Total Posts:8|Showing Posts:1-8
Jump to topic:

Did the Emancipation free the slaves?

CarefulNow
Posts: 780
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2013 3:34:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/24/2013 10:56:14 AM, Adam2 wrote:
Or was that just a political move to get England to ally with the USA?

What did England have to gain from emancipation? If you can believe that England was genuinely abolitionist, why can't you believe the USA was genuinely abolitionist?
SloppyJoe6412
Posts: 24
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2013 4:16:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/24/2013 10:56:14 AM, Adam2 wrote:
Or was that just a political move to get England to ally with the USA?

A political move it was, with little doubt. The England argument seems weak to me. I believe it was necessary -in a realpolitik sense- for the North to subdue the South, whose colonial structure made them less willing to expand the US west and overseas, as opposed to the eager and willing North. Look at how quickly did expansionism gain traction after the defeat of the South.

Mixed with all this is the issue of slavery. I strongly doubt it was the main driver for any of the parties, but it did have a positive effect. This is better than what hapened with many other wars, where the alleged rationale was thoroughly meaningless or downright harmful. So I take emancipation, imperfect and incomplete as it was, as a positive side effect of a war with other reasons to be.
Adam2
Posts: 1,024
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2013 4:25:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/24/2013 4:16:31 PM, SloppyJoe6412 wrote:
At 10/24/2013 10:56:14 AM, Adam2 wrote:
Or was that just a political move to get England to ally with the USA?

A political move it was, with little doubt. The England argument seems weak to me. I believe it was necessary -in a realpolitik sense- for the North to subdue the South, whose colonial structure made them less willing to expand the US west and overseas, as opposed to the eager and willing North. Look at how quickly did expansionism gain traction after the defeat of the South.

Mixed with all this is the issue of slavery. I strongly doubt it was the main driver for any of the parties, but it did have a positive effect. This is better than what hapened with many other wars, where the alleged rationale was thoroughly meaningless or downright harmful. So I take emancipation, imperfect and incomplete as it was, as a positive side effect of a war with other reasons to be.

I don't know for sure. All I know is that slavery was under a USA flag, not a Confederate one. If anything the citizens were more Confederate. Radicals were Confederate. Jefferson Davis actually isn't that much of a Rebel hero. He was really reluctant to seceed. To me he's a villainous scumbag, much like Ulysses Grant. The Confederate citizens had a pride in their hometown. None of them held slaves. Also it's only after the Northerners colonized the South and created settlements there, as a result of winning the war, that Jim Crow began.
Adam2
Posts: 1,024
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2013 4:27:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/24/2013 3:34:33 PM, CarefulNow wrote:
At 10/24/2013 10:56:14 AM, Adam2 wrote:
Or was that just a political move to get England to ally with the USA?

What did England have to gain from emancipation? If you can believe that England was genuinely abolitionist, why can't you believe the USA was genuinely abolitionist?

I don't think England was genuine either, and it had nothing to do with slavery. Ya, they might have ended slavery, but the same person who ended it, William Pitt the Elder, introduced another monster: imperialism and oppression. They were big phonies, much like the Danish Empire, who thought it was OK to steal and oppress Greenland.
Adam2
Posts: 1,024
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2013 4:30:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/24/2013 3:34:33 PM, CarefulNow wrote:
At 10/24/2013 10:56:14 AM, Adam2 wrote:
Or was that just a political move to get England to ally with the USA?

What did England have to gain from emancipation? If you can believe that England was genuinely abolitionist, why can't you believe the USA was genuinely abolitionist?

The Confederates really didn't believe in slavery. The citizen who fought for them fought for their home. And Jefferson Davis wasn't even a true Confederate, as he was really reluctant to secede. He only did it because of popular pressure, because the area known as the South was being oppressed by Northerners and their taxes. He was a unionist at heart, and in a way similar to the English Unionists, and I don't mean that in a good way. And besides, it's only after the Northerners colonized the South during Reconstruction that Jim Crow began. Hell the South really began as Scottish anti-slavery colonies. It's only after the English crown captured those territories that slavery was legal.
Adam2
Posts: 1,024
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2013 4:33:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/24/2013 3:34:33 PM, CarefulNow wrote:
At 10/24/2013 10:56:14 AM, Adam2 wrote:
Or was that just a political move to get England to ally with the USA?

What did England have to gain from emancipation? If you can believe that England was genuinely abolitionist, why can't you believe the USA was genuinely abolitionist?

Besides what England and Denmark had wasn't a trade. You can throw that slightly more innocent term on Scotland, since they had slavery, but in their case they purchased tribes, so in that case it was the particular tribe's fault for selling their own to the Scottish. But with England and Denmark it was pure conquest and kidnapping.
CarefulNow
Posts: 780
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2013 7:19:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
If all you mean is that Northern and English abolitionism was hypocritical, then I agree; Northern wage-slaves were materially worse off than Southern chattel-slaves, and English wage-slaves were in the worst shape of all. But, like most of your English-Danish conspiracy theories, this one makes no sense. Again, England had nothing to gain from emancipation, and emancipation of course didn't result in England's allegiance, so at best it made it politically impossible for England to ally with the South (which wasn't likely to happen anyway). And even that political impossibility was due to genuine (however hypocritical) opposition to slavery (or else what was it due to?) Well, there was genuine (again, however hypocritical) opposition to slavery in America, too. Didn't emancipation give Northern abolitionists a reason to fight and Southern blacks a reason to defect?