Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

hide menu
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#23 - littlejewnig (01/02/2013) [-]
Emancipation Proclamation really didn't mean 						****					.  yeah, it made the slaves think they were free and helped the North win the war.  but considering that the confederacy had technically seceded, they didn't have to abide by Lincoln's laws.  It was the 13th amendment that officially abolished slavery after the Civil War.   
   
TL;DR: 13th amendment abolished slavery.  Not Emancipation Proclamation.
Emancipation Proclamation really didn't mean **** . yeah, it made the slaves think they were free and helped the North win the war. but considering that the confederacy had technically seceded, they didn't have to abide by Lincoln's laws. It was the 13th amendment that officially abolished slavery after the Civil War.

TL;DR: 13th amendment abolished slavery. Not Emancipation Proclamation.
#65 to #23 - cidkh ONLINE (01/02/2013) [-]
You clearly misunderstood the Emancipation Proclamations' intent then.   
   
To say it "didn't mean 						****					" is to say that the Proclamation was intended to free the slaves outright, it was not.  The President doesn't have the power to do that.  What it was intended to do was to:   
   
-make slavery a key point in the civil war. Up to this point the Union had not designated freeing the slaves as a war aim.  This effectively ended any hope of the confederacy receiving military support from Europe, as Britain/France (supporters of the Confederacy prior to 1863) did not want to aid the south, for fears their actions would be interpreted as supporting slavery.   
   
- In rebelling states the slaves were ordered by the executive power to be freed.  Of course since these states are rebelling they aren't going to comply with the President's orders.  However The union army will, the proclamation allowed the Union to free any slaves the Union army/navy had encountered in rebelling states over the course of the war.   
   
-Further, you can't ignore the impact of the Emancipation Proclamation in "fathering" the 13th amendment to the constitution.   
   
The claim that the confederacy had "technically seceded" wasn't the reason that the south didn't have to obey the laws of the United States.  The secession of the southern states was not recognized by the federal government and the Union firmly denied that the USA had been split into two nations.     
   
This was the reason for the outbreak of the war, the Union considered the southern states to be states in rebellion but still under the jurisdiction of the American federal government, whereas the Confederacy considered themselves (and tried to make other nations see them as) their own separate country.   
   
TLDR - You're wrong, on several levels, but we can still be friends.
You clearly misunderstood the Emancipation Proclamations' intent then.

To say it "didn't mean **** " is to say that the Proclamation was intended to free the slaves outright, it was not. The President doesn't have the power to do that. What it was intended to do was to:

-make slavery a key point in the civil war. Up to this point the Union had not designated freeing the slaves as a war aim. This effectively ended any hope of the confederacy receiving military support from Europe, as Britain/France (supporters of the Confederacy prior to 1863) did not want to aid the south, for fears their actions would be interpreted as supporting slavery.

- In rebelling states the slaves were ordered by the executive power to be freed. Of course since these states are rebelling they aren't going to comply with the President's orders. However The union army will, the proclamation allowed the Union to free any slaves the Union army/navy had encountered in rebelling states over the course of the war.

-Further, you can't ignore the impact of the Emancipation Proclamation in "fathering" the 13th amendment to the constitution.

The claim that the confederacy had "technically seceded" wasn't the reason that the south didn't have to obey the laws of the United States. The secession of the southern states was not recognized by the federal government and the Union firmly denied that the USA had been split into two nations.

This was the reason for the outbreak of the war, the Union considered the southern states to be states in rebellion but still under the jurisdiction of the American federal government, whereas the Confederacy considered themselves (and tried to make other nations see them as) their own separate country.

TLDR - You're wrong, on several levels, but we can still be friends.
#77 to #65 - cupcakedevourer (01/02/2013) [-]
C-can WE be friends, random person who knows a lot about something I kinda don't care about?
C-can WE be friends, random person who knows a lot about something I kinda don't care about?
User avatar #63 to #23 - maturityFAIL (01/02/2013) [-]
I really appreciated the short answer at the end
User avatar #41 to #23 - RequieminMortis (01/02/2013) [-]
Not to mention that it ONLY applied to slaves in the Confederate states. There were at least two or three Union states that allowed ownership of slaves, and they weren't affected by the Proclamation since they weren't rebelling.
 Friends (0)