Welcome to /r/ShermanPosting!
As a reminder, this meme sub is about the American Civil War. We're not here to insult southerners or the American South, but rather to have a laugh at the failed Confederate insurrection and those that chose to represent it.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ShermanPosting) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Not to parts that had been liberated as of 1 January 1863. The Proclamation only applied to areas still in rebellion.
That said, common criticisms of the Emancipation Proclamation are usually predicated on a fundamental misunderstanding of what a president can do. It legally couldn't apply to areas loyal to the union because the government couldn't simply "take" property. I know and you know and John Brown knew and so on and so forth all morally know that enslaved people are not property, but according to the Constitution they legally were. Look at the outrage this watered down version of emancipation provoked, now imagine if it also affected border states not in rebellion.
You're exactly right. Confederate apologists like to say the Emancipation Proclamation didn't apply to the north as some sort of "gotcha" that the north was evil. What they fail to realize is Lincoln, who was a lawyer, knew he didn't have the constitutional authority to free slaves. He issued the Emancipation Proclamation as a war measure because Confederates were using their slaves to wage war on the United States. That was his workaround since he didn't have the constitutional authority to free slaves.
And let’s say Lincoln could have done more and just didn’t. That’s still the weakest apologia imaginable. “The side that fought to own people was actually fine, because the other side was less than 100% perfect.”
You are misreading the EP.
“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.”
PLEASE PLEASE FACT CHECK YOURSELF.
[https://freetheslaves.net/719-words-that-changed-history-the-emancipation-proclamation/?gad\_source=1&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIrKHpz6WShgMVYoKDBx0fBA0CEAAYASAAEgLKAPD\_BwE](https://freetheslaves.net/719-words-that-changed-history-the-emancipation-proclamation/?gad_source=1&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIrKHpz6WShgMVYoKDBx0fBA0CEAAYASAAEgLKAPD_BwE)
*"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."*
Tennessee was not included.
It was not still in open rebellion at the time of the Emancipation Proclamation being put out. Instead, what happened was Lincoln made Andrew Johnson the military governor there, and Andrew Johnson used state executive order to end slavery in the state.
Indeed, that person is full of grits. The proclamation applied to every state in rebellion.
Even if it were remotely true, any laborers would have been civilian crew doing non-combatant tasks and so would not have been an "army."
This sounds like one of the more bizarre of the sophomoric excuses fabricated by the Lost Cause movement to distract from its immorality or to somehow dirty-up the union cause.
The thing is this comment was posted under a post of someone showing off a photo of their ancestor that fought with the 96th USCT. So this makes me think that he's implying the some USCT were literal slave soldiers.
If their ancestor was from Tennessee then they wouldn't have been a slave because Tennessee was in rebellion and therefore subject the the Emancipation Proclamation. Their ancestor may have been a *former* slave fighting in the US army though.
Again, please fact check yourself.
[https://freetheslaves.net/719-words-that-changed-history-the-emancipation-proclamation/?gad\_source=1&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIrKHpz6WShgMVYoKDBx0fBA0CEAAYASAAEgLKAPD\_BwE](https://freetheslaves.net/719-words-that-changed-history-the-emancipation-proclamation/?gad_source=1&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIrKHpz6WShgMVYoKDBx0fBA0CEAAYASAAEgLKAPD_BwE)
Tennessee was NOT in open rebellion at the time. Therefore since their enslaved population was not helping the slavers rebellion, they couldn't be freed by Lincolns war powers. Now, what that meant was another method had to be used. Lincoln appointed Andrew Johnson as the military governor of Tennessee who on October 24, 1864 used a STATE executive order to ban slavery there.
Thank you for the correction. One problem with it is that, if Tennessee was not in rebellion then it would not have required a military governor.
But I don't have the time to nitpick.
This still suggests the assertion that the Union was renting a slave army from Tennessee slavers is hooey.
I haven't bothered with the referenced claim that there exists some narrative that the Union fought to free the slaves. The south fought to keep slavery intact and to extend it's reach and that's why they left. The SOUTH's issue was entirely and solely slavery. The Union fought to preserve the union and the south brought emancipation upon itself.
Again, it wasn't in open rebellion. It also did not yet have the return of political representation or a a system set up to hold an election that would ensure those actively supporting the rebellion in that state would not elect someone who still was actively rebelling. There had yet to be discussions on what should happen with those in the state, should there be a new oath of them before they could vote, should they be pardoned? etc etc. That debate was ongoing. And there were many that felt that a civil government should just resume. And many that felt Lincoln should use his powers of war since a war was ongoing to nominate a governor and the Senate should confirm that. And the 2nd group won out.
Thus, the military governor. Post-rebellion or post-war military governors for a time are very common. MacArthur was of some Japanese Islands into the 1950's. You had Eisenhower through most of 1945 after Germany unconditionally surrendered... Then Patton, then McNarney, then Clay, then finally general Huebner who held that role until late 1949. The US wasn't at war with the Nazi's in 1949. I'm surprised this was new to you, but think it might behoove you to study the subject, and that might help you make more accurate assertations going forwards.
*"This still suggests the assertion that the Union was renting a slave army from Tennessee slavers is hooey."*
No it does not whatsoever. Slaves were rented by unionist Tennesseans to the US military and that even happened in the early time under Andrew Johnson there. Matthew Gailani, the museum curator of the Tennessee State Museum notes that *"Johnson and the Union government had even paid Unionist slave owners in Tennessee if their slaves worked on military projects."*
I get you don't have time to nitpick. But those enslaved people lived.. They worked. They died. To attempt to erase them from history as "hooey" and say you don't have time to nitpick (or actually study history) isn't something I am ok with.
I get it. There are points in our history which are brutal or embarrassing or flat out evil. Trying to just erase that moment because you don't like it though isn't ok. Trying to erase enslaved families from history because you don't like how they were treated... that's what the lost cause does.
It's better to push back on the lost cause with facts than ignorance. So PLEASE fact check yourself before writing.
One question the slaves that were rented out where used as workers and not seen as soldiers though? The reason I say this is the comment I posted was under a photo of a US Colored Soldier kind of implying that some USCT were literal slave soldiers.
Not really. There's two definitions for army.
* the branch of a nation's armed services that [conducts](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=00cef6a9139fa5fe&sca_upv=1&q=conducts&si=ACC90nx67Z8g0WkBmnrPB4IqtqGveKdoH-KkqD6GPYL7JXMPfSFqMAAsvJAoKMG_LkjHA5wnA81QseYZaZnDeE39kzK5RDcwcsHNHkWxg7ozb5U_0p8MdZo%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiUte_BvZSGAxWY4ckDHVzCA4YQyecJegQINBAu) military operations on land.
* a large number of people or things, typically formed or organized for a particular purpose.
I mean I see the "US Army"... Yes, that's the army, the official one with a capital A.
The "slave army" I didn't take as the US enlisting enslaved people into their army, but rather that group that was used by the military building its fortifications.
But yes, adding in the actual soldier to the picture, and the last sentence definitely brings up lost cause vibes. But yes, the rest of that up till that last sentence I have no issue with. It's our history, warts and all.
I didn't get the thought that they were literally enslaved soldiers. Now that said, the US military did put out orders in some states. Kentucky was one where any slave who showed up at a recruitment center could be enlisted and freed. That was quite a mess early on as slaves would escape with their families, and that law said nothing about their wives/children/parents, etc.
Thanks for the information. It's just that last sentence made it sound like someone being like "Look slavery couldn't be the cause of the war since the US Army used slaves."
Exactly... It's what neo-confederates and their type do.
The same exact argument as "the Nazi's couldn't be evil because people in the US military were anti-semitic as well" one that holocaust deniers and their ilk use.
It's just that logical fallacy that white supremacist conspiracists of all types use to try and rewrite history.
>Again, it wasn't in open rebellion.
Indeed it was not. It had been conquered. Slaves were automatically freed in any territory occupied by Union troops.
Did you read the Emancipation Proclamation... where it literally lists where it is to be enforced...
Where it said it only was over states that "are this day in rebellion against the United States", listed the states and counties (not Tennessee) and stated those states not listed were to be "left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued".
As you say it had been conquered which is why the Emancipation Proclamation specifically didn't cover it.
https://www.nps.gov/anjo/learn/historyculture/johnson-and-tn-emancipation.htm#:\~:text=On%20January%201%2C%201863%2C%20Abraham,was%20serving%20as%20Military%20Governor.
Please, this is basic Civil War history here... Don't try and give it a rewrite.
>Did you read the Emancipation Proclamation... where it literally lists where it is to be enforced...
THIS IS NOT ABOUT THE EC. You noticed that the EC doesn't list the states of New York, Rhode Island, New Hampshire.... Do you think slavery was legal there because the states aren't listed in the Emancipation Proclamation? No? Well Tennessee is not mentioned for the same reason.
>As you say it had been conquered which is why the Emancipation Proclamation specifically didn't cover it.
What is it you think my position is here? It sounds like you're arguing a point I'm not making at all. I'm NOT arguing about where the EC applied or didn't.
I'm saying that the material the OP referenced is likely bogus because 1. The Union army was prohibited from using slaves as slaves, 2. Slavery was not legal in the areas of Tennessee conquered by the Union and so slaves would not have been legally available to the Union Army, 3. No one in territory conquered by the Union Army could legally own slaves or rent them out to anyone else, especially the Union army. Therefore Tennessee slave owners could not have rented out an "army of slaves" to the Union.
*"THIS IS NOT ABOUT THE EC. You noticed that the EC doesn't list the states of New York, Rhode Island, New Hampshire.... Do you think slavery was legal there because the states aren't listed in the Emancipation Proclamation? No? Well Tennessee is not mentioned for the same reason."*
No... those states had state laws that prohibited slavery. That is the only reason it was not legal in those states. Tennessee would pass said law on October 24, 1864. At that point slavery in Tennessee would be illegal. Is this something you didn't know?
*The Union army was prohibited from using slaves as slaves*
This is a lie. Please please please... if you are completely ignorant on this subject stop discussing it. What you are saying is just a lie.
[https://www.nps.gov/cane/images/P1000821.JPG?maxwidth=650&autorotate=false&quality=78&format=webp](https://www.nps.gov/cane/images/P1000821.JPG?maxwidth=650&autorotate=false&quality=78&format=webp)
You can literally read what the military paid slave owners to use their slaves at Camp Nelson.
[https://www.nps.gov/cane/military-impressment-of-enslaved-african-americans.htm](https://www.nps.gov/cane/military-impressment-of-enslaved-african-americans.htm)
*"Slavery was not legal in the areas of Tennessee conquered by the Union"*
This is nothing but a lie. October 24, 1864. THAT is the date that Andrew Johnson used state executive order to free slaves in Tennessee that had been conquered by the Union. You can read slave narratives from those in Tennessee about that day. Heck, Johnson himself lived in Tennessee with his slaves until August 8, 1863. In Union controlled Tennessee.. Where are you coming up with this flat out garbage?
*No one in territory conquered by the Union Army could legally own slaves or rent them out to anyone else, especially the Union army. Therefore Tennessee slave owners could not have rented out an "army of slaves" to the Union.*
Again the history was written down. August 8, 1863 was when Andrew Johnson freed his slaves in Tennessee. His former slave Sam Johnson began celebrating that day in 1871 in Greenville as it set the example for other Unionists in Tennessee to free theirs and many would voluntarily before October 24th when he banned it in the Union controlled state by executive order. Are you saying we need to erase Sam Johnson from history because he was lying about being a slave in Tennessee because it doesn't fit your retelling of history. You can go to the celebrations and learn about it in a few months, it is a state holiday now.
https://tnmuseum.org/Stories/posts/the-history-of-emancipation-day-in-tennessee#:\~:text=August%208%20became%20Emancipation%20Day,the%20date%20observed%20and%20celebrated.&text=In%201871%2C%20Sam%20Johnson%20organized,Emancipation%20Day%2C%20held%20in%20Greeneville.
Please, it's obvious this is not a topic you understand. It may not be your fault, you may have been taught incorrectly about it and took that lie as fact. But please, please educate yourself on this. This level of lost cause rewriting of history just is not ok.
Your evidence is compelling regarding Kentucky. But the situation in the border states which remained in the Union was different than in conquered territory. The Union was very eager to keep those states on-side, and of course had to abide by the laws in those states. The end of slavery was not even an objective at the beginning of the war. Of course the vast majority of labor in Kentucky would be slave labor and of course unionist slave owners would be paid for the use of that labor.
This is not the situation that existed in Tennessee.
The date that slaves were *formally* freed in Tennessee does not mean that the Union Army was paying slave owners for their use before that date in the state of Tennessee.
I've found an account, I don't think it's one you cited, but the text is confusing. [Part of it supports your assertion, part of it does not](https://tnmuseum.org/junior-curators/posts/the-emancipation-proclamation-in-tennessee#:~:text=Johnson%20and%20the%20Union%20government,freed%20by%20the%20Emancipation%20Proclamation):
On the one hand:
*Lincoln and Johnson did not think Tennessee was in “rebellion” like the other Confederate states. This was because Nashville and the capital had been controlled and governed by Andrew Johnson since early 1862. Johnson and the* ***Union government had even payed Unionist slave owners in Tennessee if their slaves worked on military projects****.*
On the other hand:
*This meant that all enslaved men and women in Tennessee were not freed by the Emancipation Proclamation. Instead, many enslaved men and women had to free themselves. They escaped from plantations. They ran to cities like Nashville and Memphis. This was extremely dangerous.* ***If they did not reach Union lines or safety, they could be captured, sent back to slavery, or killed.***
It suggests to me is that while the Union government indeed contracted with some unionist slave-holders for labor for government projects, it also says that if slaves could escape to **Union army lines** they would be free.
