Why was the emancipation proclamation limited on scope?

Answer 1

It applied only to states that had seceded from the Union, leaving slavery untouched in the loyal border states. It also expressly exempted parts of the Confederacy that had already come under Northern control. Most important, the freedom it promised depended upon Union military victory.

Answer 2

The proclamation was limited to those states (or parts of states) actually in rebellion at the time of the final proclamation, i.e., January 1, 1863. For this reason critics claimed it actually "freed no one" (or "only freed those beyond the reach of the Federal government). This is, however, misleading, since a) all who had ESCAPED from areas in rebellion were regarded and defended as free (would NOT be returned) b) from that moment through to the end of the war, slaves were freed as the Union armies marched into new territories The other criticism, that Lincoln did not free slaves in 'loyal states' (chiefly slave states that had NOT seceded, or Tennessee, which had returned), also misses the mark, because the Proclamation was based on the Presidents WAR powers, that is, his authority to use any and all available means to fight the other side - those in rebellion. He had NO authority to free slaves of states NOT at war with the U.S.! (Also, had Lincoln simply declared them free - without any actual authority - there would have been a major backlash from the loyal slave states, making it impossible to enforce. As a matter of fact, and as Lincoln had been suggesting would happen, this move immediately began to destroy the foundations of slavery in the loyal states too, so that it was ended in all of them by war's end. As for how it "changed" the war: 1) in practical terms the Proclamation's provision that any of the newly freed blacks could be enlisted in the armed forces of the Union led to a massive influx of new recruits... a major help to the Union war effort 2) the war was now officially not JUST "to save the Union" but also to end slavery (though it still is true that the BASIS for the latter was as a legitimate, Constitutional means to save the Union). This resulted in: a)new support in some (not all!) areas of the North for the war effort b)more hesitation of foreign powers (a major international diplomatic gain for the Union)-- esp. England, whom others were looking to to take the lead -- to officially recognize & support the Confederacy, since the official British policy and much of their public sentiment was strongly anti-slavery (making it hard to justify fighting for a 'nation' on the wrong side of this question if the slavery issue was DEFINED as central to the conflict) c) great anger in the South and a movement to treat any blacks captured in battle (as part of the Union army) by 'different rules', including treating them all as runaway slaves (subject to execution), or even refusing to let them surrender and massacring them on the field of battle These last changes, which implied that blacks in the Union forces fought at greater personal risk, may have helped spur their great valor and efforts In addition, the distinction in treatment led to a logjam in the previous "prisoner exchanges", and ultimately to its suspension(since the Confederates would not trade blacks on the same terms). This in turn meant that severely depleted Confederate forces could not be replenished by returned POWs(the Union could much better afford such losses). The end of prisoner exchanges, sadly, led to the horrid conditions in POW camps (especially in the poorer South), which were never intended to handle large numbers for long periods.

Answer 3

To keep the slave owning boarder states within the union while punishing the states who remained in rebellion after January 1st of the new year…Lincoln said, "if I can preserve the union by freeing some slaves and keeping others, I will do that," and that is what he did.

Answer 4

lol r u doing ur hw for s.s. on pg. 541 *key idaes?

Answer 5

u got a answer..... or naah