Why do you think Lincoln didn't end slavery in the north?

Question:

Why do you think Lincoln didn't end slavery in the north?

The proclamation didn't end slavery because it didn't affect the border slave states that weren't in rebellion, and it had no immediate effect in most of the deep South because, at least on the day it was issued, the slaves were in territory still controlled by the Confederacy.

Explanation:

Abraham Lincoln did believe that slavery was morally wrong, but there was one big problem: It was sanctioned by the highest law in the land, the Constitution. The nation’s founding fathers, who also struggled with how to address slavery, did not explicitly write the word “slavery” in the Constitution, but they did include key clauses protecting the institution, including a fugitive slave clause and the three-fifths clause, which allowed Southern states to count enslaved people for the purposes of representation in the federal government.

In a three-hour speech in Peoria, Illinois, in the fall of 1854, Lincoln presented more clearly than ever his moral, legal and economic opposition to slavery—and then admitted he didn’t know exactly what should be done about it within the current political system.

Abolitionists, by contrast, knew exactly what should be done about it: Slavery should be immediately abolished, and freed enslaved people should be incorporated as equal members of society. They didn’t care about working within the existing political system, or under the Constitution, which they saw as unjustly protecting slavery and enslavers. Leading abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison called the Constitution “a covenant with death and an agreement with Hell,” and went so far as to burn a copy at a Massachusetts rally in 1854.

-Alan Becker

trade regulation is a field of law, often bracketed with antitrust (as in the phrase “antitrust and trade regulation law”), including government regulation of unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive business acts or practices. antitrust law is often considered a subset of trade regulation law. franchise and distribution law, consumer protection law, and advertising law are sometimes considered parts of trade regulation law.

in general the theory of economics says that the more open to trade a country is the better   the result for the same country and the whole economies.

in real life countries impose taxes, quotas, etc which is not so good for the economies.

this kind of commercial war between the usa and china is slowing down the growth of the whole world so we can say that it is a draw back of trade regulations. and the free trade agreements are benefits of trade regulations.

do your own work

you really need to do your own work and stop cheating