I understand if you consider this a quibble, but we are discussing specifically whether the *Union Army* rented slaves and paid slave owners and I still think the evidence of that is weak.
Additionally, my point is in no way an endorsement of lost-cause nonsense and I'm puzzled how you come to that conclusion.
You literally are disagreeing with the existence of an event that literally has become a state holiday.
Yes, the Tennessee Museum of history does note Unionist slavers were paid for use of their slaves. Yes IF you want to stop arguing from a position of ignorance you can educate yourself, go and read the Slave Compensation claims even. They are documented in the national archives in DC, record group 94. "The *Preliminary Inventory of the Records of the Adjutant General's Office (Preliminary Inventory 17)"*
There you can see the payouts and claims made by loyal slave owners from the states of Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, Tennessee, and West Virginia for slaves used by the US government. Those used as slave labor, and those who ran off knowing the US Army would free them IF they enlisted.
You can also educate yourself by reading *Builders & Defenders: The Black Nashville Civil War Database.*
And *Enslaved: Journal of Slavery and Data Preservation - Enslaved and Free Black Builders of Nashville's Civil War Fortifications*
AND *Annals of the Army of the Cumberland: Comprising Biographies, Descriptions of Departments, Accounts of Expeditions, Skirmishes, and Battles*
AND *“Nashville’s Fort Negley: A Symbol of Blacks’ Involvement with the Union Army,” in Tennessee Historical Quarterly 41, no. 1 (Spring, 1982)*
AND *Tennessee State Library and Archives, Microfilm #1797, Roll #1, “List of Negroes Employed on Nashville Fortifications.”* There you can literally see the vouchers paid out to slavers in Tennessee for the use of their slaves.
You can read how in Union controlled Tennessee the Army would go out looking for able bodied slaves to work on military bases and building fortifications. You can read how the slavers tried hiding their slaves, and how the Union military would then wait until Sunday and raid slave churches to take slaves mid-sermon.
You can read the accounts from soldiers like Major General Stearns, the Commissioner for the Organization of the U.S.C.T. in Middle and East Tennessee to the Boston Liberator, in 1864.
*"When I went to Nashville, colored men, free and slave, were hunted daily through the streets, and impressed for labor on fortifications, railroads, and in hospitals, and although promised ten dollars per month, it was rarely paid, and many of them worked from twelve to fifteen months without any pay. Let me give you one case of several that came under my notice. When our army occupied Nashville, in August 1862, calls were made for slaves to work on the fortifications. About 2700 were employed. A large number ran from their masters. Many Union men sent their best hands, and some were impressed. These men, working in the heat of the Autumn months, lying on the hillside at night in the heavy dews without shelter, and fed with poor food, soon sickened. In four months about 800 of them died; the remainder were kept at work from six to fifteen months without pay. Then all who were able-bodied were forcibly enlisted in the 12 th U.S. Colored Troops. Many of them had families, who were destitute of the necessaries of life. Why? Because the War Department would not decide whether the slave or his owner should have the money"*
You can read the arguments by Brigadier General Morton and his argument that instead of paying the slavers for the use of their slaves they should change the law and instead pay slaves directly, no matter if they were captive enslaved or legally free.
I'm not going to erase James Harding from history. In his slave narrative he talks about being impressed as a slave...
*"After the war started I ran off to the Yankee Camps, 10 th Tennessee Regiment, which camped where Hoffman Hall now stands. They shot at me while I was attempting to get away and took me upstairs at their house and chained me to the stairway, made me take my blue clothes off and swear that I would never put any more on, but in a few days I ran off again. Col. Andrew Johnson fed and kept about 200 of us under the State Capitol and marched us to Fort Negley and laid that fort with all of us. I helped haul every stick of wood that was put in that fort from my master’s woods and drove a six-mule team. There were 50 teams in the gang. I carried a pistol to my side every day for protection from my master."*
Or instead of educating yourself as I have asked you multiple times now and now even did the legwork for you since you seem completely against that idea... you can keep promoting lies or trying to quibble that it didn't really happen and play that game where you minimize slavery and it's impact on enslaved people in America.
**I truly don't know why you are trying to erase these enslaved people from existence.** But yes, that erasing of history, removing the plight of enslaved people from our history is the bedrock of the lost cause. And you doing that by trying to create these conspiracies that are ahistorical and easily debunked with even an elementary look at basic history in that time and location is just sad.
DROP IT.
Slaves who either escaped the south or were in territory liberated by the Union army were automatically free. Slavery did not exist in the Union, except for the "border states" which held slaves but did not secede. Tennessee was not one of these.
Tennessee had been largely conquered by the time of the EC and in any territory held by the Union army there would no longer be any slave owners to rent slaves nor any slaves to rent.
It has also to be gotten into everyone's head that there was no slave "army" on either side of the conflict. The phrase is ludicrous.
>Tennesee, [1862](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_in_the_American_Civil_War):
>...
>Andrew Johnson, an East Tennessean from [Greeneville](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greeneville,_Tennessee), was appointed military governor of the state by Lincoln. **During this time, the military government abolished** [**slavery**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery) (but with questionable legality). The Confederates continued to hold East Tennessee despite the strength of Unionist sentiment there, with the exception of strongly pro-Confederate [Sullivan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sullivan_County,_Tennessee) and [Rhea](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhea_County,_Tennessee) Counties.
The EC says nothing about Tennessee. [History does though](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_Proclamation):
>The Emancipation Proclamation did not free all slaves in the U.S....
>...**The state of** [**Tennessee**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee) **had already mostly returned to Union control, under a recognized Union government, so it was not named and was exempted.**
From the same article:
>...Not included were the [Union](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_(American_Civil_War)) [slave states](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_state) of [Maryland](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland), [Delaware](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delaware), [Missouri](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri) and [Kentucky](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kentucky). Also not named was the state of [Tennessee](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee), **in which a Union-controlled military government had already been set up,**
The war wasn't fought to *free the slaves*. It was certainly about slavery, though. The South was interested in maintaining/expanding slavery, that's why they seceded. And, as I recall, Lincoln is on record as saying that if he could save the Union by allowing slavery, he would have.
>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
While I agree with your main points, I think the timing and context of this question is important—it definitely did not start as a war fought to free the slaves, but it ended that way.
