The Emancipation Proclamation

[matthew mckeon]

As I stated before: if the 800,000 figure is correct, that meant the EP freed 80% of the people being held as slaves in this country on Jan. 1, 1863.

The isolated patches of slavery left were soon eliminated by later legislation. They did not, indeed could not, have survived. After over 2 centuries, the institution of slavery was fatally wounded. The point is so obvious I am always surprised by people's criticism.

[trice]

Originally Posted by Hanny

Only other one i know is the original 13th.

For further discussion and the history of the Original Thirteenth Amendment see "Demon of Discord, Ratification and Suppression of the Original Thirteenth Article of Amendment to the Constitution of the United States."
... On April 14, President Lincoln was assassinated, dying on April 15th. On December 18, 1865, the "new" 13th Amendment loudly prohibiting and abolishing slavery (and quietly surrendering states rights to the federal government) was proclaimed adopted by Secretary of State Seward, replacing and effectively erasing the original Thirteenth Amendment that had prohibited acceptance of "titles of nobility" and "honors" and "emoluments", and dishonest politicians have been bought and bribed and have treasonously accepted graft from external sources ever since, with no thought of penalty.

This, of course, is not so.

The Amendment you are referring to was passed by Congress in 1810 and was ratified by 12 states by 1812, an insufficient number. Article V of the Constitution applies, and there were 17 states at that time, so one more was required. It was never an actual part of our Constitution, never a part of our laws, and never removed from the Constitution.

Anyone interested in the silliness around this can look at http://www.thirdamendment.com/missing.html

Tim

[cash]

Originally Posted by Battalion

All you have to do is check the vote.

I don't have to check the vote. I know the reason for the amendment. Those who understand the history of this time period will understand there was no inconsistency. Those who don't won't.

Originally Posted by Battalion

That's what I wrote- 'Tennessee and parts of Louisiana and Virginia'
...-parts of the Confederacy under federal control.

Put the two halves of your statement back together. Your post made the clear implication that Tennessee and parts of Louisiana and Virginia fell under the false claim that "people who were loyal to the Union could keep their slaves." That's wrong as usual. The reason Tennessee and parts of Louisiana and Virginia were excepted was because they were under Union control, not because the slaveowners living there were loyal to the Union.

Originally Posted by Battalion

I stated that with reservation- I believe...

...as in I believe I have seen a document that indicates such was the case.

I don't know what spurious document you believe you may have seen. The fact is that the claim is false.

Originally Posted by Battalion

The 800,000 number is the number of slaves as of 1860 living in areas not covered by the EP.

800,000 is just a bit more than a few.

Again, not that I believe your claim just because you make the claim, but even so, it represents a small proportion of the total number of slaves in the south.

Regards,
Cash

[cw1865]

Originally Posted by OpnDownfall

Not a Moses, but a Abraham; Father of a People.

Moses has the whole Exodus 'thing' going for him

[Battalion]

Originally Posted by matthew mckeon

As I stated before: if the 800,000 figure is correct, that meant the EP freed 80% of the people being held as slaves in this country on Jan. 1, 1863.

The isolated patches [entire states should be described this way?] of slavery left were soon eliminated by later legislation.

But there was no promise or certainty of that during the war.

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery.

[1.] If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it,
[2.] and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it;
[3.] and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."

-Lincoln

In 1861 the North was fighting for option #1.
In 1863 for option #3.

[OpnDownfall]

The south's infatuation for it's slaves, guaranteed that Lincoln ended up with option 2.
To all sentient beings, the fact that the south precipitated a Civil War to protect it's slaves, would have indicated that the cause of the CW would have to be eliminated; option 2 was inevitable, as I am sure Lincoln already suspected.

[unionblue]

Battalion,

As stated in my signature line,

"Sooner or later the American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery."

And they finally did.

Unionblue

[ole]

Ohmagawsh, Blue, you have said it and all the time. It wasn't until today that it registered. Thank you.

ole

[matthew mckeon]

Dear Battalion,
Your post 1444 was interesting.
1. Do entire states count as isolated patches?
The border states under Union control: Maryland, Delaware, Missouri and Kentucky, slavery was mostly in fairly limited regions. For example, while all of Missouri was a slave state, actually slavey was found in a midstate belt. So plotted on a map of the entire United States, excepted regions of slaveholding seem to me isolated and quite small compared to the rest of the country. Your mileage may vary.

