No.
It would have alienated many influential slave-owners, and driven those states into the arms of the Confederacy.
Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation, which freed slaves in all the rebellious states of the Union. Lincoln had no power to enforce his statement, so no slaves were actually freed. Also, slaves in the border states that remained loyal to the Union were not freed.
Becuase he didn't want to lose the support of the border states.
The slaves in the border states, Missouri, Maryland, and West Virginia .
There were 430,929 slaves in the Border States.
a speech given by AAbraham Lincoln that stated that most slaves would be freed in confederate states except for the border states.
Well Lincoln said all slaves in the SOUTH were free and northern border states still had slaves. and its not like it worked. Its like Mexico saying every Latino prisoner is free to go in the US the us wont listen Lincoln only used it for rebellion causes.
In the Border States the percentages of slaves was that of 14,25%.
He feared retaliation from the border states, which supported slavery
President Abraham Lincoln freed slaves in rebellious areas of the US in 1863. All other slaves had been freed in the North.
A triangular trade system developed, involving British manufactured goods, slaves, sugar and rum.
That would mean slaves in the Border states - slave-states that had voted against joining the Confederacy. Those people would have to remain slaves until the war was won, as Lincoln did not want to upset powerful slave-owners in these crucially important states.
two years.