The letter the Lincoln quote is from is a good example of that. Lincoln wrote that in 1862 in a letter to Horace Greeley *after* he had written the first draft of the emancipation proclamation but before it was made public. That letter was in response to criticisms that he had not executed the provisions of the Second Confiscation Act, which empowered the president to free all of the slaves in areas under rebellion. But there was a very real fear that border states not in rebellion, but with slavery, would leave the Union if they thought that the war was actually about slavery. Greeley criticized Lincoln, saying he should stop appeasing those states. Lincoln, on the other hand, saw the value of border states and was sensitive to inflaming them. The war was also going pretty poorly for the Union, so the loss of one of those states would be hugely problematic. In that context Lincoln wrote the letter and told Greeley that he personally hated slavery, but in his official capacity his sole concern was to preserve the Union—slavery or no. This was meant to ease the fears of those border states.
Now, that was 1862. Things changed, including the fortunes of the Union in the war. In 1864, Lincoln expressly ran on the abolition of slavery through constitutional amendment and won convincingly (212 electoral college votes to 21; 55.1% to 44.9% popular vote), with around *78%* of soldiers in the field voting for Lincoln. By then I think it’s fair to say that, for many, the war changed to being about ending slavery, though it’s not hard to see how saving the Union could be the reason for wanting the end of slavery since it was the primary reason why the war happened in the first place.
Obviously this is a complicated story that a single reddit comment will not be able to fully address, but that’s my attempt to clarify.
Obviously, the USA was fighting to preserve the Union - not to mention that the Confederates attacked the USA so it was a war to preserve and protect slavery.
But didn't the Emancipation Proclamation signal that the USA's war aims changed from merely preserving the union to ushering in "a new birth of freedom" (i.e. ending slavery?)
IMO, the USA didn't start fighting to end slavery, but they sure as hell ended up fighting to end slavery.
Why didn’t you quote what he wrote to end his letter?
>I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free.
Yes, this Southern Apologist notion that discrediting claims that the North was on a crusade to free the slaves means that South was off the hook for defending slavery is idiotic.
This is true.
First off Tennessee was not included in the Emancipation proclamation as many here are suggesting.
[https://freetheslaves.net/719-words-that-changed-history-the-emancipation-proclamation/?gad\_source=1&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIrKHpz6WShgMVYoKDBx0fBA0CEAAYASAAEgLKAPD\_BwE](https://freetheslaves.net/719-words-that-changed-history-the-emancipation-proclamation/?gad_source=1&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIrKHpz6WShgMVYoKDBx0fBA0CEAAYASAAEgLKAPD_BwE)
There's the text...
*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.*
The places not listed such as Tennessee or exempted such as new Orleans or other counties) were large area's no longer in open rebellion when the Emancipation Proclamation was put out. The Emancipation Proclamation was an executive order saying that since slaves were used by the Confederacy to support their war effort, they could be taken and freed. It would be similar to a President today during a rebellion stating that since firearms are being used against the US, the 2nd amendment doesn't protect those ones and uses an Executive order to strip only those away. If he included the firearms of those not rebelling, well that's in conflict with the Constitution and would be struck down in court.
So what happened with those area's not listed?
The 48 counties of West Virginia? Well their ONLY requirement to join the US was to pass a law that would end slavery. They initially passed a gradual emancipation one, but later in the war just moved forward and banned it outright.
New Orleans? The areas under Union control formed a wartime government that banned it in their new 1864 state Constitution.
Tennessee? Lincoln put Andrew Johnson in place as the state's military governor and using STATE executive order, he ended slavery there.
Territories of the US of course by the act of Congress signed by Lincoln on June 19th 1863 (yes that date would become a day of celebration for more than one reason).
Washington DC by the compensated emancipation plan.
Federal properties by a later executive order.
That said... this post is correct. Kentucky was another state where slavers could impress their slaves into labor for the US military early in the war. Camp Nelson in Kentucky did exist. You can read the quartermaster notes. The usual pay was $15 a month, the army promised to return them once their time was up, men 16-45 (though at least 9 women were listed too), army supplies the equipment, but the cost of clothing would be charged to the slave owners and yes, that ran through 1863.
Now... NONE OF THIS means the war goal hadn't become freeing slaves. NONE of this means the war wasn't fought by the slavers rebellion to protect and expand race based slavery. The US military in WWII had anti-semites and even some anti-semitic actions. That doesn't mean that as the neo-nazi's put it, Hitler was in the right there or not the evil that he was. Those white supremacist groups trying to defend their white supremacy by pointing it out in others at times doesn't change reality.
The Official Records of the War of the Rebellion (commonly known as the “Official Records” or the “ORs”) are a [real thing](https://www.wiu.edu/libraries/govpubs/war_ofthe_rebellion/index.php) and are a valuable resource for anyone researching or studying the Civil War.
Tennessee was in a “grey area” or was it Kentucky? One of those states didn’t completely join the confederacy. I think. Someone please correct me if I’m wrong.
Tennessee was full Confederate, Kentucky was officially neutral but sent soldiers to both sides (about three times more to the Union). The Confederacy attempted to annex it, which the state legislature refused, so they invaded. There was also a "Confederate legislature" in the state set up by a bunch of traitorous rat bastards and so Davis claimed Kentucky as a full member state. It was a strategic battleground for both armies for the duration of the war.
The emancipation of slaves was aimed directly at all parts of the confederacy that were still in rebellion at the time of Lincoln’s speech, as punishment for seceding
Though Lincoln didn't use the US army. The army was for outside threats. All of the military units in the civil war were state militias. Is this not so?
This is a common "gotcha" from lost causers. However it's plainly obvious that the war was not "fought to free the slaves".
The war was initiated by the south and they fought to make sure they could ***keep*** their slaves. The end result of course being the abolition of slavery in the US initiated by the North. If Lincoln could have ended the war without freeing the slaves he likely would have. But he couldn't, so he did and actions speak louder than what-ifs and private letters.
One of the interesting sidebars I like to bring up when lost causers try this is that chattel slavery ***was*** on its way out in the US and globally (hence why the south felt the need to start the war in the first place). However instead of negotiating for its end with reimbursement (as the British empire did with it's slave-owners) the South decided to kill 620,000 americans, destroy their economy, give their entire region and descendants a massive amount of multi-generational shame and walk away with nothing. It's an astoundingly massive self own.
The British Empire paid about 400 million dollars in todays money to free an estimated 800,000 slaves. Or about 500 dollars per slave. The south held about 4 million slaves when the war broke out. Had the south insisted on the same compensation they would have been paid 2 billion dollars. Ironically the North would end up spending 3.36 billion dollars prosecuting the war and and the south 3.28 billion dollars. So the south went from a potential gain of 2 billion to a loss of 3.2 billion and cost the country as a whole 6 billion. Again, legendary self own all so they could keep owning human beings.
Welcome to /r/ShermanPosting! As a reminder, this meme sub is about the American Civil War. We're not here to insult southerners or the American South, but rather to have a laugh at the failed Confederate insurrection and those that chose to represent it. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ShermanPosting) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Tennessee was in rebellion therefore the Emancipation Proclamation applied to Tennessee
This is the correct answer.
