was murdered by a confederate agent before he could see it ratified.
"Yep... it was all about slavery... at least that's what we've all been told all these years and taught by those same teachers who told us that we should be Democrats because they are "for the people." Yeah... I believe it. < /sarcasm>"
and what those same idiots either fail to realize, or choose to ignore is, the Party they so dearly love was the party of the Slave Owners in the South.
I'm no big fan of the Democrat Party then or now. But my home, my country, is the great State of Georgia.
Something that Yankees will never understand.
Only to the leaders of the RAT Rebellion was Slavery THE issue. That was the only reason they tried to destroy the Union.
All of the "union" states that had regions with slavery were the SAME places that were sympathetic to the "confederate cause" during the civil war...especially Maryland as you pointed out.
Even the "yankee" areas that did NOT have slavery and were pro-confederate had very pro-slavery feelings...for instance the "Little Egypt" region of southern Illinois. That was a bastion of former slave owners who serious mulled over seceding from the rest of Illinois during the civil war. They would have still had slavery if Illinois hadn't outlawed it in 1828.
Funny how that works, eh? All those "northerner" areas supported the confederacy also though slavery was a great system. Must be a coincidence, eh? I'm sure the fact they were pro-slavery and pro-confederate was completely unrelated and just mentioned by evil yankees to make "the south" look bad. Riiiiiiiiight.
All of the "union" states that had regions with slavery were the SAME places that were sympathetic to the "confederate cause" during the civil war...especially Maryland as you pointed out.
Even the "yankee" areas that did NOT have slavery and were pro-confederate had very pro-slavery feelings...for instance the "Little Egypt" region of southern Illinois. That was a bastion of former slave owners who serious mulled over seceding from the rest of Illinois during the civil war. They would have still had slavery if Illinois hadn't outlawed it in 1828.
Funny how that works, eh? All those "northerner" areas supported the confederacy also though slavery was a great system. Must be a coincidence, eh? I'm sure the fact they were pro-slavery and pro-confederate was completely unrelated and just mentioned by evil yankees to make "the south" look bad. Riiiiiiiiight.