Replies

I find it strange that the emancipation proclamation ONLY freed the slaves in the states loyal to the SOUTH..

(1861)....I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, by virtue of the power in me vested as Commander-in-Chief, of the Army and Navy of the United States in time of actual armed rebellion against authority and government of the United States, and as a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said rebellion, do, on this first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty three, and in accordance with my purpose so to do publicly proclaimed for the full period of one hundred days, from the day first above mentioned, order and designate as the States and parts of States wherein the people thereof respectively, are this day in rebellion against the United States, the following, towit: Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, (except the Parishes of St. Bernard, Plaquemines, Jefferson, St. Johns, St. Charles, St. James[,] Ascension, Assumption, Terrebonne, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including the City of New-Orleans) Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South-Carolina, North-Carolina, and Virginia, (except the fortyeight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkley, Accomac, Northampton, Elizabeth-City, York, Princess Ann, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk & Portsmouth [) ]; and which excepted parts are, for the present, left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued. And by virtue of the power, and for the purpose aforesaid, I do order and declare that all persons held as slaves within said designated States, and parts of States, are, and henceforward shall be free; and that the Executive government of the United States, including the military and naval authorities thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of said persons. And I hereby enjoin upon the people so declared to be free to abstain from all violence, unless in necessary self-defence; and I recommend to them that, in all cases when allowed, they labor faithfully for reasonable wages. And I further declare and make known, that such persons of suitable condition, will be received into the armed service of the United States to garrison forts, positions, stations, and other places, and to man vessels of all sorts in said service. And upon this act, sincerely believed to be an act of justice, warranted by the Constitution, upon military necessity, I invoke the considerate judgment of mankind, and the gracious favor of Almighty God.

Slaves in the North and the mentioned states/counties were still SLAVES, owned by their masters. Slavery was not abolished until 1865.

I find it strange that the emancipation proclamation ONLY freed the slaves in the states loyal to the SOUTH..

That's a good question. The reason that the proclamation only freed Southern slaves was because that was all the President believed he had the Constitutional authority to do. He used his war powers to free slaves in the South, contending that they were being used in the war against the USA. It probably did make military sense. If an Army would steal the enemy's horses, why not free their slaves?

You hit the reason on the head. Slavery wasn't abolished until 1865 because it needed a Constitutional amendment to make it illegal, although all but one northern state had abolished slavery by January 1865 either by legislation or amending their state constitutions. Lincoln issued the proclemation "...by virtue of the power in me vested as Commander-in-Chief, of the Army and Navy of the United States in time of actual armed rebellion against authority and government of the United States, and as a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said rebellion..." and not on his authority as President of the United States. It is interesting to see if the Emancipation Proclemation would have withstood Supreme Court scrutiny but I guess we'll never know. The people in rebellion weren't inclined to take the issue to court, I guess.