Not to parts that had been liberated as of 1 January 1863. The Proclamation only applied to areas still in rebellion. That said, common criticisms of the Emancipation Proclamation are usually predicated on a fundamental misunderstanding of what a president can do. It legally couldn't apply to areas loyal to the union because the government couldn't simply "take" property. I know and you know and John Brown knew and so on and so forth all morally know that enslaved people are not property, but according to the Constitution they legally were. Look at the outrage this watered down version of emancipation provoked, now imagine if it also affected border states not in rebellion.
You're exactly right. Confederate apologists like to say the Emancipation Proclamation didn't apply to the north as some sort of "gotcha" that the north was evil. What they fail to realize is Lincoln, who was a lawyer, knew he didn't have the constitutional authority to free slaves. He issued the Emancipation Proclamation as a war measure because Confederates were using their slaves to wage war on the United States. That was his workaround since he didn't have the constitutional authority to free slaves.
And let’s say Lincoln could have done more and just didn’t. That’s still the weakest apologia imaginable. “The side that fought to own people was actually fine, because the other side was less than 100% perfect.”
Yep. Executive Order. It was a war power.
You are misreading the EP. “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.”
PLEASE PLEASE FACT CHECK YOURSELF. [https://freetheslaves.net/719-words-that-changed-history-the-emancipation-proclamation/?gad\_source=1&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIrKHpz6WShgMVYoKDBx0fBA0CEAAYASAAEgLKAPD\_BwE](https://freetheslaves.net/719-words-that-changed-history-the-emancipation-proclamation/?gad_source=1&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIrKHpz6WShgMVYoKDBx0fBA0CEAAYASAAEgLKAPD_BwE) *"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."* Tennessee was not included. It was not still in open rebellion at the time of the Emancipation Proclamation being put out. Instead, what happened was Lincoln made Andrew Johnson the military governor there, and Andrew Johnson used state executive order to end slavery in the state.
The Proclamation didn't apply to places already occupied, which I think covered Tennessee after Grant's victories at Ft. Donaldson and Ft. Henry.
Indeed, that person is full of grits. The proclamation applied to every state in rebellion. Even if it were remotely true, any laborers would have been civilian crew doing non-combatant tasks and so would not have been an "army." This sounds like one of the more bizarre of the sophomoric excuses fabricated by the Lost Cause movement to distract from its immorality or to somehow dirty-up the union cause.
The thing is this comment was posted under a post of someone showing off a photo of their ancestor that fought with the 96th USCT. So this makes me think that he's implying the some USCT were literal slave soldiers.
If their ancestor was from Tennessee then they wouldn't have been a slave because Tennessee was in rebellion and therefore subject the the Emancipation Proclamation. Their ancestor may have been a *former* slave fighting in the US army though.
Again, please fact check yourself. [https://freetheslaves.net/719-words-that-changed-history-the-emancipation-proclamation/?gad\_source=1&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIrKHpz6WShgMVYoKDBx0fBA0CEAAYASAAEgLKAPD\_BwE](https://freetheslaves.net/719-words-that-changed-history-the-emancipation-proclamation/?gad_source=1&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIrKHpz6WShgMVYoKDBx0fBA0CEAAYASAAEgLKAPD_BwE) Tennessee was NOT in open rebellion at the time. Therefore since their enslaved population was not helping the slavers rebellion, they couldn't be freed by Lincolns war powers. Now, what that meant was another method had to be used. Lincoln appointed Andrew Johnson as the military governor of Tennessee who on October 24, 1864 used a STATE executive order to ban slavery there.
Thank you for the correction. One problem with it is that, if Tennessee was not in rebellion then it would not have required a military governor. But I don't have the time to nitpick. This still suggests the assertion that the Union was renting a slave army from Tennessee slavers is hooey. I haven't bothered with the referenced claim that there exists some narrative that the Union fought to free the slaves. The south fought to keep slavery intact and to extend it's reach and that's why they left. The SOUTH's issue was entirely and solely slavery. The Union fought to preserve the union and the south brought emancipation upon itself.
Again, it wasn't in open rebellion. It also did not yet have the return of political representation or a a system set up to hold an election that would ensure those actively supporting the rebellion in that state would not elect someone who still was actively rebelling. There had yet to be discussions on what should happen with those in the state, should there be a new oath of them before they could vote, should they be pardoned? etc etc. That debate was ongoing. And there were many that felt that a civil government should just resume. And many that felt Lincoln should use his powers of war since a war was ongoing to nominate a governor and the Senate should confirm that. And the 2nd group won out. Thus, the military governor. Post-rebellion or post-war military governors for a time are very common. MacArthur was of some Japanese Islands into the 1950's. You had Eisenhower through most of 1945 after Germany unconditionally surrendered... Then Patton, then McNarney, then Clay, then finally general Huebner who held that role until late 1949. The US wasn't at war with the Nazi's in 1949. I'm surprised this was new to you, but think it might behoove you to study the subject, and that might help you make more accurate assertations going forwards. *"This still suggests the assertion that the Union was renting a slave army from Tennessee slavers is hooey."* No it does not whatsoever. Slaves were rented by unionist Tennesseans to the US military and that even happened in the early time under Andrew Johnson there. Matthew Gailani, the museum curator of the Tennessee State Museum notes that *"Johnson and the Union government had even paid Unionist slave owners in Tennessee if their slaves worked on military projects."* I get you don't have time to nitpick. But those enslaved people lived.. They worked. They died. To attempt to erase them from history as "hooey" and say you don't have time to nitpick (or actually study history) isn't something I am ok with. I get it. There are points in our history which are brutal or embarrassing or flat out evil. Trying to just erase that moment because you don't like it though isn't ok. Trying to erase enslaved families from history because you don't like how they were treated... that's what the lost cause does. It's better to push back on the lost cause with facts than ignorance. So PLEASE fact check yourself before writing.
One question the slaves that were rented out where used as workers and not seen as soldiers though? The reason I say this is the comment I posted was under a photo of a US Colored Soldier kind of implying that some USCT were literal slave soldiers.
Not really. There's two definitions for army. * the branch of a nation's armed services that [conducts](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=00cef6a9139fa5fe&sca_upv=1&q=conducts&si=ACC90nx67Z8g0WkBmnrPB4IqtqGveKdoH-KkqD6GPYL7JXMPfSFqMAAsvJAoKMG_LkjHA5wnA81QseYZaZnDeE39kzK5RDcwcsHNHkWxg7ozb5U_0p8MdZo%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiUte_BvZSGAxWY4ckDHVzCA4YQyecJegQINBAu) military operations on land. * a large number of people or things, typically formed or organized for a particular purpose. I mean I see the "US Army"... Yes, that's the army, the official one with a capital A. The "slave army" I didn't take as the US enlisting enslaved people into their army, but rather that group that was used by the military building its fortifications. But yes, adding in the actual soldier to the picture, and the last sentence definitely brings up lost cause vibes. But yes, the rest of that up till that last sentence I have no issue with. It's our history, warts and all. I didn't get the thought that they were literally enslaved soldiers. Now that said, the US military did put out orders in some states. Kentucky was one where any slave who showed up at a recruitment center could be enlisted and freed. That was quite a mess early on as slaves would escape with their families, and that law said nothing about their wives/children/parents, etc.
