Posted on 02/02/2015 7:36:34 PM PST by rockrr
Some 150 years since Abraham Lincoln outlawed slavery in the U.S., a collection of rare Civil War-era photographs have been brought to life through painstaking colorization.
February 1 marks National Freedom Day, honoring the signing by President Lincoln of a resolution which became the 13th Amendment to the Constitution and abolished slavery.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Actually the Emancipation Proclamation did facilitate a massive slave rebellion, as slaves walked off their plantations and joined the United States Army, taking up arms against their previous owners.
I'm currently into an eye-opening book about southern US slavery. The biographic main character is a slave named Robert Smalls. The book title is "Yearning to breathe free" by Andrew Billingsley and ... it's a terrific read.
I was thinking the exact same thing. I’ve seen professional colorizations, these aren’t them...
“Persons NOT being “People.””
That sounds like a distinction without a difference. What’s your point?
People looked rather different back then. Less genetic intermingling I suppose.
You might want to read “Weevils in the Wheat: Interviews with Virginia Ex-slaves”. It’s a collection of interviews done in the 1930s. First hand accounts of their memories of slavery.
That’s what I’ve heard historians say. Lincoln had a high pitched, almost ‘nasal’ type voice. He’s certainly the ugliest president we’ve ever had.
Guess he had the big beard and hat to cover up most of his head. lol
“Actually the Emancipation Proclamation did facilitate a massive slave rebellion, as slaves walked off their plantations and joined the United States Army, taking up arms against their previous owners.”
That’s the argument of Steven Hahn at the University of Pennsylvania. He’s pretty much alone in that position as he’s just rebadging the US Colored Troops with a label of ‘slave rebellion’ to make his case.
No it did not. It emancipated zero. He had no jurisdiction in the South because the South had severed ties with the Union. It was another country. Why didn't he also free the slaves held by the Yankees in the north?
I already answered your second question in my post #7 - emancipation required an amendment to the Constitution.
And yes, the Emancipation Proclamation both symbolically and effectively freed slaves in the rebellious states.
No you didn’t answer my question. Emancipation did not require an amendment, obviously. Lincoln could just declare it so. And this was back before pens and cell phones. If he could just make a declaration that applied to another country, why didn’t he make that same declaration in his own country?
Besides the slaves who joined the army fighting against their former masters, there was even more who simply stopped working in the absence of white owners and overseers, disrupting the southern economy. This is the main reason the confederate congress enacted the wildly unpopular measure of exempting large slaveholders from conscription. This sort of slave rebellion happened at Jefferson Davis’ own plantation where they armed themselves and drove off a confederate cavalry force sent by Davis to take the place back.
Bflr.
"Not" is never without difference. "People" are the unincorporated human beings of the preamble of the Constitution who have God-given rights.
"Persons" are incorporated "individuals" who have government granted privileges.
So technically, all Lincoln did was assert federal ownership over State-authorized slaves, thus "freeing" them from their slavery under State law by transferring them to federal control.
But he did nothing for an already free people.
Except perhaps start to confuse this extraordinarily important distinction, which was then buried into normalization (but not changed) in the 13th and especially the 14th Amendments - and remains little known by the public to this day.
You’re right; that one’s excellent. What site is it from? Thanks!
Lincoln could declare emancipation in those areas in rebellion in his role as commander in chief. Areas not in rebellion were not subject to orders made in that capacity. That would require a constitutional amendment, something he worked for but was blocked from getting through congress until after the 1864 election made enough democrats lame ducks that they allowed the measure to pass.
If he could just make a declaration that applied to another country, why didn’t he make that same declaration in his own country?
I swear, you people complain that Lincoln was a dictator, then you complain that he wasn't more dictatorial. Oh, and just saying that you're a different country doesn't make it so.
Wow. Puts it in a whole different perspective.
and they all wore blush for the photograph
Lincoln is a damn sight better looking than the metrosexual queer currently stinking up The White House. Abe could split rails and was a good wrestler when he was young. Obama couldn’t punch his way out of a paper bag.
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.