Tiberius Posted May 31, 2017 Author Share Posted May 31, 2017 The EP freed no one. It was a speech. Slaves in the North were still slaves, because the Emancipation Proclamation didn't apply to the Union. Slaves in the South were still slaves, because Lincoln had no legal or practical authority over the South (which is the entire reason the Civil War was fought). Slaves in portions of the South occupied by the Union Army were legally contraband - i.e., property - in line with federal law and Dred Scott. Lee, on the other hand, emancipated as many as 200 slaves from the Custis estates. No, where ever the Union army went in the South after the EP meant those slaves were freed. You might be right if the EP was frozen in time of Jan 1 1863, but it wasn't, time moved on and slaves were freed and joined the union army, were given land and rights. Lincoln the great Emancipator! Oh ya, he also was a driving force to pass the 13th Amendment which...well, you know what it did Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted May 31, 2017 Share Posted May 31, 2017 Lincoln freed many slaves and pushed to have them all freed. The EP did free and then allowed to enlist those former slaves into the army. The Great Emancipator! And the Great Emancipator wanted to deport them all once they were freed. Racist bastard. Take down his statues!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 31, 2017 Share Posted May 31, 2017 No, where ever the Union army went in the South after the EP meant those slaves were freed. No, it didn't. By an act of Congress (the Confiscation Acts), escaped slaves and slaves freed by Union forces were legally contraband and property of the United States Army. And when generals of said army tried to free the slaves under their own commands, their orders to free the slaves were countermanded by Lincoln himself. Those are historical facts. You can look them up. Lincoln not only didn't emancipate any slaves, he countermanded the emancipation of slaves that were property of the Union Army. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted May 31, 2017 Share Posted May 31, 2017 Interesting reading about the Emancipation Proclamation. It was an executive order signed solely for military reasons and did not apply to the slaves in border states. DC Tom is correct in that since the south didn't recognize our federal government, they didn't feel compelled to comply and didn't free any slaves as a result. But that cuts both ways as our government didn't recognize the CSA and by that measure the proclamation freed every slave in the non border states on paper, if not in practicality. I would suggest to others that they need to research ALL of Lincoln's positions regarding slavery and not settle for bits and pieces taken out of context. Revisionist history has become a cottage industry and is most often inaccurate. I'll just say that his position evolved over time and, while he always objected to slavery on moral grounds, he was conflicted on the legal question as it was sanctioned in the Constitution, which he revered above all else. He was also politically expedient on the issue as well at times. As to being a racist, I don't think so, but he saw the equal coexistence of blacks and whites as impractical on a macro level in the US, given our history. While he was an earlier advocate of the black colonization movement in his younger years, towards the end he advocated voting rights for blacks that served in the military and he favored a colony within the US vs. Africa. There's a lot of material available from those around at the time and it paints a pretty clear picture when taken in full. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted May 31, 2017 Share Posted May 31, 2017 It's possible to grasp Lincoln's various options and paths without a totally exhaustive review of them. We will never fathom them, not lose appreciation for the decisions he was forced to make in so short a span of time under the conditions facing him. He is one of the most worthy candidates for biographical and historical study that the US has produced. I know the Clintons think they are more worthy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 31, 2017 Share Posted May 31, 2017 Interesting reading about the Emancipation Proclamation. It was an executive order signed solely for military reasons and did not apply to the slaves in border states. DC Tom is correct in that since the south didn't recognize our federal government, they didn't feel compelled to comply and didn't free any slaves as a result. But that cuts both ways as our government didn't recognize the CSA and by that measure the proclamation freed every slave in the non border states on paper, if not in practicality. I would suggest to others that they need to research ALL of Lincoln's positions regarding slavery and not settle for bits and pieces taken out of context. Revisionist history has become a cottage industry and is most often inaccurate. I'll just say that his position evolved over time and, while he always objected to slavery on moral grounds, he was conflicted on the legal question as it was sanctioned in the Constitution, which he revered above all else. He was also politically expedient on the issue as well at times. As to being a racist, I don't think so, but he saw the equal coexistence of blacks and whites as impractical on a macro level in the US, given our history. While he was an earlier advocate of the black colonization movement in his younger years, towards the end he advocated voting rights for blacks that served in the military and he favored a colony within the US vs. Africa. There's a lot of material available from those around at the time and it paints a pretty clear picture when taken in full. All very true. It's too easy to cherry-pick whatever you want...and in this current day and age, nuance is almost forbidden (e.g. yes, Lee freed slaves. Because he owned them, as executor of his father-in-law's estate. And yes, he was against slavery on moral grounds...but for it in the near-term, on practical grounds, because he thought precipitate wholesale emancipation was itself immoral, and it had to be a gradual process to benefit all races. But you can't say that because...Lee, Confederate, evil!) One point I'd debate: the Emancipation Proclamation was not an executive order for military reasons, it was a political statement for reasons of international relations. European nations were generally pro-Confederacy, but Britain was in particular because of their textile industry (the Union blockade caused something of an economic crisis