Why so much hate for the Confederacy.? It can't be about slavery.

[RKMBrown]

Enlisted with the promise of blood, money, property, booty all taken by force from the south..

What the hell are you talking about?

Just like in the Confederacy, troops were promised their pay and not much else. There were no promises of 'blood' or of 'property' or of 'booty'. The fact of the matter was that immigrants to the United States settled largely in the North- and there was a vast supply of able immigrant young men who could use a paying job, fighting for their newly adopted country.

Have you ever even read a history book?

Yes. I read that Americans from the north did not want to kill their brothers in the south and that the North had to instead turn to Europeans. What have you read?

Where did you read that?
Citation please.

I've read it in books.. but I'll cite for you to wiki since that's easy to google.

Opposition to the American Civil War - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

"Between July 1863 and April 1865, four national drafts resulting in a call of 776,829 men took place, but of these men only 46,347 were held to service. Although most men who opposed and dodged the draft did so legally, many still refused to report to the draft office and illegally avoided it. Between July 1863 and December 1864, 161,224 men failed to report to service under the draft. The large amount of draft dodgers indicated the amount of opposition to fighting in the war."

And where does that say that "Americans from the North did not want to kill their brothers in the South"?

Considering that the vast majority (92%) of American troops volunteered to fight- what was your point?

What part of they got off the boat from Europe and volunteered to murder Americans for citizenship, money, land, booty etc. confused you?

 

[Syriusly]

Wow.....is this what they teach you in Cloud Coo Coo Land?

The Confederate states attempted to secede. There is no Confederate States because they did not succeed.
The Confederate States attempted to secede in order to protect the property rights over human property.
The North enlisted millions of immigrants- didn't hire any mercenaries from Europe.
There were not millions of women and children killed in the Southern states.

And slavery was ending in much of the world- but the Confederate States seceded in order to ensure it did not happen in the South.

Enlisted with the promise of blood, money, property, booty all taken by force from the south..

What the hell are you talking about?

Just like in the Confederacy, troops were promised their pay and not much else. There were no promises of 'blood' or of 'property' or of 'booty'. The fact of the matter was that immigrants to the United States settled largely in the North- and there was a vast supply of able immigrant young men who could use a paying job, fighting for their newly adopted country.

Have you ever even read a history book?

Yes. I read that Americans from the north did not want to kill their brothers in the south and that the North had to instead turn to Europeans. What have you read?

Almost two and a half million men fought for the Union.

Only about about 2% were draftees.

About 6% were substitutes paid by draftees.

It was by and large -- a hugely Volunteer, and American army.

That's because the volunteers were volunteering as they came off the boat from Europe. Welcome to America, you're an American now, get in this line for your paycheck and musket. The draft was small because the north dodged the draft.

LOL.......volunteers are volunteers. Until the draft started, no one was forced to serve- immigrants volunteered, just like native born men did.

 

[Syriusly]

What the hell are you talking about?

Just like in the Confederacy, troops were promised their pay and not much else. There were no promises of 'blood' or of 'property' or of 'booty'. The fact of the matter was that immigrants to the United States settled largely in the North- and there was a vast supply of able immigrant young men who could use a paying job, fighting for their newly adopted country.

Have you ever even read a history book?

Yes. I read that Americans from the north did not want to kill their brothers in the south and that the North had to instead turn to Europeans. What have you read?

Where did you read that?
Citation please.

I've read it in books.. but I'll cite for you to wiki since that's easy to google.

Opposition to the American Civil War - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

"Between July 1863 and April 1865, four national drafts resulting in a call of 776,829 men took place, but of these men only 46,347 were held to service. Although most men who opposed and dodged the draft did so legally, many still refused to report to the draft office and illegally avoided it. Between July 1863 and December 1864, 161,224 men failed to report to service under the draft. The large amount of draft dodgers indicated the amount of opposition to fighting in the war."

And where does that say that "Americans from the North did not want to kill their brothers in the South"?

Considering that the vast majority (92%) of American troops volunteered to fight- what was your point?

What part of they got off the boat from Europe and volunteered to murder Americans for citizenship, money, land, booty etc. confused you?

Oh I read your fictionalized account just fine- I just pointing out what BS it is.

 

[Boss]

Once again- the areas in red were the areas where slaves were immediately freed by the Emancipation Proclamation- despite the revisionist history that some are trying to create-

I'm going to attempt to ask you again and then I am giving up... HOW do you free something that you don't have in your possession to free?

Already answered.

Once again- the areas in red were the areas where humans (not things) were immediately freed by the Emancipation Proclamation- despite the revisionist history that some are trying to create-

The Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves that were under Union protection at the time- and freed the slaves held by the rebels as the Union troops put down the rebellion.

No... You can't free something you don't have in your possession to free.... sorry.... can't be done. You can show me maps all day and talk until you're blue in the face...it doesn't change reality of what happened. All the areas your map shows where slaves were freed is CSA territory which was not under Lincoln's control until the CSA was defeated.

Again... for the not-so-bright... He could not Constitutionally free slaves belonging to legitimate law-abiding American citizens. That would have clearly violated their 4th Amendment property rights... doesn't matter that you think of slaves as humans, the SCOTUS didn't consult you in Dred Scott.

Answer my question now... Why did Lincoln not free the slaves held in West Virginia?

 

[paperview]

Once again- the areas in red were the areas where slaves were immediately freed by the Emancipation Proclamation- despite the revisionist history that some are trying to create-

I'm going to attempt to ask you again and then I am giving up... HOW do you free something that you don't have in your possession to free?

Already answered.

Once again- the areas in red were the areas where humans (not things) were immediately freed by the Emancipation Proclamation- despite the revisionist history that some are trying to create-

The Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves that were under Union protection at the time- and freed the slaves held by the rebels as the Union troops put down the rebellion.

No... You can't free something you don't have in your possession to free.... sorry.... can't be done.
...

Yet he did. Lincoln also signed the law in 1862 that gave freedom to all the slaves in D.C.

All the areas your map shows where slaves were freed is CSA territory which was not under Lincoln's control until the CSA was defeated.

It was Union territory all the time.
And the Union controlled those areas defeated by force of arms.

And yes, the slaves were freed.

Answer my question now... Why did Lincoln not free the slaves held in West Virginia?

Part of the deal with being allowed into the Union as a new state was on the condition West Virginia emancipate their slaves.

 

[Syriusly]

Once again- the areas in red were the areas where slaves were immediately freed by the Emancipation Proclamation- despite the revisionist history that some are trying to create-

I'm going to attempt to ask you again and then I am giving up... HOW do you free something that you don't have in your possession to free?

Already answered.

Once again- the areas in red were the areas where humans (not things) were immediately freed by the Emancipation Proclamation- despite the revisionist history that some are trying to create-

The Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves that were under Union protection at the time- and freed the slaves held by the rebels as the Union troops put down the rebellion.

No... You can't free something you don't have in your possession to free.... sorry.... can't be done. You can show me maps all day and talk until you're blue in the face...it doesn't change reality of what happened.

I have yet to see you demonstrate that you have any clue as to what the 'reality of what happened' is.

So far all you have done is spout revisionist crap.

The Emancipation Proclamation immediately led to the legal freedom of tens of thousands of slaves, and ultimately led to the legal freedom of the majority of slaves in the United States.

And this the reality of what happened.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

[

The Emancipation Proclamation immediately led to the legal freedom of tens of thousands of slaves, and ultimately led to the legal freedom of the majority of slaves in the United States.

.

There were 4 million slaves in america when the EP was issued so even if "tens of thousands" is correct, it's like 1% of the total.

The EP was a PR stunt to keep france and england out of the war.

 

[Boss]

Once again- the areas in red were the areas where slaves were immediately freed by the Emancipation Proclamation- despite the revisionist history that some are trying to create-

I'm going to attempt to ask you again and then I am giving up... HOW do you free something that you don't have in your possession to free?

Already answered.

Once again- the areas in red were the areas where humans (not things) were immediately freed by the Emancipation Proclamation- despite the revisionist history that some are trying to create-

The Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves that were under Union protection at the time- and freed the slaves held by the rebels as the Union troops put down the rebellion.

No... You can't free something you don't have in your possession to free.... sorry.... can't be done.
...

Yet he did. Lincoln also signed the law in 1862 that gave freedom to all the slaves in D.C.

All the areas your map shows where slaves were freed is CSA territory which was not under Lincoln's control until the CSA was defeated.

It was Union territory all the time.
And the Union controlled those areas defeated by force of arms.

And yes, the slaves were freed.

Answer my question now... Why did Lincoln not free the slaves held in West Virginia?

Part of the deal with being allowed into the Union as a new state was on the condition West Virginia emancipate their slaves.

You are clueless on the Constitution and history. I seriously doubt there were many slaves in D.C. but it's not a state so there is the statutory difference. The president could abolish slavery in DC, just as many other states had done... any state could have voted to abolish slavery and be a free state. If they did and you wanted to have and keep slaves, you'd have to take them elsewhere.

No... the slaves WEREN'T freed... and we can keep repeating these lines to each other like 7-year-olds if you like, you're not going to bully me. Because Lincoln issued a piece of paper that said slaves in the South were free, did not mean the slave owners in the South rushed out to unchain their slaves! If that's what you think... you must be about 7 years old.

Now, on to my question for you on West Virginia...
I asked: Why did Lincoln not free the slaves held in West Virginia?
You replied: Part of the deal with being allowed into the Union as a new state was on the condition West Virginia emancipate their slaves.

But wait a minute... We're talking about the Emancipation Proclamation and why it didn't free the slaves in West Virginia. It "freed" slaves all over the South but not in West Virginia, a Union slave state? And you say it's because they were allowed in the Union on the condition they would emancipate their slaves? So how were they in this situation... a slave state in the Union but not subject to the EP and without freed slaves?

First of all... West Virginia became a state in 1861 and in 1862, Lincoln agreed to accept them into the Union if they added a Constitutional provision to gradually abolish slavery. They agreed, but they also got to keep their slaves working in the fields all through the remainder of the Civil War. They entered the Union in 1863, just months after the EP as a slave state.

But we've still not gotten to the reason Lincoln didn't free WV slaves. You see all the blue areas on your map are under Union control and the people there are American citizens with Constitutional rights to property and due process. You can't take their property for the purpose of liberating it. It's against the law and unconstitutional.

The ONLY Constitutionally legal way Lincoln could emancipate any slave was under the authority as Commander-in-Chief of the military acting in a military capacity to capture enemy property at a time of war. Lincoln himself even admitted this was shaky constitutional grounds since he maintained the CSA was not legitimate and this means Southerners were US citizens who should have had constitutional protections.

 

[paperview]

It's all pretty moot, neo-confederates, isn't it?

Slavery was abolished in the entire Country months after the Civil War ended.

Somehow, I think that gives you the sads.

Aww.

 

[paperview]

[

The Emancipation Proclamation immediately led to the legal freedom of tens of thousands of slaves, and ultimately led to the legal freedom of the majority of slaves in the United States.

.

There were 4 million slaves in america when the EP was issued so even if "tens of thousands" is correct, it's like 1% of the total.

The EP was a PR stunt to keep france and england out of the war.

More than three million were freed by the Emancipation Proclamation.

It just took a while for it to shake out. In war, things take a while.

And hundreds of thousand were fleeing to the north, since that proclamation said "come on over" - and we'll free you, and you can join the fight against the rebels, and indeed, nearly two hundred thousand were part of the US Colored Regiment.

To add: "A Confederate general stated in 1862 that North Carolina was losing approximately a million dollars every week because of the fleeing slaves." - That was before the EP. The 1862 Confiscation Acts was the meat behind the EP.

 

[Boss]

[

The Emancipation Proclamation immediately led to the legal freedom of tens of thousands of slaves, and ultimately led to the legal freedom of the majority of slaves in the United States.

.

There were 4 million slaves in america when the EP was issued so even if "tens of thousands" is correct, it's like 1% of the total.

The EP was a PR stunt to keep france and england out of the war.

More than three million were freed by the Emancipation Proclamation.

It just took a while for it to shake out. In war, things take a while.

And hundreds of thousand were fleeing to the north, since that proclamation said "come on over" - and we'll free you, and you can join the fight against the rebels, and indeed, nearly two hundred thousand were part of the US Colored Regiment.

To add: "A Confederate general stated in 1862 that North Carolina was losing approximately a million dollars every week because of the fleeing slaves." - That was before the EP. The 1862 Confiscation Acts was the meat behind the EP.

Again, you revisionist gadfly... The EP freed virtually no one. It didn't take a while to shake out... it took passage and ratification of the 13th Amendment... that's what it took. The 1862 Confiscation Act, like the EP, was a military action, it was approved by Congress absent the representatives from the Confederacy as a military action at time of war against an enemy of the nation. The slaves were not freed, they became property of the US Army.

Many of these "confiscated" slaves were abused, made to do work for the Army all through the war, many of them died of disease and dysentery, or starvation. They were basically an expendable resource. But the white man's history book doesn't teach you about that.

 

[Skylar]

Once again- the areas in red were the areas where slaves were immediately freed by the Emancipation Proclamation- despite the revisionist history that some are trying to create-

I'm going to attempt to ask you again and then I am giving up... HOW do you free something that you don't have in your possession to free?

Already answered.

Once again- the areas in red were the areas where humans (not things) were immediately freed by the Emancipation Proclamation- despite the revisionist history that some are trying to create-

The Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves that were under Union protection at the time- and freed the slaves held by the rebels as the Union troops put down the rebellion.

No... You can't free something you don't have in your possession to free.... sorry.... can't be done. You can show me maps all day and talk until you're blue in the face...it doesn't change reality of what happened. All the areas your map shows where slaves were freed is CSA territory which was not under Lincoln's control until the CSA was defeated.

Nonsense. Your entire premise is false. As the seizure and control of an enemy's territory doesn't happen complete and in total from one day to the next. It happens incrementally.

And any territory that the Union seized resulted in freed slaves. As an added bonus, many slaves fled to the North after the Proclamation. Virginia for example lost 60% of its adult male slaves by 1865. With those pieces of Confederate territory that remained behind Union lines for most of the war having losses in excess of 70%.

Slavery During the Civil War

Again... for the not-so-bright... He could not Constitutionally free slaves belonging to legitimate law-abiding American citizens.

Sure he could. The Confiscation Acts, specifically those of 1862 allowed for the seizure of any slave contributing to the war effort. Which it defined as any slave in the Confederacy. The US government took possession of the slaves. And as the owners of said slaves had every authority to free them.

As remember, the Confederates weren't 'law abiding American citizens'. But criminals in rebellion waging war against their government. And as such any property they owned that contributed to that insurrection was forfeit.

 

[Boss]

Nonsense. Your entire premise is false. As the seizure and control of an enemy's territory doesn't happen complete and in total from one day to the next. It happens incrementally.

And any territory that the Union seized resulted in freed slaves. As an added bonus, many slaves fled to the North after the Proclamation. Virginia for example lost 60% of its adult male slaves by 1865. With those pieces of Confederate territory that remained behind Union lines for most of the war having losses in excess of 70%.

What the **** are you rattling on about? The map posted showing the status of slaves when the EP was issued is not happening incrementally. The blue areas are areas which were under Union control at the time EP became effective. Slaves there were NOT freed because it would have been unconstitutional. The government CANNOT seize property without due process.

Any territory seized by the Union resulted in CONFISCATED slaves who became property of the US Army for the duration of the war. They were NOT freed!

Yes... MANY slaves, in the chaos of war, managed to escape and flee North where they gained their freedom. That's a far cry from being liberated by the EP.

Again... for the not-so-bright... He could not Constitutionally free slaves belonging to legitimate law-abiding American citizens.

Sure he could. The Confiscation Acts, specifically those of 1862 allowed for the seizure of any slave contributing to the war effort. Which it defined as any slave in the Confederacy. The US government took possession of the slaves. And as the owners of said slaves had every authority to free them.

As remember, the Confederates weren't 'law abiding American citizens'. But criminals in rebellion waging war against their government. And as such any property they owned that contributed to that insurrection was forfeit.

Again.... for the millionth time... the Confiscation Acts were military actions approved by Congress. [...allowed for the seizure of any slave contributing to the war effort.] Slaves were NOT freed, hence the name, CONFISCATION Act. They were impressed by the Union Army and used to dig trenches and graves, dispose of corpses and amputated limbs, etc. Thousands upon thousands DIED under the "care" of the Union Army.

Most of the higher-ranking members of the Union army were abhorrently racist people who, if anything, had a particular dislike for the slaves because they saw them as the reason they were having to fight this bloody war. They had very little compassion for the slave.

The 4th Amendment to the Constitution is very clear.

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Slaves were still property under US Law and SCOTUS upheld that. Lincoln simply had no constitutional authority to seize property of law-abiding American citizens. NONE! ZERO! ZILCH! ---THE ONLY way he could do so was as a military action at time of war, and that is the justification used for both the Confiscation Acts and the Emancipation Proclamation.

Some may argue.. oh, but this was never challenged.. doesn't matter... it all became a moot point with passage and ratification of the 13th Amendment.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Pretty good read. It covers Lincoln's EP and his rationale.

The Emancipation Proclamation Abraham Lincoln s Constitutionally Modest Proposal - Online Library of Law Liberty

 

[Boss]

Pretty good read. It covers Lincoln's EP and his rationale.

The Emancipation Proclamation Abraham Lincoln s Constitutionally Modest Proposal - Online Library of Law Liberty

[excerpt]
Lincoln himself, however, asserted that the states could not leave the Union, and if he were to remain consistent to that argument, he was still faced with the problem that he had no Constitutional authority to interfere with slavery in the states where it existed. Lincoln found a solution to that problem in the commander-in-chief power granted to him by the Constitution. Although Lincoln accepted the proposition that the Constitution contained at least implicit protections for southern slavery, he now argued that there was another constitutional provision that pushed him in the opposite direction. If emancipation was necessary for military success against those in rebellion, than it would be his duty to pursue it as commander-in-chief.

Which was MY argument.

 

[Syriusly]

[

The Emancipation Proclamation immediately led to the legal freedom of tens of thousands of slaves, and ultimately led to the legal freedom of the majority of slaves in the United States.

.

There were 4 million slaves in america when the EP was issued so even if "tens of thousands" is correct, it's like 1% of the total.

The EP was a PR stunt to keep france and england out of the war.

Oh not a PR stunt- but a highly effective piece of political maneuvering- that among other things:

• Immediately freed tens of thousands of slaves- which would be an accomplishment by anyone standards
• Resulted in the eventual freedom of the majority of slaves in the United States
• Deprived the rebellious slave states of thousands of slave laborers as slaves escaped to freedom across the battle lines
  
• Helped keep the anti-slavery Great Britain from supporting the Confederate

Racists and revisionists like you of course hate the Emancipation Proclamation- you still yearn for the 'good old days'

 

[Syriusly]

Once again- the areas in red were the areas where slaves were immediately freed by the Emancipation Proclamation- despite the revisionist history that some are trying to create-

I'm going to attempt to ask you again and then I am giving up... HOW do you free something that you don't have in your possession to free?

Already answered.

Once again- the areas in red were the areas where humans (not things) were immediately freed by the Emancipation Proclamation- despite the revisionist history that some are trying to create-

The Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves that were under Union protection at the time- and freed the slaves held by the rebels as the Union troops put down the rebellion.

No... You can't free something you don't have in your possession to free.... sorry.... can't be done.
...

Yet he did. Lincoln also signed the law in 1862 that gave freedom to all the slaves in D.C.

All the areas your map shows where slaves were freed is CSA territory which was not under Lincoln's control until the CSA was defeated.

It was Union territory all the time.
And the Union controlled those areas defeated by force of arms.

And yes, the slaves were freed.

Answer my question now... Why did Lincoln not free the slaves held in West Virginia?

Part of the deal with being allowed into the Union as a new state was on the condition West Virginia emancipate their slaves.

You are clueless on the Constitution and history. I seriously doubt there were many slaves in D.C. but it's not a state so there is the statutory difference. The president could abolish slavery in DC, just as many other states had done... any state could have voted to abolish slavery and be a free state. If they did and you wanted to have and keep slaves, you'd have to take them elsewhere.

No... the slaves WEREN'T freed... and we can keep repeating these lines to each other like 7-year-olds if you like, you're not going to bully me. Because Lincoln issued a piece of paper that said slaves in the South were free, did not mean the slave owners in the South rushed out to unchain their slaves! If that's what you think... you must be about 7 years old..

Hmmm yes- I can keep repeating the facts- and you of course can keep trying to ignore the facts- because that is what you Confederate Revisionists do.

• As I have pointed out- slaves were immediately freed by the Emancipation Proclamation in specific regions held by Federal troops.
  
• As I have pointed out- the majority of slaves were freed from legal slavery as Federal troops liberated rebel territories.
• And slaves escaping their slave masters were immediately freed once they escaped to any territory held by Federal troops.

Millions of slaves were eventually freed by the Emancipation Proclamation- an amazing accomplishment from one single act.

 

[Syriusly]

[

The Emancipation Proclamation immediately led to the legal freedom of tens of thousands of slaves, and ultimately led to the legal freedom of the majority of slaves in the United States.

.

There were 4 million slaves in america when the EP was issued so even if "tens of thousands" is correct, it's like 1% of the total.

The EP was a PR stunt to keep france and england out of the war.

More than three million were freed by the Emancipation Proclamation.

It just took a while for it to shake out. In war, things take a while.

And hundreds of thousand were fleeing to the north, since that proclamation said "come on over" - and we'll free you, and you can join the fight against the rebels, and indeed, nearly two hundred thousand were part of the US Colored Regiment.

To add: "A Confederate general stated in 1862 that North Carolina was losing approximately a million dollars every week because of the fleeing slaves." - That was before the EP. The 1862 Confiscation Acts was the meat behind the EP.

Again, you revisionist gadfly... The EP freed virtually no one. It didn't take a while to shake out... it took passage and ratification of the 13th Amendment... that's what it took. The 1862 Confiscation Act, like the EP, was a military action, it was approved by Congress absent the representatives from the Confederacy as a military action at time of war against an enemy of the nation. The slaves were not freed, they became property of the US Army..

Wow- the Revisionist denialism is strong with this one.......

The slaves were freed.
The Emancipation Proclamation was the reason why.
And the revisionists live in denial.

 

[Syriusly]

Pretty good read. It covers Lincoln's EP and his rationale.

The Emancipation Proclamation Abraham Lincoln s Constitutionally Modest Proposal - Online Library of Law Liberty

[excerpt]
Lincoln himself, however, asserted that the states could not leave the Union, and if he were to remain consistent to that argument, he was still faced with the problem that he had no Constitutional authority to interfere with slavery in the states where it existed. Lincoln found a solution to that problem in the commander-in-chief power granted to him by the Constitution. Although Lincoln accepted the proposition that the Constitution contained at least implicit protections for southern slavery, he now argued that there was another constitutional provision that pushed him in the opposite direction. If emancipation was necessary for military success against those in rebellion, than it would be his duty to pursue it as commander-in-chief.

