Did the north have the moral ground and 1860

[samgrant]

Originally Posted by mainer

Am I missing something here? If the North had the moral high ground, why did it's leader free the slaves only in states that were on the side of seccesion?

In a nutshell, expediency.

A. L. needed to win that war in order to accomplish anything else, such as universal abolition. He didn't want to have Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri to join the Confederacy. Had enough problems as it was. A. L. kept his eye on the 'big picture'.

(You might also consider my point in post #5 in that saving the Union, at least to A. L., was a "moral" duty, and the EP was a tool toward that end.)

[r_moody]

Someone had the moral high ground. As long as the South had slavery they could never hold the high ground.

Rick

[ole]

Mainer:
The EP was a military matter. Constitutionally, he could not free slaves in areas that "were not in rebellion." Plus, as Sam said, political expediency. He didn't want to irritate Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, and those few slaveowners left in Delaware and New Jersey.

Some will point out that it was purely propaganda -- a toothless measure. But when the Yankee's got near, production of cotton sure went down. And after a few shaky moments with Europe, the possibility of siding with the CSA also went away. There was quite a bit of taking French leave when the chance looked promising.
Ole

[mainer]

Please let me apologize for any confusion...my question about the EP and it's hypocritical use 1st as a threat, and then as an act against the South was purely rhetorical. Thank you

[ole]

Oh. Do we have a "rhetorical" button? Sorry I missed that. No apologies unless the word "sockdolagizing" escapes your fingers.
Ole

[matthew mckeon]

Dear Mainer,
I don't mean to repeat myself, but the Emancipation Proclaimation dealt a mortal blow to slavery, despite its often criticized limitations. If the North won the war, the EP meant slavery was finished. The few areas, such as the loyal slave states, that were excluded by the EP, could not, and in fact, did not, survive as islands of slavery in a bondage free America.

[matthew mckeon]

Dear Mainer,
To see the E.P. as solely a political maneuver is to miss its full import. Despite its often cited limitations, the E.P. meant the end of American slavery. As long as the Union armies won, slavery was finished. The areas excluded by the E.P. could not, and in fact, did not, survive as islands of bondage in a otherwise free America. With the stroke of a pen, Lincoln ended the centuries old institution of slavery. The Union army had to make that measure effective, but that is true of ANY measure that Lincoln could have taken.
The Emancipation Proc. leads to black troops, black citizenship, and the
13th, 14th and 15th amendments. It made the Civil War different and more profoundly revolutionary event. To read it differently is to misunderstand what Lincoln was doing.

[Will Posey]

What Lincoln was doing was ensuring his re-election.

[unionblue]

Will Posey,

How did the EP ensure Lincoln's reelection?

Unionblue

[samgrant]

One might argue that the EP, put Lincoln's re-election very much in jeopardy as many folks in the North were not wild about the idea.

I'd think that if it were to be judged opportunistic, it would be more in the way of the military situation,than that of his own re-election.

Even then, as Lincoln always walked the highwire, alot of his troops were not happy about the prospect of the negroes as Union soldiers.

Posey, please respond to unionblue's question.