in England, cutting cotton shipments drastically and idling textile mills. It's why "Egyptian Cotton" is now a thing - Brits started the Egyptian cotton industry to reduce dependence on Confederate cotton.) The Emancipation Proclamation, coming after the Confederate defeat at Antietam and playing to England's strong abolitionist sensibilities, was intended more than anything else to keep European countries from recognizing Southern independence, something that was very close to happening. The Emancipation Proclamation may not have freed a single slave. It did, however, doom the South to defeat by politically and economically isolating them, which was arguably a much bigger deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted May 31, 2017 Author Share Posted May 31, 2017 No, it didn't. By an act of Congress (the Confiscation Acts), escaped slaves and slaves freed by Union forces were legally contraband and property of the United States Army. And when generals of said army tried to free the slaves under their own commands, their orders to free the slaves were countermanded by Lincoln himself. Those are historical facts. You can look them up. Lincoln not only didn't emancipate any slaves, he countermanded the emancipation of slaves that were property of the Union Army. Yawn, that countermanding took place before the EP. I don't need to look up that stuff, I just know it. After the EP wherever the victorious Stars and Stripes appeared the slaves were freed. And the 13th amendment thing Lincoln as leader of the Republican Party pushed through and all... Interesting reading about the Emancipation Proclamation. It was an executive order signed solely for military reasons and did not apply to the slaves in border states. DC Tom is correct in that since the south didn't recognize our federal government, they didn't feel compelled to comply and didn't free any slaves as a result. But that cuts both ways as our government didn't recognize the CSA and by that measure the proclamation freed every slave in the non border states on paper, if not in practicality. I would suggest to others that they need to research ALL of Lincoln's positions regarding slavery and not settle for bits and pieces taken out of context. Revisionist history has become a cottage industry and is most often inaccurate. I'll just say that his position evolved over time and, while he always objected to slavery on moral grounds, he was conflicted on the legal question as it was sanctioned in the Constitution, which he revered above all else. He was also politically expedient on the issue as well at times. As to being a racist, I don't think so, but he saw the equal coexistence of blacks and whites as impractical on a macro level in the US, given our history. While he was an earlier advocate of the black colonization movement in his younger years, towards the end he advocated voting rights for blacks that served in the military and he favored a colony within the US vs. Africa. There's a lot of material available from those around at the time and it paints a pretty clear picture when taken in full. Why are you guys acting like the EP was passed and that was it? Of course the army had to win the war. Who were all the people following Shermans army through Georgia? Slaves we temporary passes? All very true. It's too easy to cherry-pick whatever you want...and in this current day and age, nuance is almost forbidden (e.g. yes, Lee freed slaves. Because he owned them, as executor of his father-in-law's estate. And yes, he was against slavery on moral grounds...but for it in the near-term, on practical grounds, because he thought precipitate wholesale emancipation was itself immoral, and it had to be a gradual process to benefit all races. But you can't say that because...Lee, Confederate, evil!) One point I'd debate: the Emancipation Proclamation was not an executive order for military reasons, it was a political statement for reasons of international relations. European nations were generally pro-Confederacy, but Britain was in particular because of their textile industry (the Union blockade caused something of an economic crisis in England, cutting cotton shipments drastically and idling textile mills. It's why "Egyptian Cotton" is now a thing - Brits started the Egyptian cotton industry to reduce dependence on Confederate cotton.) The Emancipation Proclamation, coming after the Confederate defeat at Antietam and playing to England's strong abolitionist sensibilities, was intended more than anything else to keep European countries from recognizing Southern independence, something that was very close to happening. The Emancipation Proclamation may not have freed a single slave. It did, however, doom the South to defeat by politically and economically isolating them, which was arguably a much bigger deal. Good points but there was a major military aspect of the EP also as it allowed for black soldiers to join the Union army something those confiscation acts you mentioned didn't allow. And without those troops the Union probably would not have won on the battlefield Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 31, 2017 Share Posted May 31, 2017 [For those of you with gatorman on ignore, ridiculous verbiage removed courtesy of DC Tom-bot, beta version 0.10. You're welcome.] [This is an automated response.] Created by DC Tom-bot, beta version 0.10. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted May 31, 2017 Author Share Posted May 31, 2017 [This is an automated response.] Created by DC Tom-bot, beta version 0.10. Gotcha!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted May 31, 2017 Share Posted May 31, 2017 Yawn, that countermanding took place before the EP. I don't need to look up that stuff, I just know it. After the EP wherever the victorious Stars and Stripes appeared the slaves were freed. And the 13th amendment thing Lincoln as leader of the Republican Party pushed through and all... Why are you guys acting like the EP was passed and that was it? Of course the army had to win the war. Who were all the people following Shermans army through Georgia? Slaves we temporary passes? Good points but there was a major military aspect of the EP also as it allowed for black soldiers to join the Union army something those confiscation acts you mentioned didn't allow. And without those troops the Union probably would not have won on the battlefield Care to address my point about Lincoln wanting to deport all the slaves once freed? Can't have those dirty darkies living amongst us now can we. Racist bastard that Lincoln. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted May 31, 2017 Author Share Posted May 31, 2017 And the Great Emancipator wanted to deport them all once they were freed. Racist bastard. Take down his statues!!! It thought about it and then decided against it. But so did many blacks. Paul Cuffee began the American Colonization Society, he was black. The creator of Buffalo harbor, Judge Wilkeson, also mayor of Buffalo, was president f the society for awhile. It wasn't racist, it was a reaction to the racism Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted May 31, 2017 Share Posted May 31, 2017 ... Why are you guys acting like the EP was passed and that was it? Of course the army had to win the war. Who were all the people following Shermans army through Georgia? Slaves we temporary passes? ... Please leave my blurb about the EP out of it. In no way, shape, or form had my post suggested "that was it." You raise an interesting point about Sherman's march and the liberated slaves that joined it. It was argued that Sherman was enforcing the president's executive order by liberating them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted May 31, 2017 Share Posted May 31, 2017 It thought about it and then decided against it. But so did many blacks. Paul Cuffee began the American Colonization Society, he was black. The creator of Buffalo harbor, Judge Wilkeson, also mayor of Buffalo, was president f the society for awhile. It wasn't racist, it was a reaction to the racism So because this form of racism was supported by blacks it's ok. Is that what you're going with? The ACS wanted to ship them back to their homeland. Lincoln? !@#$ that!! Stick them on an island in the Caribbean where they can harvest sugarcane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted May 31, 2017 Share Posted May 31, 2017 Care to address my point about Lincoln wanting to deport all the slaves once freed? Can't have those dirty darkies living amongst us now can we. Racist bastard that Lincoln. That is a revisionist take based on Lincoln's earlier advocacy of the of the Black Colonization Movement. Like I said, his position on slavery and blacks evolved over the course of his career and most of these revisionist takes are based on comments from speeches, letters, and debates taken out of context, especially before he became president. Bottom line is he believed blacks should be free to seek their own pursuits of happiness and rewarded based on their merits, just as he did for whites. He wasn't a racist but he had concerns about how well the races could co-exist given our history and he was conflicted by his belief that slavery was immoral but at the same time sanctioned in the Constitution. Instead of deporting them as the Black Colonization Movement advocated, he thought it better that they have their own territory within the US; again not because he was racist, but because of the great difficulties he saw in a peaceful coexistence. He also felt blacks should have the right to vote, not something a racist would be in favor of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted May 31, 2017 Author Share Posted May 31, 2017 That is a revisionist take based on Lincoln's earlier advocacy of the of the Black Colonization Movement. Like I said, his position on slavery and blacks evolved over the course of his career and most of these revisionist takes are based on comments from speeches, letters, and debates taken out of context, especially before he became president. Bottom line is he believed blacks should be free to seek their own pursuits of happiness and rewarded based on their merits, just as he did for whites. He wasn't a racist but he had concerns about how well the races could co-exist given our history and he was conflicted by his belief that slavery was immoral but at the same time sanctioned in the Constitution. Instead of deporting them as the Black Colonization Movement advocated, he thought it better that they have their own territory within the US; again not because he was racist, but because of the great difficulties he saw in a peaceful coexistence. He also felt blacks should have the right to vote, not something a racist would be in favor of. well said. The only thing I'll say is the ACS was not just about deporting blacks. In fact it was not just one thing. The blacks and abolitionists that originally supported it saw it as a sort of Plymouth Rock in reverse, where in Liberia a new free society could be set up on American ideals that would bring the Enlightenment to Africa. But slaveholders also supported the ACS, because they simply wanted to deport free northern blacks that were advocating for emancipation. Then there were people like our first mayor of Buffalo, Samuel Wilkeson who, like Lincoln, saw slavery as a cancer to American and just wanted to find a way out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted May 31, 2017 Share Posted May 31, 2017 well said. The only thing I'll say is the ACS was not just about deporting blacks. In fact it was not just one thing. The blacks and abolitionists that originally supported it saw it as a sort of Plymouth Rock in reverse, where in Liberia a new free society could be set up on American ideals that would bring the Enlightenment to Africa. But slaveholders also supported the ACS, because they simply wanted to deport free northern blacks that were advocating for emancipation. Then there were people like our first mayor of Buffalo, Samuel Wilkeson who, like Lincoln, saw slavery as a cancer to American and just wanted to find a way out. So Lincoln was for a reverse Plymouth Rock? So Haiti was their Plymouth Rock? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted May 31, 2017 Author Share Posted May 31, 2017 So Lincoln was for a reverse Plymouth Rock? So Haiti was their Plymouth Rock? Panama actually. Next question... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 31, 2017 Share Posted May 31, 2017 That is a revisionist take based on Lincoln's earlier advocacy of the of the Black Colonization Movement. Akin to calling Hitler a Zionist because he wanted to ship European Jews to Palestine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted June 1, 2017 Share Posted June 1, 2017 Panama actually. Next question... Where those darkies were going to build a canal for Lincoln. !@#$ing racist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted June 1, 2017 Share Posted June 1, 2017 Akin to calling Hitler a Zionist because he wanted to ship European Jews to Palestine. Did Hitler's position evolve like Lincoln's? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts