The Emancipation Proclamation

[johan_steele]

Or they ran away Hal... and they ran away by the thousands as soon as the Union Army got anywhere near them.

I suppose you could call the Union Army an army of pillage... though if you did so you would have to call the CSA a nation built upon bondage.

Those who love the theory that the Union Army was an Army that poillaged it's way across the South really do need to take a look at what REAL pillaging Armies did... there is no comparison.

[ole]

Cash:

Thanks for the excerpt. I'm afraid my education on the EP is limited to the pronouncements of popular historians, comic books, Hollywood and assumptions.

I will take your word for its veracity and not bother buying the book as I'm already over-extended through the next 3 years.

Ole

[hawglips]

Originally Posted by cash

Nope. They were free. It may have taken the Union army to enforce that freedom, just as it takes the police to enforce the law against bank robbery, but legally they were free.

Regards,
Cash

Interesting. "Legally free..."

Is it because monarchs are a law unto themselves?

"...I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."

"Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this, and many similar declarations, and had never recanted them. And more than this, they placed in the platform, for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves, and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:

"Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes."

"I now reiterate these sentiments; and in doing so, I only press upon the public attention the most conclusive evidence of which the case is susceptible, that the property, peace and security of no section are to be in any wise endangered by the now incoming Administration. I add too, that all the protection which, consistently with the Constitution and the laws, can be given, will be cheerfully given to all the States when lawfully demanded, for whatever cause -- as cheerfully to one section as to another.
~A. Lincoln, 1st Inaugural

I wonder when he changed his mind regarding States' rights and the Constitution?

Hal

[dawna]

Cash:

Thank you for your response and I've included the actual E.P. as written and issued on January 1, 1863, and I'm sure you will note that the two paragraphs from my previous posting are identical to the ones below.

The Emancipation Proclamation

Whereas, on the twenty-second day of September,* in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-two, a proclamation was issued by the President of the United States, containing, among other things, the following, to wit:

That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom.

That the Executive will, on the first day of January aforesaid, by proclamation, designate the States and parts of States, if any, in which the people thereof, respectively, shall then be in rebellion against the United States; and the fact that any State, or the people thereof, shall on that day be, in good faith, represented in the Congress of the United States by members chosen thereto at elections wherein a majority of the qualified voters of such State shall have participated, shall, in the absence of strong countervailing testimony, be deemed conclusive evidence that such State, and the people thereof, are not then in rebellion against the United States.

Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, by virtue of the power in me vested as Commander-in-Chief, of the Army and Navy of the United States in time of actual armed rebellion against the authority and government of the United States, and as a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said rebellion, do, on this first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and in accordance with my purpose so to do publicly proclaimed for the full period of one hundred days, from the day first above mentioned, order and designate as the States and parts of States wherein the people thereof respectively, are this day in rebellion against the United States, the following, to wit:

Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, (except the Parishes of St. Bernard, Plaquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James Ascension, Assumption, Terrebonne, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including the city of New Orleans) Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia, (except the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkley, Accomac, Northampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princes, Ann, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth), and which excepted parts, are for the present, left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued.

And by virtue of the power, and for the purpose aforesaid, I do order and declare that all persons held as slaves within said designated States, and parts of States, are, and henceforward shall be free; and that the Executive government of the United States, including the military and naval authorities thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of said persons.

And I hereby enjoin upon the people so declared to be free to abstain from all violence, unless in necessary self-defence; and I recommend to them that, in all cases when allowed, they labor faithfully for reasonable wages.

And I further declare and make known, that such persons of suitable condition, will be received into the armed service of the United States to garrison forts, positions, stations, and other places, and to man vessels of all sorts in said service.

And upon this act, sincerely believed to be an act of justice, warranted by the Constitution, upon military necessity, I invoke the considerate judgment of mankind, and the gracious favor of Almighty God.

"And I further declare and make known that such persons of suitable condition will be received into the armed service of the United States to garrison forts, positions, stations, and other places, and to man vessels of all sorts in said service.

And upon this act, sincerely believed to be an act of justice, warranted by the Constitution upon military necessity, I invoke the considerate judgement of mankind and the gracious favor of Almighty God."

