The Confederacy Freed the Slaves

Earlier today I posted Jon Stewart’s take down of FOX’s Andrew “The Hair” Napolitano who offered his own not-so-unique interpretation of Lincoln’s role in emancipation. Continuing with this line of absurd reasoning I give you The SHPG’s Valerie Protopapas, who I believe is a Northern gal. This is her take on the question of “Who freed the slaves?”

It turns out, the Confederacy did.

According to today’s “historians,” Lincoln freed the slaves with his famous Emancipation Proclamation. Of course, this is nonsense, but let us for the moment use that particular conclusion to look at the matter correctly. The EP said that if the Southern States which had left the Union did not lay down their arms and return within 100 days after the issuance of the Proclamation, their slaves wsould be considered free. In other words, the EP freed NO slaves, not even those in the Southern States. Their emancipation was directly linked to whether or not the States who had seceded returned to the Union within the 100 day period specified by Lincoln. So, obviously, even the slaves in the South were not emancipated by the Proclamation directly. Their emancipation depended upon the action of the States who had left the Union. If any or all of them returned, SLAVERY REMAINED. If they did not, THEN AND ONLY THEN were the slaves within them considered BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT to be free. Of course, as has been said over and over again, the federal government was in no position to enforce that emancipation, it could do no more than create a situation on paper that would only become the force of law at such time as the war was won by the Union.

Given the above, therefore, the only conclusion that can be logically adduced is that neither Lincoln nor his government freed the slaves. The slaves were freed (eventually) by those Southern States who REFUSED to lay down their arms within the hundred day grace period offered to them. In effect, therefore, the Southern States—by ignoring Lincoln’s ultimatum—freed their OWN slaves. It makes no difference that such was not their intention! After all, Lincoln’s intention was to end the war, NOT free the slaves. Ergo, if he is given credit for freeing them though that was not his intention, then fairness and reason demand that the Southern States ALSO receive credit even absent any intention to emancipate the slaves.

I have a pretty high threshold for nonsense, but between these two stories I have reached my limit.

Civil War Memory has moved to Substack! Don’t miss a single post. Subscribe below.

15 comments… add one
  • wotan237 Jun 27, 2015 @ 19:35

    White people ended slavery. They took it upon themselves as a moral crusade ( Africans probably invented slavery, where it still persists in several nations ) Slavery has been a universal institution and one group – white people- put an end to it, yet it is white people who are exclusively demonized for involvement in slavery by the media, Hollywood, academia, etc
    Most trans-Atlantic slaves went to Brazil and not the US, but we never hear about how evil Brazil is….. we have “white guilt” but have you ever heard of “Turkish guilt” ? Ottoman Turks ran a huge slaving empire for centuries, but no one tries to guilt trip those guys….

    Concerning the Confederate flag- the battle flag never represented the CSA, they had another flag for that. the battle flag was just for battles and soldiering.

    Most flags can be objectionable ….The French flag offends Arabs over the Algerian war, the Israeli flag offends anyone concerned about how banned white phosphorous gas is used on civilian Palestinians, etc…Trying to ban the Confederate flag because it hurts somebodies feelings is silly and stupid.

    The American flag for about 75 years flew over a slave nation- USA

    • Kevin Levin Jun 28, 2015 @ 1:51

      Concerning the Confederate flag- the battle flag never represented the CSA, they had another flag for that.

      Of course it did. It was the battle flag more many men in Confederate ranks, which operated as the military arm of the Confederate nation. They are one and the same.

  • Brendan Bossard Feb 26, 2014 @ 12:59

    She’s demonstrating the ultimate in positive thinking: heads I win; tails you lose. Indomitable! There is no cure. I just laugh and walk away.

  • RE Watson Feb 26, 2014 @ 7:49

    That sound you just heard was my head banging against the wall. ERGO, the EP did not free the wall. However, that sound would not have been heard if the tree had not fallen. It does take a lot of effort to write gibberish. Let’s give Lady Val credit !

  • Ken Noe Feb 26, 2014 @ 5:53

    Once upon a time, H-CIVWAR was a lively community of scholars. Then one day, Lady Val popped up. Within a year, it was the cyber equivalent of a dead mall. At least the book review store is still open.

  • Chris Coleman Feb 26, 2014 @ 4:22

    Ken, these two people are clearly existing somewhere in the DC Multiverse, where the South won the war, Adolf Hitler was a successful artist and sci-fi writer and similar quantum possibilities.

    What is truly frightening, however, is that someone so profoundly ignorant as Napolitano ever held a high judicial post.

  • msb Feb 25, 2014 @ 23:55

    I always thought the slaves themselves had something to do with it (along with the US government and the Union army) …

    And how odd to find yet another person who thinks that doing the equivalent of SHOUTING makes their opinions into facts.

  • Steve Feb 25, 2014 @ 19:25

    The proclamation of emancipation was a good idea, a better interpretation is instead of freeing the slaves, was to keep the European countries from recognizing the Confederacy as a sovereign country. When the war started, the North had more slave states than the South. After Lincoln called for troops to invade the South, Virginia, Louisiana, North Carolina and Arkansas seceded from the union. How would the south maintain slavery, even as a sovereign nation when the South did not have any slave ships and the constitution of the confederacy stopped the importation of Africans in 1862. A question I would like to see discussed .. the invention of machinery do you not think slavery would eventually end? Why war, why not just stop the slave ships? The U.S. Navy put up a blockade, why not a naval blockade against slave ships? I say follow the money! Do you think just maybe the money would be traced to Northern banks or slave ship owners?

    • Andy Hall Feb 26, 2014 @ 5:04

      “Why war, why not just stop the slave ships? The U.S. Navy put up a blockade, why not a naval blockade against slave ships?”

      Importation of slaves into the United States had been prohibited for more than 50 years at the time of secession, and the number of transatlantic slave voyages landing in the U.S. was very small. The United States did establish “a naval blockade against slave ships” with a squadron on the African coast in the 1850s, but didn’t do a very effective job of it, especially compared to the British patrols working in the same region.

      Finally, the question “why war?” and why not a blockade instead, doesn’t make much sense. A blockade of a foreign port was an is understood internationally as a belligerent action, a so-called “act of war.” Blockades sometimes don’t result in an all-out war (e.g., Cuba 1962) for various reasons, but don’t misunderstand the nature of the act itself.

    • Jerry McKenzie Feb 26, 2014 @ 8:16

      How would the South maintain slavery…? Slaves were property to their owners and they breed them like they would breed their domestic animals. Slave ships were no longer necessary. The Confederate Constitution was winking at what was already known — there was no need for importation of African men and women. The invention of the cotton gin did nothing to end slavery — it actually increased slavery. Did the US naval blockade of the South stop blockade runners? No. Would slavery eventually end? Yes, in its normal fashion by violent revolution and the collapse of those societies that turn a blind eye to the suffering inflicted by slavery so that profit can be made. Did any European nation recognize the Confederacy? Nope — successful Yankee diplomacy or European repugnance about having to outright support a slave nation? You’re right about the banks though.

      • Jack MacGowan Sep 22, 2017 @ 13:46

        Then you’ve never read European history. European countries ended slavery a number of times. It resurged under outside influences.

    • Jerry McKenzie Feb 27, 2014 @ 11:44
    • John Tucker May 2, 2015 @ 10:08

      It did not need to fly over any slave ship. They had over 4 million and as the congressional option in writing the CS constitution was to forbid the importation so that the states could reap the benefits.

      CS Constitution citations
      7) No preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one State over those of another.

      (The CSA ditches the last sentence of the American clause, thus giving its states the power to tax domestic ships who enter their ports.)

      (3) No State shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty on tonnage, except on seagoing vessels, for the improvement of its rivers and harbors navigated by the said vessels; but such duties shall not conflict with any treaties of the Confederate States with foreign nations; and any surplus revenue thus derived shall, after making such improvement, be paid into the common treasury. Nor shall any State keep troops or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another State, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay. But when any river divides or flows through two or more States they may enter into compacts with each other to improve the navigation thereof.

      (The CSA threw a lot of qualifications into this one.

      The Confederates were apparently quite eager to raise money by taxing ships that used their waterways, so this clause had to be rewritten to allow that.

      The Confederate states also gain the power to make river-related treaties with each other. In the US, the federal government regulates bodies of water that overlap multiple states.)

      But what is funny is that NO WHERE in the CS constitution does it omit slave ships

  • Brooks D. Simpson Feb 25, 2014 @ 18:04

    Well, of course it was Robert E. Lee who freed the slaves by stopping McClellan outside of Richmond before allowing McClellan to fight him to a draw at Antietam … or maybe it was McClellan who freed the slaves by giving Lincoln a battle he could claim was a victory in order to issue the Emancipation Proclamation … then again, maybe it was Stephen Douglas who freed the slaves by introducing the Kansas-Nebraska Act, thus giving rise to the Republican party, then splitting the Democrats over Lecompton, and facilitating Lincoln’s rise to power …

    Val is my especial burden, because she is a Long Islander. Don’t tell Pat Young that this is a case where Long Island loses. It’s just like my cousin Connie Chastain … in truth, I’m the mastermind behind all this.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *