Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves, agree or disagree?
Poll - Total Votes: 42
Agree
Disagree
Disagree, slavery still exists today especially human trafficking and in prisons.
You may vote on multiple answers.
22-25, F
Top | Newest First | Oldest First
dancingtongue · 80-89, M
It's not a yes/no question. We live in a more complex world than can't be simply digitalized into either/or choices, but then you recognized that with your hybrid option tilting the vote .
In the larger scheme of things, he was the catalyst that started the events eventually leading to the 13th Amendment which actually abolished slavery or involuntary servitude (except for convicted prisoners) after Lincoln's death.
He usually is credited for ending slavery with the Emancipation Proclamation, but it only applied to Confederate States and he only issued it after significant portions of the territory in the Confederate States already were under the control of Union soldiers in hopes of promoting slaves to revolt and join the Union military effort. It did not affect slavery in border states that still permitted slavery but had opted to stay in the Union.
And the myth of him being a shining white knight who ran for President to free the slaves, and did so, is largely just that: myth. The big issue in his election was not ending slavery where it existed, but to exclude it from new territories and states. His actual solution to existing slavery was for states to voluntarily abolish slavery as they recognized it was an unsustainable economic system, compensating slave owners for the loss of their "property", and providing free transit for slaves back to Africa for those wanting it. When the Confederate States seceded, the driving issue for him was maintaining the Union, not ending slavery.
And as you pointed out in your third option, slavery still exists in many different forms world-wide including in the U.S.; it is just not legal in most countries.
But the quick answer is, events moved him to be the poster child of the abolitionist movement although he was never the most forceful advocate of such, and his successful leadership in winning the Civil War led to the abolishment of legal slave ownership. The route to that point became, as usual with politics, the art of the possible at any given moment.
In the larger scheme of things, he was the catalyst that started the events eventually leading to the 13th Amendment which actually abolished slavery or involuntary servitude (except for convicted prisoners) after Lincoln's death.
He usually is credited for ending slavery with the Emancipation Proclamation, but it only applied to Confederate States and he only issued it after significant portions of the territory in the Confederate States already were under the control of Union soldiers in hopes of promoting slaves to revolt and join the Union military effort. It did not affect slavery in border states that still permitted slavery but had opted to stay in the Union.
And the myth of him being a shining white knight who ran for President to free the slaves, and did so, is largely just that: myth. The big issue in his election was not ending slavery where it existed, but to exclude it from new territories and states. His actual solution to existing slavery was for states to voluntarily abolish slavery as they recognized it was an unsustainable economic system, compensating slave owners for the loss of their "property", and providing free transit for slaves back to Africa for those wanting it. When the Confederate States seceded, the driving issue for him was maintaining the Union, not ending slavery.
And as you pointed out in your third option, slavery still exists in many different forms world-wide including in the U.S.; it is just not legal in most countries.
But the quick answer is, events moved him to be the poster child of the abolitionist movement although he was never the most forceful advocate of such, and his successful leadership in winning the Civil War led to the abolishment of legal slave ownership. The route to that point became, as usual with politics, the art of the possible at any given moment.
beckyromero · 36-40, F
@dancingtongue
@JSul3
The 13th Amendment was passed by the Congress of the United States while Abraham Lincoln was very much alive. The House of Representatives on January 31, 1865 (the Senate had passed it the previous April).
Although it was RATIFIED by the States only after Lincoln's death, that was a forgone conclusion. By early March, 19 of the 27 states needed for ratification (of a total of 36) had done so.
In the larger scheme of things, he was the catalyst that started the events eventually leading to the 13th Amendment which actually abolished slavery or involuntary servitude (except for convicted prisoners) after Lincoln's death.
❤@JSul3
Lincoln was no abolitionist.
The 13th Amendment was passed by the Congress of the United States while Abraham Lincoln was very much alive. The House of Representatives on January 31, 1865 (the Senate had passed it the previous April).
Although it was RATIFIED by the States only after Lincoln's death, that was a forgone conclusion. By early March, 19 of the 27 states needed for ratification (of a total of 36) had done so.
dancingtongue · 80-89, M
@beckyromero True. But just as other legislation requires the President's signature (or Senate override of his/her veto) before becoming law, Constitutional Amendments require ratification by the States before becoming effective. That came after his assassination. I'm not sure any political action is a foregone conclusion.
SomeMichGuy · M
@Gibbon Yes. The South wanted slavery.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
Roundandroundwego · 61-69
emiliya · 22-25, F
Abraham Lincoln freed the black slaves in USA. They went to war over this; many died. Despite not engaging in harsh verbal judgment of the southern states, Lincoln was still very willing to fight them, declare slaves free in those states and ensure his army make them free. He had an obligation to make sure the southern states came back into the union, but in doing so he was still going against the will of the southern states. In abolishing slavery, he was ensuring the economic downfall of the south. He did not want to do that, but it was an inevitable consequence if he was going to free slaves. They were locked into poverty after the slaves went free.
Slaves are still used today, but what could Lincoln have done about that? They are used all over the world.
If he were not an abolitionist, he would not have abolished slavery. It is typical in politics for leaders to be criticized by both sides if they are moderate and sensible, and Abraham Lincoln was moderate and sensible. He went about freeing slaves in a clever and practical way, and he did it while knowing that white Americans were going to suffer, and suffer for a long time. Let us consider that whites were and still are a majority in US. For someone who did sympathize with whites in the south, he chose the African American slave over them. He has earned the right to be called an abolitionist.
Slaves are still used today, but what could Lincoln have done about that? They are used all over the world.
