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

[Asclepias]

Its not a theory. Its a fact. Columbus even mentioned it himself. Also there is a nation inside the US borders that won back some of their land from the US and is recognized by the UN as its own country.

About the Official Empire Washitaw de Dugdahmoundyah

Here is the UN charter.

Full text of AFFIDAVIT OF NATIONALITY washita sovereign nation nis 21 593.pdf PDFy mirror

You aren't trying to be serious are you?

You have listed someone's website- and someone's 'affidavit'- neither is proof of anything. Nothing there about the UN recognizing anything.

Actually I am quite serious. I just noted that every single link I had to the UN charter has been deleted. Thats odd.

Even the Affidavit you provided specifically states that she is not of African descent.

I am NOT Negro, Black Colored or African-American or etc.

Youre missing the point she is not accepting labels. She never said she wasnt African. She said African-american. Of course she claims her African roots.

I skimmed that mass of craziness- something about the tribes of Canaan......

It may be something to it. The more I look into history the more I distrust the "white approved" version of history.

 

[Boss]

And all of the areas that the Emancipation Proclamation applied to- the striped areas- had those slaves liberated prior to the ratification of the 13th Amendment.

Again.... for the mentally-challenged....

BOSS PROCLAMATION #2:
People who live in Italy can no longer eat pasta!
People in France can no longer eat pastry!

Now.... Have I accomplished the objectives of my proclamation do you think? What sort of pitfalls do you think I might encounter? Most importantly, has my proclamation had any effect on the dietary habits of French and Italian people? I kinda doubt it.

The slaves were not liberated. The document proclaims they are, but it can't be enforced and the states it applies to are not going to honor it... .they are at war with you.

 

[Syriusly]

And all of the areas that the Emancipation Proclamation applied to- the striped areas- had those slaves liberated prior to the ratification of the 13th Amendment.

Again.... for the mentally-challenged....

BOSS PROCLAMATION #2:
People who live in Italy can no longer eat pasta!
People in France can no longer eat pastry!

Now.... Have I accomplished the objectives of my proclamation do you think? What sort of pitfalls do you think I might encounter? Most importantly, has my proclamation had any effect on the dietary habits of French and Italian people? I kinda doubt it.

The slaves were not liberated. The document proclaims they are, but it can't be enforced and the states it applies to are not going to honor it... .they are at war with you.

Boss can make any proclamations he wants.

The fact is that the Emancipation Proclamation had the immediate effect of freeing thousands of slaves, and had the long term effect of freeing millions of slaves from legal slavery.

 

[Asclepias]

And all of the areas that the Emancipation Proclamation applied to- the striped areas- had those slaves liberated prior to the ratification of the 13th Amendment.

Again.... for the mentally-challenged....

BOSS PROCLAMATION #2:
People who live in Italy can no longer eat pasta!
People in France can no longer eat pastry!

Now.... Have I accomplished the objectives of my proclamation do you think? What sort of pitfalls do you think I might encounter? Most importantly, has my proclamation had any effect on the dietary habits of French and Italian people? I kinda doubt it.

The slaves were not liberated. The document proclaims they are, but it can't be enforced and the states it applies to are not going to honor it... .they are at war with you.

Youre arguing a semantic dude and not too convincingly I might add. If you want to play those semantics then you are wrong because slavery has never been totally outlawed.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Wrong.

The proclamation declared "that all persons held as slaves" within the rebellious states "are, and henceforward shall be free."

Slavery is still legal. Read the 13th amendment you just used as proof.

...all persons held as slaves within the rebellious states are, and henceforward shall be free...

Translation: All persons held as slaves in enemy territory we don't control are free!

Okay... Boss Proclamation: "All American political prisoners held abroad are and henceforward shall be free!" Yay me... I just freed every American political prisoner in the World! Go write history books about me and build monuments to me! Put my picture on your pennies!

The north held enemy territory. You sound silly as usual.

And the EP did not apply to slaves in northern-held territory.

As those states were not in rebellion. The EP was used to weaken the ability of those in rebellion to continue. It worked.

Exactly what I've been saying... all those states were in rebellion, they had declared independence from the US and felt no inclination to abide by a proclamation from a US president. The EP was totally worthless in terms of freeing anyone. It didn't free slaves in the North or areas of the South under Northern control... that's what I've said from the start and what I will continue to say.