Which was MY argument.

No- you keep arguing that Lincoln could only be at war against as a military action at time of war against an enemy of the nation. Lincoln said it would be against those in rebellion.

And it worked.

 

[Skylar]

Nonsense. Your entire premise is false. As the seizure and control of an enemy's territory doesn't happen complete and in total from one day to the next. It happens incrementally.

And any territory that the Union seized resulted in freed slaves. As an added bonus, many slaves fled to the North after the Proclamation. Virginia for example lost 60% of its adult male slaves by 1865. With those pieces of Confederate territory that remained behind Union lines for most of the war having losses in excess of 70%.

What the **** are you rattling on about? The map posted showing the status of slaves when the EP was issued is not happening incrementally.

The sections of Confederate territory that were held by Union troops resulted in freed slaves. Additionally, those already held as part of the confiscation acts were freed. Though in the latter instance, it was more 'officially', as the Confiscation Act of 1862 had already 'declared and made free' any slave that was seized as part of the war effort.

The more territory the Union took, the more slaves they freed.

The blue areas are areas which were under Union control at the time EP became effective. Slaves there were NOT freed because it would have been unconstitutional. The government CANNOT seize property without due process.

Says you, citing yourself. Which is legally meaningless.

The Confiscation Act of 1862 however, is quite relevant and authoritative. And it authorized the seizure of property used in support of the confederate war effort. Including slaves.

That if any person shall hereafter incite, set on foot, assist, or engage in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States, or the laws thereof, or shall give aid or comfort thereto, or shall engage in, or give aid and comfort to, any such existing rebellion or insurrection, and be convicted thereof, such person shall be punished by imprisonment for a period not exceeding ten years, or by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars, and by the liberation of all his slaves, if any he have; or by both of said punishments, at the discretion of the court.

And bob's your uncle.

Any territory seized by the Union resulted in CONFISCATED slaves who became property of the US Army for the duration of the war. They were NOT freed!

Again, says you. Which really doesn't amount to much, nor have much relevance to this discussion.

The Confiscation Act of 1862 says otherwise. As it both confiscated and freed them.

Yes... MANY slaves, in the chaos of war, managed to escape and flee North where they gained their freedom. That's a far cry from being liberated by the EP.

Not 'many'. Most. 60% to 70%. of the adult males at any rate.

Again.... for the millionth time... the Confiscation Acts were military actions approved by Congress. [...allowed for the seizure of any slave contributing to the war effort.] Slaves were NOT freed, hence the name, CONFISCATION Act. They were impressed by the Union Army and used to dig trenches and graves, dispose of corpses and amputated limbs, etc. Thousands upon thousands DIED under the "care" of the Union Army.

And once again, you don't know what you're talking about. As the Confiscation Act both confiscated and freed slaves. And it empowered the President to do exactly that.

?"And be it further enacted, That all slaves of persons who shall hereafter be engaged in rebellion against the government of the United States, or who shall in any way give aid or comfort thereto, escaping from such persons and taking refuge within the lines of the army; and all slaves captured from such persons or deserted by them and coming under the control of the government of the United States; and all slaves of such person found on [or] being within any place occupied by rebel forces and afterwards occupied by the forces of the United States, shall be deemed captives of war, and shall be forever free of their servitude, and not again held as slaves."

'shall be forever free of their servitude' about covers it. Remember, and this point is fundamental:

You don't know what the **** you're talking about. Much like your 'Lincoln campaigned on Abolition' babble, you're offering us your ignorance fueled fantasies, void of anything useful. Like say, research. Or an even passing acquaintance with what we're discussing.