emeraldrafael said:
You mean "intents and purposes". Sorry, but that really bothers me.
Oh, thanks. I've always heard it as intensive purposes. If intents and purposes is the way to say it, then thats how I will from now on.
While I have your attention I'd like to point out that most Northern states had already outlawed slavery before the Federal government did. This was not so much due to altruism on their part as it was the idea that power corrupts and an economic system that gives people total power over the lives of other humans (even "inferior" ones) would inevitably lead to a corrupt society. In fact, before the rise of cotton plantations this was a view shared by most American intellectuals, even the slave-owning ones, who recognized slavery as a problem but argued that it should be allowed to die on it's own.
Alright. Im only saying,t he north didnt have much of a high ground in thsi saying they were staunchly against slavery and thats what this war was about. Though while looking into it for numbers to use, I did see that some of states of the north did officially have slaves up until within 20 years of the Civil war's start (including the bleeding Kansas and john brown raids of the 1850s, cause I like to think of those as part of the civil war, though war was officially declared till 1861).
Also, I believe the exact words of the Emancipation Proclamation were something along the lines that slavery was outlawed in all territories currently in rebellion. So it didn't try to apply to the rest of the world because that would be silly, but yeah it really was more a symbolic resolution than a law. Still, it served the very important function of keeping Europeans out of the conflict.
Like I said, I thought it might have said that, wasnt too sure. I just knew about the territories thing for certain. And yeah, it was more symbolic. Though it didnt totally keep them out. I know france sent some troops to both sides of the field, and although foggy, I think maybe russia sent a ship (though I could be completely wrong on that, so i wouldnt quote me). And Britain especially with the
Trent affairs.
Britain passively supported the Confederacy throughout the war because they liked to buy Southern cotton to feed the large British textile industry (remember the Industrial Revolution is in full swing by this time) but it was politically impossible for them to take direct action once Lincoln made the war about slavery.