Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

An INterview with President Jefferson Davis
Federation of StatesAN INTERVIEW WITH PRESIDENT JEFFERSON DAVIS ^

Posted on 10/08/2003 1:34:33 PM PDT by Aurelius

Gentlemen: I have transcribed this article from an English paper entitled "The Globe and Traveller" of September 2nd, 1864, of which I have an original in my possession. It is a negotiation interview between Jefferson Davis and Judah Benjamin of the Confederacy, and Colonel Jaques and J. R. Gilmore of the Union. I have emboldened a part that sums up what the South was all about.

Warmest Regards ...Brian Lee Merrill

****************************************

The Globe and Traveller (England) Friday Evening, September 2, 1864

AN INTERVIEW WITH PRESIDENT DAVIS

The Atlantic Monthly in an article in the September number gives a narrative of Colonel Jaque's interview with President Davis, which took place some time ago, exciting a great deal of curiosity at the time. The narrative is from the pen of J. R. Gilmore, a companion of Colonel Jaques. The substance of the communication between the President and the two negotiators was made public at the time, but the following extract will give a better idea of the proposal discussed:-

Colonel Jaques: "Suppose the two Governments agree to something like this:- to go to the people with two propositions - say, peace, with disunion and Southern independence, as your proposition, and peace, with union, emancipation, no confiscation, and universal amnesty, as ours. Let the citizens of all the United States (as they existed before the war) vote "Yes" or "No" on these two propositions, at a special election, within 60 days. If a majority votes disunion, our Government to be bound by it, and to let you go in peace; if a majority votes union, yours to be bound by it, and to stay in peace. The two Governments can contract in this way, and the people, though unconstitutionally unable to decide on peace or war, can elect which of the two propositions shall govern their rulers. Let Lee and Grant meanwhile agree to an armistice. This would sheath the sword; and if once sheathed would never again be drawn by this generation."

President Davis: "The plan is altogether impracticable. If the South were only one state it might work; but, as it is, if one Southern state objected to the emancipation, it would nullify the whole thing, for you are aware that the people of Virginia cannot vote slavery out of South Carolina, nor the people of South Carolina vote it out of Virginia."

Colonel Jaques: "But three-fourths of the States can amend the constitution. Let it be done in that way, in any way, so that it be done by the people. I am not a statesman or a politician, and I do no know just how such a plan could be carried out; but you get the idea - that the people shall decide the question."

President Davis:"That the majority shall decide it you mean. We seceded to rid ourselves of the rule of the majority, and this would subject us to it again."

Colonel Jaques: "But the majority must rule finally, either with bullets or ballots."

President Davis:"I am not so sure of that. Neither current events nor history shows that the majority rules, or ever did rule. The contrary, I think, is true. Why, Sir, the man who should go before the Southern people with such a proposition, with any proposition which implied that the North was to have a voice in determining the domestic relations of the South, could not live here a day. He would be hanged to the first tree, without judge or jury."

Colonel Jaques: "Allow me to doubt that. I think it more likely he would be hanged if he let the Southern people know the majority couldn't rule," I replied smiling.

President Davis:"I have no fear of that," rejoined Mr. Davis, also smiling good humouredly. "I give you leave to proclaim it from every housetop in the South."

Colonel Jaques: "But, seriously, sir, you let the majority rule in a single State: why not let it rule in the whole country?"

President Davis:"Because the states are independent and sovereign. The country is not. It is only a confederation of states; or rather it was; it is now two confederations."

Colonel Jaques: "Then we are not a people - we are only a political partnership?"

President Davis:"That is all."

Judah Benjamin: "Your very name, sir, 'United States,' implies that," said Mr. Benjamin. "But tell me, are the terms you have named - emancipation, no confiscation, and universal amnesty - the terms which Mr. Lincoln authorised you to offer us?"

Colonel Jaques: "No, sir; Mr. Lincoln did not authorise me to offer you any terms. But I think both he and the Northern people, for the sake of peace, would assent to some such conditions."

President Davis:"They are very generous," replied Mr. Davis, for the first time during the interview showing some angry feeling. "But amnesty, Sir, applies to criminals. We have committed no crime. Confiscation is of no account, unless you can enforce it. And emancipation! You have already emancipated nearly two millions of our slaves, and if you will take care of them you may emancipate the rest. I had a few when the war began. I was of some use to them; they never were of any to me. Against their will you 'emancipated' them, and you may 'emancipate' every Negro in the Confederacy, but we will be free. We will govern ourselves. We will do it if we have to see every Southern plantation sacked, and every Southern city in flames."

Colonel Jaques: "I see, Mr. Davis, it is useless to continue this conversation," I replied, "and you will pardon us, if we have seemed to press our views with too much pertinacity. We love the old flag, and that must be our apology for intruding upon you at all."

Colonel Jaques: As we were leaving the room Mr. Davis said,

President Davis:"Say to Mr. Lincoln from me that I [shall be] at any time he pleased to receive proposals for peace on the basis of our independence. It will be useless to approach me with any other."

Colonel Jaques: When we went out Mr. Benjamin called Judge Ould, who had been waiting during the whole interview - two hours - at the other end of the hall, and we passed down the stairway together. As I put my arm within that of the judge, he said to me- "Well, what is the result?" "Nothing but war - war to the knife." "Ephraim is joined to his idols - let him alone," added the Colonel solemnly.


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: csa; dixie; dixielist; godsgravesglyphs; jeffersondavis
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-80 next last

1 posted on 10/08/2003 1:34:33 PM PDT by Aurelius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: sheltonmac; shuckmaster; Tauzero; JoeGar; stainlessbanner; Intimidator; ThJ1800; SelfGov; Triple; ..
Flag
2 posted on 10/08/2003 1:37:38 PM PDT by Aurelius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
Hi mom!
3 posted on 10/08/2003 1:38:24 PM PDT by Support Free Republic (Your support keeps Free Republic going strong!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Aurelius
bttt
4 posted on 10/08/2003 2:16:32 PM PDT by stainlessbanner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Aurelius
!
5 posted on 10/08/2003 2:20:42 PM PDT by stand watie (Resistence to tyrants is obedience to God. -Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Aurelius; WhowasGustavusFox; sc-rms; catfish1957; THUNDER ROAD; Beach_Babe; TexConfederate1861; ...
ping!
6 posted on 10/08/2003 2:37:52 PM PDT by shuckmaster (www.shucks.net/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Comment #7 Removed by Moderator

To: shuckmaster
And the truth shall set us free!

