The 13th Amendment came years after the Emancipation Proclamation. I mean really now, if this was about ending slavery, why tolerate slavery in four northern states? Let's put it like this: the 13th Amendment came HALF A DECADE after the Civil War began. And spare me Missouri "ending slavery on it's own." Abolitionists were murdered there and at the outset of the Civil War, here's what a slave fetched there:
In 1860, top male slaves brought about $1,300 each, and female slaves about $1,000. The State Auditor’s report for 1860 placed the value of the slaves in the State at $44,181,912.
http://www.duboislc.org/MissouriBlacks/p01_slavery.html
Granted, there were no huge plantations, but slave owners typically had one or two but there were some individuals around Jackson County who had 100 or more.
Do you want to get me started on the other three states? Mind you, not one of their congressional delegates signed anything to end slavery until the end of the Civil War.
The 13th Amendment came years after the Emancipation Proclamation< p>>Less than two years, actually, and within weeks of the Republican victory in the 1864 election, which ended Democratic opposition to it.
I mean really now, if this was about ending slavery, why tolerate slavery in four northern states?
Because they didn't rebel. If the south hadn't rebelled, they could have kept their slaves, too.
And spare me Missouri "ending slavery on it's own."
So you're arguing that Missouri didn't end slavery on its own before the 13th amendment was passed?
Mind you, not one of their congressional delegates signed anything to end slavery until the end of the Civil War.
What do congressional delegates have to do with ending slavery within a state? Maryland enacted a new state constitution in November, 1864 which ended slavery there.