Talk:Emancipation proclamation

Rationale

The reason it did not affect the northern states was Lincoln needed to craft the Proclamation in such a way as to give wiggle room to the several territories that would have (in the next few years) vie for statehood. Had Lincoln freed all slaves everywhere, those territories that might side with the CSA would probably throw the weight of whatever militias they could muster to Lee's efforts to make the separation permanent. If that would have happened then outside forces (England and France) might have been more willing to recognize the fledgling CSA as a country unto itself, which, in turn, would allow those governments to lend CSA money, (men?) and materials that they had been lacking since the start of hostilities. U2 15:05, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

I understand Lincoln's role as a politician and why he chose to only make it valid in the south. From an informational standpoint, the fact that is only took place in the south is a shock to many people, and, as such, I felt it should be included. Learn together 15:10, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

Oh yes, the historical rubric my mother would chant included "In 1863 Lincoln set the Negroes free," didn't mention it was only in states that were in rebellion that this freedom was acquired. It should be included. My post above only gives an (uncited) reason why the proclamation was worded in such a way as it was. U2 15:29, 23 July 2007 (EDT)