pinqy
Gold Member
The Emancipation Proclamation did not free a single slave. Maryland, Delaware, and Kentucky were exempted and D.C. had already abolished slavery in 1861.
Emancipation was more of a political issue than moral.
150 Years Ago today at the McLean family farm in Appomattox
- Thread starter OldUSAFSniper
- Start date
Emancipation was more of a political issue than moral.
The South made a claim that they had the right to disassociate. They politely asked Federal troops to abandon a Federal fort- and when they declined the South fired upon Federal troops, thereby staring the Civil War, thereby starting the worst war in our history, but a war which ultimately resulted in the end of the institution of slavery, and making the United States the strongest nation in the world.
Oh and Lincoln's Generals failed miserably until they succeeded completely- and destroyed the rebellion.
Once again- the South chose to fire on Federal troops first.
martybegan
Diamond Member
- Apr 5, 2010
- 94,352
- 44,605
- 2,300
Basically a reverse of Article IV, Section 3? I can see it, but I still think you need an amendment to allow a state to truly secede. Without an amendment you could see people in the state trying to leave, who don't want it to leave, questioning the constitutionality of the whole thing.
Roadrunner
Roadrunner
A proposed amendment may be adopted and sent to the states for ratification by either:
- The United States Congress, whenever a two-thirds majority in both the Senate and the House of Representatives deem it necessary; or,
- A national convention, called by Congress for this purpose, on the application of the legislatures of two-thirds (presently 34) of the states.
There are two ways to amend the Constitution.
Review your Ninth Grade Civics.
The state legislatures can call for a convention.
paperview
Life is Good
Disagree with you there. Thousands of slaves were freed immediately with the Emancipation Proclamation.
Agree it was more a political move, but it was also a brilliant tactical move in that at that point, it became a war about slavery for the Union, made it more difficult for England to recognize the Confederacy (no country had recognized the CSA), and gave major incentives for blacks to escape and fight for the Union,
announcing they would be accepted into the ranks of Army and Navy (by the end of the war, hundreds of thousands of Colored Troops fought for the Union)...
and it completely transformed the character of the war.
paperview
Life is Good
paperview
Life is Good
Actually, the direct question of unilateral secession - when posed, was answered when NY was considering it's ratification of the Constitution. At that time it was proposed:
"there should be reserved to the state of New York a right to withdraw herself from the union after a certain number of years."
A vote was taken, and it was negatived.
Elliot s Debates Volume 2 Teaching American History
Historian Amar goes on to explain the pivotal moment of agreement:
"But exactly how were these states united? Did a state that said yes in the 1780's retain the right to unilaterally say no later on, and thereby secede? If not, why not?
Once again, it was in New York that the answer emerged most emphatically. At the outset of the Poughkeepsie convention, anti-Federalists held a strong majority. The tide turned when word arrived that New Hampshire and Virginia had said yes to the Constitution, at which point anti-Federalists proposed a compromise: they would vote to ratify, but if the new federal government failed to embrace various reforms that they favored, "there should be reserved to the state of New York a right to withdraw herself from the union after a certain number of years."
At the risk of alienating swing voters and losing on the ultimate ratification vote, Federalists emphatically opposed the compromise.
In doing so, they made clear to everyone - in New York and in the 12 other states where people were following the New York contest with interest - that the Constitution did not permit unilateral state secession.
Alexander Hamilton read aloud a letter at the Poughkeepsie convention that he had received from James Madison stating that "the Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever."
Hamilton and John Jay then added their own words, which the New York press promptly reprinted: "a reservation of a right to withdraw" was "inconsistent with the Constitution, and was no ratification."
Thus, it was New York where the document became an irresistible reality and where its central meaning - one nation, democratic and indivisible - emerged with crystal clarity."
Conventional Wisdom--A Commentary - Yale Law School
"there should be reserved to the state of New York a right to withdraw herself from the union after a certain number of years."
A vote was taken, and it was negatived.
