Another Proclamation
August 20, 1866: Message Proclaiming End to Insurrection in the United States
Transcript
By the President of the United States of America
A Proclamation
Whereas by proclamations of the 15th and 19th of April, 1861, the President of the United States, in virtue of the power vested in him by the Constitution and the laws, declared that the laws of the United States were opposed and the execution thereof obstructed in the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings or by the powers vested in the marshals by law; and
Whereas by another proclamation, made on the 16th day of August, in the same year, in pursuance of an act of Congress approved July 13, 1861, the inhabitants of the States of Georgia, South Carolina, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Alabama, Louisiana, Texas, Arkansas, Mississippi, and Florida (except the inhabitants of that part of the State of Virginia lying west of the Alleghany Mountains, and except also the inhabitants of such other parts of that State and the other States before named as might maintain a loyal adhesion to the Union and the Constitution or might be from time to time occupied and controlled by forces of the United States engaged in the dispersion of insurgents) were declared to be in a state of insurrection against the United States; and
Whereas by another proclamation, of the 1st day of July, 1862, issued in pursuance of an act of Congress approved June 7, in the same year, the insurrection was declared to be still existing in the States aforesaid, with the exception of certain specified counties in the State of Virginia: and
Whereas by another proclamation, made on the 2d day of April, 1863, in pursuance of the act of Congress of July 13, 1861, the exceptions named in the proclamation of August 16, 1861, were revoked and the inhabitants of the States of Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Tennessee, Alabama, Louisiana, Texas, Arkansas, Mississippi, Florida, and Virginia (except the forty-eight counties of Virginia designated as West Virginia and the ports of New Orleans, Key West, Port Royal, and Beaufort, in North Carolina) were declared to be still in a state of insurrection against the United States; and
Whereas by another proclamation, of the 15th day of September, 1863, made in pursuance of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1863, the rebellion was declared to be still existing and the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus was in certain specified cases suspended throughout the United States, said suspension to continue throughout the duration of the rebellion or until said proclamation should, by a subsequent one to be issued by the President of the United States, be modified or revoked; and
...
Now, therefore, I, Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, do hereby proclaim and declare that the insurrection which heretofore existed in the States of Georgia, South Carolina, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Alabama, Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, and Florida is at an end and is henceforth to be so regarded.
https://millercenter.org/the-presid...6-m-proclaiming-end-insurrection-united
What the hell is wrong with you?
It was a rebellion, of course -- the people were in rebellion. They were rebels, classified as such. The states were declared to be in a state of insurrection.
And the proclamation was not just "a speech." Jeezez. It defined and classified the states, by naming them individually, as in a state of insurrection, and also noted the dates, by ACTS OF CONGRESS, when it was declared as such, starting in 1861.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebellion
"Rebellion, uprising, or insurrection is a refusal of obedience or order. It refers to the open resistance against the orders of an established authority. The term comes from the Latin verb rebellō, "I renew war" (from re- ("again") + bellō ("I wage war/I revolt"). The rebel is the individual that partakes in rebellion or rebellious activities, particularly when armed. Thus, the term rebellion also refers to the ensemble of rebels in a state of revolt."
booth was not part of a government plan to kill Lincoln.
by April 1865, the south is pretty much finished
Confederate monuments start to come down in NOLA initiated by a white mayor
Removal of the first of four New Orleans Confederate monuments begins with Liberty Place | NOLA.com
I commented earlier on the twisted warped reality southern confederate apologists have created for themselves.
I commented earlier on the twisted warped reality southern confederate apologists have created for themselves.
Anyone who dreams that the South will rise again will be disappointed.
Wait and see.
A hundred years from now we'll look back at this and laugh.
ok, but what i what rebutting was that all blacks in the south were not subservient, as some would like to believe
the south would defeat the north today
That's not necessarily confirmed.....
Confederate Complicity In the Assassination of Abraham Lincoln 2
But yes, by April 1865 the south was done. But that's never stopped affairs of war before.
No way possible
if you read that proclamation, its a speech of Andrew Johnson and has no legal ramifications
It depends on whether we're talking about the way things should be or the way things are. The way things are is that the DOI isn't used to interpret the Constitution. Should it be? Maybe. But it isn't.
There said there are differences of opinion as to whether the secession was legal. Con law scholars fall on both sides of the question. I - non Con Law scholar, or scholar period, that I am - find the arguments that the secession wasn't legal because the Constitution formed a perpetual union to be persuasive. You disagree. And that's cool. Makes for good discussion over beers.
If it's not legal should it be? There I would agree with you. States should be allowed to leave the union. But as I said, my reading on the topic leads me to believe that they aren't.
But the vast majority of them were. New Orleans was an outlier.
sheesh. As far as I can tell, there are very very FEW people nowadays who want anything to do with "slavery wasn't so bad". if you can post something to prove otherwise, i will gladly read it.
relevant to this... you said something to the effect of can you remember any other war it took so many deaths to free the slaves... NO there wasn't any other war in history to free slaves because Society was evolving into that... i know of a few slave uprisings that were put down mercilessly by the Romans as well as other cultures.... its because in that era if you told people that owning slaves was bad, they would have looked at you like you were stupid... unless they were one themselves , of course.
I can see where African Americans see the flags as hateful... ok i get it, I am for taking them down off of federal or state property. but, its up to the states and their voters to make that decision.
and yeah as far as the American Indians... the federal government was like "oh no we don't want to enslave you hell that would be horrible of us... we just want to take your land, so leave or we'll kill you." I can see how that's much better. way to achieve the moral high ground USA.
Tell us about your user name.
^ See? Totally, hopelessly incorrigible.
What exactly are you trying to imply? Do you actually think that the tank in my profile picture is a Tiger I?
Unless, of course, you are Bill O'Reilly.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...the-long-tradition-of-slavery-apology/493223/
The United States is not Ancient Rome. It is irrelevant that the Romans approved of slavery; the people of 1860 were not living in ancient times.
true, but tell me, where is your connection of the confederate government and booth in a combined effort to carry out the killing of Lincoln.
do you have info on this?
The link is my main source, but there are others.
https://books.google.com/books/about/Come_Retribution.html?id=0agsngEACAAJ
There's a strong case that Booth may have been a Confederate secret service operative.
can you explain why Britain had slavery up into the 19th century
may have been?
even that does not make a connection to a government operation
Why they had slavery in their colonies? Because in England itself it was banned earlier.
Mostly it was because just like in the south the plantation system was in use in many of these countries, and that system required large numbers of workers. The English weren't too concerned with the moral aspect until later.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?