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.
Perhaps an editorial in an opposition newspaper in the United States. But then, they were locked up about the time the famed constitutional attorney suspended the writ of habeas corpus.
Emphasis added above. Now the claim is being made that Lincoln, at some point, decided to use the war to end slavery because of moral and perhaps religious beliefs, not just military necessity as others have claimed. If true - and there is evidence to support the claim - Lincoln was using the military to violently overthrow the pro-slavery U.S. constitution (with an eye toward tidying things up with a constitutional amendment after the war.)
The first thing pro-war advocates should learn is to never, never admit Lincoln used the military to violently overthrow the pro-slavery U.S. constitution.
What effect did the proposed 13th Amendment have during the Civil War and what effect did it have for slaves in Union states after the conclusion of the war? None, not until passage. Why didn't the virtuous Union pass the 13th Amendment itself? They were afraid to upset the Union slave states.
Well, PeeWee, you're to be expected to confuse the District of Columbia with a US State. You're also to be expected to believe that you've scored some sort of "gotcha" when all you've really done is to highlight the fact that slaves were commonplace in Washington, DC up to and even after the beginning of the Civil War, when your putative "slavocracy" was no longer present in those hallowed halls. One might think, absent your "slavocracy," that there would be no slaves left in Washington DC, but yet there they were.
Lincoln also used the Military to violently overthrow the even more pro slavery Constitution of the Confederate States of America.
It might be useful to ponder Amendments and legislation passed with the aid of what was essentially an imposed, occupation government in the south. Representative of the will of the people?
Gee PeeWee, one might think you spew crap without thinking. One would be correct. In your post #34 you falsely declared, "The Union made no Federal effort to free Union slaves." You have just been treated to two examples of "The Union" making "Federal efforts" to "free Union slaves" (I'll give you time to sound the words out).
No one claimed that there weren't any slaves left in the north - that's a strawman of your own pitiful design. But if you truly believe that the north had taken no steps to end slavery then you're an even bigger fool than people claim.
A defeated country should expect to be ruled by those that defeated them. Did the Constitutions we imposed on the defeated Japanese and defeated Germans reflect the will of those people. No different than the defeated South. The victor imposes the terms of the peace. That is a consequence of losing a war.
When pinned down, you'll speak truth but you're in service to the big propaganda lie, that the 13th Amendment was passed due to mean old southerners denying black people their citizenship rights when in fact there were still legal slaves in Union territories right up to the passage of that Amendment.
You're also in service to the big lie that the Union fought the Civil War to free the slaves, every one of your points goes to reinforcing that impression even though I've forced you to admit that the Union did not enter the Civil War to free the slaves.
There were over 450,000 slaves in Union Territories according to the Census of 1860. They were never freed en masse until the US Constitution was amended, the Emancipation Proclamation had no effect upon them.
Some attempt to claim that the legal authority of the Emancipation Proclamation was only valid in states in rebellion, the states attempting to secede, the slave states that Abraham Lincoln and the Union were so desperate to keep as part of the United States.
I fail to see how this was ever rationalized as "freeing the slaves" when it was, in fact, viewed as the confiscation of property under the law of that time. Property. Slaves. Property=Slaves.
Only that you're FOS. "lol"
Forced me?! You flatter yourself dipshyt.
I didn’t claim otherwise. I did, however, point out that it might be useful to ponder the impact of Amendments and legislation passed with the aid of imposed, military occupation Reconstruction governments in the south.
Calm down PeeWee, you’re wetting yourself.
Anyone who cares to go back up the thread and review this discussion will see that I forced you to say that the Union did not enter the Civil War to free the slaves. Spare us your crudity.
Why?
Am I right or what?
(see post 7).
LOL
Yes indeed - you hit it square on the head ;’}
Plenty of slaves were freed before that. But a eight month wait for the amendment to be ratified versus what could have been an eighty year wait if the Confederates won doesn't reflect badly on the Union.
wouldn’t argue your point. Could easily see Southern states with slavery into the 20th century, if the war had ended differently.
Given their investment, both in chattel property and in ideology, combined with their petulance and pride, I totally agree with you - they would have hung on to the bitter end (just like they did).
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.