Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Leisure and Society
Society
History & Genealogy
Historical Facts Tiy Weren't Told
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Grey Eminence" data-source="post: 10800637" data-attributes="member: 93805"><p><em>Bull.</em></p><p> <em></em></p><p><em> He didn't have the power to free the slaves in the South, since those states believed they were now a separate nation and had no reason to follow what the President of the United States did. Or do you really think that slaveholders in Alabama, after hearing about the Emancipation Proclamation, said, "Well, golly gee, ol' Abe Lincoln said the slaves are free, better free my slaves!" </em> </p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p> <em>I don't think so. The Proclamation freed very few, if ANY, slaves when it came into effect. It did pave the way for the 13th amendment, but that was only ratified after Lincoln's death, so that doesn't win it many points in my book. The Proclamation was a bunch of political mumbo-jumbo that didn't do anything except make Lincoln like he was concerned about freeing slaves - which wasn't one of his top priorities at all. -- dulcinea</em></p><p> <em></em></p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p> Your first point is one of broad agreement. The Confederacy was regarded as a belligerent power in its own right with respect to the European political situation and as a rebel state by the US with understanding of that basis in Europe. </p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p> However, the speech when it was given came after General Grants successful campaigns on the Mississippi and the battle of Gettysburg. The defeat of the Confederacy was at that point largely ensured. The proclamation ended any hope of Confederate legitimacy in Europe and ensured a direct end to the war.</p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p> Given that the primary war aim of Lincoln was the return of the southern states to Federal control the matter can be viewed in that context. Emancipation removed any hope of significant support for the Confederacy which was far more important to the war than the direct issue of slavery.</p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p> The South gambled that the institution of slavery would be better served through independence than with the Union. One only has to look at the correlation of separatist voting by county and the level of slave ownership as a percentage of population. Not to mention the rhetoric leading up to the war. The South lost, and it lost big. The fortunes of war.</p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p> As for Emancipation addressing immediate concerns it did begin to address the contraband matter which had been a matter for the Union since the start of the war. More so when the Union began occupying Rebel territories in Louisiana and the barrier island regions of the Carolinas.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Grey Eminence, post: 10800637, member: 93805"] [i]Bull. He didn't have the power to free the slaves in the South, since those states believed they were now a separate nation and had no reason to follow what the President of the United States did. Or do you really think that slaveholders in Alabama, after hearing about the Emancipation Proclamation, said, "Well, golly gee, ol' Abe Lincoln said the slaves are free, better free my slaves!" [/i] [i]I don't think so. The Proclamation freed very few, if ANY, slaves when it came into effect. It did pave the way for the 13th amendment, but that was only ratified after Lincoln's death, so that doesn't win it many points in my book. The Proclamation was a bunch of political mumbo-jumbo that didn't do anything except make Lincoln like he was concerned about freeing slaves - which wasn't one of his top priorities at all. -- dulcinea [/i] Your first point is one of broad agreement. The Confederacy was regarded as a belligerent power in its own right with respect to the European political situation and as a rebel state by the US with understanding of that basis in Europe. However, the speech when it was given came after General Grants successful campaigns on the Mississippi and the battle of Gettysburg. The defeat of the Confederacy was at that point largely ensured. The proclamation ended any hope of Confederate legitimacy in Europe and ensured a direct end to the war. Given that the primary war aim of Lincoln was the return of the southern states to Federal control the matter can be viewed in that context. Emancipation removed any hope of significant support for the Confederacy which was far more important to the war than the direct issue of slavery. The South gambled that the institution of slavery would be better served through independence than with the Union. One only has to look at the correlation of separatist voting by county and the level of slave ownership as a percentage of population. Not to mention the rhetoric leading up to the war. The South lost, and it lost big. The fortunes of war. As for Emancipation addressing immediate concerns it did begin to address the contraband matter which had been a matter for the Union since the start of the war. More so when the Union began occupying Rebel territories in Louisiana and the barrier island regions of the Carolinas. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Leisure and Society
Society
History & Genealogy
Historical Facts Tiy Weren't Told
Top
Bottom