Replies

The risk we take when trying to reduce a complex issue down into sound-bytes is inaccurately conveying the essence of the truth.

We know (or should know) that the Emancipation Proclamation was not intended to emancipate all blacks everywhere. I won’t insult your intelligence by asking if you’ve actually read the proclamation, but a quick review would show us that the Proclamation was rather precise in describing the specific affected areas. The area in question comprised of the states in rebellion.

The symbolic and effective consequence of this proclamation was the immediate freeing of some 55,000 slaves and more as the union troops encountered them. The net effect was that remaining slaves virtually everywhere in America were freed.

The task of complete emancipation of blacks nationwide was undertaken and achieved through the 13th Amendment.

There is no revisionism at play here. Why persist in such nit-pickery?

The task of complete emancipation of blacks nationwide was undertaken and achieved through the 13th Amendment.

If the slaves were free, why the need for an Amendment?

There is no revisionism at play here. Why persist in such nit-pickery?

That the 13th Amendment freed the slaves, not Lincoln's war Procolmation, is history as it is.

The net effect was that remaining slaves virtually everywhere in America were freed.

Disputing such statements is not nit-picking. Most approximate the actual number of "freed" around 50,000. About 200,000 fought for the union (whether "free" or "confiscated"). Between the end of the war and the 13th amendment, had the EP expired upon "peace", you maaaay be able to stretch that 200K figure out as the "freed" number. Seeing how quoting a number like 4mil for the EPs effect is 95% inaccurate, some may call it revisionism.