Tiberius Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 (edited) You're !@#$ing retarded. The Emancipation Proclamation was for European benefit, to discredit the South and prevent the Confederacy's recognition by Europe. It freed exactly NO slaves. It didn't even free slaves in the Northern slave-holding states. The Thirteenth Amendment, on the other hand..."All persons are equal before the law, so that no person can hold another as a slave." That's pretty complete and immediate. Again, those "slaves" in the Union Army were still slaves? Come on Tom! And the ones given 40 acres and a mule before the 13th Amendment? How did the--snicker--EP benefit Europe or benefit in foreign policy with Europe? Edited November 20, 2014 by gatorman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeviF Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 How did the--snicker--EP benefit Europe or benefit in foreign policy with Europe? It didn't benefit European nations, it handcuffed them. Tom was using a different meaning of "benefit." The EP tied abolition, as a goal of war, to the Union and, by extension, tied slavery to the Confederacy. The people of Britain (for example) were none too fond of slavery, so direct support for the Confederacy was no longer an option. The black soldiers in the Union army were free before the EP, so it didn't free them. Slave-holding states in the Union, such as Missouri, Maryland, and Kentucky, were unaffected by the EP. The EP was more a statement of intentions than anything else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 Networks To Snub Speech? The White House is exasperated with the major broadcast networks – ABC, CBS and NBC -- for skipping out on President Barack Obama’s Thursday primetime address on his executive actions on immigration. “In 2006, Bush gave a 17 minute speech that was televised by all three networks that was about deploying 6000 national guard troops to the border. Obama is making a 10 minute speech that will have a vastly greater impact on the issue. And none of the networks are doing it. We can’t believe they were aggrieved that we announced this on Facebook,” a senior administration official told POLITICO. Are they snubbing the President or really helping him with his move ? Will air during Latin Grammys... Dines with Dems to explain; NO REPUBLICANS... . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 You're !@#$ing retarded. The Emancipation Proclamation was for European benefit, to discredit the South and prevent the Confederacy's recognition by Europe. It freed exactly NO slaves. It didn't even free slaves in the Northern slave-holding states. The Thirteenth Amendment, on the other hand..."All persons are equal before the law, so that no person can hold another as a slave." That's pretty complete and immediate. Constitution, schmonstitution. Proclamations are the law of this land. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 It didn't benefit European nations, it handcuffed them. Tom was using a different meaning of "benefit." The EP tied abolition, as a goal of war, to the Union and, by extension, tied slavery to the Confederacy. The people of Britain (for example) were none too fond of slavery, so direct support for the Confederacy was no longer an option. The black soldiers in the Union army were free before the EP, so it didn't free them. Slave-holding states in the Union, such as Missouri, Maryland, and Kentucky, were unaffected by the EP. The EP was more a statement of intentions than anything else. Tom said it freed no one, which is hog wash. Yes, it was about Europe because it freed the slaves and made abolition a war aim. And you are wrong about black soldiers. The majority of blacks in the union army were from the Confederate states and enlisted after the EP was issued. The EP stated that blacks were to be enlisted. General Sherman's field order for forty acres and a mule which gave people recognized as free by the federal government land was issued before the 13th amendment. Were they slaves? What had freed them? The EP had Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeviF Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 Tom said it freed no one, which is hog wash. Yes, it was about Europe because it freed the slaves and made abolition a war aim. And you are wrong about black soldiers. The majority of blacks in the union army were from the Confederate states and enlisted after the EP was issued. The EP stated that blacks were to be enlisted. General Sherman's field order for forty acres and a mule which gave people recognized as free by the federal government land was issued before the 13th amendment. Were they slaves? What had freed them? The EP had What power does a Presidential Proclamation have, exactly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 What power does a Presidential Proclamation have, exactly? In the EP's case, it had zero power over anything outside of the military. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 Tom said it freed no one, which is hog wash. Yes, it was about Europe because it freed the slaves and made abolition a war aim. And you are wrong about black soldiers. The majority of blacks in the union army were from the Confederate states and enlisted after the EP was issued. The EP stated that blacks were to be enlisted. The Emancipation Proclamation did not apply to the Unions states. Read the damn thing, you moron. It specifically says "...all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States..." It didn't apply to any person or organization in the Union, including black Union soldiers. General Sherman's field order for forty acres and a mule which gave people recognized as free by the federal government land was issued before the 13th amendment. Were they slaves? What had freed them? The EP had So now General Sherman freed the slaves? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 The Emancipation Proclamation did not apply to the Unions states. Read the damn thing, you moron. It specifically says "...all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States..." It didn't apply to an person or organization in the Union, including black Union soldiers. So now General Sherman freed the slaves? Union army goes into Confederate state, finds slaves, those slaves end up in union army after Jan 1 1863, are they still slaves? I guess Sherman's army pretty much liberated them with the EP as the justification, yes. You better pick up another shovel and keep digging Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TH3 Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 So some of the illegals living here who haven't gotten deported, probably wouldn't have gotten deported, now officially officially won't get deported....? Which of you posters life is going to change at all at 9PM tonite? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 Union army goes into Confederate state, finds slaves, those slaves end up in union army after Jan 1 1863, are they still slaves? No, they were war contraband. Legally, they were considered slaves, but couldn't be returned to the property owner as required by federal law. Look it up, dumbass. I guess Sherman's army pretty much liberated them with the EP as the justification, yes. Point to where, in Field Order 15, Sherman justifies contraband settlement with the Emancipation Proclamation. Do you know ANYTHING about this subject? At all? Which of you posters life is going to change at all at 9PM tonite? Everyone's. After 9pm, we will have an established principle of being governed by the executive outside the rule of law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 Do you know ANYTHING about this subject? At all? Why would this topic be any different? If the Emancipation Proclamation freed anyone, the 13th Amendment wouldn't have been necessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 Why would this topic be any different? If the Emancipation Proclamation freed anyone, the 13th Amendment wouldn't have been necessary. "But what about black soldiers!" As though Northern blacks were slaves, too. Christ, he's an idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TH3 Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 Don't agree DC - If what POTUS does is not constitutional SCOTUS will review - correct? Or is it more fun to just call it not constitutional? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 Don't agree DC - If what POTUS does is not constitutional SCOTUS will review - correct? Or is it more fun to just call it not constitutional? Incorrect. SCOTUS only reviews what's in cases brought to it. Somebody would have to sue, and - more importantly - would have to have standing to sue. That's why Bush or Gore had to file suit in the 2000 election, and Gitmo detainees had to file cases to enforce habeus corpus, rather than Congresscritters on their behalf. The most a court could do (a Supreme Court justice or a Circuit Court judge) is issue a stay against the executive order, suspending it pending the review of a case. And I'm not positive that could even happen - you'd still need someone to request the stay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 Reminder: The debate over Obama's executive action isn't about immigration, it's about the proper role of the executive in our Republic. I think that I will take page from my liberal brothers................. NO Constitution, NO Peace UPDATE: NBC poll: Executive amnesty is… pretty unpopular with just about everybody. “Shockingly, only 63 percent of Democrats in that survey expressed support for an executive order. Even more surprisingly, that poll found that immigration reform via executive order is not especially popular with even Hispanic voters. Just 43 percent of Hispanics polled support an executive action creating legal status for millions of illegal immigrants while 37 percent disapprove.” . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 Interesting: Obama is sowing GOP discontent on immigration. That's leadership! http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/11/obama-executive-action-deportation-immigration-112998.html#.VG4cv1fF_DU No, they were war contraband. Legally, they were considered slaves, but couldn't be returned to the property owner as required by federal law. Look it up, dumbass. Point to where, in Field Order 15, Sherman justifies contraband settlement with the Emancipation Proclamation. Do you know ANYTHING about this subject? At all? Everyone's. After 9pm, we will have an established principle of being governed by the executive outside the rule of law. You are so full of it. After the EP anywhere the stars and stripes appeared in the rebellious states the slaves were forever free. Period! But keep digging! You really are looking crazy here though. You need to learn to cut your losses and admit defeat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 Interesting: Obama is sowing GOP discontent on immigration. That's leadership! http://www.politico....ml#.VG4cv1fF_DU Of the party, but not of the country. That's the !@#$ing problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 Tom said it freed no one, which is hog wash. Yes, it was about Europe because it freed the slaves and made abolition a war aim. And you are wrong about black soldiers. The majority of blacks in the union army were from the Confederate states and enlisted after the EP was issued. The EP stated that blacks were to be enlisted. General Sherman's field order for forty acres and a mule which gave people recognized as free by the federal government land was issued before the 13th amendment. Were they slaves? What had freed them? The EP had If the Emancipation Proclaimation freeded the slaves, why did we bother to pass the 13th Amendment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 Why would this topic be any different? If the Emancipation Proclamation freed anyone, the 13th Amendment wouldn't have been necessary. Not true. Surprised you chimed in on a subject that required knowledge deeper than a coloring book, but the 13th amendment was necessary because of 1) The border state slaves which were not included in the EP and 2) the potential court challanges that were sure to follow. Of the party, but not of the country. That's the !@#$ing problem. Take a chill pill, breath in a paper bag. Its going to be ok... If the Emancipation Proclaimation freeded the slaves, why did we bother to pass the 13th Amendment? See my reply to Darin. I'll also add, the 13th Amendment even needed backing up by the 14th amendment because the southern states started passing black codes which basically re-enslaved them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 Interesting: Obama is sowing GOP discontent on immigration. That's leadership! http://www.politico....ml#.VG4cv1fF_DU Only a devout follower of Obama would consider that leadership. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 Only a devout follower of Obama would consider that leadership. I was going to say dipshit...but same thing, really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 Not true. Surprised you chimed in on a subject that required knowledge deeper than a coloring book, but the 13th amendment was necessary because of 1) The border state slaves which were not included in the EP and 2) the potential court challanges that were sure to follow. Take a chill pill, breath in a paper bag. Its going to be ok... See my reply to Darin. I'll also add, the 13th Amendment even needed backing up by the 14th amendment because the southern states started passing black codes which basically re-enslaved them. So... The 13th Amendment was necessary because of the expectation of Court challenges which would state that the EP didn't actually set anyone free? You do understand that you're making my agrument now, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 So... The 13th Amendment was necessary because of the expectation of Court challenges which would state that the EP didn't actually set anyone free? You do understand that you're making my agrument now, right? Nope. In a legal system that had just recently made the Dred Scott decision, a ruling that the EP was unconstitutional was inevitable. That's all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 (edited) Nope. In a legal system that had just recently made the Dred Scott decision, a ruling that the EP was unconstitutional was inevitable. That's all So it was inevitable that the Court would rule that the Emancipation Proclamation didn't actually set anyone free? I'm pretty sure I win now. Yup. I win. Edited November 20, 2014 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 So it was inevitable that the Court would rule that the Emancipation Proclamation didn't actually set anyone free? It was inevitable that a pro-slavery judge would say the president couldn't take people's property away Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 You do understand that you're making my agrument now, right? Of course he doesn't... It was inevitable that a pro-slavery judge would say the president couldn't take people's property away Because the law said the president couldn't. So the legislative process needed to be followed to change the law so that a judge wouldn't overturn the executive declaration that violated federal law? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 Because the law said the president couldn't. So the legislative process needed to be followed to change the law so that a judge wouldn't overturn the executive declaration that violated federal law? That violated the law according to a pro-slavery judge! An anti-slavery judge could have ruled the opposite. Now, I'll give you this because I'm sure you wouldn't get it on your own: Lincoln felt he couldn't do this, except under the military necessity. He accepted--this one time--the south's arguments that they were a separate nation--even while saying they were not. So in taking a foreign nation's property he felt legally able to that, even while saying they were not a foreign nation. All that meant was the legal challanges were sure to come. Still, the slaves freed in 1863, 1864 and early 1865 stayed forever free. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 That violated the law according to a pro-slavery judge! An anti-slavery judge could have ruled the opposite. You're an idiot. The law said that slaves were property, and the federal government had to treat them as such, until the 13th Amendment was passed. Now, I'll give you this because I'm sure you wouldn't get it on your own: Lincoln felt he couldn't do this, except under the military necessity. He accepted--this one time--the south's arguments that they were a separate nation--even while saying they were not. So in taking a foreign nation's property he felt legally able to that, even while saying they were not a foreign nation. All that meant was the legal challanges were sure to come. Still, the slaves freed in 1863, 1864 and early 1865 stayed forever free. Yes, they were a foreign nation's property, under US law. That's why they weren't free, they were CONTRABAND, you !@#$ing moron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TH3 Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 Obamacare = End of the Republic Immigration Policy = End of Republic Yawn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 Yawn That's how we feel when you post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 Gator, if you're willing, how old are you? You can ballpark it if you don't want to disclose the actual number. I'm just curious and mean no offense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 Gator, if you're willing, how old are you? You can ballpark it if you don't want to disclose the actual number. I'm just curious and mean no offense. You're in the wrong forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 You're in the wrong forum. :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 Gator, if you're willing, how old are you? You can ballpark it if you don't want to disclose the actual number. I'm just curious and mean no offense. 47 Years young Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 47 Years young Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 Obamacare = End of the Republic Immigration Policy = End of Republic Yawn So incremental erosion of separation of powers is no big deal unless it's going to be the "end of the republic" within 2-4 years? You're either a monarchist or a moron. My guess is both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 47 Years young bull ****. You would have learned something after almost 50 years, even by accident. Obamacare = End of the Republic Immigration Policy = End of Republic Yawn Yes, and they're built on the precedent of Bush's signing statements, which were unconstitutional. And the next Republican president will take Obama's precedent a step further, and you'll B word and moan about how unconstitutional it is, because you're a hypocrite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 You're an idiot. The law said that slaves were property, and the federal government had to treat them as such, until the 13th Amendment was passed. Yes, they were a foreign nation's property, under US law. That's why they weren't free, they were CONTRABAND, you !@#$ing moron. Oh yes, I forgot how they were tagged and stored in warehouses bull ****. You would have learned something after almost 50 years, even by accident. . Like self control of my emotions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 Nothing that Obama has done yet will anger me more than what he may announce tonight and how he has handled borders and immigration. Deplorable. Party over county, again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts