What 'Lincoln' misses and another Civil War film gets right

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by August

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"?

I was simply pointing out that slavery did indeed exist in the north up until 1865. We can fuss about border states, but they remained in the union and were part of the union, to imply they weren't really union or northen is silly. Kentucky was neutral, but couldn't remain so and went union.
Lincoln's emancipation did not free slaves in northern states, just southern states, in fact Kentuchy had almost 50,000 slaves near the wars end.