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

To: Aric2000
Yes, the emancipation proclamtion that did NOTHING to free ANY slaves whatsoever, it was nothing but a worthless piece of propaganda. He was hoping that the southern slaves would rise up and revolt and finish the south off for him. It did not work.

The emancipation Proclamation is a WORTHLESS document, it did NOT free one slave in the North, which is where he had power to do that, and there were over 4,500,000 slaves held there. It only released the 3,000,000 held in the south, of which he had no legal authority.

Well, that's not correct either.

Lincoln had no power to affect slavery in the loyal areas of the country. Slavery was a state institution and was clearly protected in the Constitution.

What he DID have the power to do was take a hand in the insurgent areas of the country as commander in chief of the armed forces in time of war. You see, Lincoln read the Constitution more closely than the slave holders did. Oops. If you read the EP, you'll see that it excludes Tennessee entirely and also large parts of Louisiana. That is because federal power was in effect there. It was only in the insurgent areas where Lincolnn could act. And he did.

He wrote a famous letter, which presumabley has escaped your notice. It really sounds as if Lincoln were writing to -you-.

"But to be plain, you are dissatisfied with me about the negro. Quite likely there is a difference of opinion between you and myself upon that subject. I certainly wish that all men could be free, while I suppose that you do not. Yet I have neither adopted nor proposed any measure, which is not consistant even with your view, provided you are for the Union. I suggested compensated emancipation; to which you replied you wished not to be taxed to buy negroes. But I had not asked you to be taxed to buy negroes, except in such way, as to save you from greater expense, to save the Union exclusively by other means. You dislike the emancipatio proclamation; and perhaps, would have it retracted. You say it is unconstitutional--I think differently.

I think the Constitution invests the commander in chief with the law of war, in time of war. The most that can be said, if so much, is, that slaves are property. Is there--has there ever been--any question that by the law of war, property, both of enemies and friends, may be taken when needed? And is it not needed whenever taking it helps us, or hurts the enemy?

....but the proclamation, as law, either is valid, or it is not valid. If it is not valid, it needs no retraction. If it is valid, it can not be retracted, any more than the dead can be brought to life....The war has certainly progressed as favorably for us, since the issue of the proclamation as before. I know as fully as one can know the opinions of others that some of the commanders of our armies in the field who have given us some of most important successes, believe the emancipation policy and the use of colored troops, constitute the heaviest blow yet dealt the rebellion, and that at least one of those important successes could not have been achieved when it was but for the aid of black soldiers....I submit these opinions as being entitled to some weight against the objections, often urged, that emancipation, and arming the blacks, are unwise as military measures, and were not adopted, as such, in good faith. You say you will not fight to free negroes. Some of them seem willing to fight for you; but no matter. Fight you then, exclusively to save the Union... negroes, like other people act upon motives. Why should they do anything for us if we will do nothing for them? If they stake their lives for us, they must be prompted by the strongest motive--even the promise of freedom. And the promise, being made, must be kept....peace does not appear as distant as it did. I hope it will come soon, and come to stay; and so come as to worth the keeping in all future time. It will have then been proved that, among free men, there can be no successful appeal from the ballot to the bullet; and that they who take such appeal are sure to lose their case, and pay the cost. And then, there will be some black men, who can remember that, with silent tongue, and clenched teeth, and steady eye, and well-poised bayonet they have helped mankind on to this great consumation; while, I fear, there will be some white ones, unable to forget that, with malignant heart, and deceitful speech, have strove to hinder it. Still let us not be over-sanguine of a speedy final triumph. Let us be quite sober. Let us dilligently apply the means, never doubting that a just God, in his own good time, will give us the rightful result."

8/24/63

Lincoln outsmarted the salve holders, but then, they were none too bright.

Walt

251 posted on 12/19/2001 11:32:39 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 247 | View Replies ]


To: WhiskeyPapa
Lincoln was a tyrant and a traitor to the constitution, end of story.

Whether you like it or not, the states had a right to secede from the union and still have the right to secede.

Lincoln caused the war by resupplying Sumter and made sure that he did it in such a way that he got the response he was looking for.

He ignored the constitution and took Tyranical powers in order to save the Union, in which the states that seceded had EVERY RIGHT to secede.

He stepped all over the constitution and hundreds of thousands of men died because of his fanatical and illegal actions.

Bottom line: Lincoln was a Tyrant and a Traitor to the constitution.
254 posted on 12/19/2001 11:43:44 AM PST by Aric2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 251 | 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