Like Washington and Jefferson, he championed liberty. Unlike the founders, he freed his slaves

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Because the EP didnt free any slaves. It only applied to the South which had seceded. He knew that, it was just political theater for England.

Ahh..OK..I get that....it was political theater, to some extent. Of course, it morphed into a General Emancipation regardless.

 

[Meathead]

I did. It's a lie.

Fact-checking Larry Elder’s comments on 'Fox & Friends'

Conservative commentator and radio show host Larry Elder made a series of claims about slavery and civil rights during a

www.politifact.com

LOL. "There were at least 10". Ten? FFS!

 

[TNHarley]

Ahh..OK..I get that....it was political theater, to some extent. Of course, it morphed into a General Emancipation regardless.

But thats why I laughed. Because it was bullshit.
Lincoln didnt free any slaves. Congress and the States did.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

But thats why I laughed. Because it was bullshit.
Lincoln didnt free any slaves. Congress and the States did.

Well...no. Proclamation 95 was an Executive order, by the CoC in wartime, So it had an instant effect without any input from Congress at all. Congress and the states did pass the 13th amendment..so you're right as well.


The Emancipation Proclamation, or Proclamation 95, was a presidential proclamation and executive order issued by United States President Abraham Lincoln on September 22, 1862, during the Civil War. The Proclamation read:

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.[2]
On January 1, 1863, the Proclamation changed the legal status under federal law of more than 3.5 million enslaved African Americans in the secessionist Confederate states from enslaved to free. As soon as a slave escaped the control of the Confederate government, either by running away across Union lines or through the advance of federal troops, the person was permanently free. Ultimately, the Union victory brought the proclamation into effect in all of the former Confederacy.

The proclamation was directed to all of the areas in rebellion and all segments of the executive branch (including the Army and Navy) of the United States.[3] It proclaimed the freedom of enslaved people in the ten states in rebellion.[4] Even though it excluded areas not in rebellion, it still applied to more than 3.5 million of the 4 million enslaved people in the country. Around 25,000 to 75,000 were immediately emancipated in those regions of the Confederacy where the US Army was already in place. It could not be enforced in the areas still in rebellion, but as the Union army took control of Confederate regions, the Proclamation provided the legal framework for the liberation of more than three and a half million enslaved people in those regions. Prior to the Proclamation, in accordance with the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, escaped enslaved persons were either returned to their masters or held in camps as contraband for later return.[5][6] The Emancipation Proclamation outraged white Southerners and their sympathizers, who saw it as the beginning of a race war.

 

[TNHarley]

Well...no. Proclamation 95 was an Executive order, by the CoC in wartime, So it had an instant effect without any input from Congress at all. Congress and the states did pass the 13th amendment..so you're right as well.


The Emancipation Proclamation, or Proclamation 95, was a presidential proclamation and executive order issued by United States President Abraham Lincoln on September 22, 1862, during the Civil War. The Proclamation read:

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.[2]
On January 1, 1863, the Proclamation changed the legal status under federal law of more than 3.5 million enslaved African Americans in the secessionist Confederate states from enslaved to free. As soon as a slave escaped the control of the Confederate government, either by running away across Union lines or through the advance of federal troops, the person was permanently free. Ultimately, the Union victory brought the proclamation into effect in all of the former Confederacy.

The proclamation was directed to all of the areas in rebellion and all segments of the executive branch (including the Army and Navy) of the United States.[3] It proclaimed the freedom of enslaved people in the ten states in rebellion.[4] Even though it excluded areas not in rebellion, it still applied to more than 3.5 million of the 4 million enslaved people in the country. Around 25,000 to 75,000 were immediately emancipated in those regions of the Confederacy where the US Army was already in place. It could not be enforced in the areas still in rebellion, but as the Union army took control of Confederate regions, the Proclamation provided the legal framework for the liberation of more than three and a half million enslaved people in those regions. Prior to the Proclamation, in accordance with the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, escaped enslaved persons were either returned to their masters or held in camps as contraband for later return.[5][6] The Emancipation Proclamation outraged white Southerners and their sympathizers, who saw it as the beginning of a race war.

Well... yes lol.
The the EP didnt free any slaves. I have already stated how it only applied to places where he didnt have jurisdiction. They were at war with each other.
There might have been some slave holders in the confederacy that freed their slaves and i have looked into it but couldnt find anything.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Well... yes lol.
The the EP didnt free any slaves. I have already stated how it only applied to places where he didnt have jurisdiction. They were at war with each other.
There might have been some slave holders in the confederacy that freed their slaves and i have looked into it but couldnt find anything.

