After reading these answers and listening to the implications I am ashamed to try to respond I'll be called a racist and a redneck all because I did not take the word of history books of the public school system and read. If you are asking about the Emancipation Proclamation it did nothing I swear nothing in fact. Lincoln was reluctant to issue an Emancipation Proclamation but you would have thought from what one is taught in class these days this was his primary concern. He issued the proclamation to save the Union making impossible for foreign Governments to intervene on behalf of the Confederacy. Even though the English supported (indirectly) slavery, they like other countries were officially against the practice. By his actions, Lincoln was showing the US was against slavery but not the Confederacy. If like the leaders of these countries at the time, you took the time to read and study the act you would see it does nothing and in fact, Lincoln thought that the Afro American was not the equal of whites and his plan was to resettle the slaves in either the Amazon or Western Texas.
Most people are not aware that there was a series of action and even proclamations for instance Lincolns correspondence of October 14, 1862 to the military and civilian authorities of occupied Louisiana.
“Major General Butler, Governor Shepley, & and [sic] all having military and naval authority under the United States within the S[t]ate of Louisiana. The bearer of this, Hon. John E. Bouligny, a citizen of Louisiana, goes to the State seeking to have such of the people thereof as desire to avoid the unsatisfactory prospect before them, and to have peace again upon the old terms under the constitution of the United States, to manifest such desire by elections of members to the Congress of the United States particularly, and perhaps a legislature, State officers, and United States Senators friendly to their object. I shall be glad for you and each of you, to aid him and all others acting for this object, as much as possible. In all available ways, give the people a chance to express their wishes at these elections. Follow forms of law as far as convenient, but at all events get the expression of the largest number of the people possible. All see how such action will connect with, and affect the proclamation of September 22nd. Of course, the men elected should be gentlemen of character willing to swear support to the Constitution, as of old, and known to be above reasonable suspicion of duplicity. (CW 5:462-3, italics added).
NOTE: The italic show that Lincoln rather then issue an Emancipation Proclamation or free the slaves was still willing to allow the Southern States back into the Union. One will find this all the way up to the 1865 visit to Camp Lookout.
At the same time Lincoln was issuing the Emancipation Proclamation he was petitioning his cabinet to negotiate and appropriate funds to force the Blacks else where.
In the 1770s, the South had every reason to continue the relationship with England, one of its best customers. It was the manufacturing North that was getting the short end of that stick. Southerners joined the Revolutionary War out of patriotism, idealism, and enlightened political philosophy such as motivated Jefferson, not patriotism, philosophy, and economic betterment which inspired the North.
In 1860, the shoe was on the other foot. Southern agrarians were at heel to the nation's bankers and industrialists. That just got worse with the election of the Republican Lincoln, bringing back into power the party favoring the wealthy supply side, as it still does.
Then as now central to that, party's interest was keeping down the cost of manufacture. Today labor is the big cost, so today they move the plants offshore and leave US workers to their fate. Back before the US labor movement existed the big cost was raw materials, and the GOP was just as unprincipled toward its Southern suppliers as it is today toward labor.
Thanks to modern graveyard science and surviving records, researchers know that in 1760, 100 years before the War Between the States, Charleston, South Carolina, had the largest population of slaves and we say proudly the second largest slave population was in New York City.
One of the main quarrels was about taxes paid on goods brought into this country from foreign countries. This tax was called a tariff. Southerners felt these tariffs were unfair and aimed toward them because they imported a wider variety of goods than most Northern people. Taxes were also placed on many Southern goods that were shipped to foreign countries, an expense that was not always applied to Northern goods of equal value. An awkward economic structure allowed states and private transportation companies to do this, which also affected Southern banks that found themselves paying higher interest rates on loans made with banks in the North. As industry in the North expanded, it looked towards southern markets, rich with cash from the lucrative agricultural business, to buy the North's manufactured goods. The situation grew worse after several "panics", including one in 1857 that affected more Northern banks than Southern. Southern financiers found themselves burdened with high payments just to save Northern banks that had suffered financial losses through poor investment. However, it was often cheaper for the South to purchase the goods abroad. In order to "protect" the northern industries Jackson slapped a tariff on many of the imported goods that could be manufactured in the North. When South Carolina passed the Ordinance of Nullification in November 1832, refusing to collect the tariff and threatening to withdraw from the Union, Jackson ordered federal troops to Charleston. A secession crisis was averted when Congress revised the Tariff of Abominations in February 1833. The Panic of 1837 and the ensuing depression began to gnaw like a hungry animal on the flesh of the American system. The disparity between northern and southern economies was exacerbated. Before and after the depression the economy of the South prospered. Southern cotton sold abroad totaled 57% of all American exports before the war. The Panic of 1857 devastated the North and left the South virtually untouched. The clash of a wealthy, agricultural South and a poorer, industrial North was intensified by abolitionists who were not above using class struggle to further their cause.
In the years before the Civil War the political power in the Federal government, centered in Washington, D.C., was changing. Northern and mid-western states were becoming more and more powerful as the populations increased. Southern states lost political power because the population did not increase as rapidly. As one portion of the nation grew larger than another, people began to talk of the nation as sections. This was called sectionalism. Just as the original thirteen colonies fought for their independence almost 100 years earlier, the Southern states felt a growing need for freedom from the central Federal authority in Washington. Southerners believed that state laws carried more weight than Federal laws, and they should abide by the state regulations first. This issue was called State's Rights and became a very warm topic in congress.