2.Lincoln's famous message to Horace Greeley is significant for signalling a major change in Union policy. To this point, Lincoln had been stating that slavery would be left alone, and had checked Union officers like Fremont who wanted to emancipate. The "free none, some or all" message see Lincoln throwing emancipation on the table.

I agree mostly with your statement "there was no promise or certainity during the war." Thus the importance of black soldiers in blue. They were serving a military purpose, but also ensuring that the road out of slavery remained open. I believe(pretty certain, but I haven't looked for the quote) that before the 1864, Montgomery Blair urged Lincoln to retract at least part of the EP(this is memory now). Lincoln firmly rejected this notion, noting that not only would it be unjust, in view of the importance of black troops to the war effort, not even expedient. The EP's limits were dictated, not by Lincoln's wishes, but by legal limits to his war powers.

In my own view, its obvious that the EP, given Union victory, was a blow that slavery wasn't going to recover from. It was the major step in the process that led to the 13th amendment.

[Hanny]

Originally Posted by trice

This, of course, is not so.

The Amendment you are referring to was passed by Congress in 1810 and was ratified by 12 states by 1812, an insufficient number. Article V of the Constitution applies, and there were 17 states at that time, so one more was required. It was never an actual part of our Constitution, never a part of our laws, and never removed from the Constitution.

Anyone interested in the silliness around this can look at http://www.thirdamendment.com/missing.html

Tim

Actually tim, that link is part of the first post i gave you if you open up them all to look at, as a rebuttal.

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/13th.htm

The Original 13th Article of Amendment
What was , by law, to be included in the re-publication (a special edition) of the Virginia Civil Code? The Virginia legislature had already agreed that all "Acts" were to go into effect on the same day - the day that the "Act" to re-publish the Civil Code was enacted. Therefore, the 13th Amendment's official date of ratification would be the date of re-publication of the Virginia Civil Code: March 12, 1819.
http://www.ptialaska.net/~swampy/ame...amendment.html

Subject: The Original 13th Article of Amendment -- Press Release
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 20:37:31 -0700
From: Bob Hardison bobhard@nidlink.com
Organization: Barefoot's World
To: APFN@apfn.org
For Your Info -- We have just placed a new domain on the web --
We believe if it is brought before the public, significant changes can be made...
The Original Thirteenth Article of Amendment To
The Constitution For The United States

The Original 13th Amendment
This Article of Amendment, ratified in 1819 and which just "disappeared" in 1876, added an enforceable strict penalty, i.e., inability to hold office and loss of citizenship, for violations of the already existing constitutional prohibition in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 8 on titles of nobility and other conflicts of citizenship interest, such as accepting emoluments of any kind for services or favors rendered or to be rendered, and is particularly applicable today in the 21st Century as government is increasingly FOR SALE to the highest bidder, as foreign and multinational corporations and individuals compete to line the pockets of politicians and political parties to accommodate and purchase protection or privilege, i.e. honors, for their special interests.
=============================================
13AMDMT.ZIP 24272 11-12-93 Original 13th Amendment would have outlawed
Bar membership (atty's) and other Titles of
Nobility. May have actually been ratified.
http://www.state-citizen.org/files/g...00contents.txt
========================================
SECTION II CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD
In January, 1810, Senator Reed proposed the "Title of
Nobility" Amendment (History of Congress, Proceedings of the
Senate, p. 529-530). On April 27, 1810, the Senate voted to pass
this 13th Amendment by a vote of 26 to 1; the House resolved in
the affirmative 87 to 3; and the resolve was sent to the States
for ratification: By Dec. 10, 1812, twelve of the required
thirteen States had ratified as follows: Maryland, Dec. 25,
1810; Kentucky, Jan. 31, 1811; Ohio, Jan. 31, 1811; Delaware, Feb.
2, 1811; Pennsylvania, Feb. 6, 1811; New Jersey, Feb. 13, 1811;
Vermont, Oct. 24, 1811; Tennessee, Nov. 21, 1811; Georgia, Dec.
13, 1811; North Carolina, Dec. 23, 1811; Massachusetts, Feb. 27,
1812;New Hampshire, Dec. 10, 1812. Before a thirteenth State could
ratify, the War of 1812 broke out and interupted this very rapid
move for ratification.
No record has been found that the State of Connecticut ever acted
to either accept or reject this original 13th Amendment. Yet, it
was published in three separate editions of "The Public Statute
Laws of the State of Connecticut" as a part of the U.S.
Constitution in 1821, 1824 and 1835. Then, without record or
explanation, it mysteriously disappeared from subsequent editions
prior to the Civil War between the states. However, printing by a
legislature is prima facie evidence of ratification, and it has
been found to have been printed as part of the Constitution in
this and many other states until around the Civil War period -
when it mysteriously disappeared from subsequent printings. It
was found to have been printed by the legislature of this State in
the following: 1821 - The Public Statute Laws of the State of
Connecticut, as revised and enacted by the General Assembly in
May, 1821 pg. 19 1824 - The Public Statute Laws of the State of
Connecticut, as revised and enacted by the General Assembly in
May, 1824 pg.18-19 1835 - The Public Statute Laws of the State of
Connecticut, compiled in obedience to a resolve of the General
Assembly passed May, 1835, to which is prefixed the Declaration of
Independence & Constitution of the United States and the State of
Connecticut, published by the authority of the State of
Connecticut. The Marginal note in all three publications reads:
"Citizenship forfeited by the acceptance, from a foreign power, of
any title of nobility, office or emolument of any kind, &c." The
prima facie evidence of ratification of this Amendment is
overwhelming. Since the creditors of this bankruptcy are foreign
powers and this "unacountable committee of lawyers'" spoken of by
Robert H. Bork have accepted and retained the "office of trustee"
for these creditors and foreign powers, their Citizenship has
been forfeited by this acceptance.
http://www.calneva.com/money/lawsuit3.htm
==============================================

"If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them."


The TONA Research Committee seeks your assistance in placing this vital information
before the people...
--
Have a Good Day :=)
----- If the People will Lead, the leaders will follow.-----
"The Constitution for the United States, Its Sources and Its Application",
A Reference Work with Index, Landmark Court Cases, and A Short History -
http://www.nidlink.com/~bobhard/constit1.html
The Missing 13th Amendment
"TITLES OF NOBILITY" AND "HONOR"
http://www.frii.com/~gosplow/13th.html
The Original Thirteenth Amendment:
Titles of Nobility and Honour,
An Essay
http://www.freedomdomain.com/orig13th02.html
Below is proof of the de facto government's actions. Below is the original thirteenth amendment as it appears in a manual printed in 1840 for American citizens- -


MEANING of the 13th AMENDMENT
The "missing" 13th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads
as follows:
"If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive,
or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall without the
consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension,
office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king,
prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen
of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office
of trust or profit under them, or either of them."
At the first reading, the meaning of this 13th Amendment (also called the
"title of nobility" Amendment) seems obscure, unimportant. The references to
"nobility", "honour", "emperor", "king", and "prince" lead us to dismiss
this amendment as a petty post-revolution act of spite directed against the
British monarchy. But in our modern world of Lady Di and Prince Charles,
anti-royalist sentiments seem so archaic and quaint, that the Amendment can
be ignored. Not so. Consider some evidence of its historical significance:
* First, "titles of nobility" were prohibited in both Article VI of the
Articles of Confederation (1777) and in Article I, Sections 9 and 10 of
the Constitution of the United States (1787);
* Second, although already prohibited by the Constitution, an additional
"title of nobility" amendment was proposed in 1789, again in 1810, and
according to Dodge, finally ratified in 1819.
Clearly, the founding fathers saw such a serious threat in "titles of
nobility" and "honors" that anyone receiving them would forfeit their
citizenship. Since the government prohibited "titles of nobility" several
times over four decades, and went through the amending process (even though
"titles of nobility" were already prohibited by the Constitution), it's
obvious that the Amendment carried much more significance for our founding
fathers than is readily apparent today.
http://www.tomdavisbooks.com/library...nd.html#mean13
==================================================
From the State of Maine
Constitution Printed in 1825