Elliot s Debates Volume 2 Teaching American History
Historian Amar goes on to explain the pivotal moment of agreement:
"But exactly how were these states united? Did a state that said yes in the 1780's retain the right to unilaterally say no later on, and thereby secede? If not, why not?
Once again, it was in New York that the answer emerged most emphatically. At the outset of the Poughkeepsie convention, anti-Federalists held a strong majority. The tide turned when word arrived that New Hampshire and Virginia had said yes to the Constitution, at which point anti-Federalists proposed a compromise: they would vote to ratify, but if the new federal government failed to embrace various reforms that they favored, "there should be reserved to the state of New York a right to withdraw herself from the union after a certain number of years."
At the risk of alienating swing voters and losing on the ultimate ratification vote, Federalists emphatically opposed the compromise.
In doing so, they made clear to everyone - in New York and in the 12 other states where people were following the New York contest with interest - that the Constitution did not permit unilateral state secession.
Alexander Hamilton read aloud a letter at the Poughkeepsie convention that he had received from James Madison stating that "the Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever."
Hamilton and John Jay then added their own words, which the New York press promptly reprinted: "a reservation of a right to withdraw" was "inconsistent with the Constitution, and was no ratification."
Thus, it was New York where the document became an irresistible reality and where its central meaning - one nation, democratic and indivisible - emerged with crystal clarity."
Conventional Wisdom--A Commentary - Yale Law School
I have heard that claim many times- and its just wrong.
While it is true that the Emancipation Proclamation did not 'free all the slaves' at the moment it was read, it did immediately free 20,000 slaves or so were immediately legally affected:
Emancipation Proclamation Our Own Voices
Estimates of the number of slaves freed immediately by the Emancipation Proclamation are uncertain. But "a contemporary estimate put the 'contraband' population of Union-occupied North Carolina at 10,000, and the Sea Islands of South Carolina also had a substantial population. It seems likely therefore that at least 20,000 slaves were freed immediately by the Emancipation Proclamation."[2] This Union-occupied zone where freedom began at once included "areas in eastern North Carolina, the Mississippi Valley . . . the Tennessee Valley of northern Alabama, the Shenandoah Valley, a large region of Arkansas, and the Sea Islands of Georgia and South Carolina"[19] Although some counties of Union-occupied Virginia were exempted from the Proclamation, "the lower Shenandoah Valley, and the area around Alexandria" were not.[2]
And it let to the freeing of the majority of American slaves as Union troops defeated the remaining rebellious states.
And finally of course- it was a brilliant political move, done at exactly the right time- that ultimately lead to the 13th Amendment and the freeing of the remaining slaves.
rightwinger
Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
- Aug 4, 2009
- 298,910
- 226,584
- 3,615
It freed thousands of slaves
Look at the slaves who followed Sherman as he liberated the south
gipper
Diamond Member
- Jan 8, 2011
- 73,467
- 39,917
- 2,605
Liberated....really? Sherman was a murdering scumbag. His army raped, murdered, plundered, and destroyed their way through the south...and you admire him. And he wanted nothing to do with the slaves that followed his army...he did nothing to help them.
He is famous for saying:
I can make this march, and I will make Georgia howl!
You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will.
He was a total war MFer.
He treated the American Indian even worse than Southerns...why do you hate the American Indian?
rightwinger
Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
- Aug 4, 2009
- 298,910
- 226,584
- 3,615
Liberated....really? Sherman was a murdering scumbag. His army raped, murdered, plundered, and destroyed their way through the south...and you admire him. And he wanted nothing to do with the slaves that followed his army...he did nothing to help them.
He is famous for saying:
I can make this march, and I will make Georgia howl!
You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will.
He was a total war MFer.
He treated the American Indian even worse than Southerns...why do you hate the American Indian?
Sherman saved the south from the traitorous slave rapers
Great American who helped save the union
paperview
Life is Good
Liberated....really? Sherman was a murdering scumbag. His army raped, murdered, plundered, and destroyed their way through the south...and you admire him. And he wanted nothing to do with the slaves that followed his army...he did nothing to help them.
He is famous for saying:
I can make this march, and I will make Georgia howl!
You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will.
He was a total war MFer.
He treated the American Indian even worse than Southerns...why do you hate the American Indian?
Sherman saved the south from the traitorous slave rapers
Great American who helped save the union
Yep.
Solid Hero.
there4eyeM
unlicensed metaphysician
- Jul 5, 2012
- 20,979
- 5,514
- 280
...from the same sources, an extension of the original. There was no abrogation of the established arrangement.
Rogue 9
The Anti-Confederate
- Apr 15, 2008
- 176
- 71
- 66
Those two lines do not go together. The first was a telegram to Grant convincing him to allow Sherman to make his march, and the second is from a letter to the city council of Atlanta offering to allow the evacuation of the population in whichever direction they wished before starting destruction of the city's military works. To provide a more complete quotation...
Liberated....really? Sherman was a murdering scumbag. His army raped, murdered, plundered, and destroyed their way through the south...and you admire him. And he wanted nothing to do with the slaves that followed his army...he did nothing to help them.
He is famous for saying:
I can make this march, and I will make Georgia howl!
You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will.
He was a total war MFer.
He treated the American Indian even worse than Southerns...why do you hate the American Indian?
General Sherman was that rarest of breeds; a general who hated his job but kept on doing it. He recognized that to simply run about the countryside engaging the Confederate army would prolong the war and lead to more and more deaths, so he undertook his campaign to do that which would shorten the war: Removing the enemy supply base from their rear. The "gentlemanly" contest that Johnston and Hood appealed for was actually the less humane of Sherman's options, for it would prolong the war greatly to no point or purpose.
gipper
Diamond Member
- Jan 8, 2011
- 73,467
- 39,917
- 2,605
Those two lines do not go together. The first was a telegram to Grant convincing him to allow Sherman to make his march, and the second is from a letter to the city council of Atlanta offering to allow the evacuation of the population in whichever direction they wished before starting destruction of the city's military works. To provide a more complete quotation...
Liberated....really? Sherman was a murdering scumbag. His army raped, murdered, plundered, and destroyed their way through the south...and you admire him. And he wanted nothing to do with the slaves that followed his army...he did nothing to help them.
He is famous for saying:
I can make this march, and I will make Georgia howl!
You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will.
He was a total war MFer.
He treated the American Indian even worse than Southerns...why do you hate the American Indian?
General Sherman was that rarest of breeds; a general who hated his job but kept on doing it. He recognized that to simply run about the countryside engaging the Confederate army would prolong the war and lead to more and more deaths, so he undertook his campaign to do that which would shorten the war: Removing the enemy supply base from their rear. The "gentlemanly" contest that Johnston and Hood appealed for was actually the less humane of Sherman's options, for it would prolong the war greatly to no point or purpose.
I did not not state those two lines go together. However, they do reflect a man with a murderous nature.
Imagine if Lee had done to the North what Sherman did to the South. Killing and raping civilians and destroying or stealing their property in a massive offensive. The kooky statists would still condemn him today.
IMO total war is never acceptable. Sherman thinking total war is justified because it will shorten the war, is total BS and history proves me right.
Rogue 9
The Anti-Confederate
- Apr 15, 2008
- 176
- 71
- 66
What Sherman conducted was not total war. I suppose I was too subtle the first time so I'll spell it out; he allowed Atlanta to evacuate and then destroyed the rail yards and military works. Total war doctrine would have started in on the whole city with the population in place.
gipper
Diamond Member
- Jan 8, 2011
- 73,467
- 39,917
- 2,605
Oh...what a fine distinction you make, in an effort to commend a mass murder.
rightwinger
Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
- Aug 4, 2009
- 298,910
- 226,584
- 3,615
Sherman liberated the south from the slave rapers
They could have surrendered at any time
gipper
Diamond Member
- Jan 8, 2011
- 73,467
- 39,917
- 2,605
Here is the truth...are you man or woman enough to accept it?
