Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: x
After 1863, they would not have been slaves in areas where slaves had been liberated.

Out of curiostity, which areas were those?

76 posted on 01/07/2003 7:45:13 PM PST by thatdewd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies ]


To: thatdewd; x
After 1863, they would not have been slaves in areas where slaves had been liberated

Out of curiostity, which areas were those?.

Let's revisit the so-called emancipaton proclamation, in case you've never read it. It freed slaves only in the states in rebellion, where the federal goverment (Lincoln) had no jurisdiction at the time. Supposing that Mrs. Grant (a slave owner) visit her husband Mr. Grant at his headquarters in various places in the South where he and his troops were raping, burning and pillaging at the time, and supposing she had her slaves with her, because they were not freed but protected by the EP, then upon entering the South, would not Mrs. Grant's slaves have been freed?

Of course, considering that Mrs. Grant's slaves were yankee property..and only southern property was disposed of by Mr. Lincoln...I suppose the jurisdiction confered to the yankee government regardless of where the yankee property was located. Meaning Mrs. Grant, and her slaves, could move about freely on the northern continent as long as her slaves were considered yankee property and said ownership being protected by the United States Constitution.

83 posted on 01/07/2003 8:53:21 PM PST by PistolPaknMama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


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