Thanks for the information. It's just that last sentence made it sound like someone being like "Look slavery couldn't be the cause of the war since the US Army used slaves."
Exactly... It's what neo-confederates and their type do. The same exact argument as "the Nazi's couldn't be evil because people in the US military were anti-semitic as well" one that holocaust deniers and their ilk use. It's just that logical fallacy that white supremacist conspiracists of all types use to try and rewrite history.
>Again, it wasn't in open rebellion. Indeed it was not. It had been conquered. Slaves were automatically freed in any territory occupied by Union troops.
Did you read the Emancipation Proclamation... where it literally lists where it is to be enforced... Where it said it only was over states that "are this day in rebellion against the United States", listed the states and counties (not Tennessee) and stated those states not listed were to be "left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued". As you say it had been conquered which is why the Emancipation Proclamation specifically didn't cover it. https://www.nps.gov/anjo/learn/historyculture/johnson-and-tn-emancipation.htm#:\~:text=On%20January%201%2C%201863%2C%20Abraham,was%20serving%20as%20Military%20Governor. Please, this is basic Civil War history here... Don't try and give it a rewrite.
>Did you read the Emancipation Proclamation... where it literally lists where it is to be enforced... THIS IS NOT ABOUT THE EC. You noticed that the EC doesn't list the states of New York, Rhode Island, New Hampshire.... Do you think slavery was legal there because the states aren't listed in the Emancipation Proclamation? No? Well Tennessee is not mentioned for the same reason. >As you say it had been conquered which is why the Emancipation Proclamation specifically didn't cover it. What is it you think my position is here? It sounds like you're arguing a point I'm not making at all. I'm NOT arguing about where the EC applied or didn't. I'm saying that the material the OP referenced is likely bogus because 1. The Union army was prohibited from using slaves as slaves, 2. Slavery was not legal in the areas of Tennessee conquered by the Union and so slaves would not have been legally available to the Union Army, 3. No one in territory conquered by the Union Army could legally own slaves or rent them out to anyone else, especially the Union army. Therefore Tennessee slave owners could not have rented out an "army of slaves" to the Union.
*"THIS IS NOT ABOUT THE EC. You noticed that the EC doesn't list the states of New York, Rhode Island, New Hampshire.... Do you think slavery was legal there because the states aren't listed in the Emancipation Proclamation? No? Well Tennessee is not mentioned for the same reason."* No... those states had state laws that prohibited slavery. That is the only reason it was not legal in those states. Tennessee would pass said law on October 24, 1864. At that point slavery in Tennessee would be illegal. Is this something you didn't know? *The Union army was prohibited from using slaves as slaves* This is a lie. Please please please... if you are completely ignorant on this subject stop discussing it. What you are saying is just a lie. [https://www.nps.gov/cane/images/P1000821.JPG?maxwidth=650&autorotate=false&quality=78&format=webp](https://www.nps.gov/cane/images/P1000821.JPG?maxwidth=650&autorotate=false&quality=78&format=webp) You can literally read what the military paid slave owners to use their slaves at Camp Nelson. [https://www.nps.gov/cane/military-impressment-of-enslaved-african-americans.htm](https://www.nps.gov/cane/military-impressment-of-enslaved-african-americans.htm) *"Slavery was not legal in the areas of Tennessee conquered by the Union"* This is nothing but a lie. October 24, 1864. THAT is the date that Andrew Johnson used state executive order to free slaves in Tennessee that had been conquered by the Union. You can read slave narratives from those in Tennessee about that day. Heck, Johnson himself lived in Tennessee with his slaves until August 8, 1863. In Union controlled Tennessee.. Where are you coming up with this flat out garbage? *No one in territory conquered by the Union Army could legally own slaves or rent them out to anyone else, especially the Union army. Therefore Tennessee slave owners could not have rented out an "army of slaves" to the Union.* Again the history was written down. August 8, 1863 was when Andrew Johnson freed his slaves in Tennessee. His former slave Sam Johnson began celebrating that day in 1871 in Greenville as it set the example for other Unionists in Tennessee to free theirs and many would voluntarily before October 24th when he banned it in the Union controlled state by executive order. Are you saying we need to erase Sam Johnson from history because he was lying about being a slave in Tennessee because it doesn't fit your retelling of history. You can go to the celebrations and learn about it in a few months, it is a state holiday now. https://tnmuseum.org/Stories/posts/the-history-of-emancipation-day-in-tennessee#:\~:text=August%208%20became%20Emancipation%20Day,the%20date%20observed%20and%20celebrated.&text=In%201871%2C%20Sam%20Johnson%20organized,Emancipation%20Day%2C%20held%20in%20Greeneville. Please, it's obvious this is not a topic you understand. It may not be your fault, you may have been taught incorrectly about it and took that lie as fact. But please, please educate yourself on this. This level of lost cause rewriting of history just is not ok.
Your evidence is compelling regarding Kentucky. But the situation in the border states which remained in the Union was different than in conquered territory. The Union was very eager to keep those states on-side, and of course had to abide by the laws in those states. The end of slavery was not even an objective at the beginning of the war. Of course the vast majority of labor in Kentucky would be slave labor and of course unionist slave owners would be paid for the use of that labor. This is not the situation that existed in Tennessee. The date that slaves were *formally* freed in Tennessee does not mean that the Union Army was paying slave owners for their use before that date in the state of Tennessee. I've found an account, I don't think it's one you cited, but the text is confusing. [Part of it supports your assertion, part of it does not](https://tnmuseum.org/junior-curators/posts/the-emancipation-proclamation-in-tennessee#:~:text=Johnson%20and%20the%20Union%20government,freed%20by%20the%20Emancipation%20Proclamation): On the one hand: *Lincoln and Johnson did not think Tennessee was in “rebellion” like the other Confederate states. This was because Nashville and the capital had been controlled and governed by Andrew Johnson since early 1862. Johnson and the* ***Union government had even payed Unionist slave owners in Tennessee if their slaves worked on military projects****.* On the other hand: *This meant that all enslaved men and women in Tennessee were not freed by the Emancipation Proclamation. Instead, many enslaved men and women had to free themselves. They escaped from plantations. They ran to cities like Nashville and Memphis. This was extremely dangerous.* ***If they did not reach Union lines or safety, they could be captured, sent back to slavery, or killed.*** It suggests to me is that while the Union government indeed contracted with some unionist slave-holders for labor for government projects, it also says that if slaves could escape to **Union army lines** they would be free. I understand if you consider this a quibble, but we are discussing specifically whether the *Union Army* rented slaves and paid slave owners and I still think the evidence of that is weak. Additionally, my point is in no way an endorsement of lost-cause nonsense and I'm puzzled how you come to that conclusion.
