Report, edit, etc...Posted by Lithium on 2006-09-16 at 12:38:53
Major differences between secession in the civil war and vermont's attempt were. In the civil war, almost all the men in the seceded states agreed to secede, mostly 100% because if not, the person who didnt agree would have been hung.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Veeger on 2006-09-18 at 07:07:19
QUOTE("Kashmir")
Thank you Veeger for that long, but rather informative post.
You're very welcome. I used to be a regular at Warboards.Org and its Intellectual Roundtable before the Plant I work at added the site to the internet filter. It's nice to find another site (ironically, also based on Starcraft) that I can wrestle mentally with fellow gamers about serious issues. So many people play games and don't pay attention to the world around them -- it's sad.
QUOTE("Felagund")
Another major factor was that California went free, not slave, and the South was worried that abolitionists would control Congress.
The South has never cared what Californians think.
No, I'm just kidding (lol). That was another coal on the fire that I failed to mention, yes. Thank you for bringing it up, too. To answer your claim, let me ask you a question.
Did we fight Germany in WWII because they were torturing Jews, Christians, homosexuals, and pagan worshipers?
No, we didn't. Those facts did not come out until near the end of the war. We knew that Hitler was racist, and that he treated those who were not 'aryan' as second class citizens, but we did not realize the scope of his hatred. In the same light, slavery was a minor issue (it was an issue, I'm not saying that -- it just wasn't one of the top three, IMO) until the Emancipation Proclaimation. That speech, which technically didn't free anyone (despite what I'm sure you learned in school -- google it and read it) was a purely political move. By assigning a moral to the North's aggression and invasion into the Southern states, President Lincoln kept British interests out of the war, out of fear that they would be branded as pro-slavery.
Had Britain sent aid, as they had indicated prior to the Gettysburg Address that they would, there is a smidget of a chance the South might could have pulled it off.
They didn't, but the point remains. The EP was a political move. Nothing more.
We are, however, slipping away from this topic's original post. Maybe we should start a separate topic should you (or others) wish to continue this discussion.
Back on topic -- Vermont seceeding is stupid, and will not happen. I find the idea laughable.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Felagund on 2006-09-18 at 17:05:39
No, the EP freed the slaves in the Union.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by (DI)Yulla on 2006-09-18 at 17:11:41
LOL
Tell the people in vermont they can TRY to secede.. I highly doubt this will work ever... This has as much of chance of suceeding as me succeeding in asking out a girl on a homecoming dance.
Maybe it will be better off if we kicked off dum old dakotas off the union. all they have is dum potatoes.
Tell the people in vermont they can TRY to secede.. I highly doubt this will work ever... This has as much of chance of suceeding as me succeeding in asking out a girl on a homecoming dance.
Maybe it will be better off if we kicked off dum old dakotas off the union. all they have is dum potatoes.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Veeger on 2006-09-19 at 06:34:00
QUOTE("Felagund")
No, the EP freed the slaves in the Union.
LMAO
I said to google it, if you hadn't read it before.
QUOTE("The National Archives and Records Administration")
Despite this expansive wording, the Emancipation Proclamation was limited in many ways. It applied only to states that had seceded from the Union, leaving slavery untouched in the loyal border states. It also expressly exempted parts of the Confederacy that had already come under Northern control. Most important, the freedom it promised depended upon Union military victory.
~~http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/featured_...n_proclamation/
The Emancipation Proclamation freed slaves in the Confederacy -- states that, at the time, did not recognize Presidential or United States congressional laws or mandates. Therefore: it freed no one.
Slave owners within the border states, and in Washington DC, were allowed to keep their slaves. Furthermore, when a state became "liberated" all slaves were returned to their original owners (except for those who decided to join the military -- that was the 'get out of jail free' card). So, to make this proclamation even more worthless, it only applied to states who had seceeded from the Union only so long as they remained apart from the Union.
Don't trust what you learn in school blindly. Remember that your teachers are just as biased as anyone else -- being a teacher does not invalidate their humanity and human nature. Take the information they give you and teach yourself. That is the only way to truly learn history and its lessons.
Anyway -- this is, again, off topic. I'll be happy to start a different topic about this if you like, Felagund. Just ask.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Felagund on 2006-09-19 at 20:34:28
QUOTE
Its immediate impact was only upon slaves that had already escaped to the Union side.
Ooh, so it did impact slaves. You can say they're already free, but up till that point, the U.S. officially believed that they were still slaves.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Kashmir on 2006-09-19 at 21:19:48
Yes, slaves in the Union were STILL slaves after the EP. As stated above, the EP only freed slaves in rebel states. An attempt to hurt the industry, and an attempt at giving a reason/moral to the war. They both succeeded.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Felagund on 2006-09-19 at 23:07:44
Nope, it freed slaves that were the "property" of Southern states.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Veeger on 2006-09-20 at 07:27:17
Ah, very intuitive, Felagund. Yes, that was the only true physical affect of the EP. It revoked an earlier law that made it illegal for a slave to escape and seek refuge in the North. Earlier (not sure of the exact date . . . and I'm going to be lazy and not look it up, lol) a law passed that made it so that if a freed slave ran up to the North, usually via the Underground Railroad, if they were caught they were returned by authorities to their owner.
President Lincoln was a very shrewd politician, no doubt about it. People often attribute losing the battle of Gettysburg for the South losing the war, but I have always disagreed. I attribute the EP address as giving both the Northern soldiers the moral strength to 'keep up the good fight', and for making the Southern states into the immoral 'evil' nemesis.
Looking at it from that perspective, losing Gettysburg didn't matter. President Lincoln could have given that address at any time, and the affect would have been the same. He just waited until a major victory to do so, and it ended up being at Gettysburg.
President Lincoln was a very shrewd politician, no doubt about it. People often attribute losing the battle of Gettysburg for the South losing the war, but I have always disagreed. I attribute the EP address as giving both the Northern soldiers the moral strength to 'keep up the good fight', and for making the Southern states into the immoral 'evil' nemesis.
Looking at it from that perspective, losing Gettysburg didn't matter. President Lincoln could have given that address at any time, and the affect would have been the same. He just waited until a major victory to do so, and it ended up being at Gettysburg.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by DT_Battlekruser on 2006-09-20 at 11:11:03
Anyhow, Vermont won't be seriously seceding anyimte soon, so this topic has gotten way off-topic.
Topic Locked
Topic Locked