Looks like people DO have issues with the confederate flag

[Professur]

Once again, I have to wonder .... if the South decided to seceed again now, without slaves or anything else, would they be allowed to, or would it be civil war again?

 

[HomeLAN]

So, again I ask, how many slaves were held in Union States? I honestly don't know but I do know thiat it was relatively few. Freeing, say, 100,000 slaves from the confederate sattes via the Emancipation Proclamation while waiting to free 10,000 by the 13th Amendemt is a fair trade, doncha think?

You MUST be joking. It's not acceptable THERE, but it's an acceptable "trade-off" to allow it for us. 'Cause, you know, that's different.

 

[Gonz]

The political process was in motion here. The timetable was different. Slavery had already been ruled legal & needed a different rule.

 

[Gonz]

Once again, I have to wonder .... if the South decided to seceed again now, without slaves or anything else, would they be allowed to, or would it be civil war again?

Tearing apart a nation is an act of rebellion, covered under the Constitution. The only place that has authoruty to split is Texas...it was written into their entry treaty.

 

[HomeLAN]

The political process was in motion here. The timetable was different. Slavery had already been ruled legal & needed a different rule.

Yeah, keep telling yourself that. It was a moral abonimation south of the Mason-Dixon, but it required a different timetable to implement that absolute truth north of the line.

Congrats. That's easily the most hypocritical comment I've heard (or likely will hear) this week. In fact, it's top 10 year-to-date.

 

[Gonz]

Lets say that Congress, in their infinite wisdom passed a law that said Slavery is Illegal. The Dredd Scott decision would have had that overturned before the ink dried. Most localities already limited slavery. As a wartime President, this proclamation was made to render an entire class of people free, while preserving the staus quo of the "homeland". An amendment was in the works.

However, on a relative scale, if affected few in the north. How many? I don't know. That's why I'm trynig to get our resident Professor to help.

 

[HomeLAN]

I understand what you're saying. You seem to miss the ludicrous double-standard you're espousing. That's especially laughable, given your view of this part of history.

 

[Gonz]

Since the end result is the same, what double-standard am I missing? It is/was a political hot potato. Covering all the bases was in th eworks.

 

[HomeLAN]

It's either wrong, or it's not. Wow, I never thought I'd have to explain that to you. Political football be damned, to declare it illegal in a territory you don't control while allowing full freedom to pursue the act within your own borders establishes what I would've thought was a very clear double standard.

Are you being deliberately obtuse to cling to a position which, while clearly incorrect, you just can't bring yourself to step away from? Either that, ot I'm losing it, because this is fucking crystalline to me.

 

[Gonz]

while allowing full freedom to pursue the act

That's where we're seperating. Most localities had some form of limitation making federal demands unnecessary. The federal demand was in the pipeline anyway. Dredd Scott changes the rules on what could be done & how it had to be handled. Had Lincoln included the Union, the entire proclamation may have been thrown out by the courts. He handled the situation as best as he could.

Since the confederate states were attempting to rebel & using the Cosntitution to bring those states back in line, a wartime proclamation was legal in the states acting from rebellion.

Using hindsight, it was the only legal action afforded him & was quite brilliant in its planning.

 

[SouthernN'Proud]

That's where we're seperating. Most localities had some form of limitation making federal demands unnecessary.

Translation: A state law. or even a local one, was good enough in yankeeland, but clearly not good enough in Dixie. And people wonder why we want(ed) out.

Had Lincoln included the Union, the entire proclamation may have been thrown out by the courts.

As it should have been given that it was not one iota more than war propoganda to begin with. Slavery should have been outlawed everywhere long before it was. That includes the glass houses up yonder.

He handled the situation as best as he could.

Yeah, so did Clinton.

Given the fact that Lincoln was a bought and paid for blithering idiot, he probably did do the best he could. The fact that a mentally challenged three year old could have done better notwithstanding.

Since the confederate states were attempting to rebel & using the Cosntitution to bring those states back in line, a wartime proclamation was legal in the states acting from rebellion.

So now, in this paragraph, it WAS a wartime propoganda piece.

You amaze me. Really. I'd expect this level of insight from some others, but I thought you had some sense.

Using hindsight, it was the only legal action afforded him & was quite brilliant in its planning.

He's dead. You can quit campaigning for a cabinet post.

It was cowardly racist despotism at its finest. History shows it, if you get past the Boston-edited 10th grade textbook you carry around.

So, again I ask, how many slaves were held in Union States?

You own a computer. It's called Google. Try some census records. You can find it as easily as I find everything else for you, which you in turn refuse to believe anyway unless it fits your narrow myth. I got things to do.

 

[HomeLAN]

That's where we're seperating. Most localities had some form of limitation making federal demands unnecessary.

And many didn't. Once again, it was OK to outlaw it confedaracy-wide, but not where he could've actually enforced it.

You were aware, of course, that desertion from Union ranks skyrocketed as a direct result of this proclamation, right? That a large number of Union "liberators" were dead-set on NOT fighting to end slavery? Why would that be if their localities already declared it illegal? And yes, I CAN back this up. I'll put in the time to do so if you demand it.

If it was already in the works on the Fed level, why'd it take a full three years to pull it off? I call BULLSHIT!

I also suspect I now know the answer to this one:

Are you being deliberately obtuse to cling to a position which, while clearly incorrect, you just can't bring yourself to step away from? Either that, ot I'm losing it, because this is fucking crystalline to me.

 

[Gonz]

History shows it,

Yes it does

AMENDMENT XIII
Passed by Congress January 31, 1865. Ratified December 6, 1865.

Note: A portion of Article IV, section 2, of the Constitution was superseded by the 13th amendment.

Section 1.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

 

[Gato_Solo]

Yes it does

Now we take a look at those 'local' laws, right? Forgive me if I'm wrong, but if that amendment was so great, then why'd they have to come up with this one...or even this one...or how about this one, which was recently renewed?

 

[paul_valaru]

The day I need an American History lesson from a Canadian, someone please do the correct thing and shoot me.

Back behind your human shield you go. Try again anytime you like.

and here you go, the root of your problem

prop·a·gan·da (prŏp'ə-găn'də)
n.
The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.
Material disseminated by the advocates or opponents of a doctrine or cause: wartime propaganda.

his·to·ry (hĭs'tə-rē)
n., pl. -ries.

A usually chronological record of events, as of the life or development of a people or institution, often including an explanation of or commentary on those events: a history of the Vikings.
A formal written account of related natural phenomena: a history of volcanoes.
A record of a patient's medical background.
An established record or pattern of behavior: an inmate with a history of substance abuse.
The branch of knowledge that records and analyzes past events: “History has a long-range perspective” (Elizabeth Gurley Flynn).

The past events relating to a particular thing: The history of their rivalry is full of intrigue.
The aggregate of past events or human affairs: basic tools used throughout history.
An interesting past: a house with history.
Something that belongs to the past: Their troubles are history now.
Slang. One that is no longer worth consideration: Why should we worry about him? He's history!

no day one of the procolamtion frred no slaves, it's mandate was to grant freedom to slaves from the conferderacy when they either came north, or the north came to them.

oh and the border states had already gotten rid of slavery, except kentucky

 

[spike]

Yeah, keep telling yourself that. It was a moral abonimation south of the Mason-Dixon, but it required a different timetable to implement that absolute truth north of the line.

Congrats. That's easily the most hypocritical comment I've heard (or likely will hear) this week. In fact, it's top 10 year-to-date.

Most states in the North didn't have any slaves
http://www.civil-war.net/pages/1860_census.html

 

[SouthernN'Proud]

Most states in the North didn't have any slaves
http://www.civil-war.net/pages/1860_census.html

As I have said hundreds of times. But some did. If this conflict was over slavery, why were those states not invaded?

Answer: The war was not over slavery. It was over a tariff, the question of states' rights versus federal government powers, the right to leave a voluntary union, the unequal distribution of national resources versus where the money for those same resources came from, non-representation in the federal government, and at the central core, underlying everything else, thr undeniable fact that the north was settled by certain groups of immigrants while the South was settled by another, primarily the Scots-Irish, and these two groups of immigrants hated one another fro centuries before anyone ever got on a boat.

 

[SouthernN'Proud]

and here you go, the root of your problem




no day one of the procolamtion frred no slaves, it's mandate was to grant freedom to slaves from the conferderacy when they either came north, or the north came to them.

oh and the border states had already gotten rid of slavery, except kentucky

History the reader has not been exposed to, or happens not to agree with, does not define propoganda. Where would you suggest I go to obtain any interpretation other than the yankee myth, Boston College library?

I nor anyone else I know holds your interpretation of the document. It's pretty self explanatory. The specific territories which had joined the Confederacy are named. No others. It was an act of war, and a foolish ploy to persuade the slaves to "rise up" in support of union troops. It failed.

And for the record, fugitive/runaway slaves who made it north were almost always returned to their "owners". For a fee. Plain and simple, northern citizens did not and largely still do not want black people living near them. That's why so many states in union territory passed laws prohibiting :free blacks" from living there, or even from "tarrying" past a prescribed number of days.

I apologize, but I have read more than a website. To tie all the information together in one post is impossible. Even in one book. Read enough and you'll start to see the commonalities.

 

[spike]

As I have said hundreds of times. But some did. If this conflict was over slavery, why were those states not invaded?

Probably because they weren't trying to secede in order to keep it?

Look like it was just Maryland and Delaware (mostly Maryland). I would be interested in more info on those two states though.

 

[Inkara1]

Full text of the Emancipation Proclamation:

[FONT=&quot]The Emancipation Proclamation[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]January 1, 1863[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]By the President of the [/FONT][FONT=&quot]United States of America[/FONT][FONT=&quot]:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]A Proclamation.[/FONT]


Whereas, on the twenty-second day of September, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-two, a proclamation was issued by the President of the United States, containing, among other things, the following, to wit:

"That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, 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, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom.

"That the Executive will, on the first day of January aforesaid, by proclamation, designate the States and parts of States, if any, in which the people thereof, respectively, shall then be in rebellion against the United States; and the fact that any State, or the people thereof, shall on that day be, in good faith, represented in the Congress of the United States by members chosen thereto at elections wherein a majority of the qualified voters of such State shall have participated, shall, in the absence of strong countervailing testimony, be deemed conclusive evidence that such State, and the people thereof, are not then in rebellion against the United States."

Now, therefore I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, by virtue of the power in me vested as Commander-in-Chief, of the Army and Navy of the United States in time of actual armed rebellion against the authority and government of the United States, and as a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said rebellion, do, on this first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and in accordance with my purpose so to do publicly proclaimed for the full period of one hundred days, from the day first above mentioned, order and designate as the States and parts of States wherein the people thereof respectively, are this day in rebellion against the United States, the following, to wit:

Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, (except the Parishes of St. Bernard, Plaquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James Ascension, Assumption, Terrebonne, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including the City of New Orleans) Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia, (except the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkley, Accomac, Northampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Ann, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth[)], and which excepted parts, are for the present, left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued.

And by virtue of the power, and for the purpose aforesaid, I do order and declare that all persons held as slaves within said designated States, and parts of States, are, and henceforward shall be free; and that the Executive government of the United States, including the military and naval authorities thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of said persons.

And I hereby enjoin upon the people so declared to be free to abstain from all violence, unless in necessary self-defence; and I recommend to them that, in all cases when allowed, they labor faithfully for reasonable wages.

And I further declare and make known, that such persons of suitable condition, will be received into the armed service of the United States to garrison forts, positions, stations, and other places, and to man vessels of all sorts in said service.

And upon this act, sincerely believed to be an act of justice, warranted by the Constitution, upon military necessity, I invoke the considerate judgment of mankind, and the gracious favor of Almighty God.

In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.

Done at the City of Washington, this first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty three, and of the Independence of the United States of America the eighty-seventh.

By the President: ABRAHAM LINCOLN
WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State.

link