Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

On this day in 1864

Posted on 05/04/2018 6:42:25 AM PDT by Bull Snipe

Leading elements of Union Major General George G. Meade's Army of the Potomac cross the Rapidan River. With a few hours they would clash with General Robert E. Lee's Army of Northern Virginia in the Battle of the Wilderness. Lieutenant General Grant's Overland Campaign had begun.


TOPICS: History
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 1,361-1,376 next last
To: central_va

“Break out the whiskey.”

Watch me. I will steal this line.


21 posted on 05/04/2018 11:23:06 AM PDT by jeffersondem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: 2banana

The would-be confederacy and their pretend constitution guaranteed that slavery - and the violent conflict between peoples of north and south - would continue.


22 posted on 05/04/2018 11:27:27 AM PDT by rockrr ( Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: 2banana

“Slavery was dying (even in the south) well before the Civil War” Between 1850 and 1860, the slave population in the United States increased by 749,000 individuals.

“Slaves were illegal to import in America for decades” The American flagged ship Clotilda delivered between 120 and 160 slaves from Africa to the Mobile Bay area of Alabama in July 1860.

“Only a small percentage of Southern whites even owned slaves.” A true statement on the surface. Another way of putting that was 34% of families in the States that seceded owned slaves. Around 383,000 people owned slaves according to the 1860 census, most resident in the South.

“Slavery was becoming an uneconomic model due to industrialization, standardization and vast increases in productivity, especially in agriculture” Slavery was a very viable economic model as long as Cotton was King. As for manufacturing, it even used slaves in the South. The work force at Tredegar Iron Works in Richmond, VA (largest industrial operation in the South)was 50% slaves. They were not only laborers, but skilled machinists, foundry men, and mill wrights. The same situation existed in almost all Southern manufacturing operation. As long as the South was the main supplier of cotton to the world, slavery would have continued to rule the economic landscape of the South.

“It would have died naturally. Without the need for nearly a million Americans to die.” Probably, but it could have well lasted into the early 20th century. The first workable cotton picking machine was not invented until 1920s. As long as fortunes were to be made growing cotton and tobacco, slavery would have continued to exist in the South.


23 posted on 05/04/2018 12:04:54 PM PDT by Bull Snipe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Bull Snipe

Interesting thing, that 1860 Census. There were over 450,000 slaves in Union states, who remained slaves until the passage of the 13th Amendment, unlike slaves in southern states who were freed at the end of the Civil War.


24 posted on 05/04/2018 12:11:12 PM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry

not all slaves in the Southern states were freed at the end of the Civil War. Those slaves that were in areas controlled by the Union Army before the enactment of the Emancipation Proclamation legally remained slaves until the 13th Amendment was ratified.


25 posted on 05/04/2018 12:15:37 PM PDT by Bull Snipe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Bull Snipe

Sort of puts a dent in the popular conception of the North fighting to free the slaves, doesn’t it? They were fighting to keep slave states in the Union.


26 posted on 05/04/2018 12:43:16 PM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry

Lincoln had no constitutional authority to free those slaves in States that remained in the Union.


27 posted on 05/04/2018 12:49:32 PM PDT by Bull Snipe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Bull Snipe

Did he have the Constitutional authority to free them in states in rebellion? Under what auspices, if so?


28 posted on 05/04/2018 1:07:55 PM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry
Sort of puts a dent in the popular conception of the North fighting to free the slaves, doesn’t it?

Who is making that claim?

29 posted on 05/04/2018 2:38:07 PM PDT by rockrr ( Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: rockrr
Who is making that claim?

Virtually everyone who comments upon the topic in the news media and virtually every regular person who is not a history geek such as yourself.

So, would you like to be refreshing and state point blank that the Union did not enter the Civil War to free the slaves?

It's true. The Union did not enter the Civil War to free the slaves. The Union entered the Civil War to prevent slave states from leaving.

30 posted on 05/04/2018 3:13:30 PM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry

The Union did not enter the Civil War to free the slaves. The Union entered the Civil War because the southern slavocracy went to war against them.


31 posted on 05/04/2018 3:28:53 PM PDT by rockrr ( Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: rockrr
The Union did not enter the Civil War to free the slaves. The Union entered the Civil War because the southern slavocracy went to war against them.

... but the northern slavocracy in Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland and Missouri remained in the Union, and the Emancipation Proclamation had no effect upon the over 450,000 slaves in Union-held territory, did it?

32 posted on 05/04/2018 3:37:18 PM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry

No. So?


33 posted on 05/04/2018 3:46:44 PM PDT by rockrr ( Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: rockrr
No. So?

So, the Union went to war to prevent slave states from leaving. The Union made no Federal effort to free Union slaves. The Union only issued the Emancipation Proclamation to foment slave rebellion in the states they'd gone to war against for attempting to secede.

There were slaves in Union states well after the end of the Civil War, unlike southern states that you like to refer to as being a "slavocracy." Seems you have a rather cartoonish view of history, skewed by your partisan desire to have southerners be the bad guys and northerner be the good guys, when in fact northerners kept slaves longer than the south did.

The hypocrisy disturbs me.

34 posted on 05/04/2018 3:53:28 PM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry
So, the Union went to war to prevent slave states from leaving.

Not true.

The Union made no Federal effort to free Union slaves.

Not true

The Union only issued the Emancipation Proclamation to foment slave rebellion in the states they'd gone to war against for attempting to secede.

Possibly true but so what?

The hypocrisy disturbs me.

We've known that you are disturbed for a long time now.

35 posted on 05/04/2018 4:07:26 PM PDT by rockrr ( Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry
Did he have the Constitutional authority to free them in states in rebellion? Under what auspices, if so?

The President's position as Commander in Chief gave him the power to seize the property of those making war on the United States. Lincoln was under pressure to take this action as soon as Fort Sumter was attacked. He hesitated, for fear of the reaction in the border states. Congress passed Confiscation Acts, urging that slaves owned by Confederates be freed. US Army units in the south were swarmed with runaway slaves.

Timeline of Emancipation

36 posted on 05/04/2018 4:09:38 PM PDT by iowamark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: rockrr
Not true.

You callin' Abe Lincoln a liar, lol?

The Union made no Federal effort to free Union slaves.

Not true

Are you attempting to claim that there were no slaves in Union-held territory after the conclusion of the Civil War? You're being untruthful, if so.

And, the personal attacks are par for the course with you it seems, sadly. I'm just a cartoon bad guy to you, aren't I?

Pew-pew-pew-pew gotta shoot them bad guys down. So limited and one-dimensional.

Did you attend university at all? I'm sorry but it doesn't seem as if you have.

37 posted on 05/04/2018 4:12:42 PM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: iowamark
He hesitated, for fear of the reaction in the border states.

Let's dispense with the camouflage and obscurantist terms, shall we?

He didn't want to upset the Union slave states.

38 posted on 05/04/2018 4:13:56 PM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry

No reason to be disturbed. It was unconstitutional for Lincoln to free slaves in states not in rebellion to federal authority.

In 1861 Congress passed the confiscation act it reads as follows;
An Act to confiscate Property used for Insurrectionary Purposes.

It has been enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That if, during the present or any future insurrection against the Government of the United States, after the President of the United States shall have declared, by proclamation, that the laws of the United States are opposed, and the execution thereof obstructed, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the power vested in the marshals by law, any person or persons, his, her, or their agent, attorney, or employée, shall purchase or acquire, sell or give, any property of whatsoever kind or description, with intent to use or employ the same, or suffer the same to be used or employed, in aiding, abetting, or promoting such insurrection or resistance to the laws, or any person or persons engaged therein; or if any person or persons, being the owner or owners of any such property, shall knowingly use or employ, or consent to the use or employment of the same as aforesaid, all such property is hereby declared to be lawful subject of prize and capture wherever found; and it shall be the duty of the President of the United States to cause the same to be seized, confiscated, and condemned.

SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That such prizes and capture shall be condemned in the district or circuit court of the United States having jurisdiction of the amount, or in admiralty in any district in which the same may be seized, or into which they may be taken and proceedings first instituted.

SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, That the Attorney-General, or any district attorney of the United States in which said property may at the time be, may institute the proceedings of condemnation, and in such case they shall be wholly for the benefit of the United States; or any person may file an information with such attorney, in which case the proceedings shall be for the use of such informer and the United States in equal parts.

SEC. 4. And be it further enacted, That whenever hereafter, during the present insurrection against the Government of the United States, any person claimed to be held to labor or service under the law of any State, shall be required or permitted by the person to whom such labor or service is claimed to be due, or by the lawful agent of such person, to take up arms against the United States, or shall be required or permitted by the person to whom such labor or service is claimed to be due, or his lawful agent, to work or to be employed in or upon any fort, navy yard, dock, armory, ship, entrenchment, or in any military or naval service whatsoever, against the Government and lawful authority of the United States, then, and in every such case, the person to whom such labor or service is claimed to be due shall forfeit his claim to such labor, any law of the State or of the United States to the contrary notwithstanding. And whenever thereafter the person claiming such labor or service shall seek to enforce his claim, it shall be a full and sufficient answer to such claim that the person whose service or labor is claimed had been employed in hostile service against the Government of the United States, contrary to the provisions of this act.

APPROVED, August 6, 1861[5]


39 posted on 05/04/2018 4:14:00 PM PDT by OIFVeteran
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry
You callin' Abe Lincoln a liar, lol?

No. "lol"

Are you attempting to claim that there were no slaves in Union-held territory after the conclusion of the Civil War?

No.

So limited and one-dimensional.

Ah, the PeeWee Herman gambit (I know you are but what am I?) How original.

40 posted on 05/04/2018 4:20:21 PM PDT by rockrr ( Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 1,361-1,376 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson