If I might chime in about Kentucky and Delaware:
Kentucky provided for gradual emancipation prior to the 13th Amendment and Delaware was debating what to do with old slaves, which almost all their few remaining slaves were. Under the slave system, old slaves, like child slaves and sick slaves, were taken care of by their fellow slaves. Abolition (immediate emancipation) would throw them into the poorhouse, which would burden the taxpayer and also rob them of the dignity they had earned through their years of work. So, the exceptions to the Emancipation Proclamation weren’t really exceptions.
I would like to return to the topic of the difficulty of freeing the slaves in states like South Carolina, which would throw a mass of uneducated and poor persons into the body politick and upset the balance that is needed for democratic government to actually work.
At the Founding, most states had a moderate property qualification (the exceptions were Rhode Island which had universal adult male qualification; and, South Carolina which had a 1,000 acre qualification instead of either 100 acres or a city plot). With a property qualification, emancipation would have had no immediate impact on the body politick; but, over time, as freemen rose up the economic ladder, they would gain voting qualification. Of course, those freemen gaining the qualification to vote would no longer be poor and uneducated.
Things changed during the 1840s. To promote race solidarity, Southern states moved to universal white adult male qualification. Eventually, universal adult qualification became the expectation regardless of race. As a result, democracies need to be anxious that the majority of their citizens actually accumulate property such as equity in their home and their (private) pension. The composition of the electorate is not simply an historical problem of the reconstruction period, but is a perennial problem.
Right and some estimates say that by the time the 13th Amendment was ratified, in December 1865 -- ratification which both Kentucky and Delaware opposed -- about 90% of former slaves in those states had already been freed, by one method or another.
And since Maryland, West Virginia & Missouri had already freed their slaves in early 1865, it means: of about 4 million slaves in 1860 only a few thousand remained to be freed by the 13th Amendment in December 1865.
Curiously though, Delaware & Kentucky were among the last three states to ratify the 13th (Mississippi was the last).
Maybe, but what percent of slaves chose to remain in effect slaves after emancipation?
A few, yes, but was it 1% or .1%, I don't know, but the vast majority chose freedom over slavery regardless of the risks.
They also chose to vote Republican thus earning the undying hatred of former Confederates and their descendants.
Redmen4ever: "At the Founding, most states had a moderate property qualification..."
This may sound overly burdensome and today it certainly would be, but remember, in those days nothing was cheaper or more abundant than land, so anyone who seriously wanted it could in due time have it.
Redmen4ever: "Of course, those freemen gaining the qualification to vote would no longer be poor and uneducated."
And so more likely to vote Republican, all the more reason to hate them!
Redmen4ever: "The composition of the electorate is not simply an historical problem of the reconstruction period, but is a perennial problem."
Right, again remember that Southern Democrats ruled in Washington, DC, almost continuously from 1801 until secession in 1861.
They did so by remaining the majority of the majority Democrat party and Democrats remained the majority thanks to continuous inflows of migrants from Europe to America's big cities.
Democrats were the party alliance of the Southern Slave Power with Northern big city immigrant bosses, that alliance gave them majorities and with majorities they ruled the Washington, DC, swamp.
Their problem was the Southern majority within the Democrats was not always united (i.e., over tariffs), and even when united were becoming a minority in their own Democrat party.
In 1860, for example, Northern Democrat Douglas got over 500,000 more votes than Southern Democrat Breckenridge, even though Douglas carried only one state with 12 electoral votes and Breckenridge carried 11 states with 72 electoral votes.
Again, my point is: Southerners ruled in Washington, DC, since 1801 by being the majority of the majority Democrat party, but by 1860 they were reduced to the minority within minority Democrats and were simply unwilling to let their Northern allies take the lead, especially on slavery.
Today Democrats still depend on immigrants & Southerners (now blacks) as their most reliable voting block, it's why they want so many more immigrants, legal or illegal, indeed they prefer illegal immigrants since those, like antebellum slaves, serve to increase Democrat representation without the need of winning their votes!
What could be sweeter, if you're a Democrat?