8 posted on 10/08/2003 2:48:43 PM PDT by Colt .45 (Cold War, Vietnam Era, Desert Storm Veteran - Pride in my Southern Ancestry!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Aurelius
Judah Benjamin was a Jew. Before the war he was resented and hated by many in the senate, while the people of Louisiana were damned for electing a Jew as a US Senator. "Once on the floor of the US Senate, Ben Wade of Ohio charged Benjamin with being an "Israelite in Egyptian clothing. " With characteristic eloquence, Benjamin replied, "It is true that I am a Jew, and when my ancestors were receiving their Ten Commandments from the immediate Deity, amidst the thundering and lightnings of Mt. Sinai, the ancestors of my opponent were herding swine in the forests of Great Britain." (fn 1)------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- He later valiantly served the Confederacy in three capacities, attorney general, secretary of state and secretary of war, Benjamin was the only man Davis trusted explicitly without question. Nothing of consequence was ever plotted or carried out by the Confederate government that was not guided or counseled by Benjamin. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "He wanted freedom granted to any slave that would take up arms in the defense of the south, he propose this to an audience of 10,000 persons in Richmond in 1864, his remarks lit a firestorm." (fn 2) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- During the war Lincoln's people damned Benjamin as the brains of the Confederacy, and having done more than any other single man to keep the south sustained so as to continue the war. If I remember right he was going to charged in the complicity of Lincoln's assassination and had a death penalty awaiting him if captured. When the war ended he had an harrowing escape to England where he later wrote a much acclaimed classic legal text on the sale of personal property.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "Perhaps the best-known posthumous caricature of Benjamin appears in the epic poem John Brown’s Body, by Stephen Vincent Benet. Describing him as a "dark prince," Benet depicts Judah Benjamin as "other" in Confederate inner circles:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Judah P. Benjamin, the dapper Jew, Seal-sleek, black-eyed, lawyer and epicure, Able, well-hated, face alive with life, Looked round the council-chamber with the slight Perpetual smile he held before himself continually like a silk-ribbed fan. . . . [His] quick, shrewd fluid mind Weighed Gentiles in an old balance . . . The eyes stared, searching. "I am a Jew. What am I doing here?" (fn 3)----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (fn 1,fn 2 & fn 3 sourced from American Jewish Historical Society (AJHS) at, ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jewish Virtual Library
9 posted on 10/08/2003 2:52:22 PM PDT by Ursus arctos horribilis ("It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees!" Emiliano Zapata 1879-1919)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: shuckmaster; Aurelius; Tauzero; JoeGar; stainlessbanner; Intimidator; ThJ1800; SelfGov; Triple; ...
Thanks for the post, Aurelius!

A *ping* to anyone who might have been missed!

10 posted on 10/08/2003 3:30:54 PM PDT by sheltonmac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Aurelius
But amnesty, Sir, applies to criminals. We have committed no crime. Confiscation is of no account, unless you can enforce it. And emancipation! You have already emancipated nearly two millions of our slaves, and if you will take care of them you may emancipate the rest. I had a few when the war began. I was of some use to them; they never were of any to me. Against their will you 'emancipated' them, and you may 'emancipate' every Negro in the Confederacy, but we will be free. We will govern ourselves.

Great line, and two things jump out immediately. The concern and care of the emancipated slaves, something the northern tyrant could have cared less about. And the fact that even if every slave was emancipated we would still want our freedom. Doesn't sound like something one would say if the war was fought over slavery, as our northern occupiers have 'taught' year after year after year forcefeeding a bold face lie

Bump for a great man

11 posted on 10/08/2003 3:38:19 PM PDT by billbears (Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Aurelius
What, no tiresome Yankees to pontificate on what a traitor President Davis was?

The Confederacy was diverse before diversity was cool.

I sure hope we can put the hard feelings from the last internicine blood-letting behind us before the next one starts.

12 posted on 10/08/2003 3:41:40 PM PDT by Cannoneer No. 4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Aurelius
And emancipation! You have already emancipated nearly two millions of our slaves...

I thought it was an article of dogma in the Neo-Confederate (and Socialist) religion that the Emancipapion Proclamation never freed one slave and here we have Jeff Davis saying 2 million were freed even before Sherman made his march through Georgia and the Carolinas?

What the hell gives? Was Davis part of the Lincoln cult or was he just educated in government schools?

13 posted on 10/08/2003 3:48:40 PM PDT by Ditto ( No trees were killed in sending this message, but billions of electrons were inconvenienced.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Aurelius
That would be Rev. or Colonel Jacques or Jaquess, who went with Gilmore on an unofficial peace mission to Richmond. But really, is it any surprise that Davis, the supposed head of the supposed Confederacy would make Southern independence the only possible ground for peace he would accept? Anything short wouldn't have left him with much of a role. Of course if he were to go on fighting, it would have to be for independence. But that doesn't tell us much about the deeper or ultimate causes of the war.

Curiously, this interview may have cost Davis the war. It's said that the interview confirmed that a negotiated peace and union were incompatible, and strengthened Lincoln's position in the 1864 election.

