Civil War History - Secession and PoliticsWas it Slavery, or was it States Rights? Perhaps it was the election of Lincoln? What were the real reasons for Southern Secession and what were the political issues in this time of war? Find your answers here in the Secession and Politics Disussion.
Why did slave holders in the South comply with the Emancipation?
A "foreign" government issues an edict and the slaves in the Confederate States were free men? Why didn't the South just call B.S. and go biz as usual? Someone here understand the dynamics of this better than I do?
To what are you referring, Mr. Keith? No slaveholder to my knowledge released his slaves on the say-so of the Emancipation Proclamation. Its provisions were enforceable only in the blue-bellies' footsteps. Until January 1, 1863, Union forces generally honored southern rights to ownership of slaves. In Memphis, Sherman withheld the pay of colored workers until their ownership could be established -- in which case, the owners of those workers were entitled to it.
Before the EP's issuance, slaves were occasionally set free and put to work for the Union armies, but not officially. One of the overlooked effects of the EP was to authorize commanders to do what many of them wished to do -- use colored labor without having to go through the gyrations of ownership and complaints and interference of the owners.
Just an observation.
Ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
To what are you referring, Mr. Keith? No slaveholder to my knowledge released his slaves on the say-so of the Emancipation Proclamation. Its provisions were enforceable only in the blue-bellies' footsteps...
Ole
Maybe it is just to that set of circumstances that I am referring. I am unfamiliar with what occurred here except only in the most general sense. However, from my studies it appears that after the EP that slaves were pretty much free to go and do what they wished and there are MANY accounts that note huge numbers of freed slaves on the roads, presenting themselves to Federal authorities, following the armies, etc. It appears also that at the time, Lincoln and many others were perplexed with the problems presented by enactment of the EP and what to do with the huge numbers of those freed. Surely this was not a problem prior to the EP? If not, the the EP obviously somehow released (many) slaves? Is my premise flawed?
There were many "free" slaves "on the roads", but they had not been freed by their owners because of the EP. Some had been turned loose by their owners because the owners were no longer able to support them; others had simply taken off informally (runaways) and were seeking aid from Union forces. I know of no instance in which a Southern slaveowner in an area not under Union control released a slave because of the EP. It could have happened, but I've not heard of it.
It has been argued that the large numbers of former slaves left their owners plantations before and after the EP were damaging slavery so such a degree that much of the credit to freeing the slaves goes to the slaves themselves.
It has been argued that the large numbers of former slaves left their owners plantations before and after the EP were damaging slavery so such a degree that much of the credit to freeing the slaves goes to the slaves themselves.
Many, many slaves were not on plantations but were owned by small farmers, often just one or two slaves to a farm. Many of those slaves, even when freed, stayed on with the family by which they had been owned. Most took their master's surname.
I have talked with the great granddaughter of a slave owned by my great-great grandfather; they live near the old family farm and speak highly of the family that owned their ancestor, who stayed on with the family after the war until his death many years later.
Tho the EP did not apply in Tennessee, when the Federals came into the country (at his invitation, I might add) my Great,great, grandfather let his slaves go join the Union army, according to documents I have recenlty acquired. Then he was a Unionist, and predicted at least 5 years beforehand that the slaves would one day be free. I don't think he had any particular moral view on the subject, and was not an abolistionist, he was just a realist and a businessman and he did benefit from that institution. His former slaves seemed to think kindly of him, according to later testimony and affidavits.
__________________ -
"It was a very peculiar time." - Franklin D. Cossitt
Ancestors in USA Army: 6th IA Inf, 11th IL Cav, 1st AL Cav; 122nd NY Inf; 6th MI Cav; 35th MA Inf; 100th IL Inf; 1st CO Inf/Cav; 22nd IN Inf
A "foreign" government issues an edict and the slaves in the Confederate States were free men? Why didn't the South just call B.S. and go biz as usual? Someone here understand the dynamics of this better than I do?
"What good would a proclamation of emancipation from me do, especially as we are now situated? I do not want to issue a document that the whole world will see must necessarily be inoperative, like the Pope's bull against the comet! Would my word free the slaves, when I cannot even enforce the Constitution in the rebel States?... Now, then, tell me, if you please, what possible result of good would follow the issuing of such a proclamation as you desire? Understand, I raise no objections against it on legal or constitutional grounds; for, as commander-in-chief of the army and navy, in time of war I suppose I have a right to take any measure which may best subdue the enemy; nor do I urge objections of a moral nature, in view of possible consequences of insurrection and massacre at the South. I view this matter as a practical war measure, to be decided on according to the advantages or disadvantages it may offer to the suppression of the rebellion.... I will also concede that emancipation would help us in Europe, and convince them that we are incited by something more than ambition.... Still, some additional strength would be added in that way to the war, and then, unquestionably, it would weaken the rebels by drawing off their laborers, which is of great importance; but I am not so sure we could do much with the blacks.... I think you should admit that we already have an important principle to rally and unite the people, in the fact that constitutional government is at stake. This is a fundamental idea." ~ Lincoln's reply to a Committee from Religious Denominations of Chicago asking for a Proclamation of Emancipation, on Sept. 13, 1862. Less than four months later he would decree what he would term a "war measure," the Emancipation Proclamation, on Jan 1, 1863.
Lincoln suggested many reasons why the Emancipation Proclamation may benefit the war effort. He conceded that it could lend moral prestige to his war that the Brittish largely believed was a war of "ambition". He acknowledges that it would not free slaves in the Confederate States. Another consideration, however, is that the slaves may rise and cause an insurrection and massacre of innocent civilians of the South. This, he claimed, caused no moral dilema for him. He probably believed that this could cause a rise in desertion among the Confederate army, which couldn't but help his war effort.
Slaves left their owners for a number of reasons. Some believed the Emancipation Proclamation was proof that the Northerners would welcome them and pave the way to a better life. Some owners simply couldn't feed their slaves any longer. But, I agree with others here that Southerners didn't free their slaves because of the EP.
Regards,
Rose
__________________ "Forgive your enemies, but never forget their names".--J.F.K.
The War Between the States established... This principle that the Federal Government is, through its courts, this final judge of its own powers.
-- Woodrow Wilson
However, from my studies it appears that after the EP that slaves were pretty much free to go and do what they wished and there are MANY accounts that note huge numbers of freed slaves on the roads, presenting themselves to Federal authorities, following the armies, etc.
"Freed slaves," Mr. Keith, seem to be the bugaboo here. Most were not freed, they were "self emancipated." I'd wager that within weeks after publication of the EP, very nealy every slave in the south had heard that they were free. (They apparently had a better grapevine than their owners.) Not being as dull as popular opinion held, they could look around them and see that, while they were technically free, in practicality they were not. However, whenever a body of Union troops came close enough, those so inclined emancipated themselves and took off.
What to do with the slaves after freedom was a concern of almost everyone except the radical abolitionists. To Lincoln, it would appear, that concern became secondary to the damage to be done to the Confederate war effort.
Even Sherman (whose racism wasn't as virulent as some would have you believe) advised them to stay home and look after themselves as the time was not yet for them to be busting loose and wandering around looking for an army to feed them.
Is your premise flawed? Only in the supposition that the EP actually freed anyone except those areas that subsequently came under Union jurisdiction. Our shorthand version of history usually holds up the EP as evidence that Lincoln freed the slaves. In a way he did, and I suppose that's one way of registering the thought in a few hours of class. But it ain't exactly true.
Appreciate your input.
Ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
"What good would a proclamation of emancipation from me do, especially as we are now situated? I do not want to issue a document that the whole world will see must necessarily be inoperative, like the Pope's bull against the comet! Would my word free the slaves, when I cannot even enforce the Constitution in the rebel States?... Now, then, tell me, if you please, what possible result of good would follow the issuing of such a proclamation as you desire? Understand, I raise no objections against it on legal or constitutional grounds; for, as commander-in-chief of the army and navy, in time of war I suppose I have a right to take any measure which may best subdue the enemy; nor do I urge objections of a moral nature, in view of possible consequences of insurrection and massacre at the South. I view this matter as a practical war measure, to be decided on according to the advantages or disadvantages it may offer to the suppression of the rebellion.... I will also concede that emancipation would help us in Europe, and convince them that we are incited by something more than ambition.... Still, some additional strength would be added in that way to the war, and then, unquestionably, it would weaken the rebels by drawing off their laborers, which is of great importance; but I am not so sure we could do much with the blacks.... I think you should admit that we already have an important principle to rally and unite the people, in the fact that constitutional government is at stake. This is a fundamental idea." ~ Lincoln's reply to a Committee from Religious Denominations of Chicago asking for a Proclamation of Emancipation, on Sept. 13, 1862. Less than four months later he would decree what he would term a "war measure," the Emancipation Proclamation, on Jan 1, 1863.
Lincoln suggested many reasons why the Emancipation Proclamation may benefit the war effort. He conceded that it could lend moral prestige to his war that the Brittish largely believed was a war of "ambition". He acknowledges that it would not free slaves in the Confederate States. Another consideration, however, is that the slaves may rise and cause an insurrection and massacre of innocent civilians of the South. This, he claimed, caused no moral dilema for him. He probably believed that this could cause a rise in desertion among the Confederate army, which couldn't but help his war effort.
Slaves left their owners for a number of reasons. Some believed the Emancipation Proclamation was proof that the Northerners would welcome them and pave the way to a better life. Some owners simply couldn't feed their slaves any longer. But, I agree with others here that Southerners didn't free their slaves because of the EP.
Regards,
Rose
Never the less, it proved to be a positive for the Union.
__________________ -
"It was a very peculiar time." - Franklin D. Cossitt
Ancestors in USA Army: 6th IA Inf, 11th IL Cav, 1st AL Cav; 122nd NY Inf; 6th MI Cav; 35th MA Inf; 100th IL Inf; 1st CO Inf/Cav; 22nd IN Inf
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Why did slave holders in the South comply with the Emancipation? 
Linear Mode