These are facts not emotions or unsupported claims, now what was the War over?
In 1864, Jeff Davis and other Southerner leaders would contemplate outlawing slavery and probably would have if the opportunity had arisen.
So far from engaging in a war to perpetuate slavery, I am rejoiced that Slavery is abolished. I believe it will be greatly for the interest of the South. So fully am I satisfied of this that I would have cheerfully lost all that I have lost by the war, and have suffered all that I have suffered to have this object attained. May 1 1870
God Bless You and The Southern People.
2006-12-19 19:46:56
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
2⤋
No, slavery replaced into not abolished until eventually the ratification of the 13th ammendment to the structure, which replaced into actual a three hundred and sixty 5 days or so after the Civil conflict, so round 1866. to no matter if African human beings might want to have a good time Independence day, it relies upon on no matter when you're satisfied there's a u . s . a . of u . s . a . or not. If there wasn't, then you extremely'd be an inhabitant of the most important province of the British Empire, and probability is blacks may under no circumstances were freed, fantastically pondering the actual incontrovertible truth that it replaced into American ingenuity that got here up with most of the technologies that rendered slavery out of date. yet, I recommend, in case you'll extremely be the slave of a few British plantation proprietor, bypass ahead and boycott the date of the introduction of the country that freed your race. be conscious To All: The Emancipation Proclamation basically freed slaves in accomplice occupied territories--Union slave states were immune.
2016-11-30 23:54:15
·
answer #2
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Slaves were being freed in America even before this country was formed. There were thousands of free blacks at the time slaves were freed. many of them had slaves themselves.
The Emancipation Proclamation freed no slaves. When it went into effect Jan 1, 1863, it only stated to free slaves in areas of rebellion. Since the Federal troops had no control in those areas they could not free any slaves.
The 13th amendment, which formally abolished slavery in the United States, passed the Senate on April 8, 1864, and the House on January 31, 1865. On February 1, 1865, President Abraham Lincoln approved the Joint Resolution of Congress submitting the proposed amendment to the state legislatures. The necessary number of states ratified it by December 6, 1865." This officially outlawed slavery and freed all slaves.
2006-12-19 18:53:14
·
answer #3
·
answered by dem_dogs 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
Vermont was the first state to abolish slavery; that was in 1777. Many northern states followed. Thomas Jefferson tried abolishing slavery but lost in Congress for a single vote; however he was able to obtain a ban on importing slaves in 1807.
The Emancipation Act in 1863 officially freed all slaves, but fighting states did not free most of their slaves till they were overrun by Union forces. So practically, the last slaves were freed in 1865.
Interesting enough not all slave-owners were white; for some were American Indian and even Black slave-owners existed. Again, many Southern Generals (like General Lee) were against slavery and freed their slaves before the war. Other Union generals (like McClelan) advocated slavery! So no generalizations should be made in a sweeping way!!!
2006-12-19 16:47:37
·
answer #4
·
answered by Mehmet Azk 2
·
3⤊
0⤋
Um, slavery is still going on. It did not end in 1863. It’s mostly in the Arab Oil countries (go figure), still in Africa, Asia, and possibly still going on in the US and Western Europe. The source of slaves come from Africa again, the former Eastern Bloc countries that are not in the EU, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Indonesia, Cambodia, Vietnam, Thailand, some of the South American countries like Peru, Colombia, and Brazil. These slaves are more likely to be used as indentured servants and hard labor making rugs and clothing in Bangladesh for American companies like WalMart. Or they’ll become sex slaves in the case of East European women and Latin American women kidnapped to the US, Japan, Mexico, Arab Gulf states, Western Europe etc.
As for Lincoln, the southerners overracted. He wouldn’t have freed the slaves even though his parents were pro-abolitionist. His main priority as president was to preserve the Union. If he could he would have deported the black slaves back to Africa or the Dominican Republic if they were free. He didn’t thought of them as equals. Lincoln is from my home state of Illinois. The North was more racist than the South. Go watch Gangs of New York movie. After Emancipation Prclamation, many Union troops deserted because they didn’t want to fight for slaves. No mother in the North would want her sons and husband to fight for slaves. Many of the abolitionists wanted the slaves to be free not on moral grounds but to repatriate them back to Africa or elswhere because they were afraid as heck of a massive slave revolt in the US like in French Haiti or the Nat Turner revolt.
2006-12-20 00:58:56
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
Officially it was January 1, 1863. There were several parts to the Emancipation Proclamation. '-)
2006-12-19 16:32:20
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
I thought it was July 19. Called 'Juneteenth'. May be Juneteenth was just for Texas. Check on that.
2006-12-19 16:33:57
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
U.S.A. - 1865
Great Britain - 1838
France - 1818
Spain -1898
Haiti - 1804
2006-12-19 16:40:53
·
answer #8
·
answered by jcboyle 5
·
2⤊
0⤋
January 1, 1863.
ABe Lincoln is awesome.
2006-12-19 16:38:26
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
4⤋