In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.

• Done at the City of Washington, this first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and of the Independence of the United States of America the eighty-seventh.
  
  By the President: ABRAHAM LINCOLN

Actually, the EP freed about 20,000 slaves immediately. These were slaves in areas under Union control that were not excepted in the Proclamation. I'm curious to know where you found this 20,000 stats information as I have yet to find evidence to show that any slaves were immediately freed as a result of the E.P. If this is indeed a fact, I'm wondering what state (s) these slaves were from and if/how many fought for the Union army?

It seems to me that the actual intent of the E.P. was to deprive the South of a significant proportion of their work force and at the same time strengthen the Union army. How could President Lincoln entertain the notion that the E.P. would accomplish anything other than to provoke further outrage from the South, and capitilize on existing hostilities?
------------------------
Okay, I can accept that. I think you can make a very strong case for this proposition. Cash, I'm shocked that you agree with me!

President Lincoln branded the Emancipation Proclamation as an act "warranted by the Constitution upon military necessity." I can't help but think that this appeal to "military necessity" as the legal justification of the E.P. puts President Lincoln back into the 'dictator's seat' and makes the proclamation appear somewhat less than credible.
----------------------
Unfortunately, Dawna, I must part company with you here. And it was so pleasant up to this point. We never seem to quite finish our dance before one of us inadvertently slips on a banana peel, and yes, it was pleasant, but here we do most definitely disagree. Placing the Proclamation strictly on the basis of "military necessity" does smack of dictatorial power in my books, but this seemed to be of little concern to President Lincoln. And President Lincoln himself questioned the legalities of the E.P: "A question might be raised whether the proclamation was legally valid. It might be urged, that it only aided those that came into our lines, and that it was inoperative as to those who did not give themselves up; or that it would have no effect upon the children of slaves born hereafter; in fact, it would be urged that it did not meet the evil."

It took two years to issue it because first of all Lincoln had to be convinced it was needed, which was about a year into the war. Remember, other things were going on and this wasn't happening in a vacuum. Secondly, once he was convinced it was needed it took time to draft it. Finally, he waited for a result on the battlefield that could be called a victory before he issued the Preliminary EP. Fair enough Cash. But given the very strong stance that President Lincoln took prior to and after his Inauguration (would not interfere with slavery where it existed) and I also understand that President Lincoln was "not working in a vacuum;" but it does give credence to my viewpoint that the E.P. was anything but a 'morality issue.' You suggested that the E.P. was an 'evolution process' and I do agree with this, but largely as a 'recruitment' document with the insight, as has been suggested, to discourage France and Britain from entering the war, and to also deplete the Confederate Army.

Since the E.P. implied the 'preservation of slavery' in states that hadn't left the Union, I also find that there is nothing written in the E.P. to prevent the war ending with slavery still intact, if the Confederacy came back into the Union. So I can't help but think that the Emancipation Proclamtion was little more than pure war-time propaganda, cleverly wrapped under the guise of "liberating the slaves."


Dawna

[Johnny Rube]

Originally Posted by hawglips

Interesting. "Legally free..."
I wonder when he changed his mind regarding States' rights and the Constitution?

Hal

Hal,

I respectfully submit that perhaps he changed his mind about the time South Carolina fired on Fort Sumter. Or maybe it was when he realized that the South was doing its best to pull European nations into the fray.

I think it's important to keep in mind that after April, 1861 this country was never the same again. Minds were changed and re-changed during the war years. Citizens, North and South, were supportive depending on which way the winds blew on any given day, and what they were reading in the newspapers (which was hardly unbiased). Lincoln responded and acted on cir cumstances as they occurred, and when he was inaugurated in March, 1861 the country was not yet at war, although the war-clouds were definitely looming. Still, Lincoln hoped to be able to short-circuit armed aggression.

Just my thoughts on the matter. Johnny Rube

[ole]

Kudos, Johnny Rube.

When armed rebellion is thrust upon you, congress is not in session and cannot be quickly gathered, then you have to rethink what you had planned to do during your term as president.

Parallel: Dubya had lots of plans for his first term. He said things and promised things. Whoops! Can't happen that way. FDR. HST. Nothing comes out the way you wanted it. So you adapt to fit what is now.

States Rights, the Constitution, and a host of other things are all but set aside when rebellion rears its hideous head.

We have yet to determine conclusively, through all these posts, the extent to which Lincoln's actions after Sumter were illegal -- if at all. Apparently, "war powers" is an incomprensible term.

Never mind the legality of secession or the legitimacy of slaveholder grievances, once that first shot was fired, everything changed. Lincoln didn't care much about anything but putting down the rebellion, and the Constitution gave him the power to act.

[unionblue]

Part of a speech on the subject of this thread;

"Can any colored man, or any white man friendly to the freedom of all men, ever forget the night which followed the first day of January, 1863, when the world was to see if Abraham Lincoln would prove to be as good as his word? I shall never forget that memorable night, when in a distant city I waited and watched at a public meeting, with three thousand others not less anxious than myself, for the word of deliverance which we have heard read today. Nor shall I ever forget the outburst of joy and thanksgiving that rent the air when the lightning brought to us the emancipation proclamation. In that happy hour we forgot all delay, and forgot all tardiness, forgot that the President had bribed the rebels to lay down their arms by a promise to withhold the bolt which would smite the slave-system with destruction; and we were thenceforward willing to allow the President all the latitude of time, phraseology, and every honorable device that statesmanship might require for the achievement of a great and beneficent measure of liberty and progress."

Oration in Memory of Abraham Lincoln, Frederick Douglass, April 14, 1876.

Unionblue

[cash]

[/list]Actually, the EP freed about 20,000 slaves immediately. These were slaves in areas under Union control that were not excepted in the Proclamation. I'm curious to know where you found this 20,000 stats information as I have yet to find evidence to show that any slaves were immediately freed as a result of the E.P. If this is indeed a fact, I'm wondering what state (s) these slaves were from and if/how many fought for the Union army?
-----------------------

Dawna,

William C. Harris, "After the Emancipation Proclamation: Lincoln's Role in the Ending of Slavery," North and South Magazine, Volume 5, Number 1, December, 2001, page 48.

Here is an excerpt: "By the turn of the year two areas--south-east Louisiana and eastern Virginia--had elected representatives to the US Congress, and were thus exempted from the terms of the Proclamation. Similarly the forty-eight counties slated at that time to form the new state of West Virginia were exempted, as was neighboring Berkeley Country (whose status vis a vis the new state was at that time up in the air). No other Union-occupied areas were exempted. These included Baton Rouge (reoccupied by Union forces on December 20, 1862), northern Arkansas; various parts of northern Alabama, Mississippi, and Virginia (Jefferson County, the lower Shenandoah Valley, and the area around Alexandria); north-eastern North Carolina; and coastal enclaves in South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida.

"In all these cases--parts of nine states--the status of slaves was immediately changed."






It seems to me that the actual intent of the E.P. was to deprive the South of a significant proportion of their work force and at the same time strengthen the Union army. How could President Lincoln entertain the notion that the E.P. would accomplish anything other than to provoke further outrage from the South, and capitilize on existing hostilities?
------------------------
Okay, I can accept that. I think you can make a very strong case for this proposition. Cash, I'm shocked that you agree with me!

----------------------
Dawna,

Believe it or not I strive mightily to agree with you; unfortunately, it's not always possible.





President Lincoln branded the Emancipation Proclamation as an act "warranted by the Constitution upon military necessity." I can't help but think that this appeal to "military necessity" as the legal justification of the E.P. puts President Lincoln back into the 'dictator's seat' and makes the proclamation appear somewhat less than credible.
----------------------
Unfortunately, Dawna, I must part company with you here. And it was so pleasant up to this point. We never seem to quite finish our dance before one of us inadvertently slips on a banana peel, and yes, it was pleasant, but here we do most definitely disagree. Placing the Proclamation strictly on the basis of "military necessity" does smack of dictatorial power in my books, but this seemed to be of little concern to President Lincoln.
And President Lincoln himself questioned the legalities of the E.P: "A question might be raised whether the proclamation was legally valid. It might be urged, that it only aided those that came into our lines, and that it was inoperative as to those who did not give themselves up; or that it would have no effect upon the children of slaves born hereafter; in fact, it would be urged that it did not meet the evil."
-----------------------
Military necessity is the reason for issuing it, not the rationale for its legality. There's a difference. Lincoln didn't question its legality one bit. He simply anticipated the objections of others, as he was wont to do, and answered them.




It took two years to issue it because first of all Lincoln had to be convinced it was needed, which was about a year into the war. Remember, other things were going on and this wasn't happening in a vacuum. Secondly, once he was convinced it was needed it took time to draft it. Finally, he waited for a result on the battlefield that could be called a victory before he issued the Preliminary EP. Fair enough Cash. But given the very strong stance that President Lincoln took prior to and after his Inauguration (would not interfere with slavery where it existed) and I also understand that President Lincoln was "not working in a vacuum;" but it does give credence to my viewpoint that the E.P. was anything but a 'morality issue.' You suggested that the E.P. was an 'evolution process' and I do agree with this, but largely as a 'recruitment' document with the insight, as has been suggested, to discourage France and Britain from entering the war, and to also deplete the Confederate Army.
----------------------
I highly recommend Allen C. Guelzo's book, Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation: The End of Slavery in America. In it, he demolishes the myth that Lincoln's goal was to discourage foreign intervention or inflate Union morale. "If intervention and morale were Lincoln's primary concerns, then the Emancipation Proclamation was probably the worst method, and at the worst time, with which to have met them. Abroad, there was as much danger that an Emancipation Proclamation would trigger foreign intervention as there was that the Proclamation would discourage it. At home, Pennsylvania politician Alexander McClure warned Lincoln that 'political defeat would be inevitable in the great States of the Union in the elections soon to follow if he issued the Emancipation Proclamation.' Significantly, Lincoln agreed 'as to the political effect of the proclamation.' He knew that the Proclamation, for all that he hoped it would forestall the generals and put the Union cause unreservedly on the side of the angels, might just as easily convince them to accelerate plans for an intervention or put Lincoln's administration on the side of the losers. To his surprise, McClure found that this made no dent in Lincoln's determination." [p. 9]

Professor Guelzo also addresses why Lincoln issued it a year and a half into the war: he had wanted a legislative answer to slavery and, "Lincoln recognized by July 1862 that he could not wait for the legislative option--and not because he had patiently waited to discern public opinion and found the North readier than the state legislatures to move ahead. If anything, Northern public opinion remained loudly and frantically hostile to the prospect of emancipation, much less emancipation by presidential decree. Instead of exhibiting patience, Lincoln felt stymied by the unanticipated stubbornness with which even Unionist slaveholders refused to cooperate with the mildest legislative emancipation policy he could devise and thereatened by generals who were politically committed to a negotiated peace." [p. 6]




Since the E.P. implied the 'preservation of slavery' in states that hadn't left the Union, I also find that there is nothing written in the E.P. to prevent the war ending with slavery still intact, if the Confederacy came back into the Union. So I can't help but think that the Emancipation Proclamtion was little more than pure war-time propaganda, cleverly wrapped under the guise of "liberating the slaves."
--------------------
There is nothing to prevent ending the war with slavery intact in the confederate states provided they came back before January 1, 1863. After that date, all bets were off, and their slaves were, as the Proclamation states, "forever free."

Additionally, remember this is not happening in a vacuum. Lincoln is pursuing other ways to get rid of slavery--compensated emancipation plans and the Thirteenth Amendment.

Regards,
Cash

[Johnny Rube]

Ole,

Parallel: Dubya had lots of plans for his first term. He said things and promised things. Whoops! Can't happen that way. FDR. HST. Nothing comes out the way you wanted it. So you adapt to fit what is now.

In fact, Ole, I'd be hard pressed to name a president in my life-time who hasn't had to amend statements and promises made during campaigns. And it seems always to be the result of situations that evolve after the fact...as in the 9-11 attacks in 2001. Dubya, it seems, has been less than honest, but that's a topic for a different forum, I guess.

Where Lincoln is concerned, he faced a country in the process of splitting apart, and for that reason he was "flying by the seat of his pants," so to speak. Was he not elected to lead the country? He was, and that is what he did, and when someone trains their guns on you and starts firing, all bets are off, and decisions have to be made.

States Rights, the Constitution, and a host of other things are all but set aside when rebellion rears its hideous head.

Uh-huh (nods head vigorously). How else does one explain the detainees at Gitmo, the Japanese interrment camps during WWII and a host of other decisions that whichever leaders we've had installed at the time have felt were necessary?

We have yet to determine conclusively, through all these posts, the extent to which Lincoln's actions after Sumter were illegal -- if at all. Apparently, "war powers" is an incomprensible term.

Could be, Ole. Incomprehensible and open to interpretation, perhaps.

Never mind the legality of secession or the legitimacy of slaveholder grievances, once that first shot was fired, everything changed. Lincoln didn't care much about anything but putting down the rebellion, and the Constitution gave him the power to act.

Throughout that awful war, Lincoln was under pressure from just about every corner that existed, and if there were advantages in issuing the emancipation proclamation that were more political than humanitarian, it does not negate Lincoln's oft stated concerns about the intrinsic horrors of slavery. (I doubt that you could have found a black person in the country who was much concerned about Lincoln's motives).

Still, when it comes to war, a president who did less than he could to protect and defend would not be much good to anyone, and with Lincoln in the head-honcho seat, he was the one who had to make the decisions.

In an essay published in The Price of Freedom, Jack Fincher describes some of the pressures coming at Lincoln:

"Throughout the year, casualties kept mounting. So did the political drumbeat from black newspapers and abolitionists, and from officers tantalized by a source of soldiery nearby, yet unable to make use of it. (Referring here to taking freed slaves into the Union army) Though George B. McClellan had mostly managed to avoid fighting, other generals had engaged the enemy, with bloody results. In the spring of 1862 at the Battle of Shiloh on the Tennessee River, nearly 100,000 men fought for two days, with 23,000 casualties. It was a draw, with a slight edge to a chunky, unshaven, cigar-smoking general named Ulysses S. Grant. After Shiloh, General Grant gave up all hope of saving the Union with just a few victories and some kind of political compromise. It would take total war and "complete conquest" of the South. And that meant many more to kill or be killed.

.............Feeling such pressures, Lincoln came to the same conclusion as Grant and was at last sure that the war could not be won without the abolition of slavery. In the summer of 1862 he secretly told his Cabinet about the Emancipation Proclamation. It would be announced after the next successful battle, to take effect in January 1863. Even so, freedom would be limited to slaves in areas in open rebellion against the Union. Slavery was still firmly in place in the Border States and Tennessee, and in Union occupied portions of Virginia and Louisiana.

Was this a political decision, or was this a war strategy? Was it a sneaky thing to do to delay the release of the Emancipation Proclamation until he had his ducks in a row with Northern citizenry who would be more likely to support him after a successful battle, or was that just good sense? Why would he do something that would topple the sometimes shaky support from border states? I am personally convinced that slavery was doomed the moment Lincoln threw his hat into the presidential campaign ring, that his ethics and integrity demanded he do something to put an end to it, and if he could save the Union while taking the first steps toward total emancipation, that made it all the better.

Whatever was legal or illegal, (and what can be illegal about Freedom in the Land of the Free?) I believe Lincoln did the RIGHT thing as he saw it. If there was a downside to it for Southern states, they actually brought about the downfall of their peculiar institution when they leveled their cannons at Fort Sumter. Without that particular glitch in the South's determination to keep their labor force, it's unlikely slavery would have survived Lincoln's presidency, but with it, the South lost whatever good will they had in the North, and forfeited not only their slaves, but their towns and cities, their economy, and during the war, their right to complain about whatever tactics Lincoln employed.

There was not much chance of settling the issue of secession peacefully without one side or the other giving way. The South had no intentions of backing off, and Lincoln certainly didn't either. Me-thinks that's referred to as Catch 22, or (with a nod to the censors) doggoned if you do and doggoned if you don't.

Or so it seems to me!

[ole]

Thank you, Johnny. You said it better than I could.