Author Phillip W. Magness has long harbored the view that Lincoln biographers had sanitized the history of “The Great Emancipator” to fit his modern popular image. Certainly, civil libertarians have long questioned Lincoln preeminence as a voice of freedom given his denial of habeas corpus and violations of constitutional rights and powers. Now, Magness is about to publish a book entitled “Colonization After Emancipation: Lincoln and the Movement for Black Resettlement,” revealing research showing that Lincoln actively explored and planned for the relocation of freed slaves to British colonies.
The book details how, soon after issuing the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, Lincoln authorized plans to pursue a freedmen’s settlement in present-day Belize and another in Guyana. Magness and his co-author, Sebastian N. Page, found the documents in British archives, including an order authorizing a British colonial agent to begin recruiting freed slaves to be sent to the Caribbean in June 1863.
Lincoln died a year later.
Other historians have questioned these conclusions and noted that Lincoln was against any compulsory deportation.
Source: Washington Times
Jonathan Turley
“It’s so offensive how all the lefties here continue to defend that old white supremacist: ABE LINCOLN.”
It’s so offensive here how the supposed Christians here defend the new white supremacists.
Everyone, In a long series of posts yesterday, I completely disproved AY’s claim that Texas ever had a separate right of secession. Smashed it to smithereens.
There has not been a peep out of him on that topic since then.
Now the tiny angry elf in green tights has the nerve to mock a well-reasoned post on another site.
Ha! AYROTFLBHHNC: “AY Rolling on the floor laughing because he hath no clue.”
Here is some independent corroboration.
Lincoln signed the Confiscation Act of 1861, August 6, 1861, allowed confiscation of any property, including slaves, being used to support the Confederate insurrection.
Lincoln signed The Second Confiscation Act, July 17, 1862, freeing the slaves of any Confederate official, military or civilian, who did not surrender within 60 days of passage.
Lincoln signed District of Columbia Emancipation Act, April 16, 1862, providing compensated emancipation. Slave owners were forced to free their slaves, but were paid an average of about $300 for each slave by the government had this authority in D.C. under the Seat of Government clause of the Constitution and nowhere else.
Lincoln signed the Law Enacting Emancipation in the Federal Territories, June 19,1862, providing that “there shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in any of the Territories of the United States now existing, or which may at any time hereafter be formed or acquired by the United States, otherwise than in punishment of crimes whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.”
Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation, January 1, 1863.
So Lincoln signed four laws and a Proclamation abolishing slavery, in areas where he had legal authority under the Constitution, prior to supporting passage of the Thirteenth Amendment.
VT,
You are relying on Yahoo Answers? Hahahahaha….did you do any independent corroboration? Or did it support your thoughts and therefor sacrosanct… roflmao……
Now here is an excellent post by “bruhah” at Yahoo answers. It answers most of the questions that keep popping up here:
[quote on] There’s lots of misunderstanding about all this, including in some of the “corrections” people are offering you.
The first thing you MUST understand is that Lincoln’s ONLY authority to do anything at all about slavery was from the U.S. Constitution — he had to act within its boundaries.
Here’s what could be done to eliminate slavery UNDER the Constitution… and Congress and the President ended up doing each of them
1) The Constitution gave Congress the authority to legislate affairs in “the seat of government” (that is, Washington, D.C.). So, early in 1862 Congress passed legislation to END slavery in the capitol, and Lincoln signed it on April 16.
2) The Constitution had given Congress the right to ban the international slave TRADE 20 years after ratification — that is, January 1, 1808 — and the Congress seated at the time did so (and Jefferson signed the legislation)
(The “internal slave trade”, that is, the sale of slaves, in the nation’s capitol ended as a result of a bill passed in September 1850, as part o the “Compromise of 1850”)
** Please note that NEITHER Congress nor the President had authority to directly “ban” slavery beyond this. So, for instance, Lincoln COULD NOT simply decide to “abolish” it, whether he wanted to or not….
3) Emancipation Proclamation
But there WAS something many had long suggested the President COULD do (first mentioned as a possibility by John Quincy Adams in the 1840s) — in time of WAR, he could use his “war powers” as the “Commander-in-chief” of the armed forces, to outlaw slavery in territories in REBELLION against the national government.
