You obviously never read the historical fine print, slavery existed all over the north after 1804 legally. Notice your statement, that virtually all slaves were free by 1840 in already free states. Many northern states had slaves until 1865. Obvious it can't be compared to slaves in the south, but again the issue is the hypocrisy portrayed in modern movies and history. Few know that slavery was still legal in the north after the Emancipation.

Lee as the man took charge of his wifes property in 56 and started freeing slaves that were inherited as requested by his wifes father to be freed within 5 years of his death, had very little to do with his wife. He certainly didn't do it right away due to finances. Certainly in this time and culture Lee was far beyond most regarding slavery, certainly more than Grant, Sherman and Lincoln, never shown in modern movies.

I have no chip on my shoulder, so get over it. You're trying to turn this into some moral debate. I deplore any racism or bias. The point is the wrong portrayal today of history in modern movies and history, like it or not, it's just a fact. The south was wrong, but creating heroes out of Lincoln, Grant and most of the political north is just as wrong.

Hey guys, remember the Civil War has been over for 150 years. I am pretty sure "The South will rise again!" is just a bumper sticker. :ping:

I had read a lot on the war. Yes, the N-word was pretty much prevalent back then and about as inoffensive as the term African-American is now.

Yes, the prevailing attitude in both North and South was that African-Americans were inferior to whites.

Yes, Lincoln had no particular desire to end slavery when he came in to office and until 1862, would have been quite willing to keep slavery to maintain the Union.

However, you can also see his thinking evolved and by the summer of 1863, he was convinced that the war had to stand for more than just state rights. He was convinced that ending slavery once and for all was necessary to both justify the cost in human lives and to allow the US to go forward. All his cabinet were opposed to the Emancipation Proclamation, all thought it was political suicide. Even Lincoln thought he would probably lose the 1864 election if he went ahead. At the time, it was a very bold, even radical political decision.

Oh, absolutely. Lincoln's views on slavery may have been that emancipation was the way to go, but the move to actually emancipate was purely political and calculated for effect. The man was a master politician.

If he was only interested in getting re-elected, he would not have pushed through the EP. No one in the North wanted to die just to free slaves.

He was a very smart politician in that he knew he could only issue the EP after a victory so it would not look like a desparate move. He had the EP in his pocket for months, but only went ahead after Antietam.

But the foreign powers did. Lincoln knew that emancipation would keep England from intervening and pushing for a truce, which he could absolutely not have. That would have guaranteed that he would not be reelected. Foreign powers wouldn't dare interfere with a war with the declared end of abolition, and so he waited until he had the victories make it a credible gesture that would strengthen his political position, both abroad and domestically.

Ah yes, England, forgot about them.

Yes, he did do a good job keeping Europeans from getting involved.

People forget how the war started. The govt got taxes by imports.The south paid about 90% of the nations total tariffs in 1860. The new Republican party wanted a strong national government over state rights, because it promoted northern industrialization. The Republican party simply wanted to overtax the south for their own benefit, as if the south didn't already contribute almost all the taxes. This was Lincoln's platform and it led to much conflict. It wasn't about slavery, it was about taking all the money out of the south for their own greed. With most new states being free, it assured the continual rape of the south paying all the taxes for northern capitalist. so the south seceded

Lincoln was a student of history. He understood that the American Revolution was ultimate successful due to foreign recognition. He also understood that the only real way the south could win that war was through the same. It was the big, looming concern for the early part of that war.

That damn blockade, if not for that we would still be whistling "Dixie".

I think we have to be careful to overestimate the importance of foreign intervention in the decision process leading to the EP. Certainly, removing the risk of foreign intervention was a bonus, but the EP was still a radical move.

I think the more important factor was the fact that Lincoln realised that winning the war, but keeping slavery would not solve anything in the long term. Slavery had become one of the most overriding factor in federal politics in the past 50 years. Southern and Northern politicians were always trying to make sure that "Free" and "Slave" states were at parity. You also see that the issue was becoming more and more corrosive, a lot worse than what you see now in US politics. I think Lincoln realised that preserving the Union, but keeping slavery, like had been done in the 1787 Constitution, would just paper over the problem and garantee another war in another 50 years.

Really? Which ones?

Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky, New Jersey, W. Va, Washington DC

Washington DC, not a state, not even in the north.
Maryland, border state, had to be kept in the Union by gunpoint. If it wasn't located north of Washington it it would have seceded along with the rest of the rebel states. It did however abolish slavery before the end of the war.
West Virginia - Another border state which wasn't even a state at all until it seceded from Virginia for seceding from the Union, and also, not in the north.
Kentucky Yet another border state and again not in the north. Officially neutral at the beginning of the war.
Delaware another border state which had freed over 90% of it's slaves by the start of the war.
New Jersey, the only real northern state in your list, did indeed keep slavery legal through the war but only barely it was down to just 16 slaves by war's end.

Also Delaware, Kentucky and New Jersey were all conducting a gradual emancipation of the slaves along the same lines as New York. They might have been slave holding (in NJ and De's case barely) but were all on the way toward emancipation.

So ignoring the fact that 16 slaves out of over 25K (as of 1860) barely qualifies as "slave holding" how can you call one solitary state "many"?

"Political Correctness"? Were the Southern States being politically correct when they seceeded?

You're right, the war wasn't about slavery. It was about Secession vs preserving the Union. Secession, on the other hand, was all about slavery.

Secession was about lack of representation and taxation, with the south paying the majority of taxes. Lincoln could've resolved this, but was a pansey of the northern capitalist who didn't want to pay taxes. Lincoln could've perserved the union and ended slavery in a fair way like most nations of the world did without almost destroying our nation. Lincoln is a hero because it worked out in the end, but it could've went the other way and almost did. There were several meetings to resolve these fiscal conflicts, but Lincoln wouldn't budge. The north overall didn't want slavery to end, it supplied the tariffs to the government, the north simply wanted to control the souths wealth for their benefit through control of congress.

Slavery was dying in the south, only about 8% of families owned slaves. Had Lincoln not been so hard headed many southern states would've remained in the union and the few that left would've folded in a few years.

The fact is both sides were racist, slavery wasn't the issue, it only became an issue. Course it did resolve and create much of the tax code we have today, when the south left, we saw the creation of income tax in the north and the federal govt continued to go nuts with taxes, tariffs during and after the war and grew into the monster it is today.

Like Grant said..."if the war was about slavery, I would've changed sides"

The fact will remain modern history is built on many myths because the union won. There was little about this era where anyone can claim moral high ground, just shrewd politicians and rich greedy people/