Southern Secession

Everybody knows the Democrats started the KKK and what not but I have a question on topic.

Did the Emancipation Proclamation free the slaves in the NORTH?

 

Because I've had this debate dozens of times before on the forum. I'm glad you haven't fallen for the lies that others have. Still, I'd also argue against the idea that they thought of it as a states' rights issue. It was more of an individual rights issue. They didn't leave the issue of slavery up to their own states . . . all of their states had to be slave states. And they had specifically split the Democrat party over this very issue, not seeing the whole "let the states decide" approach as being pro-slavery enough.

 

Historically you're incorrect. There is only someone to 3% of people that actually even owned slaves in the south. It was sort of a rich man's thing no doubt generals who probably wear Richmond made a big deal about it but you don't get people to get up out of their homes and go to war for some rich man's privilege that doesn't happen.

The component of this was an attempts to restructure the United States. Before the civil war before the secession you didn't identify yourself as American you would say I'm Georgian or I'm from New York or Vermont you wouldn't say you were American because it was a loose confederation of states that formed a central rather weak government.

The whig party of which Abraham Lincoln belonged to before he became president. Wanted to reverse that where all of the states were subservient to a powerful national government.

That's what the war was fought over. That's what people succeeded for it wasn't because the one rich person they knew wouldn't be able to hold slaves.

 

Lincoln had no political power to free all of the slaves in the North, though he did a good job of freeing as many as he could with the power that he had (psst, look up DC). Homework, please. By the way, I grew up in the KKK capital of Texas. Those guys aren't voting Democrat, m'dude.

 

The Morrill Tariff was passed in 1860. That tariff and past tariffs we're part of the secessionist grievances.

How is the the 2nd Confederate National Flag the "real one"? That don't even make sense.

 

1862, bud. Not 1860. See previous post. Try reading it this time. Congrats on failing to address any of the facts listed in the previous post.

The flag you are calling the "Confederate National Flag" was a battle flag. It was never actually the flag of the Confederacy. Also, the flag I'm referring to was the 2nd and 3rd flag. Together, the longest-flying flag of the "country." Refer to the previous post.

 

I'm not really sure the Republican Party of the 1860's could be labeled "conservative".

 

He had no constitutional power, but it's funny how so many Leftists think The Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves, in all the states.

 

You post , over and over. I was born, raised and live in Texas. KKK capital my ass.

Pssst, NO, LINCOLN DIDN'T FREE THE SLAVES IN THE NORTH. Which ought to tell you something....the war wasn't fought over slavery. It's always the race-baiting left that uses any sort of racism to try to win an argument. You're boring me.

Lincoln wanted to round up all the slaves and ship them to South America. Did you little Democrat play book tell you that?

As @Polydectes pointed out above, it was only 2.5 - 3% of Southerners that actually owned slaves. First slave owner was a black man. Fact. Blacks fought for the Confederacy. Fact.

Now carry that tired race card bullshit outta here.

 

Yes. I'm glad you now understand.

I have yet to see anyone claim that. Do you understand that the President has more power to determine how contraband during wartime than they do to unilaterally change how individual states work?

 

The Emancipation Proclamation was a snot rag, and Lincoln only penned it thinking it would create turmoil/a slave uprising that would benefit the North and help win the war.

 

I guess you've never heard of Vidor. Big surprise.

Thank you for confessing, explicitly, that you didn't read the OP. That takes guts. Mad respect.

Buddy. Pal. I've repeatedly called Lincoln a racist. He was a racist. Catch up. You are failing hard at this whole reading thing.

More and more and more strawmen. It's all you have. Fact: ALMOST HALF of all households in the first states to secede were slaveholding households, and even those who didn't personally own slaves wrote PROLIFICALLY about why they still supported slavery anyway.

 

Whatever you need to tell yourself for the copium, m'dude.

 

You can stop right there with the race card. And I'm not your ****ing bud, bud.

 

It was reintroduced in 1860 and adopted in March 1861. Try doing some actual research, for a change

The Battle Flag was just that, the battle flag. It was adopted because of the confusion caused on the battlefield by the similarities between the United States flag and the 1st Confederate National flag.

This is the 1st National flag...


Do some research, please!

 

That's all you got, huh?

Fact is that you are lying. Consistently. Or maybe you're just uninformed. Nevertheless, everybody can see your race card bullshit.

 

^^^^^ This is correct.

 

Yeah, lots of people believe that...lol

https://studentsforliberty.org/blog/top-5-myths-about-abraham-lincolns-emancipation-proclamation/

 

People love the idea that the civil was was all about slavery because people in 1860 had the same morality as people today.

It's a mythology.

The reality was Lincoln was such a bastard somebody went and shot him.

 

Well I'm learning more of my history and its much appreciated whether its in the history subforum or not.

 

Do you're own follow-up research. Don't take anyone's word for it.

 

basically conservatives dont read or know history, licolns republican party was much more akin to todays liberals, and by the way teddy roosevelt republican party was a PROGRESSIVE party, the modern republicans turned to the business comunity for support in 1920s and to oppose FDRs socialist tendendecies, and all of us have had to listen to anti-comunist rhetoric ever since

 

Lincoln wanted to preserve the Union, slaves freed, or not.

 

+yes lincoln did, and the entire sway of the western world was becoming anti slavery,,,i dont believe this thread has made a distinction between being set free from slavery and granted equal rights and even many abolitionist did not favor equal rights

 

I see an assertion here in this thread from a member that only 3% of the Confederacy was involved in owning slaves.

I've seen this assertion before, here at PF. Then, using the excellent original source material available from this poster's own link,

https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/decennial/1860/

I finally had the time to analyze the data:

The Confederacy consisted of 11 states.
In the June 1860 census for these states there were a total of 3,521,110 slaves.

The general population of these states was 9,103,332.

The slave population was therefore 38.68% of the Confederacy, but the Civil War wasn't about slavery?

The number of slaveholders was about 316,632 among the 11 Confederate States.
This number has some inconsistencies between some of the source material docs.

This represented 3.48% of the total census population, including slaves.
So, this metric is about correct at face value, lowering the percentage substantially by including the slaves themselves in the ratio.

Assuming no one objects, let's see what that ratio is of the non-slaves.

316632/(9103332-3521110) = 5.67%

But, gee, this ratio is so low because why?
Yep, kids or women & children - probably not many women and children counted as potentially even being able to own a slave.

I tell ya, ya got to want this to get it, but the source is linked above, 1860d-13 contains the thing I'm looking for, "Families and Free Population".

Anybody know where my ratio is going to end up?
I don't, I've not crunched these data before.

***
I'll be back....