quote:
Wouldn’t the “anti slave” side free their own slaves BEFORE fighting a war to end slavery instead of continuing to allow slavery until after the war?

Again, why didn’t the north free their slaves?

The South tried to secede before the amendment to abolish slavery was introduced. Thus there were bigger fish to fry at the time.

And looking back at the dates, slavery was abolished in January 1865, a few months before the end of the war. I think the whole idea that slaves were held longer in the North is overblown. Maybe you can provide some details. Most of the Northern states abolished it before the war.

This post was edited on 4/8/20 at 10:23 am

3 ...

Report Post

Posted by Ace Midnight

Between sanity and madness

Member since Dec 2006

89777 posts

Posted on 4/8/20 at 10:33 am to mmcgrath

quote:
I think the whole idea that slaves were held longer in the North is overblown.

Well, if by "overblown", you mean "accurate", then you're correct.

In Kentucky, for example, slavery did not become technically illegal until December 1865. Lincoln decreed it illegal in the South in 1863, so when areas were occupied by the Union Army, those slaves were typically "freed" (although many were pressed into civilian service for the Union or enlisted).

I'm not a child - slavery was the key catalyst for secession and the conflict. But, it wasn't the only reason. And most confederate privates didn't own any slaves at all.

Slavery was already becoming a bizarre, contradictory borderline cost-ineffective "luxury good" that one also had to have to make cotton production work. It is such a strange, unique time in history, I have no idea why we want to just shove huge sections of it to the side and pretend it didn't happen or wasn't extraordinarily complex in favor of "White people bad."

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by beerJeep

Louisiana

Member since Nov 2016

35277 posts

Posted on 4/8/20 at 10:45 am to mmcgrath

quote:
I think the whole idea that slaves were held longer in the North is overblown. Maybe you can provide some details. Most of the Northern states abolished it before the war.

I’m not doing your homework for you. There were 500k slaves in the north before the end o the War. Not a single one of those 500k northern slaves were freed from the emancipation proclamation. Why not? I thought the north was fighting to free slaves. Why would a country fighting a war to free slaves continue to have 500k slaves til the end of the war?

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by LSURussian

Member since Feb 2005

127229 posts

Posted on 4/8/20 at 10:50 am to mmcgrath