14 posted on 10/08/2003 4:16:38 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ditto
Federal occupation of much of Tennessee, Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi and coastal South Carolina emancipated the slaves to which President Davis refers.
15 posted on 10/08/2003 4:24:27 PM PDT by Cannoneer No. 4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Ditto
As you know very well the emancipation that Jefferson referred to had nothing to do with Lincoln's phony Emancipation Proclamation.
16 posted on 10/08/2003 5:48:07 PM PDT by Aurelius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: billbears
"Great line, and two things jump out immediately. The concern and care of the emancipated slaves, something the northern tyrant could have cared less about. ..."

"When asked by Confederate Vice President Alexander Stepehens at the 1865 Hampton Roads 'peace' conference what would become of the freedmen without property or education, Lincoln sarcastically recited the words to a popular minstrel song, 'root, hog or die.'"

The Great Emancipator

17 posted on 10/09/2003 5:42:03 AM PDT by Aurelius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: x
"But really, is it any surprise that Davis, the supposed head of the supposed Confederacy would make Southern independence the only possible ground for peace he would accept? "

Not hardly, since the preservation of their independence was what the Confederacy was fighting for in the first place.

18 posted on 10/09/2003 5:46:18 AM PDT by Aurelius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: x; billbears; sheltonmac; GOPcapitalist
Davis was rightfully concerned with independance. He wanted the Confederacy to return to the days of freedom from invasion.

Considering the history of the situation, the Union representatives were dealing in the absurd.

I can see why he was angry.

The issue of Lincoln enforcing non-constitutional law had become the critical issue that produced the secession.

At the time of the establishment of the US Constitution, fortunately the resolution of this problem was left more or less open.

The concept of a Federal institution with coercive powers to enforce law went beyond the powers that the founding fathers were willing to delegate to the government.

The state representatives at the Constitutional Convention knew that without Federal authority to coerce the states, there could be no armed conflict.

Whatever the practical limitations of its enforcement, however, the idea of federal law, which emerged in a rudimentary form as a result of the philosophical discussion prompted by the discovery of America, and later codified in the Constitution, became supremely important. It began the process of thought that each state was not a moral universe unto itself, but morally bound in its behavior by basic principles on which civilized peoples might agree. The state, in other words, would come to be seen as not morally autonomous.

This became the philosophical and eventually moral foundation for the rationalization of politicians in the United States to conduct "just" warfare.

The idea of the "just" war became a moral issue, and not of Constitutional law. A war could begin if a state had violated the norms of moral law in its interaction with another state. This then justified one state or several states having grounds for waging a just war against another.

In essence, morality defined by one was sufficient justification for war against another, the Constitution notwithstanding.

This was the underpinning of the anger of the South then and now.














19 posted on 10/09/2003 12:25:40 PM PDT by PeaRidge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Cannoneer No. 4
What, no tiresome Yankees to pontificate on what a traitor President Davis was?

President? You call him President after all the disenfranchised minorites that werent allowed to vote? pResident is more like it. ;-)

20 posted on 10/09/2003 1:07:41 PM PDT by lowbridge (As God as my witness, I thought turkeys could fly. -Mr. Carlson, WKRP in Cincinnati)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge
"You call him President after all the disenfranchised minorites that werent allowed to vote? pResident is more like it."

Slavery is certainly to be condemned. But the fact that slaves, and women, didn't vote had no bearing on the legitimacy of Davis holding office. And by the way, they were not disenfranchised, they had never been enfranchised. I am sorry, but I find your comment totally absurd.

21 posted on 10/09/2003 1:18:47 PM PDT by Aurelius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: PeaRidge
Any government has to be able to enforce its laws if they are in keeping with the Constitution. To look at Washington's conduct in his Presidency it certainly does look like the Founders did endow the federal government with real powers. That explains his actions during the Whiskey Rebellion. The Constitution was intended to restrict federal power but not to destroy it.

The idea of an absolutely morally autonomous state would mean a state that is beyond moral judgement. It's natural that the founders who feared absolute power at the national level would eventually take exception to state claims to be beyond obligations and limits. It would have been a mistake to prevent absolutist rule at the federal level and allow it to the states.

A lot of confederate types attack Northerners for self-righteous moralism and charge unionists with hypocrisy. If you look back at the writings of the period, you'll find a lot of self-righteous moralism and hypocrisy among secessionists as well. This gets lost in retrospect as many take the Confederates as purely passive victims, rather than as actors who were capable of their own emotionalism, self-aggrandizement, and oppressiveness.

22 posted on 10/09/2003 2:34:47 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Aurelius
Scott. You just don't get it, do you? You don't. /Dr. Evil
23 posted on 10/09/2003 10:03:51 PM PDT by lowbridge (As God as my witness, I thought turkeys could fly. -Mr. Carlson, WKRP in Cincinnati)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Aurelius
As you know very well the emancipation that Jefferson referred to had nothing to do with Lincoln's phony Emancipation Proclamation.

Then what emancipation was it?

24 posted on 10/10/2003 4:15:49 AM PDT by Ditto ( No trees were killed in sending this message, but billions of electrons were inconvenienced.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Cannoneer No. 4
Federal occupation of much of Tennessee, Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi and coastal South Carolina emancipated the slaves to which President Davis refers.

Correct. They were freed under the terms of the EP. Tens of thousands of them joined the Union Army.

25 posted on 10/10/2003 4:18:33 AM PDT by Ditto ( No trees were killed in sending this message, but billions of electrons were inconvenienced.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: PeaRidge
The concept of a Federal institution with coercive powers to enforce law went beyond the powers that the founding fathers were willing to delegate to the government.

Like the Fugitive Slave Act?

26 posted on 10/10/2003 4:20:11 AM PDT by Ditto ( No trees were killed in sending this message, but billions of electrons were inconvenienced.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Aurelius
I had a few when the war began. I was of some use to them; they never were of any to me.

Davis had more than a few of them, he owned over 115 at one time. And since their labor was responsible for an annual income that varied between $25,000 and $40,000 per year I would think that his slaves were of use to Davis.

27 posted on 10/10/2003 4:21:36 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cannoneer No. 4
The Confederacy was diverse before diversity was cool.

Sure it was diverse. The closer you examine the confederacy diverse it looks.

28 posted on 10/10/2003 4:24:39 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: billbears
Great line, and two things jump out immediately.

One thing jumps out at me, billbears. Davis was saying that if the Lincoln administration would accept them then he had no problem with expelling every slave in the south and shipping them North, thus obtaining an all-white confederacy.

29 posted on 10/10/2003 4:27:06 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: nolu chan
So what you are saying is that this entire interview is bullsh*t?
30 posted on 10/10/2003 5:29:52 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Ditto
"Then what emancipation was it?"

The same "emancipation" of the property of the vanquished that occurs in all wars.

31 posted on 10/10/2003 5:50:52 AM PDT by Aurelius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge
Do you "get it"; I don't think so.
32 posted on 10/10/2003 5:51:52 AM PDT by Aurelius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Aurelius
"The same "emancipation" of the property of the vanquished that occurs in all wars."

Which is exactly whay Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation called for. Why do you people continue to insist that Lincoln's EP freed no slaves when even in mid 1864, the President of the CSA admitted that half of the slaves in the south had already been freed by it?

33 posted on 10/10/2003 6:35:11 AM PDT by Ditto ( No trees were killed in sending this message, but billions of electrons were inconvenienced.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Ditto
What was done would have been done with or without the proclamation. The proclamation was devised solely for political purposes. So far as I know, no serious historian disputes that or maintains that any slaves were actually freed as a result of the proclamation.
34 posted on 10/10/2003 6:45:26 AM PDT by Aurelius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Aurelius
bump for bookmark
35 posted on 10/10/2003 7:17:51 AM PDT by carton253 (All I need to know about Islam I learned on 9/11/2001)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Aurelius
"What was done would have been done with or without the proclamation."

Not true at all. Before the EP, slaves were taken as "contraband" or accepted as refugees if they could get to Union lines, but if the owners could get into court the courts would order the "property" returned if owner could demonstrate that the slaves were not providing direct support for the revolution. Without the EP, at the end of the war, owners would be able under the law to reclaim their property. The EP changed that and designated any slave residing in rebelious territory as being automatically a material aid to the enemy and declared them free for all time.

Yes, the EP was a political statement, and a powerful one, but it also had significant real results in permantly freeing millions of slaves.

36 posted on 10/10/2003 7:27:57 AM PDT by Ditto ( No trees were killed in sending this message, but billions of electrons were inconvenienced.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Unlike the union President's ideal which was? Never mind the fact that other races were accepted down here, most evident Native Americans and Jewish peoples. How did Grant and Sherman feel about Jews again? Not to mention their 'fondness' of anyone that wasn't white. If the union had its way, the whole of their nation would have been lily white within a generation.
37 posted on 10/10/2003 7:31:16 AM PDT by billbears (Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Ditto
...but it also had significant real results in permantly freeing millions of slaves.

As I said before, even historians sympathetic to the Northern cause, Bruce Catton for example, do not make that claim. And what about the fact that with the early announcement of the proclamation, several months before the actual issuance, Lincoln implicitely promised that in any states that would return to the Union prior to the January issuance, slaveowners could keep their slaves.

38 posted on 10/10/2003 7:34:04 AM PDT by Aurelius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Aurelius
And what about the fact that with the early announcement of the proclamation, several months before the actual issuance, Lincoln implicitely promised that in any states that would return to the Union prior to the January issuance, slaveowners could keep their slaves.

What about it. I doubt that Lincon expected any takers, but he made an offer to help bring the war to a quicker end. The EP was a war measure and a political statement, but it did have the end result of freeing millions of slaves. Look up Juneteenth and tell me it didn't free any slaves.

39 posted on 10/10/2003 7:52:44 AM PDT by Ditto ( No trees were killed in sending this message, but billions of electrons were inconvenienced.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Ditto
The Emancipation Proclamation

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 supressing said rebellion, do, on this 1st day of January, A.D. 1863, and in accordance with my purpose so to do, publicly proclaimed for the full period of one hundred days from the first day 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, Terrebone, 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 Berkeley, Accomac, Morthhampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Anne, 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.

The excepted parts are the areas under Union control at the time. The only slaves really emancipated were those who emancipated themselves. President Lincoln exercised no authority in the unoccupied portions of the Confederate States of America.

40 posted on 10/10/2003 8:22:57 AM PDT by Cannoneer No. 4 (Honest, LT, I thought it was a BTR-80; it looked just like a BTR-80 through my thermals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Cannoneer No. 4
The excepted parts are the areas under Union control at the time. The only slaves really emancipated were those who emancipated themselves. President Lincoln exercised no authority in the unoccupied portions of the Confederate States of America.

I get soooooo tiresd of doing this time and time again. READ THE CONSTITUTION, DAMNIT!!!! Lincoln had no authority to free slaves in states or areas of states that were under the jurisdiction of US Courts. To do that required an Amendment to the Constitution which did not happen until Dec. of 1865. As Commander in Chief, he did have the power, under military order, to free slaves in areas that rejected the authority of US Courts and were in rebellion. Were any slaves suddenly freed on Jan. 1, 1863 when the EP was issued? No. But with each passing day as Union troops advanced, from that point forward until June 19, of 1865 when Union General Granger took control of Texas and read the Emancipapion Proclamation and freed 250,000 Texas slaves, several million slaves were permantly freed under the terms of the EP.

I get so tired of doing this over and over again.

