3 ms·
This is not quite right. You are forgetting Kentucky: a slave state that explicitly decided not to leave the union and fought alongside the non-slave states aga
by larkost 4y ago
This is not quite right. You are forgetting Kentucky: a slave state that explicitly decided not to leave the union and fought alongside the non-slave states against the Confederacy.
Even Abraham Lincoln had declared himself as a non-abolitionist until the Gettysburg Address. He campaigned, and started his governing as a status-quo politician. The main thing that southern politicians railed against him was that he wanted to keep the compromise and have the "new territories" (areas that were not yet states) be kept non-slave territories.
There is nuance here, but basically the Confederacy pissed him off so much that he changed his mind and decided that he would push for the abolition of slavery, starting by ending it by force in the Confederacy. He moderated after the war somewhat, and his death (at the hands of a Southern conspiracy to re-start the war and bring back slavery) almost got us to full equality, but wound up in a compromise that got us the Jim Crow laws.
- daveevad 4y ago> You are forgetting Kentucky: a slave state that explicitly decided not to leave the union and fought alongside the non-slave states against the Confederacy. I had always believed that Kentucky was neutral in the Civil War. Both Lincoln and Jefferson Davis (President of the Confederate States) were born in Kentucky. Reading the wikipedia article[0], it seems like it's really complicated but it still looks mostly correct to me that Kentucky was more neutral than not. [0](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kentucky_in_the_American_Civil_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kentucky_in_the_American_Civil...)