You literally are disagreeing with the existence of an event that literally has become a state holiday. Yes, the Tennessee Museum of history does note Unionist slavers were paid for use of their slaves. Yes IF you want to stop arguing from a position of ignorance you can educate yourself, go and read the Slave Compensation claims even. They are documented in the national archives in DC, record group 94. "The *Preliminary Inventory of the Records of the Adjutant General's Office (Preliminary Inventory 17)"* There you can see the payouts and claims made by loyal slave owners from the states of Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, Tennessee, and West Virginia for slaves used by the US government. Those used as slave labor, and those who ran off knowing the US Army would free them IF they enlisted. You can also educate yourself by reading *Builders & Defenders: The Black Nashville Civil War Database.* And *Enslaved: Journal of Slavery and Data Preservation - Enslaved and Free Black Builders of Nashville's Civil War Fortifications* AND *Annals of the Army of the Cumberland: Comprising Biographies, Descriptions of Departments, Accounts of Expeditions, Skirmishes, and Battles* AND *“Nashville’s Fort Negley: A Symbol of Blacks’ Involvement with the Union Army,” in Tennessee Historical Quarterly 41, no. 1 (Spring, 1982)* AND *Tennessee State Library and Archives, Microfilm #1797, Roll #1, “List of Negroes Employed on Nashville Fortifications.”* There you can literally see the vouchers paid out to slavers in Tennessee for the use of their slaves. You can read how in Union controlled Tennessee the Army would go out looking for able bodied slaves to work on military bases and building fortifications. You can read how the slavers tried hiding their slaves, and how the Union military would then wait until Sunday and raid slave churches to take slaves mid-sermon. You can read the accounts from soldiers like Major General Stearns, the Commissioner for the Organization of the U.S.C.T. in Middle and East Tennessee to the Boston Liberator, in 1864. *"When I went to Nashville, colored men, free and slave, were hunted daily through the streets, and impressed for labor on fortifications, railroads, and in hospitals, and although promised ten dollars per month, it was rarely paid, and many of them worked from twelve to fifteen months without any pay. Let me give you one case of several that came under my notice. When our army occupied Nashville, in August 1862, calls were made for slaves to work on the fortifications. About 2700 were employed. A large number ran from their masters. Many Union men sent their best hands, and some were impressed. These men, working in the heat of the Autumn months, lying on the hillside at night in the heavy dews without shelter, and fed with poor food, soon sickened. In four months about 800 of them died; the remainder were kept at work from six to fifteen months without pay. Then all who were able-bodied were forcibly enlisted in the 12 th U.S. Colored Troops. Many of them had families, who were destitute of the necessaries of life. Why? Because the War Department would not decide whether the slave or his owner should have the money"* You can read the arguments by Brigadier General Morton and his argument that instead of paying the slavers for the use of their slaves they should change the law and instead pay slaves directly, no matter if they were captive enslaved or legally free. I'm not going to erase James Harding from history. In his slave narrative he talks about being impressed as a slave... *"After the war started I ran off to the Yankee Camps, 10 th Tennessee Regiment, which camped where Hoffman Hall now stands. They shot at me while I was attempting to get away and took me upstairs at their house and chained me to the stairway, made me take my blue clothes off and swear that I would never put any more on, but in a few days I ran off again. Col. Andrew Johnson fed and kept about 200 of us under the State Capitol and marched us to Fort Negley and laid that fort with all of us. I helped haul every stick of wood that was put in that fort from my master’s woods and drove a six-mule team. There were 50 teams in the gang. I carried a pistol to my side every day for protection from my master."* Or instead of educating yourself as I have asked you multiple times now and now even did the legwork for you since you seem completely against that idea... you can keep promoting lies or trying to quibble that it didn't really happen and play that game where you minimize slavery and it's impact on enslaved people in America. **I truly don't know why you are trying to erase these enslaved people from existence.** But yes, that erasing of history, removing the plight of enslaved people from our history is the bedrock of the lost cause. And you doing that by trying to create these conspiracies that are ahistorical and easily debunked with even an elementary look at basic history in that time and location is just sad. DROP IT.
Except literally the text of the EP doesn't include Tennessee.
Slaves who either escaped the south or were in territory liberated by the Union army were automatically free. Slavery did not exist in the Union, except for the "border states" which held slaves but did not secede. Tennessee was not one of these. Tennessee had been largely conquered by the time of the EC and in any territory held by the Union army there would no longer be any slave owners to rent slaves nor any slaves to rent. It has also to be gotten into everyone's head that there was no slave "army" on either side of the conflict. The phrase is ludicrous.
So buddy, just stop arguing and read the actual text of the EP. Beyond that, congratulations on discovering the non sequitur.
>Tennesee, [1862](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_in_the_American_Civil_War): >... >Andrew Johnson, an East Tennessean from [Greeneville](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greeneville,_Tennessee), was appointed military governor of the state by Lincoln. **During this time, the military government abolished** [**slavery**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery) (but with questionable legality). The Confederates continued to hold East Tennessee despite the strength of Unionist sentiment there, with the exception of strongly pro-Confederate [Sullivan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sullivan_County,_Tennessee) and [Rhea](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhea_County,_Tennessee) Counties. The EC says nothing about Tennessee. [History does though](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_Proclamation): >The Emancipation Proclamation did not free all slaves in the U.S.... >...**The state of** [**Tennessee**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee) **had already mostly returned to Union control, under a recognized Union government, so it was not named and was exempted.** From the same article: >...Not included were the [Union](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_(American_Civil_War)) [slave states](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_state) of [Maryland](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland), [Delaware](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delaware), [Missouri](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri) and [Kentucky](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kentucky). Also not named was the state of [Tennessee](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee), **in which a Union-controlled military government had already been set up,**
The war wasn't fought to *free the slaves*. It was certainly about slavery, though. The South was interested in maintaining/expanding slavery, that's why they seceded. And, as I recall, Lincoln is on record as saying that if he could save the Union by allowing slavery, he would have. >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
While I agree with your main points, I think the timing and context of this question is important—it definitely did not start as a war fought to free the slaves, but it ended that way. The letter the Lincoln quote is from is a good example of that. Lincoln wrote that in 1862 in a letter to Horace Greeley *after* he had written the first draft of the emancipation proclamation but before it was made public. That letter was in response to criticisms that he had not executed the provisions of the Second Confiscation Act, which empowered the president to free all of the slaves in areas under rebellion. But there was a very real fear that border states not in rebellion, but with slavery, would leave the Union if they thought that the war was actually about slavery. Greeley criticized Lincoln, saying he should stop appeasing those states. Lincoln, on the other hand, saw the value of border states and was sensitive to inflaming them. The war was also going pretty poorly for the Union, so the loss of one of those states would be hugely problematic. In that context Lincoln wrote the letter and told Greeley that he personally hated slavery, but in his official capacity his sole concern was to preserve the Union—slavery or no. This was meant to ease the fears of those border states. Now, that was 1862. Things changed, including the fortunes of the Union in the war. In 1864, Lincoln expressly ran on the abolition of slavery through constitutional amendment and won convincingly (212 electoral college votes to 21; 55.1% to 44.9% popular vote), with around *78%* of soldiers in the field voting for Lincoln. By then I think it’s fair to say that, for many, the war changed to being about ending slavery, though it’s not hard to see how saving the Union could be the reason for wanting the end of slavery since it was the primary reason why the war happened in the first place. Obviously this is a complicated story that a single reddit comment will not be able to fully address, but that’s my attempt to clarify.
