The Emancipation Proclamation

[dawna]

I'm sure the Emancipation Proclamation has been discussed ad nauseam here, but I hope you will all bear with me as I ask a few questions and offer a few comments of my own as well.

Although the Emancipation Proclamation did not contain the brilliant rhetoric of a work such as the Gettysburg Address, I am still fascinated by President Lincoln's wording, and in particular the last two paragraphs of the E.P. These few sentences suggest very clearly that the slaves should rise up against their owners and fight for the Union army, and the emphasis of the E.P. is on "military necessity" rather than on a "moral cause." If the E.P. had been created to address the immorality of slavery, why did it take President Lincoln almost two years to issue the Proclamation?

It appears that the Emancipation Proclamation applied only to states that had seceded from the Union, left slavery untouched in the border states fighting for the Union, exempted parts of the Confederacy that had already come under Union control, did not free slaves in the North, and the "freedom" that it promised was of course dependent on a Union victory. Althought the E.P did not immediately free any slaves, there is no doubt that it hugely changed the political complexion of the war.

"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."

It's interesting to note that the preliminary proclamation was issued a few days after the Union victory at Antietam, and prior to this, I think that it might have otherwise looked like a desperate act on the part of the President. And it's certain that after Antietam the E.P. would have been a great morale booster to 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?

In England, the "Times" commented that, "Where he had no power, Mr. Lincoln will set the NEgroes free; where he retains power he will consider them as slaves.

"The World," regarding the Emancipation Proclamation: Immediate practical effect it has none; the slaves remaining in precisely the same condition as before. They still live on the plantations, tenant their accustomed hovels, obey the command of their master . . . , eating the food he furnishes and doing the work he requires precisely as though Mr. Lincoln had not declared them free. . . . [The state courts] do not recognize the validity of the decree on which he [the slave] rests his claim. So long . . . as the present . . . status continues, the freedom declared by this proclamation is a dormant, not an actual, freedom.

I understand that the Emancipation Proclamation shifted the war effort from "preserving the Union" to "freeing the slaves," and it certainly discouraged France and England from supporting the Confederacy. But wasn't it an enormous gamble on the part of the President to place the most highly charged issue of the war before the public, when a Union victory was still not certain? And as a result, it seriously weakened the Republican party in the Congressional elections of 1864.

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.

I've wondered if President Lincoln would have gone to war to free the slaves if the South hadn't seceded from the Union, but I'm pretty certain that the answer would be "no." Which then takes the slavery issue out of the limelight as being a major contender for the cause of the Civil War. And if slavery had been in the forefront, it would have made much more sense for President Lincoln to issue the E.P. at the onset of the war, when he was already implementing emergency 'war measure acts.'

Dawna

[johan_steele]

Dawna, slavery was not the primary cause for the War fot the Union. I believe it was the root cause for starting it by the South.

I think the Emacipation Proc was more political in nature than military as it certainly didn't raise morale in the Union Army. It did give Jeff Davis coniption fits though and that proves many points about Davis in my eyes. It did not shift the War goals of the Union, what it did was provide much ammunition to be used against the Rebellion.

Remember the Emancipation Proc set the groundwork for the freeing of all slaves in the US. Ironically I don't believe it was completed until the 1960's. Rcism was prevelant throughout the country, both North and South. Though it was apathetic in the North and brutal in the deep south. Jim Crow shall forever stain the honor of the US.

I'm not sure the release of the Emancipation Proc could be seen as more proof that Lincoln was a dictator. I do see it as a brilliant political move, for one it put the European powers in the spot of supporting slavery if they recognized the CSA. And as the US had just stopped Lee's invasion... things were not looking like a sure thing for the CSA to survive... especially in the West where CS successes were neither well known nor that impressive.

As to it being a gamble, absolutely... it was a brilliant gamble that worked and still chaps the behind of many a racist in the US. Though they usually hide their racism by claiming it was unconstitutional or hiding in other legalistic issues that they themselves don't understand.

THe manpower pool it opened up was desperetly needed and while initially unappreciated.... by the end of the war six generals who had Black Units in their commands spoke very highly of them. And after the War Sherman himself would praise their actions before Congress... though he was talking about their actions in the Indian Wars he was praising Black Troops.

[dawna]

Shane:

Thank you for your thoughts. I'll try and rephrase the comments from my last paragraph, as I don't think I conveyed very well what I was trying to say. If you agree that President Lincoln would not have gone to war to free the slaves if the South had not seceded, then doesn't this make the E.P. little more than a document of propaganda and one with all the significance of a bill of lading?

