Civics lesson.

[DoggyDaddy]

The only way to score 100% is to answer questions with a response one knows is not correct but is consistent with what administrators want folks to believe.

Here is an example:

View attachment 211482

The emancipation proclamation freed not a single slave, but some believe it is important to keep the falsehood that it did alive.


Here is another:

View attachment 211483

The War Between the States was not a civil war. Never were the seceeding States attempting to overtake the central governent. But again, some believe it is more important to keep the falsehood alive.

Well now come on... the other answers were clearly false by any measure for both of those.

 

[BigRed]

While I don't agree with it, I think I somewhat understand your position on the "Civil War" being a misnomer.

But I didn't quite get the whole Emancipation Proclamation thing. I don't think you dispute that before the war there were millions of slaves in the south who were no longer slaves after the war. If you say that the Emancipation Proclamation was not what freed them, then what was the specific law/event/order that freed them?

The proclamation applied only to States that had left the union and thus outside of lincoln's authority.

Interestingly the union slave states where loncoln did have authority (Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky, and Missouri) were specifically excluded from the scope of the proclamation.

Thus it was written to apply only to where it had no authority to do anything and to exclude union slave states where it would have authority to do something and freed no slaves.

It was good propaganda though; certainly good enough to keep it going today and include it in a citizenship test!

 

[AndreusMaximus]

The proclamation applied only to States that had left the union and thus outside of lincoln's authority.

Interestingly the union slave states where loncoln did have authority (Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky, and Missouri) were specifically excluded from the scope of the proclamation.

Thus it was written to apply only to where it had no authority to do anything and to exclude union slave states where it would have authority to do something and freed no slaves.

It was good propaganda though; certainly good enough to keep it going today and include it in a citizenship test!

But it still did free the slaves.

Did it free them all? No, but it freed those in the Southern States, which were the far majority.

Did it do that right away? No, but for better or worse Lincoln still did enforce his authority there eventually. Whether or not that authority was justly/rightly enforced, you can argue, but at the end of the day the slaves did get freed, and it was the Emancipation Proclamation that stated they should, which was eventually accomplished. So even if it took some time to make it have effect, or even if you argue that it was wrong, and that Lincoln shouldn't actually have had that authority under the Constitution, none of that changes the fact of what happened, and what happened is, in fact, that the Emancipation Proclamation, eventually, freed the slaves in the South.

 

[JettaKnight]

The only way to score 100% is to answer questions with a response one knows is not correct but is consistent with what administrators want folks to believe.

Here is an example:

View attachment 211482

The emancipation proclamation freed not a single slave, but some believe it is important to keep the falsehood that it did alive.


Here is another:

View attachment 211483

The War Between the States was not a civil war. Never were the seceeding States attempting to overtake the central governent. But again, some believe it is more important to keep the falsehood alive.

Not kidding, as I answered those, I was thinking, "hmmm, how would Big Red handle this test?"

 

[BigRed]

But it still did free the slaves.

Did it free them all? No, but it freed those in the Southern States, which were the far majority.

It did not. lincoln had no governing authority in those States thus the proclamation had no authority. Union slave States were excluded from the scope of the proclamation. It freed no slaves.

You could argue slaves were freed through conquest of the seceeding States, but that was the war not the proclamation.

 

[Jaybird1980]

While I don't agree with it, I think I somewhat understand your position on the "Civil War" being a misnomer.

But I didn't quite get the whole Emancipation Proclamation thing. I don't think you dispute that before the war there were millions of slaves in the south who were no longer slaves after the war. If you say that the Emancipation Proclamation was not what freed them, then what was the specific law/event/order that freed them?

Ratification of the 13th amendment.

 

[BigRed]

Not kidding, as I answered those, I was thinking, "hmmm, how would Big Red handle this test?"

The one mentioned in Post #14 is another that is incorrect (and has a slant towards centralizing propaganda as well).

 

[JettaKnight]

It did not. lincoln had no governing authority in those States this the proclamation had no authority. Union slave States were excluded from the scope of the proclamation. It freed no slaves.

You could argue slaves were freed through conquest of the seceeding States, but that was the war not the proclamation.

It might be argued that he did have authority but it wasn't respected. Sherman helped change that.

 

[JettaKnight]

Yes, and for the record, at least one is actually wrong. “E Pluribus Unum” does NOT mean "We all become one" no matter how bad of a translator you use.

Wait - was that the programmed correct answer? Because you're right, that's not what it means - "Out of many, one".

 

[AndreusMaximus]

It did not. lincoln had no governing authority in those States thus the proclamation had no authority. Union slave States were excluded from the scope of the proclamation. It freed no slaves.

You could argue slaves were freed through conquest of the seceeding States, but that was the war not the proclamation.

I just don't get how you split the war and the proclamation, as if if one would have freed the slaves without the other.

We celebrate Independence Day on the day the Declaration of Independence was signed, not on the day we won the Revolutionary War.

In both the case of the Declaration of Independence and the Emancipation Proclamation, a war had to be fought in order to bring what they stated into reality. But in both cases it was brought into reality.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

Ratification of the 13th amendment.

I guess that's a fair answer.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

Wait - was that the programmed correct answer? Because you're right, that's not what it means - "Out of many, one".

Two of the options were "Out of many, one" and "We all become one." There was also a fourth option I don't remember, but the third option was both a and b, and that one was the programmed answer. Obviously the person writing the test was even worse at Latin than they were at English.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Two of the options were "Out of many, one" and "We all become one." There was also a fourth option I don't remember, but the third option was both a and b, and that one was the programmed answer. Obviously the person writing the test was even worse at Latin than they were at English.

I always learned that it was "From many, one" but "out of many, one" is also correct.

 

[BigRed]

I just don't get how you split the war and the proclamation, as if if one would have freed the slaves without the other.

Neither was necessary to free slaves. Neither did.

In fact, there was still a Kentucky slave market after the war.

As noted above, ratification of the 13th did though not all States were included in the ratification process.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Fun fact. I had a great aunt on my mom's side named Pluribus Unum. She was "Aunt Plurry" to me when I was little. And my mom's middle name was Unum. Named for my great aunt.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

I always learned that it was "From many, one" but "out of many, one" is also correct.

AFAIK "From many, one" is fairly correct (no translation is every perfect) but "Out of many, one" is a bit more literal.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

AFAIK "From many, one" is fairly correct (no translation is every perfect) but "Out of many, one" is a bit more literal.

I thought that "E" (in Latin) meant "from". But I never studied Latin so...

 

[AndreusMaximus]

Neither was necessary to free slaves. Neither did.

In fact, there was still a Kentucky slave market after the war.

As noted above, ratification of the 13th did though not all States were included in the ratification process.

Maybe I'm just not thinking about it in a technical enough sense. I guess there is a way that you can say that the 13th amendment was what freed the slaves, period, and saying anything else freed them is incorrect.

But in my mind it was all part of the same chain of events that led to it happening. The war did lead to Lincoln imposing his will on the South, the Emancipation Proclamation was Lincoln stating that his will was that slaves in the South should be freed, and the 13th amendment was the official, legal spelling out of that will. Without the war and without Lincoln's political will, freeing the slaves wouldn't have happened when it did, so it seems fair enough to me to place the credit with him and with the Emancipation Proclamation, even it is a bit of an oversimplification.

To use an analogy, pretend John shoots a deer and the deer dies. You don't ask, did John kill the deer, or did the bullet kill the deer, or did blood loss kill the deer? The answer is all of the above, they're all just different aspects of what transpired to kill the deer. Saying the bullet killed the deer may be incorrect in a very technical sense, but if I say that the bullet killed the deer I don't expect anyone to jump all over my case saying things like "Oh, that deer was sick and dying anyways, shooting it wasn't necessary kill it, so no, the bullet didn't kill the deer" or "Oh, the bullet didn't kill all the deer in the woods, so no, the bullet didn't kill the deer" or "Did you know the deer was still alive after the bullet hit it? So clearly the bullet didn't kill the deer, it wasn't until the deer bled out that it died." If people do start saying things to me like that, I expect they're either joking, or have an agenda to push.

 

[Jaybird1980]

Maybe I'm just not thinking about it in a technical enough sense. I guess there is a way that you can say that the 13th amendment was what freed the slaves, period, and saying anything else freed them is incorrect.

But in my mind it was all part of the same chain of events that led to it happening. The war did lead to Lincoln imposing his will on the South, the Emancipation Proclamation was Lincoln stating that his will was that slaves in the South should be freed, and the 13th amendment was the official, legal spelling out of that will. Without the war and without Lincoln's political will, freeing the slaves wouldn't have happened when it did, so it seems fair enough to me to place the credit with him and with the Emancipation Proclamation, even it is a bit of an oversimplification.

To use an analogy, pretend John shoots a deer and the deer dies. You don't ask, did John kill the deer, or did the bullet kill the deer, or did blood loss kill the deer? The answer is all of the above, they're all just different aspects of what transpired to kill the deer. Saying the bullet killed the deer may be incorrect in a very technical sense, but if I say that the bullet killed the deer I don't expect anyone to jump all over my case saying things like "Oh, that deer was sick and dying anyways, shooting it wasn't necessary kill it, so no, the bullet didn't kill the deer" or "Oh, the bullet didn't kill all the deer in the woods, so no, the bullet didn't kill the deer" or "Did you know the deer was still alive after the bullet hit it? So clearly the bullet didn't kill the deer, it wasn't until the deer bled out that it died." If people do start saying things to me like that, I expect they're either joking, or have an agenda to push.

Your comparison is off imo.

John saying he was going to shoot a deer= emancipation proclamation

Actually shooting deer = 13th amendment.

Just because you say you're going to go hunting and shoot a deer, doesn't mean you're definitely going to kill a deer.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

I thought that "E" (in Latin) meant "from". But I never studied Latin so...

I took a few years of Latin, and learned it that "e" most often means "out of" but it can also be translated as "from" depending on context. The word "from" covers a lot of meanings in English (like being "from" a country, something "made from" a material, etc) and those meanings overlap with a lot of different prepositions in Latin that all carry their own different connotations.