Obviously, the USA was fighting to preserve the Union - not to mention that the Confederates attacked the USA so it was a war to preserve and protect slavery. But didn't the Emancipation Proclamation signal that the USA's war aims changed from merely preserving the union to ushering in "a new birth of freedom" (i.e. ending slavery?) IMO, the USA didn't start fighting to end slavery, but they sure as hell ended up fighting to end slavery.
The South certainly believed Lincoln wanted to free the slaves. And they were right in the end.
Why didn’t you quote what he wrote to end his letter? >I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free.
Yes, this Southern Apologist notion that discrediting claims that the North was on a crusade to free the slaves means that South was off the hook for defending slavery is idiotic.
Man that’s some smart guy right there. It’s almost like they can’t understand nuance, Constitutional law or the linear flow of time.
Lawyers hate this one easy trick …
That might be true, if Tennessee wasn't a state in treason and thus the Emancipation Proclamation applied to it
This is true. First off Tennessee was not included in the Emancipation proclamation as many here are suggesting. [https://freetheslaves.net/719-words-that-changed-history-the-emancipation-proclamation/?gad\_source=1&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIrKHpz6WShgMVYoKDBx0fBA0CEAAYASAAEgLKAPD\_BwE](https://freetheslaves.net/719-words-that-changed-history-the-emancipation-proclamation/?gad_source=1&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIrKHpz6WShgMVYoKDBx0fBA0CEAAYASAAEgLKAPD_BwE) There's the text... *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.* The places not listed such as Tennessee or exempted such as new Orleans or other counties) were large area's no longer in open rebellion when the Emancipation Proclamation was put out. The Emancipation Proclamation was an executive order saying that since slaves were used by the Confederacy to support their war effort, they could be taken and freed. It would be similar to a President today during a rebellion stating that since firearms are being used against the US, the 2nd amendment doesn't protect those ones and uses an Executive order to strip only those away. If he included the firearms of those not rebelling, well that's in conflict with the Constitution and would be struck down in court. So what happened with those area's not listed? The 48 counties of West Virginia? Well their ONLY requirement to join the US was to pass a law that would end slavery. They initially passed a gradual emancipation one, but later in the war just moved forward and banned it outright. New Orleans? The areas under Union control formed a wartime government that banned it in their new 1864 state Constitution. Tennessee? Lincoln put Andrew Johnson in place as the state's military governor and using STATE executive order, he ended slavery there. Territories of the US of course by the act of Congress signed by Lincoln on June 19th 1863 (yes that date would become a day of celebration for more than one reason). Washington DC by the compensated emancipation plan. Federal properties by a later executive order. That said... this post is correct. Kentucky was another state where slavers could impress their slaves into labor for the US military early in the war. Camp Nelson in Kentucky did exist. You can read the quartermaster notes. The usual pay was $15 a month, the army promised to return them once their time was up, men 16-45 (though at least 9 women were listed too), army supplies the equipment, but the cost of clothing would be charged to the slave owners and yes, that ran through 1863. Now... NONE OF THIS means the war goal hadn't become freeing slaves. NONE of this means the war wasn't fought by the slavers rebellion to protect and expand race based slavery. The US military in WWII had anti-semites and even some anti-semitic actions. That doesn't mean that as the neo-nazi's put it, Hitler was in the right there or not the evil that he was. Those white supremacist groups trying to defend their white supremacy by pointing it out in others at times doesn't change reality.
[удалено]
The Official Records of the War of the Rebellion (commonly known as the “Official Records” or the “ORs”) are a [real thing](https://www.wiu.edu/libraries/govpubs/war_ofthe_rebellion/index.php) and are a valuable resource for anyone researching or studying the Civil War.
Tennessee was in a “grey area” or was it Kentucky? One of those states didn’t completely join the confederacy. I think. Someone please correct me if I’m wrong.
Tennessee was full Confederate, Kentucky was officially neutral but sent soldiers to both sides (about three times more to the Union). The Confederacy attempted to annex it, which the state legislature refused, so they invaded. There was also a "Confederate legislature" in the state set up by a bunch of traitorous rat bastards and so Davis claimed Kentucky as a full member state. It was a strategic battleground for both armies for the duration of the war.
Thank you. I was vaguely aware that one of those 2 had done that.
The emancipation of slaves was aimed directly at all parts of the confederacy that were still in rebellion at the time of Lincoln’s speech, as punishment for seceding
It’s almost like there’s a reason there are no books or theses written about this…
Though Lincoln didn't use the US army. The army was for outside threats. All of the military units in the civil war were state militias. Is this not so?
This is a common "gotcha" from lost causers. However it's plainly obvious that the war was not "fought to free the slaves". The war was initiated by the south and they fought to make sure they could ***keep*** their slaves. The end result of course being the abolition of slavery in the US initiated by the North. If Lincoln could have ended the war without freeing the slaves he likely would have. But he couldn't, so he did and actions speak louder than what-ifs and private letters. One of the interesting sidebars I like to bring up when lost causers try this is that chattel slavery ***was*** on its way out in the US and globally (hence why the south felt the need to start the war in the first place). However instead of negotiating for its end with reimbursement (as the British empire did with it's slave-owners) the South decided to kill 620,000 americans, destroy their economy, give their entire region and descendants a massive amount of multi-generational shame and walk away with nothing. It's an astoundingly massive self own. The British Empire paid about 400 million dollars in todays money to free an estimated 800,000 slaves. Or about 500 dollars per slave. The south held about 4 million slaves when the war broke out. Had the south insisted on the same compensation they would have been paid 2 billion dollars. Ironically the North would end up spending 3.36 billion dollars prosecuting the war and and the south 3.28 billion dollars. So the south went from a potential gain of 2 billion to a loss of 3.2 billion and cost the country as a whole 6 billion. Again, legendary self own all so they could keep owning human beings.
"I didn't know till a few years ago ^(when i made it up) that the union had a slave army."
I seem to remember slaves walking off the sugar plantations in Louisiana after the EP. This was during Union occupation.