States need to start their own volunteer militia's!!

[ConHog]

Could you point them out to me?

BTW, EOs have been issued for a couple of hundred years now... but that's not new information now is it.

Didn't an executive order in fact free the northern slaves? Tyr hates executive orders ERGO Tyr wants to return us to the days of slavery.

[Kathianne]

Didn't an executive order in fact free the northern slaves? Tyr hates executive orders ERGO Tyr wants to return us to the days of slavery.

I never heard that. I've heard some try to claim that the Emancipation Proclamation was an EO, which it wasn't, but even with that, it only 'freed' the slaves in the areas the Union didn't control. Please, a link to what you are referring to.

[ConHog]

I never heard that. I've heard some try to claim that the Emancipation Proclamation was an EO, which it wasn't, but even with that, it only 'freed' the slaves in the areas the Union didn't control. Please, a link to what you are referring to.

I misstyped, of course I meant the Southern States.

And it certainly was an Executive Order, issued BY Lincoln ordering all military personal to free slaves as they came across them rather than return them to their masters.

[taft2012]

I misstyped, of course I meant the Southern States.

And it certainly was an Executive Order, issued BY Lincoln ordering all military personal to free slaves as they came across them rather than return them to their masters.

The Emancipation Proclamation freed slaves in those areas in rebellion against the union, which excluded slave states that remained in the union; Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, and Missouri.

A liberal reading of it would mean that anywhere the union army was, was *NOT* in rebellion against the union. A loophole that allowed General U.S. Grant to own slaves throughout the course of the war, and who he did not liberate until enaction of the 13th Amendment.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

The Emancipation Proclamation freed slaves in those areas in rebellion against the union, which excluded slave states that remained in the union; Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, and Missouri.

A liberal reading of it would mean that anywhere the union army was, was *NOT* in rebellion against the union. A loophole that allowed General U.S. Grant to own slaves throughout the course of the war, and who he did not liberate until enaction of the 13th Amendment.

Liberals always have at least double standard and sometimes even triple standards! Regardless of how many standards they employ they are always exempted and treated like the special little Gods they think themselves to be! -Tyr

[ConHog]

Liberals always have at least double standard and sometimes even triple standards! Regardless of how many standards they employ they are always exempted and treated like the special little Gods they think themselves to be! -Tyr

Now Lincoln was a liberal?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Now Lincoln was a liberal?

Please show where I used Lincoln's name. You don't get to just add names to my statement when I didn't use them. If I want to name specific people I will do so myself, your attempt to name them for me is ridiculous and asinine.
A bit daft if you ask me and even if you didn't ask me..--Tyr
Your reading comprehension needs help.......

A liberal reading of it would mean that anywhere the union army was, was *NOT* in rebellion against the union.-quote by taft

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Now Lincoln was a liberal?

Again just because you are so slow and reading seems to be so very hard for you!! jezz dense much?

Quote by taft,
A liberal reading of it would mean that anywhere the union army was, was *NOT* in rebellion against the union.

[logroller]

The Emancipation Proclamation freed slaves in those areas in rebellion against the union, which excluded slave states that remained in the union; Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, and Missouri.

A liberal reading of it would mean that anywhere the union army was, was *NOT* in rebellion against the union. A loophole that allowed General U.S. Grant to own slaves throughout the course of the war, and who he did not liberate until enaction of the 13th Amendment.

No it didn't. Just because it didn't include them doesn't mean they were excluded. You Just noted that "areas" in rebellion were included. That could include parts of Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland and Missouri. The emancipation proclamation was a military move IMO; a means of motivating the negro population (slave and free) to join the fight. Tell them, if your master is a rebel, you're free; if your master is prounion, we'll figure that out later.

[mundame]

The emancipation proclamation was a military move IMO; a means of motivating the negro population (slave and free) to join the fight. Tell them, if your master is a rebel, you're free; if your master is prounion, we'll figure that out later.

Sure. I think that's been well documented as having been Lincoln's intention. It did not work, of course: the blacks did not fight the white Southerners. However, they did follow the Northern troops around and sow confusion throughout the South, so it worked well enough from that perpspective.

[gabosaurus]

If states legalized volunteer militias, wouldn't street gangs qualify? I am guessing they would.

[Kathianne]

No it didn't. Just because it didn't include them doesn't mean they were excluded. You Just noted that "areas" in rebellion were included. That could include parts of Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland and Missouri. The emancipation proclamation was a military move IMO; a means of motivating the negro population (slave and free) to join the fight. Tell them, if your master is a rebel, you're free; if your master is prounion, we'll figure that out later.

I always saw it as a political move to change the meaning of the war from 'holding the Union' to 'free the slaves.' It did work on that level, nearly all high school grads believe it was the war to free the slaves.

[ConHog]

I always saw it as a political move to change the meaning of the war from 'holding the Union' to 'free the slaves.' It did work on that level, nearly all high school grads believe it was the war to free the slaves.

That's one thing that irks me. Lincoln himself said if he could preserve the union without freeing a single slave he would do so, clearly indicates the war was not about slavery to me.

not on the North's part anyway.

[fj1200]

Didn't an executive order in fact free the northern slaves? Tyr hates executive orders ERGO Tyr wants to return us to the days of slavery.

No small stretch there.

I never heard that. I've heard some try to claim that the Emancipation Proclamation was an EO, which it wasn't, but even with that, it only 'freed' the slaves in the areas the Union didn't control. Please, a link to what you are referring to.

One could argue...

The Emancipation Proclamation is an order issued to all segments of the Executive branch (including the Army and Navy) of the United States by President Abraham Lincoln on January 1, 1863, during the American Civil War. It was based on the president's constitutional authority as commander in chief of the armed forces; it was not a law passed by Congress.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_Proclamation

Based on the above it's unlikely he had the authority to free the slaves in states that were not in rebellion.

[ConHog]

No small stretch there.



One could argue...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_Proclamation

Based on the above it's unlikely he had the authority to free the slaves in states that were not in rebellion.

I guess it would have had to have been labeled the Emancipation Executive Order to qualify LOL