And that is EXACTLY what Lincoln did with his “Emancipation Proclamation” — first publicly announced on September 22, 1862, then put into effect (with a few minor changes) on January 1, 1863.
Note that to do this he needed a good reason connected with the WAR — which he had, because the slaves provided much labor that the Confederacy depended on for THEIR war effort.
In fact, the final form of the EP also provided for the recruiting of freed slaves into the Union Army — and over 180,000 of them DID join and helped the war effort immensely.
(Lincoln also wanted to encourage Britain and others NOT to officially help the Confederacy, but this was secondary, and not the LEGAL basis for this act, which makes NO mention of it.)
Critics who do not understand the limits of what Lincoln legally COULD do sometimes go after him for not ending slavery in the loyal Union states… but he did not have any authority to do so! (Had he tried, some of THEM might have seceded, and all would be lost. Also, the Supreme Court, which was antagonistic to many of Lincoln’s war actions would almost certainly have declared the WHOLE thing unconstitutional.)
Also, please note that, contrary to silly claims that the EP “freed no one”, it actually DIRECTED the armed forces to free people whenever they took control of a new territory. And that is exactly what they did. As a result MOST of the nation’s slaves WERE freed by means of the EP by war’s end (ending with Texas on June 19, 1965.)
4) (STATE actions) – Lincoln also could work to convince the remaining slave states in the Union to emancipate their slaves themselves (which THEY had the authority to do). In fact, he worked on doing just this beginning in 1861 — including pushing Congress to provide FUNDING to compensate these states for their financial losses (a “carrot” to them). Unfortunately, they all REFUSED to do so at that time. . . . though EVENTUALLY nearly all of them did, as they saw the institution collapsing.
5) Constitutional amendment (#13 – 1865)
But there WAS a problem. Lincoln was concerned that as soon as the war ended or another President took office the EP would be thrown out (perhaps by a legal case saying it was no longer needed).
The solution eventually settled on to end slavery EVERYWHERE and legally secure the former slaves’ freedom was a Constitutional amendment passed by Congress in January 1865, ratified by the states by December of that year — this was the OFFICIAL end of slavery. A President is not directly involved in this process, but Lincoln pushed VERY hard to get it passed, and even signed the document (though there is no need or provision for that).
SUMMARY — the acts that ended slavery (all of which Lincoln had SOME role in), took effect in three stages, beginning in —
April 1862
January 1863
December 1865
[unquote]
Source:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080226135426A
Vince,
How did you do that embedding?
Warren was a novelist, not a historian, and his version of the Civil War was vividly imagined fiction, not history.
The best single-volume history of the Civil War is the Pulitzer Prize winning Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era, by James M. McPherson.
Good Morning, everyone!
Here is the “Battle Cry of Freedom”!
Yes, we’ll rally round the flag, boys,
We’ll rally once again,
Shouting the battle cry of Freedom,
We will rally from the hillside,
We’ll gather from the plain,
Shouting the battle cry of Freedom.
The Union forever, Hurrah! boys, hurrah!
Down with the traitors,
Up with the stars;
While we rally round the flag, boys,
Rally once again, Shouting the battle cry of Freedom.
We are springing to the call
Of our brothers gone before,
Shouting the battle cry of Freedom;
And we’ll fill our vacant ranks with
A million free men more,
Shouting the battle cry of Freedom.
We will welcome to our numbers
The loyal, true and brave,
Shouting the battle cry of Freedom;
And although they may be poor,
Not a man shall be a slave,
Shouting the battle cry of Freedom.
So we’re springing to the call
From the East and from the West,
Shouting the battle cry of Freedom;
And we’ll hurl the rebel crew
From the land that we love best,
Shouting the battle cry of Freedom.
Listen to the music while reading the words:
http://freepages.music.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~edgmon/cwbattlecry.htm
Warren was a novelist, not a historian, and his version of the Civil War was vividly imagined fiction, not history.
The best single-volume history of the Civil War is the Pulitzer Prize winning Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era, by James M. McPherson.
http://www.amazon.com/Battle-Cry-Freedom-Civil-War/dp/0345359429
The french horn is an underrated brass instrument.
