View single post by Shadowrebel
 Posted: Wed Jul 12th, 2006 03:03 am
 PM  Quote  Reply  Full Topic 

Joined: Tue Sep 13th, 2005
Location: Old Forge, Pennsylvania USA
Posts: 71

  back to top


My choice of the word sugarcoat was wrong. I am sorry I used it and extend my apologies. I should have used:  You justify (instead of sugarcoat) it by saying the Emancipation Proclamation "paved the way for the freedom of millions",what paved the way for this was the North winning the war and during its' assmilation of the conquered territory forcing the former state to accept the 13th Amendment to be back in the Union.

I stand by what I said that the victory in the war lead to the slaves being free. If the South had won the proclamation would have meant nothing.

Slaves had been escaping since the founding of the Underground Railroad. "While the enterprise began sometime after 1780 with the abolition of slavery in Pennsylvania, the Underground Railroad was most active between 1835 to 1865." (source page 8 In Pursuit of Freedom, Teaching the Underground Railroad by William C. Kashatus) During the war and before the proclamation slaves escaped to the Union and would continue to after it.

Consider that the proclamation only freed slaves in places not controled by the Union what effect did it have? Yes slaves escaped when the Union troops got close enough to allow for this, but what about the ones that did not have the luxury of Union troops being close by? Also, after the war ended with the Union in total control did the South have the right to go to court and have the proclamation declared unconstitutional base on slavery being a states issue and further under the Fugitive Slave Laws have the right to reclaim their property? Would slavery then be reinstated? Also since the proclamation free exsisting slave and slavery was a states right would the slaveowner have the right to purchase new slaves?

I will state that because of fear the proclamation might be ruled unconstitutional it helped bring about the 13th Amendment.

"Near the end of the war, Republican abolitionists were concerned that the Emancipation Proclamation would be construed solely as a war act and thus unconstitutional once fighting ended." (Source

Your line of thought is a plausable one and I am sure many people would agree with you stance. Again sorry for my word usage. I meant no disrespect.

Thank you and I hope you understand.



Last edited on Wed Jul 12th, 2006 11:57 am by Shadowrebel

 Close Window