It's Constitutionality rests in the powers of the president as commander-in-chief of the military against insurrectionists. However, that implies they are no longer US citizens with Constitutional protections under the 4th Amendment.

Lincoln actually exploited a loophole to his advantage. While insisting southern citizens were always and forever US citizens and never anything else... he utilized a provision reserved for non-citizens... enemies of state... those who do not have citizenship protections under the constitution. He established that on the basis of the CSA declaring their independence while maintaining they didn't exist as an entity. He had his cake and ate it too, so to speak.

Aren't we all glad he did?
You keep taking this further into the weeds.
The slaves were freed. They never went back to slavery.

 

[Syriusly]

You aren't trying to be serious are you?

You have listed someone's website- and someone's 'affidavit'- neither is proof of anything. Nothing there about the UN recognizing anything.

Actually I am quite serious. I just noted that every single link I had to the UN charter has been deleted. Thats odd.

Even the Affidavit you provided specifically states that she is not of African descent.

I am NOT Negro, Black Colored or African-American or etc.

Youre missing the point she is not accepting labels. She never said she wasnt African. She said African-american. Of course she claims her African roots.

I skimmed that mass of craziness- something about the tribes of Canaan......

It may be something to it. The more I look into history the more I distrust the "white approved" version of history.

I am fascinated by the history of pre-colonial Americas. There are hints of far, far more than we know or understand completely.

She references the Mound Builders- which is largely an enigma of a civilization but there many others.

I would be fascinated if there were any evidence of any Pre-columbian African influence in the Americas- but I haven't seen any. Nor does it seem particularly likely since I havent' seen any indication of any early history of Africans doing long sea voyages such as we have seen that were done by the Phoenicians, the Chinese, the Polynesians and the Vikings.

 

[Boss]

Boss can make any proclamations he wants.

The fact is that the Emancipation Proclamation had the immediate effect of freeing thousands of slaves, and had the long term effect of freeing millions of slaves from legal slavery.

It had no 'effect' immediate or otherwise. It was a strategic military move and it worked as such to win the war and that enabled Congress to pass the 13th.

Slave were often NOT freed as the North rolled through the South in 1864. That's the part of history you don't want to talk about because the victors didn't tell you about it. You see, it kind of tarnishes the whole idea behind the 'glory' of the war.

Keep in mind, there was much confusion over official policies at this time because things were changing rapidly and this was before the Internet. It sometimes took months for information to reach generals and colonels in battle. They weren't being updated as things developed so they usually operated on the their own ideas with regard to what they should do with captured slaves. Under the Confiscation Acts, they could impress the slave into service of the Army. The slave was considered property of the Army under that law.

Frederick Douglass reported to his readers of his newspaper... (I am thinking 1870ish?) that there were accounts of slaves who were used by the US military until passage of the 13th Amendment.

 

[Boss]

...all persons held as slaves within the rebellious states are, and henceforward shall be free...

Translation: All persons held as slaves in enemy territory we don't control are free!

Okay... Boss Proclamation: "All American political prisoners held abroad are and henceforward shall be free!" Yay me... I just freed every American political prisoner in the World! Go write history books about me and build monuments to me! Put my picture on your pennies!

The north held enemy territory. You sound silly as usual.

And the EP did not apply to slaves in northern-held territory.

As those states were not in rebellion. The EP was used to weaken the ability of those in rebellion to continue. It worked.

Exactly what I've been saying... all those states were in rebellion, they had declared independence from the US and felt no inclination to abide by a proclamation from a US president. The EP was totally worthless in terms of freeing anyone. It didn't free slaves in the North or areas of the South under Northern control... that's what I've said from the start and what I will continue to say.

It's Constitutionality rests in the powers of the president as commander-in-chief of the military against insurrectionists. However, that implies they are no longer US citizens with Constitutional protections under the 4th Amendment.

Lincoln actually exploited a loophole to his advantage. While insisting southern citizens were always and forever US citizens and never anything else... he utilized a provision reserved for non-citizens... enemies of state... those who do not have citizenship protections under the constitution. He established that on the basis of the CSA declaring their independence while maintaining they didn't exist as an entity. He had his cake and ate it too, so to speak.

Aren't we all glad he did?
You keep taking this further into the weeds.
The slaves were freed. They never went back to slavery.

"At this point, what difference does it make?"

right?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

The north held enemy territory. You sound silly as usual.

And the EP did not apply to slaves in northern-held territory.

As those states were not in rebellion. The EP was used to weaken the ability of those in rebellion to continue. It worked.

Exactly what I've been saying... all those states were in rebellion, they had declared independence from the US and felt no inclination to abide by a proclamation from a US president. The EP was totally worthless in terms of freeing anyone. It didn't free slaves in the North or areas of the South under Northern control... that's what I've said from the start and what I will continue to say.

It's Constitutionality rests in the powers of the president as commander-in-chief of the military against insurrectionists. However, that implies they are no longer US citizens with Constitutional protections under the 4th Amendment.

Lincoln actually exploited a loophole to his advantage. While insisting southern citizens were always and forever US citizens and never anything else... he utilized a provision reserved for non-citizens... enemies of state... those who do not have citizenship protections under the constitution. He established that on the basis of the CSA declaring their independence while maintaining they didn't exist as an entity. He had his cake and ate it too, so to speak.

Aren't we all glad he did?
You keep taking this further into the weeds.
The slaves were freed. They never went back to slavery.

"At this point, what difference does it make?"

right?

So the hundreds of thousands of former slaves who enrolled for service with the union weren't free?

 

[Syriusly]

Boss can make any proclamations he wants.

The fact is that the Emancipation Proclamation had the immediate effect of freeing thousands of slaves, and had the long term effect of freeing millions of slaves from legal slavery.

It had no 'effect' immediate or otherwise. It was a strategic military move and it worked as such to win the war and that enabled Congress to pass the 13th.

Slave were often NOT freed as the North rolled through the South in 1864. That's the part of history you don't want to talk about because the victors didn't tell you about it. You see, it kind of tarnishes the whole idea behind the 'glory' of the war..

Emancipation Proclamation Our Own Voices
Union-occupied areas of the Confederate states where the proclamation was put into immediate effect by local commanders included Winchester, Virginia[11], Corinth, Mississippi [12], the Sea Islands along the coasts of the Carolinas and Georgia[13], Key West, Florida [14], and Port Royal, South Carolina[15]


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]

Booker T. Washington, as a boy of 9 in Virginia, remembered the day in early 1865:[20]

As the great day drew nearer, there was more singing in the slave quarters than usual. It was bolder, had more ring, and lasted later into the night. Most of the verses of the plantation songs had some reference to freedom.... Some man who seemed to be a stranger (a United States officer, I presume) made a little speech and then read a rather long paper—the Emancipation Proclamation, I think. After the reading we were told that we were all free, and could go when and where we pleased. My mother, who was standing by my side, leaned over and kissed her children, while tears of joy ran down her cheeks. She explained to us what it all meant, that this was the day for which she had been so long praying, but fearing that she would never live to see.

The Emancipation took place without violence by masters or ex-slaves.[citation needed] The proclamation represented a shift in the war objectives of the North—reuniting the nation was no longer the only goal. It represented a major step toward the ultimate abolition of slavery in the United States and a "new birth of freedom".

Runaway slaves who had escaped to Union lines had previously been held by the Union Army as "contraband of war" under the Confiscation Acts; when the proclamation took effect, they were told at midnight that they were free to leave. The Sea Islands off the coast of Georgia were occupied by the Union Navy earlier in the war. The whites had fled to the mainland while the blacks stayed. An early program of Reconstruction was set up for the former slaves, including schools and training. Naval officers read the proclamation and told them they were free.

 

[Boss]

And the EP did not apply to slaves in northern-held territory.

As those states were not in rebellion. The EP was used to weaken the ability of those in rebellion to continue. It worked.

Exactly what I've been saying... all those states were in rebellion, they had declared independence from the US and felt no inclination to abide by a proclamation from a US president. The EP was totally worthless in terms of freeing anyone. It didn't free slaves in the North or areas of the South under Northern control... that's what I've said from the start and what I will continue to say.

It's Constitutionality rests in the powers of the president as commander-in-chief of the military against insurrectionists. However, that implies they are no longer US citizens with Constitutional protections under the 4th Amendment.

Lincoln actually exploited a loophole to his advantage. While insisting southern citizens were always and forever US citizens and never anything else... he utilized a provision reserved for non-citizens... enemies of state... those who do not have citizenship protections under the constitution. He established that on the basis of the CSA declaring their independence while maintaining they didn't exist as an entity. He had his cake and ate it too, so to speak.

Aren't we all glad he did?
You keep taking this further into the weeds.
The slaves were freed. They never went back to slavery.

"At this point, what difference does it make?"

right?

So the hundreds of thousands of former slaves who enrolled for service with the union weren't free?

I doubt there were hundreds of thousands, maybe thousands, perhaps up to 10~20 thousand. Some former slaves also fought for the Confederacy believe it or not. There were also slaves being freed through manumission, so the numbers become very unclear as to where these 'freed slaves' came.

My point has been the ignorance of thinking the Emancipation Proclamation effectively "freed" anything. It didn't. Blacks were not freed from slavery until ratification of the 13th Amendment.

Again... no argument that slaves were confiscated by, and became the property of, the United States Army! If the General wanted to turn them into soldiers, he had that authority under the law. The slave did not become free when he became property of the United States Army.

 

[Syriusly]

Boss can make any proclamations he wants.

The fact is that the Emancipation Proclamation had the immediate effect of freeing thousands of slaves, and had the long term effect of freeing millions of slaves from legal slavery.

. Under the Confiscation Acts, they could impress the slave into service of the Army. The slave was considered property of the Army under that law..

And the Confiscation Acts were superceded by the Emancipation Proclamation which stated that such slaves were free- and instructed the military to treat them accordingly.

 

[Syriusly]

As those states were not in rebellion. The EP was used to weaken the ability of those in rebellion to continue. It worked.

Exactly what I've been saying... all those states were in rebellion, they had declared independence from the US and felt no inclination to abide by a proclamation from a US president. The EP was totally worthless in terms of freeing anyone. It didn't free slaves in the North or areas of the South under Northern control... that's what I've said from the start and what I will continue to say.

It's Constitutionality rests in the powers of the president as commander-in-chief of the military against insurrectionists. However, that implies they are no longer US citizens with Constitutional protections under the 4th Amendment.

Lincoln actually exploited a loophole to his advantage. While insisting southern citizens were always and forever US citizens and never anything else... he utilized a provision reserved for non-citizens... enemies of state... those who do not have citizenship protections under the constitution. He established that on the basis of the CSA declaring their independence while maintaining they didn't exist as an entity. He had his cake and ate it too, so to speak.

Aren't we all glad he did?
You keep taking this further into the weeds.
The slaves were freed. They never went back to slavery.

"At this point, what difference does it make?"

right?

So the hundreds of thousands of former slaves who enrolled for service with the union weren't free?

I doubt there were hundreds of thousands, maybe thousands, perhaps up to 10~20 thousand. Some former slaves also fought for the Confederacy believe it or not. There were also slaves being freed through manumission, so the numbers become very unclear as to where these 'freed slaves' came.

My point has been the ignorance of thinking the Emancipation Proclamation effectively "freed" anything. It didn't. Blacks were not freed from slavery until ratification of the 13th Amendment.

Again... no argument that slaves were confiscated by, and became the property of, the United States Army! If the General wanted to turn them into soldiers, he had that authority under the law. The slave did not become free when he became property of the United States Army.

An estimated 180,000 African Americans fought for the Union- a large portion of them slaves freed because of the Emancipation Act and then volunteered to fight the Confederacy.

I am not certain why you are in such denial that the Emancipation did not in fact free slaves- but that is what it is- denial.

 

[Boss]

Boss can make any proclamations he wants.

The fact is that the Emancipation Proclamation had the immediate effect of freeing thousands of slaves, and had the long term effect of freeing millions of slaves from legal slavery.

. Under the Confiscation Acts, they could impress the slave into service of the Army. The slave was considered property of the Army under that law..

And the Confiscation Acts were superceded by the Emancipation Proclamation which stated that such slaves were free- and instructed the military to treat them accordingly.

Nope.

The First Confiscation Act is irrelevant, it pertained to weapons and not slaves.
The Second Confiscation Act is what we are discussing...

Confiscation Acts - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
The Second Confiscation Act came in March 1862 and contained provisions such as:

The Union Army has the right to take any and all personal property from rebellious persons.
Captured fugitive slaves are not to be returned to their owners, but are to be forfeit to the Union Army.

The Union Army was given primary control over implication of the acts. However, Congress reached a stalemate that impeded the implementation of these Acts.

It says not a damn word about liberation of the slaves or releasing them into freedom or their having any constitutional rights as citizens whatsoever. They were military concubine for all intents and purposes. Property owned by the US Army.

 

[Boss]

An estimated 180,000 African Americans fought for the Union- a large portion of them slaves freed because of the Emancipation Act and then volunteered to fight the Confederacy.

I am not certain why you are in such denial that the Emancipation did not in fact free slaves- but that is what it is- denial.

180k African-Americans... you don't say how many were freed slaves. You simply imply "a large portion" but how many is a "large portion" in your mind? We're already down to... IF ALL 180k blacks were freed slaves they represent only 5% of the slaves total.... we already know there weren't 180k freed slaves so it has to be less than 5%, the number of slaves you are presenting. That means at least 95% were still enslaved somewhere by someone. Not counting, of course, the ones who died while in custody of the US Military.... we won't talk about those!

 

[Boss]

...then volunteered to fight the Confederacy.

Again, SOME blacks fought FOR the Confederacy.

 

[Syriusly]

Boss can make any proclamations he wants.

The fact is that the Emancipation Proclamation had the immediate effect of freeing thousands of slaves, and had the long term effect of freeing millions of slaves from legal slavery.

. Under the Confiscation Acts, they could impress the slave into service of the Army. The slave was considered property of the Army under that law..

And the Confiscation Acts were superceded by the Emancipation Proclamation which stated that such slaves were free- and instructed the military to treat them accordingly.

Nope.

The First Confiscation Act is irrelevant, it pertained to weapons and not slaves.
The Second Confiscation Act is what we are discussing...

Confiscation Acts - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
The Second Confiscation Act came in March 1862 and contained provisions such as:

The Union Army has the right to take any and all personal property from rebellious persons.
Captured fugitive slaves are not to be returned to their owners, but are to be forfeit to the Union Army.

The Union Army was given primary control over implication of the acts. However, Congress reached a stalemate that impeded the implementation of these Acts.

It says not a damn word about liberation of the slaves or releasing them into freedom or their having any constitutional rights as citizens whatsoever. They were military concubine for all intents and purposes. Property owned by the US Army.

And the Emancipation Proclamation instructs the Army that those slaves are free.

SEC. 9. 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 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.

 

[Syriusly]

...then volunteered to fight the Confederacy.

Again, SOME blacks fought FOR the Confederacy.

Not sure why you feel compelled to argue the point- but sure-
180,000 blacks for the Union- risking amongst other things, immediate execution if captured
Compared to a few thousand who fought for the Confederacy

The number of African-Americans, both slave and free, that served in the Confederate Army in a direct combat capacity was minor, and was never official policy. After the war, the State of Tennessee granted Confederate Pensions to nearly 300 African Americans for their service to the Confederacy.[52][53] Discussions amongst CSA officers on the potential enlistment of slaves is highlighted in the section above. While an accurate estimate of the number of African Americans who served in the Confederate armed forces may never be known, the United States Census of 1890 lists 3,273 African Americans who claimed to be Confederate veterans[54]

 

[Syriusly]

An estimated 180,000 African Americans fought for the Union- a large portion of them slaves freed because of the Emancipation Act and then volunteered to fight the Confederacy.

I am not certain why you are in such denial that the Emancipation did not in fact free slaves- but that is what it is- denial.

180k African-Americans... you don't say how many were freed slaves. You simply imply "a large portion" but how many is a "large portion" in your mind? We're already down to... IF ALL 180k blacks were freed slaves they represent only 5% of the slaves total.... we already know there weren't 180k freed slaves so it has to be less than 5%, the number of slaves you are presenting. That means at least 95% were still enslaved somewhere by someone. Not counting, of course, the ones who died while in custody of the US Military.... we won't talk about those!

LOL- how do you already know that there weren't 180,000 freed slaves when by the end of the war millions had been freed?

Not to mention the ones who died while in the custody of the Confederacy......you don't want to talk about those.

 

[paperview]

...then volunteered to fight the Confederacy.

Again, SOME blacks fought FOR the Confederacy.

A few random hundred at best.

Black Soldiers were not allowed or recognized in the Confederate Army until they were a bloody, beaten, moribund corpse of an outfit.

And even then, few joined.