Godfather II and Dishonest Abe...Lincoln's War was really about extortion, Mafia style...Lincoln and Don Fanucci have much in common :
The Criminal Cause of the “Civil War”,
In his first inaugural address Abraham Lincoln made essentially the same exortion threat to the South. But as the head of a powerful government and not just a small criminal gang, his threat involved “invasion” and massive “bloodshed” (his exact words) and a war that cost the lives of as many as 850,000 Americans according to the latest research. This may seem far-fetched to some, but not if one understands the essential nature of the state as a parasitic exploiter of the public. The state, said Murray Rothbard in his essay, “The State,” is by nature “parasitic” in that “it lives coercively off the production of the citizenry.” The purpose of the state is for those who run it to plunder those who do not. As Rothbard further wrote, quoting Albert Jay Nock: “The State claims and exercises the monopoly of crime . . . . It forbids private murder, but itself organizes murder on a colossal scale. It punishes private theft, but itself lays unscrupulous hands on anything it wants, whether the property of citizen or alien.” Or as George Washington once said, “Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force” and can become “a fearful master.”
Extortion is indeed a primary occupation of the state and statists. As economist and legal scholar Fred McChesney wrote in his book, Money for Nothing: Politics, Rent Extraction, and Political Extortion (Harvard University Press, 1997), in the U.S. governments at all levels routinely propose onerous or even economically-disastrous taxes and regulations on specific businesses or industries purely in order to solicit “campaign contributions” from them. Then, after many millions are sent to politicians of both major parties, the proposed taxes and regulations are withdrawn. Such proposed legislation is known to Capitol Hill insiders as “milker bills” since they “milk” money from business people, Don Fanucci style, minus the threats of murder. Threats of economic ruination (or income tax audits) usually suffice.
The Don Fanucci of American Politics LewRockwell.com
Godfather II and Dishonest Abe...Lincoln's War was really about extortion, Mafia style...Lincoln and Don Fanucci have much in common :
The Criminal Cause of the “Civil War”,
In his first inaugural address Abraham Lincoln made essentially the same exortion threat to the South. But as the head of a powerful government and not just a small criminal gang, his threat involved “invasion” and massive “bloodshed” (his exact words) and a war that cost the lives of as many as 850,000 Americans according to the latest research. This may seem far-fetched to some, but not if one understands the essential nature of the state as a parasitic exploiter of the public. The state, said Murray Rothbard in his essay, “The State,” is by nature “parasitic” in that “it lives coercively off the production of the citizenry.” The purpose of the state is for those who run it to plunder those who do not. As Rothbard further wrote, quoting Albert Jay Nock: “The State claims and exercises the monopoly of crime . . . . It forbids private murder, but itself organizes murder on a colossal scale. It punishes private theft, but itself lays unscrupulous hands on anything it wants, whether the property of citizen or alien.” Or as George Washington once said, “Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force” and can become “a fearful master.”
Extortion is indeed a primary occupation of the state and statists. As economist and legal scholar Fred McChesney wrote in his book, Money for Nothing: Politics, Rent Extraction, and Political Extortion (Harvard University Press, 1997), in the U.S. governments at all levels routinely propose onerous or even economically-disastrous taxes and regulations on specific businesses or industries purely in order to solicit “campaign contributions” from them. Then, after many millions are sent to politicians of both major parties, the proposed taxes and regulations are withdrawn. Such proposed legislation is known to Capitol Hill insiders as “milker bills” since they “milk” money from business people, Don Fanucci style, minus the threats of murder. Threats of economic ruination (or income tax audits) usually suffice.
The Don Fanucci of American Politics LewRockwell.com
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Boston ICE agents forced to retreat from murder suspect arrest after activists blew their cover- Started by excalibur
- Replies: 3
-
-
Learn from Chinese about Tariffs, production methods, exciting signs and more.- Started by Robert W
- Replies: 6
-
-