LOL! Just because it did not instantly 'free' all the slaves....that all the slaves in the Confederacy were free by the end of the war is not in dispute..and the EP was the legal mechanism for that.
What's behind your reluctance..not liking to give Lincoln any credit?
I would point out that many did escape their masters..and as soon as they crossed into Union territory..they were free.

 

[fncceo]

Thomas Jefferson enslaved over 600 human beings throughout the course of his life.

Some of them were hot ...

 

[whitehall]

The last northern state to abolish slavery was New Jersey barely fifteen years before the Civil War. Like it or not there were societal and economic ramifications to releasing 500 slaves into society in the 1790's. Isn't it time after 250 years to forgive the Founding Fathers for their mistake assuming the same thing as the British and the French and the Spanish and the rest of the world in the 18th century that Africans were sub-human? You can let your hatred go and enjoy the freedom and democracy of the greatest Country in the world or you can mire yourself in anger and depression.

 

[DudleySmith]

Hmmm I think the op is alluding to current events, and the on going question's that are surrounding America erasing it's history (what it keeps, and what it deletes). I say erase it all, because leaving one side of it intact is unfair, where as it can be weaponized by activist who will use it for ill gotten gain like we are seeing and experiencing big time in this nation to date.

Given the criminal ulterior motives for starting an illegal war, the 'winners' are just indulging in the usual whitewashing campaign to invent a fake historical narrative for themselves to use against today's southern Republicans, never mind they were the part of the country that benefited most from the slave trade and then the cotton and clothing trade, and murdered over 700,000 whites and another 800,000 blacks to keep that money rolling in.

Virginia wasn't a cotton state, and before the cotton gin the land was already stripped and worn out by generations of tobacco farming, so freeing slaves wasn't any great sacrifice as the land was not very productive anyway, so slavery was less economically viable. Jefferson started nail factories and other enterprises using his slaves, and of course with the cotton gin selling slaves to the cotton belt became a big business as well. All freeing slaves did was leave them mostly worse off; they weren't welcome in northern states, and sharecropping and temporary manual labor jobs were a hand to mouth existence at best.

 

[beagle9]

Given the criminal ulterior motives for starting an illegal war, the 'winners' are just indulging in the usual whitewashing campaign to invent a fake historical narrative for themselves to use against today's southern Republicans, never mind they were the part of the country that benefited most from the slave trade and then the cotton and clothing trade, and murdered over 700,000 whites and another 800,000 blacks to keep that money rolling in.

Virginia wasn't a cotton state, and before the cotton gin the land was already stripped and worn out by generations of tobacco farming, so freeing slaves wasn't any great sacrifice as the land was not very productive anyway, so slavery was less economically viable. Jefferson started nail factories and other enterprises using his slaves, and of course with the cotton gin selling slaves to the cotton belt became a big business as well. All freeing slaves did was leave them mostly worse off; they weren't welcome in northern states, and sharecropping and temporary manual labor jobs were a hand to mouth existence at best.

I would imagine that to be free no matter about the worse off part, was definitely worth it in the end. The African's really screwed over their lower class citizen's by rounding them up, and then selling them to the world as human product's/commodity, yet the American black's (not all of them), are extremely loyal to their African title they place before American in which they keep... Some sadly enough, show a type of culture that might explain why they may have been rounded up and sold to the world as human commodity back then. If they had problems like Chicago does now, otherwise in the African nation back then, then it makes sense that they were rounded up and sold to the world if they couldn't do any better than what is seen in our inner cities to date. The killing in Chicago and elsewhere needs to end. It makes no sense how it's allowed to just go on and on and on. The black citizen's in these cities should be completely outraged at what is going on within these black communities like that. Some are, but they are reduced to a mere whimper by those who seemingly want it to go on forever.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So...Jefferson and Washington talked the talk-this man walked the walk:

Like Washington and Jefferson, he championed liberty. Unlike the founders, he freed his slaves | CNN

It was 230 years ago Sunday that Robert Carter III, the patriarch of one of the wealthiest families in Virginia, quietly walked into a Northumberland County courthouse and delivered an airtight legal document announcing his intention to free, or manumit, more than 500 slaves.

www.cnn.com

It was 230 years ago Sunday that Robert Carter III, the patriarch of one of the wealthiest families in Virginia, quietly walked into a Northumberland County courthouse and delivered an airtight legal document announcing his intention to free, or manumit, more than 500 slaves.
He titled it the "deed of gift." It was, by far, experts say, the largest liberation of Black people before President Abraham Lincoln signed the District of Columbia Emancipation Act and Emancipation Proclamation more than seven decades later.
On September 5, 1791, when Carter delivered his deed, slavery was an institution, a key engine of the new country's economy. But many slaveholders -- including founding fathers George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, who knew Carter -- had begun to voice doubts.
That was the extent of their umbrage.
Chattel slavery was wrong, the men said, but they supposedly worried it was not practical to abolish the institution without societal and economic consequences.
"As it is, we have the wolf by the ear, and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go. Justice is in one scale, and self-preservation in the other," Jefferson wrote a fellow politician almost 30 years after Carter's deed of gift.
Yet Carter had provided them a blueprint, not only for freeing their slaves but for ensuring the freedmen could sustain themselves, even prosper and integrate into society. Washington freed his slaves after death. Jefferson freed only 10 people of the hundreds he enslaved.
So, how has this great manumission remained largely unknown outside of a handful of history buffs and the growing body of descendants? There are theories.
Levy, whose books include a biography of Carter, "The First Emancipator," has another suspicion: America doesn't care -- because it's inconvenient.
"It blows an enormous hole in this legacy we're trying to balance for these founders," he said.
As Levy sees it, American history feebly attempts to level the founding fathers' fondness for freedom with their ownership of humans by uncritically parroting their assertions that there was no pragmatic way to emancipate hundreds of thousands of slaves. Slavery was a necessary evil, to hear the founders tell it.
"If Carter is the anti-Jefferson," Levy wrote in his book, "the man who did not lack the will to free his own slaves but who did lack the vision and clarity to make his love of freedom eloquent, then the Deed of Gift is the anti-Declaration of Independence, a document that makes liberty look dull but which is so absent of loopholes and contradictions that no result but liberty could prevail."

This was before politicians sold themselves or could get book deals.

 

[TNHarley]

LOL! Just because it did not instantly 'free' all the slaves....that all the slaves in the Confederacy were free by the end of the war is not in dispute..and the EP was the legal mechanism for that.
What's behind your reluctance..not liking to give Lincoln any credit?
I would point out that many did escape their masters..and as soon as they crossed into Union territory..they were free.

Fair enough. But it wasnt a "legal" mechanism as it was unconstitutional.














































but the EP wasnt a "legal" mechanism for it, considering it was unconstitutional.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Fair enough. But it wasnt a "legal" mechanism as it was unconstitutiol


but the EP wasnt a "legal" mechanism for it, considering it was unconstitutional.

Some think so--of course, the point is moot. It was the right thing to do..and that, in most people's eyes has excused any perceived over-reach.

 

[TNHarley]

Some think so--of course, the point is moot. It was the right thing to do..and that, in most people's eyes has excused any perceived over-reach.

tell me about it. Amazes me how people forgive lincolns tyranny.. But thats why the asshole had his head blown off

 

[elektra]

As sad as slavery was, Jefferson got it right. No slave was treated better than Jefferson's.

To give liberty, or rather, to abandon persons whose habits have been formed in slavery is like abandoning children.

But as it is, we have the wolf by the ears, and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go. Justice is in one scale, and self-‘preservation in the other

As noble and just it was to free his slaves, if Carter did not give them a home then he turned them loose where others would take them as slaves, or worst beat and kill them.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

As sad as slavery was, Jefferson got it right. No slave was treated better than Jefferson's.





As noble and just it was to free his slaves, if Carter did not give them a home then he turned them loose where others would take them as slaves, or worst beat and kill them.

Carter not only gave them homes..he trained them, got them jobs, and helped them stand on their own two feet. If you read the article, you would know this. The descendants of those freed slaves credit Carter with getting them a head start on freedom. Many are professionals, well-off financially. Carter did the right thing..Jefferson and the others used platitudes to salve their consciences--and did nothing..until after their deaths. Jefferson, in particular, was a sleaze...with a slave mistress..and he kept his own children in bondage.

"As it is, we have the wolf by the ear, and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go. Justice is in one scale, and self-preservation in the other," Jefferson wrote a fellow politician almost 30 years after Carter's deed of gift.
Yet Carter had provided them a blueprint, not only for freeing their slaves but for ensuring the freedmen could sustain themselves, even prosper and integrate into society. Washington freed his slaves after death. Jefferson freed only 10 people of the hundreds he enslaved.
So, how has this great manumission remained largely unknown outside of a handful of history buffs and the growing body of descendants? There are theories.
Levy, whose books include a biography of Carter, "The First Emancipator," has another suspicion: America doesn't care -- because it's inconvenient.
"It blows an enormous hole in this legacy we're trying to balance for these founders," he said.
As Levy sees it, American history feebly attempts to level the founding fathers' fondness for freedom with their ownership of humans by uncritically parroting their assertions that there was no pragmatic way to emancipate hundreds of thousands of slaves. Slavery was a necessary evil, to hear the founders tell it.

