Restricted Fresh perspective on hot issue.

Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Joined
Oct 31, 2017
Messages
522
Location
Bountiful
Where the necessities of service require it, the forced labor of citizens, slaves, and even prisoners of war, may be employed in the construction of military defences" (December 4, 1861)
Way to cherry pick. The imposition of Martial Law and the suspension of Habeas Corpus in response to an emergency seems to be an "equal opportunity" for everyone. Last time I checked, citizens, slaves, and even pow's pretty much includes everyone. Why I bet that if there were any "danged foreigners" hanging around they'd get impressed into constructing defences as well.
 

Mortari

Corporal
Joined
Oct 16, 2018
Messages
387
Everything Confederate is being used as a scapegoat for the sins of the Union. Often you will see the phrase "the South fought for slavery and white supremacy" at this forum and elsewhere.....

Never mind the "Emancipation Proclamation" did not free the hundreds of thousands of slaves under their control.
And this is why I think the history has been changing lately. It used to be that the lost cause stories could be told and to counter them a person needed to visit certain libraries to find the primary source documents that would debunk those lazy claims. Today luckily for those actually wanting to see the real history those source documents are readily available. We can see the Tennessee secession convention and that their secessionist movement was entirely about protecting/expanding slavery and erase all the other myths thrown out for example.

So when people say the South fought for slavery and white Supremacy, it is because the founding fathers of the Confederacy and leading secessionists said time and again that's what they were splitting for.

And yes, the EP only free'd the 3.5 million slaves in the south. In 5th grade civics in America we are taught about the separation of powers in the government and that the President is part of the Executive branch and Congress makes up the legislative branch and the President doesn't have the power to write or change Constitutional laws.

In this case with the Southern states in rebellion he did however have the ability to say they were not protected by the Constitution and using his war powers free the slaves in those states. He also had the power to free slaves in two other places. Washington DC and West Virginia. He signed the law freeing slaves in the first, and told the latter that passing a law to emancipate their slaves would be their only requirement to rejoin the US.

Now back to that elementary education we receive in America, we all know that the Dred Scott case set precedence that slavery was Constitutionally protected, requiring an amendment to free them. And an amendment had to be ratified by 75% of the states. Since 1/3 of them were in rebellion, that was not a possible solution. Which is why Lincoln as the war was closing pushed so hard for that 13th amendment, to get it through Congress before southern legislators were back in, and then hope that with reconstruction governments and political pressure he could get the ratification.

So when people pull that idea that the EP didn't free all the slaves.. that is true. not by choice but because we have a President and not a King. Lincoln also didn't establish himself as President for life and make France a colony because he didn't have those powers either.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Top