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

To: DoodleDawg

IOW, it freed nobody, because it only applied where the Confederacy was in control, not the Union. As a practical matter, it did nada. Had he intended to f4ree slaves, he could have easily applied it everywhere, not just in the areas he didn’t control.


280 posted on 06/19/2017 11:29:13 AM PDT by TBP (0bama lies, Granny dies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 254 | View Replies ]


To: TBP
IOW, it freed nobody, because it only applied where the Confederacy was in control, not the Union. As a practical matter, it did nada.

On the contrary, what it meant was that slaves who fled their owners and/or wound up in territory that had been liberated from the Confederate forces could not be returned to their masters as the law required because, wait for it, they weren't slaves anymore.

Had he intended to f4ree slaves, he could have easily applied it everywhere, not just in the areas he didn’t control.

He could not because of that pesky document called the Constitution of the United States of America. Slavery was not outlawed under the Constitution. Lincoln could free the slaves owned by the rebels because the Confiscation Acts gave him the power to seize private property used to further the rebellion. Ending slavery everywhere required an amendment to the Constitution. Look between the 12th Amendment and the 14th Amendment and there is will be.

283 posted on 06/19/2017 11:46:38 AM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 280 | 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