If you paid attention you would have seen my earlier listing the northern states which banned slavery, not that facts mean anything against arguments concocted on the fringe for the fringe.
So much for the 'slavery only' rouse as the cause of the war.
So where Missouri, Deleware, Kentucky, and Maryland part of the accursed Slaveocracy? They remained in the Union throughout the duration of the war while maintaining legalized slavery. Why jump all over the South? It seems that if the War Between the States were fought over slavery, Lincoln's first order of business would have been to eradicate slavery from the North before invading the South.
Along the same lines, why didn't his Emancipation Proclamation free the slaves in the North? Most Lincoln defenders would say, "Well, because slavery was still constitutional and only a constitutional amendment could have outlawed it." If that was the case, how could his proclamation affect the slaves in the South? "Well, the South was in rebellion." But according to the Northern invaders, the South never left the Union in the first place. If it had, it would have been a sovereign nation, and Lincoln certainly did not recognize the sovereignty of the South. The end result was that Lincoln's actions affected states still under the constitutional umbrella of the United States, and therefore his Emancipation Proclamation was unconstitutional as far as the rest of the country was concerned.
In other words, if the South was indeed a sovereign nation, the proclamation meant nothing. If, on the other hand, the South was merely in rebellion but still under the authority of the U.S. Constitution (as Lincoln believed), the proclamation still meant nothing. The unconstitutionality of Lincoln's actions are apparent no matter how you look at them.