Dawna

[ole]

On the contrary, Dawna, the EP was a brilliant gamble. It's primary purpose was to deter foreign intervention on behalf of the rebellion by putting support of the rebellious states squarely into the pro-slavery arena. Major step.

He couldn't do it earlier for two main reasons: (a) unionist support for the war would be diminished if he changed the reason to freeing the slaves; (b)he could not issue such a proclamation from a position of weakness or it would have appeared to Britain and France as an act of desparation.

Slaves were "freed" in states then in open rebellion. He still believed that he could not constitutionally free slaves, but as a military matter -- depriving the rebels of a much-needed resource -- it could legally be done. It seemed weak at the time, but as Union Forces inched it's way into southern territory, a great many slaves distanced themselves from freeing their masters to fight or to provide sustinence to the rebellious armies.

"If you agree that President Lincoln would not have gone to war to free the slaves if the South had not seceded, then doesn't this make the E.P. little more than a document of propaganda and one with all the significance of a bill of lading?"

Check the date on the EP. Secession happened and war had commenced. New ball game. You will note on previous postings that some in the north felt the same way as do you. It wasn't long before the wisdom of the EP was recognized.

But it is a good question. Ole

[rbenne]

Dawna;

I agree totally that the EP was a document of propaganda and little more then a bill of lading, to Negro suffrage. I suppose that makes me one of the non-understanding racists so generalized by Shane

However it was a brilliant piece of propaganda whose purpose succeeded in keeping foreign powers out of the war and simultaneously provoked those in the north not supporting the war to preserve the Union to support it to free the slave.

Perhaps a document of propaganda, but a brilliant one militarily and strategically.

The legality of the document can of course be debated, as can any document, however history has shown the document had no true effect on suffrage anyway, and that’s why we have the 13th and 14th amendments.

[johan_steele]

....it was a brilliant gamble that worked and still chaps the behind of many a racist in the US.

THe implication was not pointed to Raymond or to any I know on this board. Yes the legality of the EP can be brought into question, yes it was a brilliant political move, perhaps the most brilliant of the 19th Century and certainly the most brilliant of the CW. My problem rests w/ those who cry that it should be ignored because of the legality issue.

Ignorance leads to hate and racism... And American Racism is a national tragedy both north and south.

[cash]

Although the Emancipation Proclamation did not contain the brilliant rhetoric of a work such as the Gettysburg Address, I am still fascinated by President Lincoln's wording, and in particular the last two paragraphs of the E.P. These few sentences suggest very clearly that the slaves should rise up against their owners and fight for the Union army, and the emphasis of the E.P. is on "military necessity" rather than on a "moral cause." If the E.P. had been created to address the immorality of slavery, why did it take President Lincoln almost two years to issue the Proclamation?
--------------------------
First of all, Dawna, which Emancipation Proclamation are you talking about? There are two: The Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, issued in September of 1862, and the Final Emancipation Proclamation, issued 1 Jan 1863.

The Final EP says, "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." That seems to argue against Lincoln encouraging slaves to rise up against their owners.

It does also say, "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."

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.

If we look at the timeline for the war, we see:

12 Apr 1861: Confederates fire on Fort Sumter and the war begins.
Aug 1861: Congress passes First Confiscation Act authorizing confiscation of slaves of those who are aiding rebellion.
Jun 1862: Lincoln drafts the EP.
17 July 1862: Congress passes Second Confiscation Act, freeing slaves of those who are actively aiding the rebellion. Those slaves (belonging to owners who were aiding rebellion) who had crossed into Union lines were forever free.
22 July 1862: Lincoln shows the EP to his cabinet. Seward argues for waiting until there is a battlefield victory and Lincoln agrees to wait.
17 Sep 1862: Antietam
22 Sep 1862: Lincoln issues Preliminary EP, gives rebels until 1 Jan 1863 to lay down their arms.
1 Jan 1863: Lincoln issues Final EP, freeing all slaves in areas in revolt.



It appears that the Emancipation Proclamation applied only to states that had seceded from the Union, left slavery untouched in the border states fighting for the Union, exempted parts of the Confederacy that had already come under Union control, did not free slaves in the North, and the "freedom" that it promised was of course dependent on a Union victory. Althought the E.P did not immediately free any slaves, there is no doubt that it hugely changed the political complexion of the war.
----------------------
That is a myth, though.

Actually, the EP freed about 20,000 slaves immediately. These were slaves in areas under Union control that were not excepted in the Proclamation.



It's interesting to note that the preliminary proclamation was issued a few days after the Union victory at Antietam, and prior to this, I think that it might have otherwise looked like a desperate act on the part of the President. And it's certain that after Antietam the E.P. would have been a great morale booster to the Union army.
--------------------
Certain? Are you sure about that?



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.




I understand that the Emancipation Proclamation shifted the war effort from "preserving the Union" to "freeing the slaves," and it certainly discouraged France and England from supporting the Confederacy. But wasn't it an enormous gamble on the part of the President to place the most highly charged issue of the war before the public, when a Union victory was still not certain? And as a result, it seriously weakened the Republican party in the Congressional elections of 1864.
------------------------
To pick a nit, it added destruction of slavery to the Union's war objectives. Preserving the Union remained an objective. And it did generate popular support among the working people of Britain for the Union war effort. But I think you're right again that it was a bit of a gamble.



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.

Slavery in the United States was a state matter, protected as such by the Constitution. Lincoln didn't have the authority to affect slavery where it existed. But what he could do is deprive the enemy of resources through his role as commander-in-chief of the armed forces. So for the areas in rebellion, he could declare that the slaves were free, thus depriving the enemy of a valuable labor source that would be enforced as the Federal armies marched forward. Additionally, allowing the freed slaves to enlist in the Union Army would have a second effect of strengthening the Federal armies as they marched forward. The EP was legal only because those areas affected by it were in rebellion. Had Lincoln attempted, for example, to free slaves in Kentucky by proclamation, he would have exceeded his authority and his proclamation would be illegal. Since he stuck by the law, the charge of him being a dictator cannot be sustained.



I've wondered if President Lincoln would have gone to war to free the slaves if the South hadn't seceded from the Union, but I'm pretty certain that the answer would be "no."
-------------------------
He would be unable to do so by proclamation; however, his actions with the border states during the war shows he would have taken antislavery measures. First, he would urge Congress to pass legislation to restrict slavery from expansion into the territories [which is what happened]. Second, he would urge the Congress to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia [which is what happened]. Finally, he would offer compensated emancipation to the south [which he did for the Border States]. He most certainly would have appointed antislavery judges, and antislavery postmasters who would then allow antislavery literature through the mails in the south.



Which then takes the slavery issue out of the limelight as being a major contender for the cause of the Civil War.
-----------------------
No, it does not. The secessionists were very clear that they were seceding in order to protect the institution of slavery.



And if slavery had been in the forefront, it would have made much more sense for President Lincoln to issue the E.P. at the onset of the war, when he was already implementing emergency 'war measure acts.'
-------------------------
Slavery was the forefront for the confederates throughout.

Regards,
Cash

[cash]

Originally Posted by ole

It's primary purpose was to deter foreign intervention on behalf of the rebellion by putting support of the rebellious states squarely into the pro-slavery arena.

Ole,

I don't think the historical record can sustain this proposition.

"But the idea that the Proclamation would work as a kind of talisman to ward off the unwelcome attentions of the British and the French had far less importance for Lincoln than is often assumed. 'It would help somewhat,' he admitted to the Chicago clergymen, 'though not so much, I fear, as you and those you represent imagine.' If anything, Lincoln had to fear more that the British would intervene because of an emancipation proclamation than that they would without one. So long as emancipation was seen as a 'direct encouragement to servile Insurrections,' the British government was eager to head off anything that might awaken memories of the racial carnage of the Indian Mutiny. It was, in fact, two weeks after Lincoln issued the preliminary Proclamation that William Ewart Gladstone predicted Southern victory to an enthusiastic crowd in Newcastle, while the foreign secretary, Lord John Russell, was so appalled at the appearance of the Proclamation that he pressed for a diplomatic intervention to head off the 'acts of plunder, of incendiarism, and of revenge' he was sure would follow emancipation. But the costs of such an intervention, and the possibility that it might give an opening to French adventurism in Mexico, pulled the British back from the brink; it was only over the following year that emancipation gradually became the government's principal rationale for not intervening." [Allen C. Guelzo, Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation: The End of Slavery in America, p. 225]

Regards,
Cash

[hawglips]

Originally Posted by cash

1 Jan 1863: Lincoln issues Final EP, freeing all slaves in areas in revolt.
Regards,
Cash

I don't believe any slaves were freed until either their owners freed them, or the pillaging Union army did the deed.

Hal

[cash]

Originally Posted by hawglips

I don't believe any slaves were freed until either their owners freed them, or the pillaging Union army did the deed.

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