If he were not an abolitionist, he would not have abolished slavery. It is typical in politics for leaders to be criticized by both sides if they are moderate and sensible, and Abraham Lincoln was moderate and sensible. He went about freeing slaves in a clever and practical way, and he did it while knowing that white Americans were going to suffer, and suffer for a long time. Let us consider that whites were and still are a majority in US. For someone who did sympathize with whites in the south, he chose the African American slave over them. He has earned the right to be called an abolitionist.
JSul3 · 70-79
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
SatyrService · M
LordShadowfire · 46-50, M
@SatyrService Also, let's be honest, slavery in the US was only partly eliminated. It's still perfectly legal to enslave prison inmates.
SatyrService · M
@LordShadowfire Yes, United States government says it’s illegal to buy products made by prison labor overseas, but they do it here a lot
4meAndyou · F
It's official.
"The Emancipation Proclamation, officially Proclamation 95, was a presidential proclamation and executive order issued by United States President Abraham Lincoln on January 1, 1863, during the American Civil War. The Proclamation had the effect of changing the legal status of more than 3.5 million enslaved African Americans in the secessionist Confederate states from enslaved to free."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_Proclamation
"The Emancipation Proclamation, officially Proclamation 95, was a presidential proclamation and executive order issued by United States President Abraham Lincoln on January 1, 1863, during the American Civil War. The Proclamation had the effect of changing the legal status of more than 3.5 million enslaved African Americans in the secessionist Confederate states from enslaved to free."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_Proclamation
wildbill83 · 41-45, M
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
Spoiledbrat · F
NotMy1stRodeo · 56-60, M
LordShadowfire · 46-50, M
@NotMy1stRodeo It's like you completely ignored my entire comment, and are responding to an entirely different thread.
NotMy1stRodeo · 56-60, M
@LordShadowfire Nooo .. its like Im refuting that the things you raised are relevant in the modern developed world.
LordShadowfire · 46-50, M
@NotMy1stRodeo But privately owned prisons were still being used to enslave people throughout the 1960s and '70s, and I would argue they're still being used for that. Unless you are prepared to sit there and provide evidence that literally every convicted felon is actually guilty of the crime they were charged with, your argument is null and void.
Heartlander · 80-89, M
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
Heartlander · 80-89, M
calicuz · 56-60, M
Heartlander · 80-89, M
@calicuz
2nd paragraph below. Starting with “(except”. New Orleans was strategically important to the north and fell pretty early in the war. Shutting down the port of New Orleans and controlling the various bypasses from the Mississippi was needed to prevent the shipment of cotton to Europe. So by late late 1862, the north had total control of south Louisiana, The emancipation proclamation was issued in 1863, after the Union had control over the listed parishes, so no need to upset the status quo.
I grew up in Lafourche parish. Thankfully the union forces were kind to the locals, thanks in part to gen W T Sherman having once lived in Baton Rouge and having friends in the bayoulands.
“…… Now, therefore I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, by virtue of the power in me vested as Commander-in-Chief, of the Army and Navy of the United States in time of actual armed rebellion against the authority and government of the United States, and as a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said rebellion, do, on this first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and in accordance with my purpose so to do publicly proclaimed for the full period of one hundred days, from the day first above mentioned, order and designate as the States and parts of States wherein the people thereof respectively, are this day in rebellion against the United States, the following, to wit:
Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, (except the Parishes of St. Bernard, Plaquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James Ascension, Assumption, Terrebonne, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including the City of New Orleans) Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia, (except the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkley, Accomac, Northampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Ann, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth[)], and which excepted parts, are for the present, left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued.
And by virtue of the power, and for the purpose aforesaid, I do order and declare that all persons held as slaves within said designated States, and parts of States, are, and henceforward shall be free; and that the Executive government of the United States, including the military and naval authorities thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of said persons.
And I hereby enjoin upon the people so declared to be free to…”
2nd paragraph below. Starting with “(except”. New Orleans was strategically important to the north and fell pretty early in the war. Shutting down the port of New Orleans and controlling the various bypasses from the Mississippi was needed to prevent the shipment of cotton to Europe. So by late late 1862, the north had total control of south Louisiana, The emancipation proclamation was issued in 1863, after the Union had control over the listed parishes, so no need to upset the status quo.
I grew up in Lafourche parish. Thankfully the union forces were kind to the locals, thanks in part to gen W T Sherman having once lived in Baton Rouge and having friends in the bayoulands.
“…… Now, therefore I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, by virtue of the power in me vested as Commander-in-Chief, of the Army and Navy of the United States in time of actual armed rebellion against the authority and government of the United States, and as a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said rebellion, do, on this first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and in accordance with my purpose so to do publicly proclaimed for the full period of one hundred days, from the day first above mentioned, order and designate as the States and parts of States wherein the people thereof respectively, are this day in rebellion against the United States, the following, to wit:
Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, (except the Parishes of St. Bernard, Plaquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James Ascension, Assumption, Terrebonne, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including the City of New Orleans) Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia, (except the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkley, Accomac, Northampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Ann, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth[)], and which excepted parts, are for the present, left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued.
And by virtue of the power, and for the purpose aforesaid, I do order and declare that all persons held as slaves within said designated States, and parts of States, are, and henceforward shall be free; and that the Executive government of the United States, including the military and naval authorities thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of said persons.
And I hereby enjoin upon the people so declared to be free to…”
MaryDreamilton · 46-50, F
I thought he did.
LordShadowfire · 46-50, M
tenente · 100+, M
President Lincoln's proclamation was important, but didn't free anyone right away. actually freeing anyone needed more laws and military action. Pres. Lincoln's proclamation was an important first step towards freeing the slaves, but didn't actually free anyone on it's own.
MaryDreamilton · 46-50, F
@tenente Didn't actually free anyone on ITS own. No apostrophe.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment