The Great Emancipator? Emancipated What?


(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Forum Host
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
34,774
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
#23
A quick search shows "about 1600" threads discussing the Emancipation Proclamation. You might look for your answer in one of them.
In the meanwhile:
  • It made the end of slavery an explicit war objective, in addition to reuniting of the country;
  • It freed slaves under rebel control and was the first step toward abolishing slavery nationwide;
  • It allowed freed slaves to be enlisted in the U. S. Army, providing additional forces to conduct the war;
  • It had a severe impact on the rebel economy by providing an incentive for slaves to run away;
  • It made it difficult if not impossible for Britain and France to intervene on behalf of the rebel slave state or extend recognition.
All too often it is criticized as not going far enough. Yet it was an ingenious use of the only avenue Lincoln had under our Constitution: the war powers of the Executive.
FWIW a quick search for "Emancipation Proclamation" threads here Search link
 

wbull1

Sergeant
Joined
Jul 26, 2018
Messages
579
#25
Declaring war against "iddleness," "vagrancy, "and "crime". Banks initiated a new labor program in February 1863 that further confused the boundary between slavery and freedom. Provost marshals would induce "negroes. . .to return to their families and the plantations where they belong" and take their physical presence as "proof of their assent" to contract. They would then make sure laborers worked "diligently and faithfully" with "respectful deportment to their employers, and perfect subordination to their duties" on the plantations to which they were "bound" for the year. Employers, in turn, agreed to provide food, clothing, proper treatment, and due compensation in the form of wages (sharply reduced to between one and three dollars per month) or one-twentieth share of the crop at the end of the year. Louisiana's working peoples, the majority of whom formally remained slaves, were nowhere closer to economic independence under Banks system. Many refused to be "induced" to return to their old plantations, a group of workers on a plantation near New Orleans collectively vowing they would "rather die" than labor under the new rules. Union officers, moreover, often ended up taking on roles previously held by slave patrols and overseers. Not only collaborated closely with planters to discipline workers, at times displaying a viciousness that rivaled the worst of the slavery regime. Planters nonetheless decried the new system as "an actual and immediate emancipation" of Louisiana Slaves. pp58-59 Coolies and Cane by Moon-Ho Jung

New Boss same as the Old Boss. These negroes walk of the job, emancipated themselves in 1862. the EP is going to Re-enslave them. They are exempt from the EP because they are in one of the parishes exempted from the EP in Louisiana. Old Able was probably trying to decide what to do with them. Colonize them or at least put them in Indentured Service like the British West Indians after their Slavery. Whatever, Negroes self emancipated and were returned to Slavery.

Who initiated the policy? Banks. Did Davis personally support everything his military officers did? No. Why assume Lincoln did? I find your attempt to image what Lincoln was thinking is quite different than the actions he took.
 

cash

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
33,526
Location
Right here.
#26
Declaring war against "iddleness," "vagrancy, "and "crime". Banks initiated a new labor program in February 1863 that further confused the boundary between slavery and freedom. Provost marshals would induce "negroes. . .to return to their families and the plantations where they belong" and take their physical presence as "proof of their assent" to contract. They would then make sure laborers worked "diligently and faithfully" with "respectful deportment to their employers, and perfect subordination to their duties" on the plantations to which they were "bound" for the year. Employers, in turn, agreed to provide food, clothing, proper treatment, and due compensation in the form of wages (sharply reduced to between one and three dollars per month) or one-twentieth share of the crop at the end of the year. Louisiana's working peoples, the majority of whom formally remained slaves, were nowhere closer to economic independence under Banks system. Many refused to be "induced" to return to their old plantations, a group of workers on a plantation near New Orleans collectively vowing they would "rather die" than labor under the new rules. Union officers, moreover, often ended up taking on roles previously held by slave patrols and overseers. Not only collaborated closely with planters to discipline workers, at times displaying a viciousness that rivaled the worst of the slavery regime. Planters nonetheless decried the new system as "an actual and immediate emancipation" of Louisiana Slaves. pp58-59 Coolies and Cane by Moon-Ho Jung

New Boss same as the Old Boss. These negroes walk of the job, emancipated themselves in 1862. the EP is going to Re-enslave them. They are exempt from the EP because they are in one of the parishes exempted from the EP in Louisiana. Old Able was probably trying to decide what to do with them. Colonize them or at least put them in Indentured Service like the British West Indians after their Slavery. Whatever, Negroes self emancipated and were returned to Slavery.
As your own evidence shows, they were not re-enslaved, so your characterization does not conform to your own evidence. The EP didn't re-enslave them. In fact, as your evidence shows, the planters considered that the policy completely and immediately emancipated all Louisiana slaves. Now, Banks' policy was unfair to the freed people and was nowhere near what it should have been, but it was not a re-enslavement as you claim.

Your characterization about Lincoln is also false.
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Forum Host
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
34,774
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
#28
The Union Army by force, freed (put in contraband camps) slaves when they encountered them.
As the Union Army freed US territory from rebel control, any slaves were freed. Some chose the camps, others joined as soldiers in the Union army, some became support personnel, some independent contractors etc.
US Congress officially freed all the slaves with the passage of the 13th amendment, without legitimate Southern representation.
I was unaware that State governments loyal to the United States were illegitimate.
Lincoln, & or, the EP didn't free anybody.
Odd, Lincoln issued the EP and by the end of the War, all slaves were free in the occupied South. The 13th just put a nail in slavery's coffin to make sure that no post-war legislation would reenslave folks.
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
28,203
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
#29
Lincoln, & or, the EP didn't free anybody.

Not true. Thousands of slaves were freed when the Emancipation Proclamation went into effect.


The Union Army by force, freed (put in contraband camps) slaves when they encountered them.

