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.

11 responses... add one

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.

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?

“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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 !

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.

Join the Conversation