True (both sides implemented Conscription Acts in 1862)
True (read preliminary Emancipation Proclamation and Emancipation Proclamation, both, in 1863)
False (The 14th hadn't been proposed or introduced yet; 14th amendment was proposed on June 13, 1866, and ratified on July 9, 1868. Congress passed the Civil Rights Act in March 1866 and, then, the Republicans in congress overrode the presidential veto on April 9, 1866)
~~
2007-06-26 07:19:14
·
answer #1
·
answered by . 6
·
1⤊
3⤋
The last one has to be false because the 14th amendment was passed by the House and Senate in June 1866, ratified in 1868. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 was passed by Congress in March 1866 and, over the veto of President Andrew Johnson, in April 1866.
In other words, at the time the Civil Rights Act was passed, the Southern States could not have refused to ratify the 14th Amendment because they didn’t as yet have anything to ratify.
2007-06-26 07:43:49
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
2⤋
1. True
2. False, with an explanation. For most Northerners, at no point in the war, early, late, middle, pre, post, etc, etc. did freeing slaves ever became as important as saving the Union. True it did become more important later in the war but to say that it became "as important" as saving the union would be a giant falsehood. (That's the reason that white men have a draft riot in NYC, if they all thought Slavery was this great moral issue worth fighting and dying for then they wouldn't be rioting, would they? )
Here's the words from Abraham Lincoln himself:
"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that." *
* August 22, 1862, a letter in response to an editorial by Horace Greeley of the New York Tribune which had urged complete abolition.
While this letter does predate slightly the Emancipation Proclamation, remember, that the proclamation did not free all slaves, only those who reside in states that were in rebellion against the Union. The proclamation was issued in Sept. 1862 to take effect on January 1st, 1863 so technically if any State took advantage of the time and rejoined the Union prior to Jan 1, 1863 then slave owners in that state would be entitled to keep their "property".
You (or your history teacher) may look at the Emancipation Proclamation and decide that this is some indication that the North in 1863 decided (finally) that slavery was morally wrong, it did not. Once Lincoln issued the Emancipation proclamation it did two things. One, potentially weaken the South's ability to wage war, since slave labor was important to their agrarian economy. (though this effect would be minor since any acts or laws passed by the federal government really had little/no effect on the Concederate States. Second and most importantly, it keep Britain from entering the war on the side of the Confederacy (or even assisting in breaking the North's naval blockade). Once that proclamation was issued, the British parliament would never enter a war in which they would be fighting to uphold the institution of slavery.
3. True
2007-06-26 07:35:32
·
answer #3
·
answered by Rockin' Mel S 6
·
1⤊
2⤋
You have some people who "THINK" they are history experts please before you consider an answer please take the time to read what is required to ratify an Amendment then read the Congressionial report and see what State never ratified the 14 th. amendment? T-The first general American military draft was enacted by the Confederate government on April 16, 1862, more than a year before the federal government did the same.
T-
Lincoln
“I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races”.
“If I could save the Union without freeing any slaves I would do it… what I do about slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps save the Union”.
“We did not go to War to put down slavery, but to put the flag back, and to act differently, at this moment, would, I have no doubt, not only weaken our cause, but smack of bad faith”.
When asked “Why not let the South to go in peace”? Abe replied “I can’t let them go, who would pay for the Government”.
Grant
“The sole object of this war is to restore the Union. Should I be convinced it has any other object, or that the Government designs using its soldiers to execute the wishes of the Abolitionists, I pledge to you my honor as a man and a soldier I would resign my commission and carry my sword to the other side”.
F-"The 1866 act was of dubious constitutionality and was reenacted in 1870 only after the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment".(see second source). Actually the 14 th amendment has never been ratified. (see first source).
God Bless The South
2007-06-28 21:23:09
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
2⤋
All true.
Item 3 is more significant when viewed within the context that the without that act, the North would not have replaced several Southern State legislatures (not a Constitutional delegated power) with their hand picked people and without that the 14th Amendment would never have been accepted as enacted. Even though the 14th Amendment never met Constitutional ratification requirements, the case of Texas v. White [1869] deemed it valid through right of conquest.
2007-06-26 08:03:19
·
answer #5
·
answered by Randy 7
·
0⤊
2⤋
1. True. There were riots in the North as some felt that the purpose of the war was changing to an "abolish slavery " war rather than a secessionist issue. The North could not have raised an army if the purpose of the war was to free slaves. New York drafted secession papers with the intent of withdrawing from the Union. Indiana, Illinois, Ohio and Pennsylvania all passed laws outlawing blacks in their states no matter if they were free, escaped slaves, or slaves traveling with their master.
2. OOPS see my first answer! true
3. true
2007-06-26 06:06:00
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
2⤋
The correct answer is true--both sides resorted to conscription, which is a draft. You seem to have a question about the statement that the draft was intended to secure fighting men. In that particular context, secure does not mean to make safe, but rather means to acquire or get possession of. That is a less common use of the word secure. I hope that helps.
2016-05-21 00:53:24
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
1. FALSE
2. TRUE
3. FALSE
2007-06-26 06:02:59
·
answer #8
·
answered by Robert B 4
·
0⤊
4⤋
true
true
true
2007-06-26 06:03:28
·
answer #9
·
answered by mickey 3
·
3⤊
2⤋