Wow, pretty much a blanket statement without historical back-up.

US Congress officially freed all the slaves with the passage of the 13th amendment, without legitimate Southern representation.
They kinda' forfited that representation, didn't they?
 

cash

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
33,526
Location
Right here.
#30
Lincoln, & or, the EP didn't free anybody.

The Union Army by force, freed (put in contraband camps) slaves when they encountered them.

US Congress officially freed all the slaves with the passage of the 13th amendment, without legitimate Southern representation.
Rubbish.

The Lincoln Administration had been freeing slaves since August of 1861.

Lincoln and the EP freed every enslaved person in the confederacy. It took the Union Army to enforce that freedom. It turned the Union Army into an Army of Freedom, which freed slaves everywhere it marched.

About 20,000 to 40,000 enslaved people were immediately freed by the EP on the day it was issued because they were in areas controlled by Union forces that were not excepted by the EP. "By the turn of the year two areas--south-east Louisiana and eastern Virginia--had elected representatives to the US Congress, and were thus exempted from the terms of the Proclamation. Similarly the forty-eight counties slated at that time to form the new state of West Virginia were exempted, as was neighboring Berkeley Country (whose status vis a vis the new state was at that time up in the air). No other Union-occupied areas were exempted. These included Baton Rouge (reoccupied by Union forces on December 20, 1862), northern Arkansas; various parts of northern Alabama, Mississippi, and Virginia (Jefferson County, the lower Shenandoah Valley, and the area around Alexandria); north-eastern North Carolina; and coastal enclaves in South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida. In all these cases--parts of nine states--the status of slaves was immediately changed." [William C. Harris, "After the Emancipation Proclamation: Lincoln's Role in the Ending of Slavery," North and South Magazine, Volume 5, Number 1, December, 2001, page 48]

In addition, it dealt a body blow to slavery in the loyal Border States by authorizing the enlistment of black soldiers. Any slave who enlisted, even in the Border States, was automatically freed, along with his family. Slaves in Kentucky, for example, enlisted in the thousands and received their freedom along with their families' freedom. There is also at least one case on record, that of the plantation of Charles Hays located about 18 miles outside Louisville, Kentucky. Hays called his slaves together and told them, “It is my duty to inform you, you are free to go where you please.” Then he cursed Lincoln for “taking all you negroes away from me.” There was a great jubilee among the slaves, and they cheered Abraham Lincoln.

The Thirteenth Amendment was passed in Congress with legitimate representation of all participating states, and it was ratified by most southern states after the war.
 
Joined
Jan 11, 2019
Messages
8
#31
Lincoln, & or, the EP didn't free anybody.

The Union Army by force, freed (put in contraband camps) slaves when they encountered them.

US Congress officially freed all the slaves with the passage of the 13th amendment, without legitimate Southern representation.

Perfectly true. And James Mcpherson discusses the enslavement of African-American Confederate citizens by the United States Army with specificity in The Battle Cry of Freedom.
 

cash

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
33,526
Location
Right here.
#32
Perfectly true. And James Mcpherson discusses the enslavement of African-American Confederate citizens by the United States Army with specificity in The Battle Cry of Freedom.
Little is true about that fake history post.

How about some specificity about where in BCoF McPherson discusses this so we can see the context?
 
Joined
Jan 11, 2019
Messages
8
#33
And McPherson also details many of the sadistic cruelties United States soldiers inflicted upon African-American Confederate citizens, including helpless children. Pretty ugly stuff.
 
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Messages
7,576
Location
Denver, CO
#34
Title:
Freedom national : the destruction of slavery in the United States, 1861-1865 / James Oakes.
Author:
Oakes, James.
Call Number:
973.714 OAKES
Edition:
1st ed.
Publisher, Date:
New York : W. W. Norton & Co., 2013.
Description:
p. cm.
Subjects:
United States. President (1861-1865 : Lincoln). Emancipation Proclamation.
Slaves -- Emancipation -- United States.
Slavery -- United States -- History.
Antislavery movements -- United States -- History.
United States -- History -- Civil War, 1861-1865.
Notes:
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN:
9780393065312 (hardcover)
0393065316 (hardcover)
The alternative is factless assertions on the internet.
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
28,203
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
#35
Perfectly true. And James Mcpherson discusses the enslavement of African-American Confederate citizens by the United States Army with specificity in The Battle Cry of Freedom.
And McPherson also details many of the sadistic cruelties United States soldiers inflicted upon African-American Confederate citizens, including helpless children. Pretty ugly stuff.
@Conroy,

Post some examples from the book so I can check my copy for such acts. Do you have a chapter, page number, etc., that states such from the book?

Unionblue
 

jackt62

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Jul 28, 2015
Messages
2,948
Location
New York City
#37
I've read most of McPherson's books and I honestly cannot recall his relating instances of "sadistic crueties" inflicted by United States soldiers on African Americans. So I too would like to see specific citations from his works to verify this claim. To be sure, McPherson enumerates well known instances of bigotry (like Sherman's attitude toward enlisting Black soldiers), but that is a far cry from outright acts of sadism.
 
Joined
Jan 11, 2019
Messages
8
#38
I've read most of McPherson's books and I honestly cannot recall his relating instances of "sadistic crueties" inflicted by United States soldiers on African Americans. So I too would like to see specific citations from his works to verify this claim. To be sure, McPherson enumerates well known instances of bigotry (like Sherman's attitude toward enlisting Black soldiers), but that is a far cry from outright acts of sadism.

I'll post the text shortly. It involves the gang-rape and torture of a 7/8 year old African-American child by United States soldiers. Again, it was brutal, and ugly, ugly stuff.
 

Similar threads




(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)
Top