It’s so offensive how all the lefties here continue to defend that old white supremacist: ABE LINCOLN.
And truth be told it is mainly because he murdered Americans (including civilians) and they like that sort of stuff and probably hope to do it to Tea Party types.
Of course those here defending the white supremacist Abe Lincoln really like that he started corporate welfare in earnest (with the railroads). They are still pushing for it.
ROBERT PENN WARREN wrote:
“Union, the abolition of slavery, the explosion of westward expansion, Big Business and Big Technology, style in war, philosophy, and politics–we can see the effects of the Civil War in all of these things..” pg46 The Legacy of the Civil War
In Abraham Lincoln’s first inaugural address he said:
“The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere.”
In other words, before becoming president Lincoln threatened to INVADE any state which refused to collect the tariff (the triple tariff that hit the south more than the north and funded almost 90 percent of the federal government).
IT WAS ABOUT THE MONEY
In other words, like George Bush, Lincoln planned ahead of time to start a war. But it wasn’t about slavery. Lincoln used the slave issue when ever he could to advance his economic theory. His whole career before the presidency was devoted to Hamiltonian economics (central banking, high tariffs, and corporate welfare),and that was his main purpose for attacking the south.
We know this because Lincoln promised slavery to any state that stayed in the union. What he really meant was he wouldn’t murder you if you stayed, but you would get murdered if he did not get paid.
IT WAS ABOUT THE MONEY
Lincoln agreed to an amendment to the Constitution (the Corwin Amendment) that would have allowed slavery in the south as a guaranteed right.
****If Lincoln really was interested in avoiding secession (a claim for attacking the south) ALL HE HAD TO DO WAS DROP THE TRIPLE TARIFF and the south would have not revolted****
But he would not do it. This is because he was not interested in stopping secession EXCEPT BY BLOODSHED.
*******************
ROBERT PENN WARREN again:
*******************
“When one is happy in forgetfulness, facts get forgotten. In the happy contemplation of the Treasury of Virtue it is forgotten that the Republican PLATFORM [my emphasis] of 1860 pledged protection to the institution of slavery where it existed, and that the Republicans were ready, in 1861, to guarantee slavery in the South, as bait for a return to the Union…
…It is forgotten that in July, 1861, both houses of Congress, by an almost unanimous vote, affirmed that the War was waged not to interfere with the institutions of any state but only to maintain the Union. The War, in the words of the House resolution, should cease ‘as soon as these objects are accomplished.’…
… It is forgotten that the Emancipation Proclamation, issued on September 23, 1862, was LIMITED AND PROVISIONAL [my emphasis]: slavery was to be abolished ONLY in the seceded states and ONLY IF they did not return to the Union before the first of the next January…
… It is forgotten that the Proclamation was widely disapproved and even contributed to the serious setbacks to Republican candidates for office in the subsequent election…
… It is forgotten that, as Lincoln himself freely admitted, the Proclamation itself was of doubtful constitutional warrant and was forced by circumstances; that only after a bitter and prolonged struggle in Congress was the Thirteenth Amendment sent, as late as January, 1865, to the states for ratification…
…It is forgotten that even AFTER the Fourteenth Amendment, not only Southern states, but most Northern ones, REFUSED [my emphasis] to adopt Negro suffrage, and that Connecticut had formally REJECTED IT [my emphasis] as late as July, 1865…
…It is forgotten that it was not until 1870 that the Negro finally won his vote–or rather, that very different thing, the right to vote…
…It is forgotten that Sherman, and not only Sherman, was violently opposed to arming Negroes against white troops…
…It is forgotten that, as Bell Irvin Wiley has amply documented in the The Life of Billy Yank, racism was all too common in the liberating army…
…It is forgotten that only the failure of Northern volunteering overcame the powerful prejudice against accepting Negro troops and allowed ‘Sambo’s Right to be Kilt’–as the title of a contemporary song had it…
…It is forgotten that racism and abolition went hand in hand…
…It is forgotten that Lincoln, at Charlestown, Illinois, in 1858, formally affirmed: ‘I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races.’…
…And it is forgotten that as late as 1862 he said to Negro leaders visiting the White House; ‘Even when you cease to be slaves, you are yet far removed from being placed on an equality with the white races…It is better for us both to be separated.'”pgs.60-64
So hang in there defending your white supremacist leader: Abe Lincoln. You do it in ignorance [hopefully] and in hopes of mass murder against Americans you do not like [most certainly].
Mike Spindell,
… Jefferson and the myth of his freeing his slaves got me to thinking about how is it that a great and highly intelligent man, who obviously valued freedom and human rights, could rationalize having slaves. ….
============================================
Part of the insidiously ugly truth of slavery was the economic factor and that I suspect had some bearing on Jefferson’s actions …
Washington willed his slaves freedom after Martha’s death but she did not do likewise with hers thus descendent’s of Martha’s slaves were owned by Robt. E. Lee’s wife, Mary Anna Randolph Custis and living at Arlington House when the Civil War began.
Vince Treacy,
Unexpected company dropped by after dinner and left just a little bit ago. I need a clear head and a well rested eye to absorb all you have written so will come to my computer tomorrow afternoon with a double espresso and a notebook.
I try very hard to understand history and try to read it as if I were living at the time. This helps in understanding present day attitudes for these attitudes are often tied to the past. I sense much of this in present day thought from Texans and I want to understand it … not praise it or condemn it … just understand it.
Yet, even though I am tired and shouldn’t try to apply myself at this moment, I can’t help for I enjoy this process too much to just close the browser and go to bed so ….
“So annexation was offered and withdrawn. Admission was offered and accepted. Annexation may not be read back into the contract because it was never agreed upon.” (Vince Treacy)
… is it possible/conceivable that 1845 Texans who prepared the Joint Resolution to distribute to their citizens did not fully understand the complexity of Constitutional Law or were they harkening back to the original offer when they added “for annexing Texas to the United States” … or were they being crafty? I ask for the phrase is there in the Ordinance, in the title, and in the formal adoption notice. I guess what I’m asking is, was it an innocent insertion or was it intentional in case they didn’t like the way statehood played out and wanted to go back to being their own nation?
Contracts: I have signed thousands of contracts in my lifetime … performance contracts … and understand that aspect of Contract Law (I was never once sued for breach but my lawyer did have to sue the other parties a few times)… but before reading … I must get some sleep.
See you tomorrow, my good man.
Blouise,
Great response!!
Research Assistant,
“but she probably would not hold herself out as the greatest bell ringer ” … I will have you know that I was a superb “bell ringer” able to handle 6 bells in one piece but I could never get the embouchure right for the french horn though I did help a french horn player to the ambulance after he blew out a couple of veins in his eye playing that incredibly beautiful instrument. 🙂
Rhetorical questions do not call for an answer.
It is up to the questioner to answer his own questions.
So what is the answer to the question?
Everyone, it has been explained over and over that the slaves in the south were an essential part of the slaveowners military effort, supplying essential labor in building fortifications, transport, personal service and many, many other ways. The E.P freed these slaves from their property owners just as Stuart freed wagons from their property owners as part of the war. The military necessity could not apply to slaves in areas of Union control BECAUSE THEY WERE OF NO MILITARY SUPPORT TO THE SLAVEOWNERS.
The freed slaves were allowed to enlist in the Union Army to fight for their own freedom and for the freedom of all slaves.
They won.
Larry’s heroes lost.
End of story.
Research Assistant 1, February 13, 2011 at 10:57 pm seems to disagree with my legal analysis, but has not given a single argument or reason as a basis for the disagreement.
Not much we can do with that. Let RA and the eight friends come up with some reasoned arguments, supported by the Constitution and the laws, with links, as I have done, and there will be a response.
I was talking about U.S. law, which I do know a lot about professionally. And I did in fact quote some Texans who know an awful lot about Texas.
In the meantime, all there is here is assorted irrelevant stuff connected with […]s a lot like an AY stream of consciousness. What has Michener got to do with anything on this thread, anyway?
And how about AY’s posting up above that reads: “The posting on this thread started out as was Lincoln a racist….I still believe he was based upon the information provided by black people….if you debunk that they have a right to what it is like in reality then much else that yo is it really debunk is it really bunk?”
This part is totally incoherent and incomprehensible: “…if you debunk that they have a right to what it is like in reality then much else that yo is it really debunk is it really bunk?”
Get rewrite stat!
Mike—–what you dont realize is that it doesnt matter if I was interpreting you saying the Federal armies’ presence was illegal or the secession, because the Constitution GRANTS secession of the states BECAUSE states are free and independent and the states hold superiority over the federal govt——so, since THAT is the truth, then most definately the presence of the federal armies would be illegal and considered an invasion. Do you NOT realize that the whole reason why the South seceded [at least in principle] is because the Declaration of Independence states that it is the DUTY of the people to throw of the old government and form a new one if they deem the federal government is corrupt and not following the Constitution?
This is also AGREED upon by LINCOLN himself in the 1848 quote by him you keep IGNORING:
“Any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right, a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority, intermingled with, or near about them, who may oppose their movements.”
So, secession is granted under the Constitution, meaning that the federal armies’ presence was illegal regardless if one was talking about being there BECAUSE of secession, which is permitted OR because they had no right to build a fort there because the states are superior the the fed. govt.
“People subjected to the barbarity of slavery were to some extent freed and the Southern States were taught that they could not bully the rest of the country with their bellicosity.”
Simply hilarious! Hold on, I have to burst out laughing…..OK I’m done. “Some” extent freed? So, in other words, NOT AT ALL? You’ve been saying they were FREE all along, now youre saying to “some” extent?? LOL. I repeat for the 5th time now, that SAME “barbarity” of slavery was also in the NORTH, but Lincoln LET THE NORTH KEEP SLAVES, didnt he?? The EC did NOT free slaves in the NORTH or Federally occupied southern territories—and even those that were freed went into the Fed. govt’s custody [NOT free]. “Bully”???? The SOUTH were bullies??? Lincoln and the North weren’t the bullies for saying “Southerners MUST stay in the Union to keep their slaves?”—
The Union is VOLUNTARY——read the founding documents Mike. It is a VOLUNTARY Union. If it was about SLAVERY, then answer this question [that I have asked FOUR times now]:
“If Lincoln wanted to end slavery peacefully [or at all] why didnt he issue the Emancipation Proclaimation on April 12, 1861, rght after war broke out?”
Goodness, I hope someone answers this question!
Vince T and Mike S.,
I’ll get back at you have had an exhausting day. While I understand Vince’s reluctance to admit he is full of shit. Mike, this is not a battle that I wish to engage in with you. Suffice it to say, to both of you, you have Yankee understanding of the Texas. Unless you have lived it and been there, your interpretations do not make them so and reliance upon persons whom are not necessarily the best source have been espoused. And I as well as others that I have spoken to off of the blawg do not agree with your arguments Vince…..I speak to about 8 people that read this regularly ……
I subscribe to the philosophy that if you wanna make a good violin you can read about it and try it. If you want to make a great violin, go to work for the master. Since, what you are espousing is read, I’ll consider your arguments good.
As a side note….I have a college buddy that wanted to learn all about the Indian way of life….He bought property located next to a reservation that backed up to a Federal Forrest. He became a master tanner and on Indian folk lore and eventually did work for Costner as the Historian. He was from Texas but moved to learn a different way of life.
One thing that really irks me and this happened a number of years ago in Austin…. A person was commissioned to write a book about Texas……he was not from here and make here for about a year….he has become an Expert and a movie was made….The name….James A. Michener. He was in Austin for about a year and a half. He became an expert…..what he did was turn the english department into his own personal writing staff…..How the hell he became the authority I’ll never know…… I suppose he selected and opted for the ones with the best spin….But some consider him a source. I refused to read the book as it is inaccurate from what it true….call me sully… but think in those terms…
I would no more profess to know about Poland and I have had a wife who’s family was from there. Does that make me an expert in that subject…. I think Vince would take literary license that he would be the expert on the field of Poland….
Vince, with out googling….what was the role of most of the Ukrainian males during WWII? I bet you do not have a clue….that is not something taught in most schools….You can’t be an expert in every area…or can you?