41 posted on 10/10/2003 8:44:15 AM PDT by Ditto ( No trees were killed in sending this message, but billions of electrons were inconvenienced.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Ditto
As Commander in Chief, he did have the power, under military order, to free slaves in areas that rejected the authority of US Courts and were in rebellion.

That's the same power President Bush has to free all the slaves on Mars. President Lincoln exercised no real power in areas that were not under Union Army control. What part of "rebellion" do you not understand?

42 posted on 10/10/2003 9:12:05 AM PDT by Cannoneer No. 4 (Honest, LT, I thought it was a BTR-80; it looked just like a BTR-80 through my thermals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Cannoneer No. 4
President Lincoln exercised no real power in areas that were not under Union Army control.

And in a matter of 2 1/2 years from the day the EP was issued, every square inch of rebel territory was under the control of the Union Army, and every slave in that territory was free.

What part of Civil War history is it that don't you understand?

43 posted on 10/10/2003 10:02:36 AM PDT by Ditto ( No trees were killed in sending this message, but billions of electrons were inconvenienced.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Cannoneer No. 4
What, no tiresome Yankees to pontificate on what a traitor President Davis was?

OK, I'll do it.

44 posted on 10/10/2003 10:07:40 AM PDT by Jim Noble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Aurelius
Do

Shh.

you

Shh.

"get it";

Shh.

I don't

Shh.

think so.

Shh.

And that was a pre-emptive "shh". /Dr. Evil :-)

45 posted on 10/10/2003 11:00:19 AM PDT by lowbridge (As God as my witness, I thought turkeys could fly. -Mr. Carlson, WKRP in Cincinnati)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Ditto
By June of 1865 there was precious little Confederate-controlled rebel territory left for the Union Army to control every square inch of. Whatever real estate Stand Watie held at that time. There was still a fair amount of Comanche, Apache, and Sioux-controlled rebel territory.

Depending upon you definition of "control," you might be surpised at the number of square miles that aren't under any effective government control now.

46 posted on 10/10/2003 11:30:26 AM PDT by Cannoneer No. 4 (Honest, LT, I thought it was a BTR-80; it looked just like a BTR-80 through my thermals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Cannoneer No. 4
By June of 1865 there was precious little Confederate-controlled rebel territory left for the Union Army to control every square inch of.

The generally accepted end date of the Civil War was June 19, 1865 when General Gordon Granger landed his troops in Galvaston and the Texas Confederate government ceased to exist. Stand Waitie could have run around longer up in Indian territory for all I know, but he didn't control anything and was pretty much meaningless. Yes, it took some days or weeks for the news to reach outlying districts, but June 19, the day Texas fell, is the date that Texas blacks, to this day, celebrate emancipation from slavery. That emancipation was under the terms of Lincoln's Jan. 1, 1863 executive order.

47 posted on 10/10/2003 11:41:22 AM PDT by Ditto ( No trees were killed in sending this message, but billions of electrons were inconvenienced.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Ditto
Which ever one caused the death of 640,000 Americans.
48 posted on 10/10/2003 1:52:16 PM PDT by PeaRidge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Ditto
When written and published the Emancipation Proclimation freed no slaves. It was specifically said: That on the 1st day of January, A.D. 1863, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free;

As the federal government had no authority in the states currently in rebellion no slaves were freed. But as the Union armies marched south and occupied areas of the south, slaves were indeed freed. As this interview was conducted in September of 1864, Unions armies had by this time moved deeply into southern territory and freed numerous slaves.

49 posted on 10/10/2003 2:04:59 PM PDT by dpa5923 (Small minds talk about people, normal minds talk about events, great minds talk about ideas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: PeaRidge
Which ever one caused the death of 640,000 Americans.

That would be the idiots who fired on Fort Sumter.

50 posted on 10/10/2003 2:14:24 PM PDT by Ditto ( No trees were killed in sending this message, but billions of electrons were inconvenienced.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-80 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson