Posted on 06/13/2020 12:25:07 PM PDT by robowombat
The word emancipation means “the freeing of someone from slavery.” That could be a reference to Lincoln's proclamation, true; it could also be a reference to the 13th amendment as finally adopted.
I wasn't sure so I asked. I didn't think there would be anything wrong in asking a question.
Yeah? Too bad he’s dead.
I heard that too. I fear when the blue state culture gets a head of stream WWII memorials will be removed along with references to Lincoln, Grant, Sherman, Chivington, et al.
They enshrined it by not even using the word. That’s an interesting way of enshrining it. Here’s James Madison explaining why they didn’t use the word.
“The Convention thought it wrong to admit in the Constitution the idea that there could be property in men.”
James Madison Records of the Convention, August 25, 1787
Compare that to the southern rebels you seem to worship. They used the word proudly and openly.
Maybe the understood the futility of such an Amendment with the number of slave states in the United States at that time. Why no amendment of remove the 2nd Amendment. An ideal of all of the Democrats. Why not a Constitutional amendment to make abortion illegal in the United States? A lot of folks think that would be a good idea. The parties involved recognize it aint going to happen, why waste the time.
That is an interesting comment. And brings to mind what President Lincoln said in his first inaugural address:
“There is much controversy about the delivering up of fugitives from service or labor. The clause I now read is as plainly written in the Constitution as any other of its provisions:
“No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall in consequence of any law or regulation therein be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.
“It is scarcely questioned that this provision was intended by those who made it for the reclaiming of what we call fugitive slaves; and the intention of the lawgiver is the law.”
President Lincoln - and those that drafted the final version of the 13th amendment - knew slavery was included in the United States Constitution. Remind me of your purpose in denying it?
And a dictator elected twice by the citizens of the United States.
I think I see your point. The abolitionist didn't have the votes to legally, constitutionally, peacefully abolish slavery.
They never even tried to do it peacefully.
What they needed was a pretext for war, which President Lincoln found in the Gulf of Tonkin incident.
I meant to say the Fort Sumter incident.
This outdated, never should have been created statue is a stark image of African pain, hurt and oppression,”
+++++++++++
Doesn’t this statue starkly represent what the Great Emancipator accomplished? Objections to this are kind of like objections to the crucifix. It shows Christ as dead, but the faithful know he didn’t stay dead. The slave was humiliated and shackled, but he didn’t stay that way.
This is incorrect.
After January 1 1863, any slaves in the states in rebellion were legally Free men. Now, they still had to go to work every morning for the overseer. Once the men in blue coat arrive, these people were free to do as they chose. The Emancipation Proclamation freed over 3.5 million slaves before the war ended. By the end of the war, the only legal slaves in the country lived in Kentucky and Delaware, and those areas of the South that were exempt by the Emancipation Proclamation. Some estimate the total number to be about 800,000.
Do the Democrats have the votes for an Amendment to void the Second Amendment?
They likely have five votes on the U.S. Supreme Court, which they can shove down our throats without the Democrats ever leaving the comforts of home. Or stoop. Or street. Or the electronix department of whatever big box store they happen to be looting.
“knew slavery was included in the United States Constitution”
The existence of slavery was acknowledged in the Constitution
Hence the 3/5ths clause and the fugitive slave clause. However, Unlike the Constitution of the Confederacy, under the United States Constitution, a state could choose to permit slavery or outlaw slavery in the state. By 1860, 18 states had chosen to make slavery illegal.
Racist Democrats are still passed at Lincoln for freeing their slaves
pissed
From my memory, the Massachusetts 54th were the first "colored" troops of the war. I decided to check when they were formed. March of 1863. Yup, that's *AFTER* the "Emancipation Proclamation."
They weren't part of the original Union forces and do not represent the expression of Union will when the war began. They, and the other 110 thousand you mentioned were recruited precisely because of their desire to see slavery ended, to tap a source of fresh manpower and to help ameliorate the losses of the regular troops.
But they weren't wanted at all at the beginning of the war, and this is where the "motive" part comes in. You can't claim a "motive" for going to war that didn't exist when the conflict was started. That is a "bait and switch" con.
Also I'm clearly referring to the movers and directors of this war, you know, the people who actually make the decisions in war. I wasn't referring to the rank and file, but I will say that of the rank and file, the vast majority of them did not give a sh*t about slavery until they were ordered to do so by their superiors, which happened about 18 months later mostly.
The President speaks, everyone salutes.
Yes it was a war time measure. Lincoln was very concerned about it as the war was drawing to a close.
The term “Contraband of War” was useful prior to the Proclamation. it answered the question “what was the legal status of slaves that came under Union control as the armies advanced. As contraband, they didn’t have to be returned to their Confederate masters, because they would be used to further the Confederate war effort. After January 1 1863, they were no longer slaves withheld as contraband, they were free men. The Constitution require slaves be returned to their master, there is no such provision for “ex-slaves.” Anything that interfered with slavery aided the North and was a detriment to the Confederacy. Without slaves, the Confederacy would have folded in a year or so after the shooting started. The Proclaimation did not apply to the slave states that remained in the Union and those areas under occupation by the Union Army as of 1 January 1863, because Lincoln recognized that he had no Constitutional authority to outlaw slavery in those areas.
Your claim does not support your implied purpose. The Lincoln Douglas debates do not prove the Union went to war to stop slavery, which is what you are trying to suggest it does.
Lincoln's support of the Corwin Amendment proves they didn't.
And I don't mean "slightly proves". It absolutely and unequivocally proves that slavery had absolutely nothing to do with the reasons why Abraham Lincoln launched an invasion into the Southern states to subjugate them.
You cannot claim on the one had that a man would urge and support, even to the extent of having his own Secretary of State, working hard to get this amendment passed, an amendment that guarantees slavery permanently and indefinitely, and then claim on the other hand that he launched a war to stop the very thing he was trying to protect earlier.
Also there are his own words to Horace Greeley where he explicitly says he would free no slaves at all if he thought it would preserve the Union.
Don't talk to me about ignorance of historically relevant information.
Paraphrasing and elaborating upon my previous reply in no way refutes it.
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.