Talk:Emancipation Proclamation

The Frémont Emancipation

Someone needs to ad this, it probably forced lincoln's hand.

Lincoln's Proclamation "IMMEDIATELY" freed no one. If you want to keep that word there, PROVIDE SOME DOCUMENTATION

Sir, you can plainly see that your wording of this article has been challenged and yet you insist.

The document did not "immediately" free anyone. Not a single soul. If it had, they would have walked from their fields and shanties as freed men in that moment. But the document had no authority in the south at that time.

This is not a point of southern apology, but a fact. So get over yourself and change the wording so that it is factual, please.

I wish this document had freed the slaves and recognized their equal rights and turned bullets into butterflies, but it did none of those things. We would have to wait until LBJ in 1964 for a president to sign and enforce.

Now, either change the wording or kindly provide documentation of a person who actually went free upon the ink drying on that document.

To address this: "Firstly, runaway slaves held in contraband camps were told at midnight that they were free to leave. Secondly, the Sea Islands off the coast of Georgia had already been occupied by the Union Navy, the whites had fled to the mainland while the blacks remained largely running their own lives, naval officers read them the EP and told them that they were free. PatGallacher (talk) 21:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)"

I would argue that they were not, at that point, being held as slaves and that they freed themselves prior to the EP.

Vinson L Watkins (talk) 04:20, 10 July 2011 (UTC)Vinson L Watkins 07/09/2011

legalisation of slavery in the northern territories

the document excluded slave states that were on the unions side and therefore ensured that slavery remained legal within the union - it took further amendments to ensure freedom (also should we mention that freedom did not mean citizenship). should we use the term 'freedom from slavery' rather than just freedom. Dave-o-dagenham (talk) 16:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

deportation of any freed slaves

lincoln wanted slaves to be deported back to africa and form their own colonies - this was his implementation strategy for this proclamation - not attual freedom for slaves Dave-o-dagenham (talk) 16:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Authority section

This edit added a paragraph to the Authority section with an edit summary saying, "I found a problem with this section- majority what was there is false." I tweaked the edit to avoid the errors which the {{cite web}} templates were throwing.

However, the edit adds an assertion that "Lincoln had no constitutional authority to instate an act that would effect the South because it was not part of the Union ...". The assertion is supported by a cited source but, having only online access, I am unable to verify whether that assertion clearly reflects the source content or whether it is an interpretation by a WP editor. Regardless, it does not appear to be a statement of undisputed historical fact. It looks to me like the opinion of either the book's authors or of the WP editor adding the assertion.

Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1868), would appear to pertain here. See Texas v. White#Decision, which quotes from that decision saying in part, ""Considered therefore as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. The obligations of the State, as a member of the Union, and of every citizen of the State, as a citizen of the United States, remained perfect and unimpaired. It certainly follows that the State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union. ..." Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:53, 25 October 2011 (UTC) It appears to me that either the edit should be reverted or that significantly differing viewpoints should be represented, per WP:DUE.

yes. the person who added it seems a bit confused--if the Confederacy was out of the Union it had no constitutional rights whatever and was an enemy country. I just dropped the addition which was a misreading of the source. Rjensen (talk) 04:03, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Someone needs to add a section that provides the argument for its unconstitutionality. What are "necessary war measures"? There is nothing in the constitution enumerating any such powers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tap1tika (talk • contribs) 02:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)