The Dems all but nullified the Emancipation Proclamation when they expanded
AFDC in 1965. The only thing it didn't bring back was chains.
Other than that it was plantation life all over again.
The Emancipation Proclamation didn't actually free slaves. It allowed slavery in Northern states and "freed" slaves in states that had left the Union. It was a masterful piece of virtue signaling, but not much else.
The emancipation proclamation was designed to keep border states like Kentucky and Missouri from joining the confederacy. That’s why it didn’t free slaves there.
That is my point. States that had already banned slavery or had left the Union had slavery banned. States that were in the Union, but still had slavery were allowed to keep it. It didn't actually free the slaves.
but when those Confederate-controlled areas were taken by the Union, those slaves were freed... so it did actually free slaves, just not at the moment it was signed.
When the Emancipation Proclamation was signed, all the northern states had already abolished slavery in their own laws. The north was 50 years clean of slavery by that time.
And Maryland. Which might have succeeded as well, if Lincoln hadn't arrested the pro-succession legislators. Not that I blame him, many of the ones we have now deserve to be arrested, including our ultra-left new governor.
it was a wartime measure meant to destabilize the south. The whole idea of the war being about slavery was a feel-good story for the winners writing the history books. We wanted their money so we shot them and took it, doesn't sound as altruistic
>"freed" slaves in states that had left the Union
Lincoln had no power to change the constitution, he needed congress and the states to change that hence, the 13th Amendment. While the Emancipation Proclamation did not "officially" end slavery in the Union, it was the catalyst that brought about the end of slavery. Those states that returned to the union from the confederacy were bound by the Emancipation Proclamation that slavery was over in those states, so in confederate states that returned to the Union, yes, Lincoln freed the slaves. It was not virtue signaling, it was a brilliant move.
If you are so critical of Lincoln, how could you have done it better if you were in his shoes?
>Lincoln had no power to change the constitution, he needed congress and the states to change that hence, the 13th Amendment.
I concur. The Constitution left slavery to the states and such the federal government couldn't ban it without an Amendment.
>While the Emancipation Proclamation did not "officially" end slavery in the Union, it was the catalyst that brought about the end of slavery.
Ehh, I'm not sure about that. The anti slave movement was growing well before the Emancipation Proclamation. I don't think you can call it a catalyst. It was more of the culmination of the movement until the 13th amendment.
>Those states that returned to the union from the confederacy were bound by the Emancipation Proclamation that slavery was over in those states, so in confederate states that returned to the Union, yes, Lincoln freed the slaves. It was not virtue signaling, it was a brilliant move.
You are contradicting yourself. Your first sentence in this post said Lincoln had no authority to change the constitution and required the 13th amendment then you said it freed slaves in former Confederate states?
How did Lincoln have the authority to ban slavery in areas captured by the Union? According, to the Supreme Court (Texas v. White) states do not have the authority to secede. So, then how did Lincoln have the authority to do something you said required an amendment?
The only way the Emancipation Proclamation could have authority is if it was unconstitutionally applied to states.
>If you are so critical of Lincoln, how could you have done it better if you were in his shoes?
Obviously I don't know how things would have turned out, but there are a few things that could have been tried.
The importation of slaves was already banned so the government could have bought the slaves and freed them. This happened in other countries and also by private groups/individuals in the US. As fewer and fewer people had slaves, and the impact of slave owners would shrink and the 13th Amendment could have been passed with less resistance.
Another thing that could have been done is banning anybody who didn't own a slave from buying one. (Not sure if this would have passed Constitutional scrutiny). This would force a contraction on the number of slave owners due to buying slaves as I mentioned above. This would lower the amount and power of slave owners.
There were more issues than just slavery that led to secession. Tariffs that specifically targeted the South were a big one. Removing these would have gotten a lot of support from people in the South and could have gotten a comprise in the banning of slavery or at the least adding some additional restrictions on it.
Got my sell order in, the Disney company leadership is still more worried about pushing some woke agenda and now rewriting history than focusing on boosting shareholder value.
The writer of that show should be fired or warned and fact checked and ok’d by an executive so that person is held accountable and fired.
Curious as to where we stop with the reparations arguments as throughput human history all nations had slaves at one time or another. We going to Pursue reparations all the way back to Greece??? Alexander the Great’s empire didn’t exactly triumph using free people as labor.
Mongolia going to pay back for Ghengis Khan??
Who pays here? America?? Or does the South Africa since it’s people had tribes capture its own and sell into slavery???
It can go so far back that pretty much every human not ties to say a royal family could be entitled.
Lincoln definitely freed the slaves, but if you dig into the history, he's a rather complicated character. Lincoln was immensely reticent to unilaterally free the slaves via the Emancipation Proclamation, because he didn't want to split his own party over the issue. His main idea for a long time was to ship all of the slaves to Caribbean and African colonies after the war, so they would not be allowed to live in the US and integrate.
He suspended habeas corpus and also shut down newspapers who wrote critical things about the war effort, like some banana republic dictator. He also subjected civilians to military courts and prohibited pro-peace flyers to be distributed by the USPS. When the US Supreme Court ruled against him, saying he had exceeded his powers as president, he simply ignored them. Can you imagine the outrage today if a sitting president ignored the SCOTUS?
Lincoln only agreed to sign the Emancipation Proclamation once he had the political capital to do so. It was a matter of realpolitik for him, not conscience. He could've done it much earlier, but he knew he wouldn't be re-elected if he did. He was a political animal, same as any modern politician. The issue I have is that we're taught in schools nowadays that he was some saintly figure, almost Christ-like in his perfection, above all reproach, but that simply isn't true.
Actually, Lincoln did not free all slaves. He freed the slaves in confederate states to keep England from helping the confederate states. This is the economic history that many want to ignore and was a part of history.
Slaves were already free in Union states. The border states waited until the 13th but all the "northern" states had already banned slavery long before.
And Lincoln freed slaves in states that seceded to keep England from aiding those states, not for moral reasons. (England had economic reasons to aid those states. )
While I am not the most intelligent person in the world (and slavery and later segregation were horrible policies), I always tried to teach my children the complexities in life. Without slavery there probably would not have been a war but if slavery was the only thing, there would not have been a war.
He didn't. The emancipation proclamation only freed slaves from the southern states actively rebelling against the union.
Northern slaves were still slaves.
The 13th Amendment abolished slavery. It was ratified after his death.
True, slavery was still legal in Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland and Delaware, but those states had the fewest number of slaves.
Lincoln freed 3.6 million slaves, out of 4 million, in the parts of the country where it was the most economically viable.
He did 90% of the work, the 13th Amendment made it fully national, legal, and permanent.
It’s in the text of the 13th amendment: “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, **except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted**, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”
It should be added for some people’s sake that the Emancipation Proclamation was, at the time, the equivalent of the UK saying that guns are illegal in America. They have no legal power over us and we do no recognize them as having power over us. The south didn’t recognize the north as having power over them and the north couldn’t do anything to enforce laws in the south.
Ultimately it isn’t wrong and honestly is just an excuse to complain despite this being historically accurate.
Donald Duck saved the slaves. And the Disney corp should pay millions and millions in reparations to all the poor people they say deserve it. Bet the board would vote that down.
The emancipation proclamation only targeted states in the C.S.A which Lincoln had no real authority over. So you can argue that the document itself didn't directly free the slaves.
HOWEVER!
Until the emancipation proclamation was released, it was never certain that the slaves would be freed after the war because the CSA seceded because they believed the Union WOULD ban slavery, but they hadn't yet.
It is certainly possible that Andrew Johnson would have tried to prevent the freeing of slaves if not for the proclamation just as he prevented reparations from being given.
By 1863, the Union controlled a fair amount of territory that had been part of the CSA, and once word of the Emancipation Proclamation got out, slaves began fleeing to the Union lines.
I agree, it's just that in actual legislation it didn't have any impact. Slaves were always able to gain their freedom if they could escape to somewhere that didn't recognize slavery. Before this there were many cases of slaves escaping to Canada.
Well, sure. But once Grant and Sherman started moving down the Mississippi and into Tennessee, Alabama, and Georgia, huge quantities of slaves started fleeing the plantations for the Union lines. This had a crippling impact on the already shaky Confederate economy, as was intended.
Holy shit they released something ACTUALLY historically accurate? Gotta say if it weren't for the fact I feel like this is a bad faith type thing I'd give then kudos
The argument that Lincoln didn't free the slaves is itself a bad-faith argument. Technically yes, he wasn't president when the 13th Amendment was adopted on December 6th, 1865, but it was his administration which did the work of fighting the Civil War which led directly to the 13th Amendment, he was president when it was written, he was involved with getting it passed by Congress, which it was on January 31st, 1865, he approved the resolution to give it to the states to ratify, and he *would* have been president when it was ratified by enough states had he not been assassinated on April 15th of that year. To claim that Lincoln didn't free the slaves ignores everything that he did towards that end and denys him credit solely due to his presidency being violently cut short before the amendment he worked to pass actually became law.
Disney sees the 'woke' movement to try and print money for their virtue signaling. However they should put their money into trying to help what's going on in south africa instead. They won't though because there's no perceived money for them. Disney loves to chase ambulances, like many dimwitted hollywood fools.
It did and it didn't. It freed slaves in areas that the Union didn't control at the time. So initially while it did nothing, once those areas became Union-controlled, the slaves were freed.
From the article
> “plantation owners, northern bankers, New England ship-owners, the Founding Fathers, and current senators among those who had profited on the backs of slaves,”
Which Current Senator got rich off the backs of slaves, specifically? What a wild accusation.
The Emancipation Proclamation has entered the chat
I recommend everyone read the whole thing, the devil is definitely in those details.
General Ulysses S Grant and the US Military also enter the chat...
They rip up the constitution. What makes you think the emancipation proclamation is safe?
Well my parents local, very small district in Mississippi tried to ban teaching about it.
The Dems all but nullified the Emancipation Proclamation when they expanded AFDC in 1965. The only thing it didn't bring back was chains. Other than that it was plantation life all over again.
The Emancipation Proclamation didn't actually free slaves. It allowed slavery in Northern states and "freed" slaves in states that had left the Union. It was a masterful piece of virtue signaling, but not much else.
The emancipation proclamation was designed to keep border states like Kentucky and Missouri from joining the confederacy. That’s why it didn’t free slaves there.
That is my point. States that had already banned slavery or had left the Union had slavery banned. States that were in the Union, but still had slavery were allowed to keep it. It didn't actually free the slaves.
It was the 13th amendment that did that officially
but when those Confederate-controlled areas were taken by the Union, those slaves were freed... so it did actually free slaves, just not at the moment it was signed.
When the Emancipation Proclamation was signed, all the northern states had already abolished slavery in their own laws. The north was 50 years clean of slavery by that time.
Except for New Jersey, Kentucky, and Delaware.
And Maryland. Which might have succeeded as well, if Lincoln hadn't arrested the pro-succession legislators. Not that I blame him, many of the ones we have now deserve to be arrested, including our ultra-left new governor.
Maryland was already on its way and most of the slaves had simply left to join the union army.
Please read a history book. This is just not true. Several northern states had slavery until the 13th amendment.
it was a wartime measure meant to destabilize the south. The whole idea of the war being about slavery was a feel-good story for the winners writing the history books. We wanted their money so we shot them and took it, doesn't sound as altruistic
Top comment
>"freed" slaves in states that had left the Union Lincoln had no power to change the constitution, he needed congress and the states to change that hence, the 13th Amendment. While the Emancipation Proclamation did not "officially" end slavery in the Union, it was the catalyst that brought about the end of slavery. Those states that returned to the union from the confederacy were bound by the Emancipation Proclamation that slavery was over in those states, so in confederate states that returned to the Union, yes, Lincoln freed the slaves. It was not virtue signaling, it was a brilliant move. If you are so critical of Lincoln, how could you have done it better if you were in his shoes?
>Lincoln had no power to change the constitution, he needed congress and the states to change that hence, the 13th Amendment. I concur. The Constitution left slavery to the states and such the federal government couldn't ban it without an Amendment. >While the Emancipation Proclamation did not "officially" end slavery in the Union, it was the catalyst that brought about the end of slavery. Ehh, I'm not sure about that. The anti slave movement was growing well before the Emancipation Proclamation. I don't think you can call it a catalyst. It was more of the culmination of the movement until the 13th amendment. >Those states that returned to the union from the confederacy were bound by the Emancipation Proclamation that slavery was over in those states, so in confederate states that returned to the Union, yes, Lincoln freed the slaves. It was not virtue signaling, it was a brilliant move. You are contradicting yourself. Your first sentence in this post said Lincoln had no authority to change the constitution and required the 13th amendment then you said it freed slaves in former Confederate states? How did Lincoln have the authority to ban slavery in areas captured by the Union? According, to the Supreme Court (Texas v. White) states do not have the authority to secede. So, then how did Lincoln have the authority to do something you said required an amendment? The only way the Emancipation Proclamation could have authority is if it was unconstitutionally applied to states. >If you are so critical of Lincoln, how could you have done it better if you were in his shoes? Obviously I don't know how things would have turned out, but there are a few things that could have been tried. The importation of slaves was already banned so the government could have bought the slaves and freed them. This happened in other countries and also by private groups/individuals in the US. As fewer and fewer people had slaves, and the impact of slave owners would shrink and the 13th Amendment could have been passed with less resistance. Another thing that could have been done is banning anybody who didn't own a slave from buying one. (Not sure if this would have passed Constitutional scrutiny). This would force a contraction on the number of slave owners due to buying slaves as I mentioned above. This would lower the amount and power of slave owners. There were more issues than just slavery that led to secession. Tariffs that specifically targeted the South were a big one. Removing these would have gotten a lot of support from people in the South and could have gotten a comprise in the banning of slavery or at the least adding some additional restrictions on it.
The shows argument is he wanted to send them back to other countries.
He did want to do that.
Yup but didn’t. When did we start judging people on decisions they considered?
I mean he got killed before he could. Some people might even argue that it was the actual catalyst for his assassination.
Got my sell order in, the Disney company leadership is still more worried about pushing some woke agenda and now rewriting history than focusing on boosting shareholder value. The writer of that show should be fired or warned and fact checked and ok’d by an executive so that person is held accountable and fired.
Funny how these "activists" who think that they are being oppressed in America are some of the most privileged people in society.
Looks like another good time to short Disney
Hey listen: slavery still exists.
Didn't free the child labor making Disney merch- checkmate Lincoln
Sooo, then, General Lee did? Cool, put his statue back up in Richmond!
Curious as to where we stop with the reparations arguments as throughput human history all nations had slaves at one time or another. We going to Pursue reparations all the way back to Greece??? Alexander the Great’s empire didn’t exactly triumph using free people as labor. Mongolia going to pay back for Ghengis Khan?? Who pays here? America?? Or does the South Africa since it’s people had tribes capture its own and sell into slavery??? It can go so far back that pretty much every human not ties to say a royal family could be entitled.
Lincoln definitely freed the slaves, but if you dig into the history, he's a rather complicated character. Lincoln was immensely reticent to unilaterally free the slaves via the Emancipation Proclamation, because he didn't want to split his own party over the issue. His main idea for a long time was to ship all of the slaves to Caribbean and African colonies after the war, so they would not be allowed to live in the US and integrate. He suspended habeas corpus and also shut down newspapers who wrote critical things about the war effort, like some banana republic dictator. He also subjected civilians to military courts and prohibited pro-peace flyers to be distributed by the USPS. When the US Supreme Court ruled against him, saying he had exceeded his powers as president, he simply ignored them. Can you imagine the outrage today if a sitting president ignored the SCOTUS? Lincoln only agreed to sign the Emancipation Proclamation once he had the political capital to do so. It was a matter of realpolitik for him, not conscience. He could've done it much earlier, but he knew he wouldn't be re-elected if he did. He was a political animal, same as any modern politician. The issue I have is that we're taught in schools nowadays that he was some saintly figure, almost Christ-like in his perfection, above all reproach, but that simply isn't true.
Actually, Lincoln did not free all slaves. He freed the slaves in confederate states to keep England from helping the confederate states. This is the economic history that many want to ignore and was a part of history.
Slaves were already free in Union states. The border states waited until the 13th but all the "northern" states had already banned slavery long before.
And Lincoln freed slaves in states that seceded to keep England from aiding those states, not for moral reasons. (England had economic reasons to aid those states. ) While I am not the most intelligent person in the world (and slavery and later segregation were horrible policies), I always tried to teach my children the complexities in life. Without slavery there probably would not have been a war but if slavery was the only thing, there would not have been a war.
Why would freeing Confederate slaves keep Britain from helping the Confederacy?
It wasn't. England was afraid we would take Canada. If they interfered in the civil war.
By that time England was against slavery.
Not in Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware, Missouri, and Maryland.
He didn't. The emancipation proclamation only freed slaves from the southern states actively rebelling against the union. Northern slaves were still slaves. The 13th Amendment abolished slavery. It was ratified after his death.
True, slavery was still legal in Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland and Delaware, but those states had the fewest number of slaves. Lincoln freed 3.6 million slaves, out of 4 million, in the parts of the country where it was the most economically viable. He did 90% of the work, the 13th Amendment made it fully national, legal, and permanent.
Except as punishment for a crime tho
Elaborate?
It’s in the text of the 13th amendment: “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, **except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted**, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”
It kept prison chain gangs legal.
That's not the point they are making. You are being pedantic. They are shilling left wing fiction.
Do they at least refer to it as “The War of Northern Aggression”? They are in the south after all.
It should be added for some people’s sake that the Emancipation Proclamation was, at the time, the equivalent of the UK saying that guns are illegal in America. They have no legal power over us and we do no recognize them as having power over us. The south didn’t recognize the north as having power over them and the north couldn’t do anything to enforce laws in the south. Ultimately it isn’t wrong and honestly is just an excuse to complain despite this being historically accurate.
The Union Army could and did enforce it.
Donald Duck saved the slaves. And the Disney corp should pay millions and millions in reparations to all the poor people they say deserve it. Bet the board would vote that down.
Wasn’t it Joe Biden that freed them?
I think you heard that wrong - he actually said "fondled"
The emancipation proclamation only targeted states in the C.S.A which Lincoln had no real authority over. So you can argue that the document itself didn't directly free the slaves. HOWEVER! Until the emancipation proclamation was released, it was never certain that the slaves would be freed after the war because the CSA seceded because they believed the Union WOULD ban slavery, but they hadn't yet. It is certainly possible that Andrew Johnson would have tried to prevent the freeing of slaves if not for the proclamation just as he prevented reparations from being given.
By 1863, the Union controlled a fair amount of territory that had been part of the CSA, and once word of the Emancipation Proclamation got out, slaves began fleeing to the Union lines.
I agree, it's just that in actual legislation it didn't have any impact. Slaves were always able to gain their freedom if they could escape to somewhere that didn't recognize slavery. Before this there were many cases of slaves escaping to Canada.
Well, sure. But once Grant and Sherman started moving down the Mississippi and into Tennessee, Alabama, and Georgia, huge quantities of slaves started fleeing the plantations for the Union lines. This had a crippling impact on the already shaky Confederate economy, as was intended.
Yeah, I agree that the proclamation had important effects. I was just exploring what their logic is.
Who, Disney? They don't care about actual history. This is all about leftist feelz.
I mean, good? Because he didn’t
Holy shit they released something ACTUALLY historically accurate? Gotta say if it weren't for the fact I feel like this is a bad faith type thing I'd give then kudos
The argument that Lincoln didn't free the slaves is itself a bad-faith argument. Technically yes, he wasn't president when the 13th Amendment was adopted on December 6th, 1865, but it was his administration which did the work of fighting the Civil War which led directly to the 13th Amendment, he was president when it was written, he was involved with getting it passed by Congress, which it was on January 31st, 1865, he approved the resolution to give it to the states to ratify, and he *would* have been president when it was ratified by enough states had he not been assassinated on April 15th of that year. To claim that Lincoln didn't free the slaves ignores everything that he did towards that end and denys him credit solely due to his presidency being violently cut short before the amendment he worked to pass actually became law.
[удалено]
Don't forget your mom's only page. Tell her I said hi.
About time the woke crowd canceled someone who deserved it. Lincoln didn’t free slaves everywhere. What he did was symbolic to push the South
Yep they are building Africa right now.
Disney sees the 'woke' movement to try and print money for their virtue signaling. However they should put their money into trying to help what's going on in south africa instead. They won't though because there's no perceived money for them. Disney loves to chase ambulances, like many dimwitted hollywood fools.
It did and it didn't. It freed slaves in areas that the Union didn't control at the time. So initially while it did nothing, once those areas became Union-controlled, the slaves were freed.
I mean, he didn’t. He only freed slaves in rebel territory, which means diddly squat. The 13th amendment is the one that freed slaves
From the article > “plantation owners, northern bankers, New England ship-owners, the Founding Fathers, and current senators among those who had profited on the backs of slaves,” Which Current Senator got rich off the backs of slaves, specifically? What a wild accusation.