You too..seem to find comfort in those platitudes uttered by Jefferson and others.

Carter showed them, and us, how empty those words were.

 

[elektra]

Carter not only gave them homes..he trained them, got them jobs, and helped them stand on their own two feet. If you read the article, you would know this. The descendants of those freed slaves credit Carter with getting them a head start on freedom. Many are professionals, well-off financially. Carter did the right thing..Jefferson and the others used platitudes to salve their consciences--and did nothing..until after their deaths. Jefferson, in particular, was a sleaze...with a slave mistress..and he kept his own children in bondage.


You too..seem to find comfort in those platitudes uttered by Jefferson and others.

Carter showed them, and us, how empty those words were.

Great, share the link or the book on the subject

 

[elektra]

Carter not only gave them homes..he trained them, got them jobs, and helped them stand on their own two feet. If you read the article, you would know this. The descendants of those freed slaves credit Carter with getting them a head start on freedom. Many are professionals, well-off financially. Carter did the right thing..Jefferson and the others used platitudes to salve their consciences--and did nothing..until after their deaths. Jefferson, in particular, was a sleaze...with a slave mistress..and he kept his own children in bondage.


You too..seem to find comfort in those platitudes uttered by Jefferson and others.

Carter showed them, and us, how empty those words were.

Carter showed no such thing, and your article does not contain what you stated to me. It does not say Carter gave them homes? And it in no way shows what happened to all those he freed. It says Carter allowed them to stay on the plantation and work.

Or he shipped them off, but it in no way traces the life of all those freed slaves.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Carter showed no such thing, and your article does not contain what you stated to me. It does not say Carter gave them homes? And it in no way shows what happened to all those he freed. It says Carter allowed them to stay on the plantation and work.

Or he shipped them off, but it in no way traces the life of all those freed slaves.

Not big reader, eh? Or perhaps your lil agenda is ruffled? Oddly enough, the one thing you claim that was in the article..that the freed slaves were housed on his plantation..is no where present in the article..how odd eh? You claim it does not say that he gave them homes--when in fact, it does. No where does it state that he 'shipped them off' that's just total fantasy on your part. Anyway..all that info is out there...assuming you care..some tidbits..from the article you say you read:


A religious wanderer drawn later in life to integrated churches, Carter III was not the first to free his slaves. Others, middle-class Quakers and Baptists among them, had released a few slaves here, a few there, but none rivaled Carter's deed, which established a schedule to free 511 slaves, starting with the oldest and later their children.
Carter also allowed the freedmen to choose their last names so they could keep families together and pass down wealth. He ensured they had salable skills, arranged for them to buy or lease land, and bought their wares. He also spent a great deal on transporting them from his plantations to the Northumberland courthouse, and on lawyers to guarantee his heirs -- some none too happy he was paring their inheritance -- didn't undo his wishes.
"Carter's plans look more like a pilot for mass emancipation," Andrew Levy, a professor at Butler University, told CNN. "He was having to think through these issues."

"For African Americans, you hold your breath before the 1870 Census," Duckenfield said, explaining that records on slaves are shoddy. But examining his mother's family tree, he was surprised to see the "Thompson and Newman lines break through -- 1860, 1850, all the way back to 1800. I knew these people were free African Americans back to at least 1800."
Duckenfield wrote Delano, who mailed him a copy of the deed of gift. He later visited Delano and began collecting government records in Westmoreland County.
"I was able to identify folks I had found in census records, so I began building out their lives and how the family grew, their occupations from one decade to next," he said. "I was just awestruck this even had taken place."
Bicentennial organizer Frank Delano examines the Carter family cemetery at Nomini Hall in 2014.
In 1850 Census documents, he noticed his ancestors and adjoining families had two parents, a rarity in an era when slaveholders ripped families apart. Tax records from 1880 onward indicate a trend of education, land ownership and gainful employment -- not just in planting and agriculture but an array of occupations.
His ancestors had wills and passed on wealth, he said. By the 1930s, they were graduating from colleges and entering the teaching and nursing professions. In the 1950s, women in his family were attaining a variety of professional degrees.
"I think that we who are descended from that manumission had advantages in the sense that we were positioned maybe to be the first to achieve wealth," the lawyer told CNN. "Yes, we benefited from having been manumitted by Robert Carter III."


I would suggest you stay our of historical discussions..and head back to the political sections..I imagine that you would feel a lot more at ease there...where you can just BS your way through~

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Great, share the link or the book on the subject

You don't give a shit..and you know it..or you would use that wonderful thing called Google..and find the many books on the subject.