Posted on 08/14/2018 5:54:38 PM PDT by Kaslin
I thought it was in New Mexico?
“Lincoln’s proclamation only freed SOUTHERN slaves.”
It did not do that at the time it was written, the war was still being fought, it had no more real effect than if Harry Truman, during WWII, had written a proclamation that Hitler’s soldiers could not eat black forest ham.
Slavery in New Mexico was legal from 1850 with the Compromise of 1850 through 1862, when Congress banned slavery in the territories.
Despite being illegal, it was widely and openly practiced under Spanish and Mexican rule, and under American rule until the Peonage Act of 1867.
Today, slavery exists in the form of human trafficking.
when are we going to get over it?
Irrespective of the issue of slavery, the natural rights of man include their right to voluntarily dissociate themselves from a government with which they disagree.
The conundrum has always been that Lincoln forced upon the South that which George III would have forced upon the colonies.
It is a profound and existential question-which the issue of the legitimate conflict over slavery is used to obscure
Oh for crying out loud the f**king war is over. Enough already. The South lost.
Of course Jeff Davis and his merry band of insurrectionists no more agreed with the right of certain southerners to dissociate themselves from the confederacy than Lincoln did with the secesh trying to split the union. Neither did southerners believe in the right to secede thirty years before during the Nullification Crises.
The present anti-American, anti-historic- commotion is a contrived attack on the American Future, and should be recognized as such: War On An American Future
As a matter of historic perspective, non-slave owners in the South supported the Confederate cause, because it was prompted not by a differing of opinions over a Biblical/Feudal type labor system, but by the collapse of mutual respect between the States. If you read the Constitution carefully, you will see that it leaves judgments on moral & philosophic issues almost entirely to the States & local communities. Clearly it was not appropriate, in the spirit of the Constitution for the people of the States to be passing insulting moral judgments on each other.
This is not to say there was anything wrong with a civil discussion of philosophic differences--but the discussion had become most uncivil, increasingly making a mockery out of a consensual Federal Union. For how the discussion could have remained civil, consider Daniel Webster's most memorable address: Webster Address
And Kentucky.
At the beginning of the war there were about 100 slaves in Delaware. When were they freed?
December 1865 with the ratification of the 13th Amendment.
Lee would be outraged by these idiots pretensions to speak for anyone from the South.
He would (being a righteous and humble man) tell the cities to take his statues down and not give the Lunatics a target.
There is no shortage of information about the North’s racism.
NO ONE disputes this (except those looking for anything to justify “The Noble Cause.)
You cannot ignore the facts that all these states had made slavery illegal (except the Border States) and it cost the Union 600,000 lives in getting rid of it.
This washes away any guilt about prior slavery.
Todays’s Leftists have been complaining about Lincoln’s racism for decades.
bkmrk
There were examples of the soldiers acting as pall bears for a soldier from the other side.
To me this shows the mutual respect the opponents had for each other (also shown by the fraternization during the war when battles paused) and that they realized they had been a part of something of great historic importance.
I think I will re-read 1984.
It had a big effect and that was why the slavers were outraged. It covered all states then in rebellion as a MILITARY tool to cripple the Rebellion’s economy and cut down on it’s military power.
The exodus of slaves from the plantations sped up to the point that the crowds of escapees was so large that they were bogging down the Union army’s advance.
Except that they didn’t go to war to get rid of slavery. In fact they offered slavery forever by express constitutional amendment. and yes Lincoln was a flaming racist in addition to being a tyrant.
The Left is mighty selective about their outrage and historical revisionism.
There was no Union if states could leave without a Constitutional amendment. Check the meaning of “union.”
Nor was there any “state rights” in question other than the preservation of slavery which isn’t a “right” at all.
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.