I bet Blousie knows that just because she is classically trained that she cannot begin to play all of the instruments she comes into contact with…… she may be able to read the notes and know the scales and know how things are supposed to be done…. but she probably would not hold herself out as the greatest bell ringer when she learned to play the Violin…or the best French Hornest when she learned to play the harp….but every once in a while a savant comes along and can do one thing remarkably well and plays all of the instruments…but can’t add numbers….so how are you at adding numbers Vince?
I will get back with you as I said Vince…I am exhausted….The BBQ that I made tonight has me wanting to rest now…..Ribs, Chicken and Red Snapper….smoked over oak logs…..everyone ate well and I am tired….
Of course you ignored me because AFTER I made the comment that the war was NOT about slavery and AFTER I had posted quotes by Lincoln HIMSELF stating that in the EC he was only saying that SOUTHERN slaves would be free [well, really NOT free because they were to be released into the custody of the federal government, meaning still NOT free] you posted YOUR comment that the war was about SLAVERY! You call that NOT ignoring what I said?
Wow!
“It is a game you are playing Larry, one which you might not be aware of, but that is obvious to any observer.”
Yes, my game is:
1. posting DIRECT QUOTES from Lincoln himself
2. posting facts like Lincoln stepping in and interfering with NORTHERN generals like John Fremont and David Hunter from EMANCIPATING slaves!
3. Asking questions that everyone IGNORES like the quetion that I have already posted TWICE and you have IGNORED BOTH TIMES, the question—-“If Lincoln wanted to end slavery peacefully [or at all] why didnt he issue the Emancipation Proclaimation on April 12, 1861, rght after war broke out?”
and you simply IGNORING them and then having the nerve to come back and say that you did NOT ignore anything I said!
WHO’S playing the game?
What is hilarious to me is the fact that I repeatedly ask you over and over to ADDRESS my posts and then you come back on here and you IGNORE them, then after I am ignored you not only post more comments that I previously debunked in my posts [which makes it obvious you didnt READ my posts] you then say you did NOT ignore them and claim I’m “playing a game”! You need a psychiatrist buddy.
Why do you refuse to address the actual Lincoln QUOTES I post? Hmmmmmm??? Vince has refused to answer the question I asked him, “Are you saying the federal govt created the States?” I asked that question in direct response to one of his previous statements and then he ignores my question!
Why doesnt everyone on here just admit that I am really not the enemy here, the real enemy is LINCOLN himself! I post quote after quote by him and you morons just keep IGNORING them.
Here are the Lincoln quotes I would like addressed:
“Any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right, a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority, intermingled with, or near about them, who may oppose their movements.”——1848
“…in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you… I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that ‘I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so”.
“Resolved: that the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend, and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter under what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.”
From Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861
“Now, therefore I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, by virtue of the power in me vested as Commander-in-Chief, of the Army and Navy of the United States in time of actual armed rebellion against authority and government of the United States, and as a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said rebellion, do, on this first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty three, and in accordance with my purpose so to do publicly proclaimed for the full period of one hundred days, from the day first above mentioned, order and designate as the States and parts of States wherein the people thereof respectively, are this day in rebellion against the United States, the following, to wit:”—–Emancipation Proc.
“from the day first above mentioned, order and designate as the States and parts of States wherein the people thereof respectively, are this day in rebellion against the United States, the following, to wit:
Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, (except the Parishes of St. Bernard, Plaquemines, Jefferson, St. Johns, St. Charles, St. James, Ascension, Assumption, Terrebonne, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including the City of New-Orleans)
Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia, (except the forty eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkley, Accomac, Northampton, Elizabeth-City, York, Princess Ann, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk & Portsmouth); and which excepted parts are, for the present, left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued.”—–Emancipation Proc.
Why didn’t he attempt to end ALL slavery? There were slaves in the NORTH too!
“And I further declare and make known, that such persons of suitable condition, will be received into the armed service of the United States to garrison forts, positions, stations, and other places, and to man vessels of all sorts in said service.”—–Emancipation Proc.
If they are released into the armed services of the US————-how is that FREEDOM????
YOU and Vince IGNORED ALL of these quotes. I wonder why??????