You think Presidential Executive Proclamations are only valid against states in rebellion? Where do you read that in the Constitution? Oh, I forgot, Lincoln suspended the Constitution during the War...you may be right.
He didn't because it was not a matter of principle as you Northerners like to claim, it was a matter of economics, for both the North and the South. And it was Lincoln's way of punishing the South. Oh baloney. The North was a more powerful industrialized area as proven by the Civil War. Keeping down the South didn't prop up the North.
Again you have made my point for me. The North was industralized. The farms that they had were small farms. Owning slaves was not profitable in the North. However, it was very profitable for northern ship owners to import and sell the slaves to the South. Because the South was more agrarian and the crops raised in the South were more condusive to large tract farming, ie. plantations, it was more economically feasible for slaves to be used in the South. Thus there was an economic factor is why slavery persisted in the South rather than in the North...thus it was an economic punishment against the South to free the slaves there (in fact taking "property" without compensation) and not freeing the slaves in the North.
I think that Lincoln was not Clinton and tried to do things as the founders intended. Executive orders should be avoided unless immediately needed for the nations security or freedom.
Where do you read that in the Constitution? Oh, I forgot, Lincoln suspended the Constitution during the War...you may be right.
The South rebelled, they gave up a lot of their protection. Your bed, lay in it.
Again you have made my point for me. The North was industralized. The farms that they had were small farms. Owning slaves was not profitable in the North.
Bull. Imagine how many acres you could farm back then if you had all the free help you needed.
However, it was very profitable for northern ship owners to import and sell the slaves to the South. Because the South was more agrarian and the crops raised in the South were more condusive to large tract farming, ie. plantations, it was more economically feasible for slaves to be used in the South. Thus there was an economic factor is why slavery persisted in the South rather than in the North...thus it was an economic punishment against the South to free the slaves there (in fact taking "property" without compensation) and not freeing the slaves in the North.
If that was so, it would be punishment well deserved since your intention was to perpetuate slavery. I think that the Radical Republicans hated slavery, the circumstances of the 1860 election gave their man Lincoln the victory, the South had a bad feeling about Lincoln and didn't want to give up slavery, they seceded without terms of separation (rebelled), the North waited for an attack before a full scale invasion, the South obliged at Fort Sumter, we invaded to save the union foremost because of the dangerous world of the nineteenth century, the Radical Republicans got their wish of the E.P. as a fringe benefit of war, the North won, end of story, get over it.