Did Lincoln issue the Emancipation Proclamation as a result of victory at Antietam?

LetUsHavePeace

Volunteer
Joined
Dec 1, 2018
The Preliminary and Final Emancipation Proclamations of September, 1862 and January, 1863 were the ruffles and flourishes. Lincoln had already "freed" the slaves in occupied territory under the Confiscation Act and the Militia Act of 1862, both of which became law on July 17th.
 

Rod

Cadet
Joined
Mar 24, 2020
A great concern in Lincoln’s mind was foreign powers supporting the Confederacy in its bid for independence. The timing and motive of Lincoln’s announcing his EP to his cabinet is very suspect in this regard. On July 14, 1862 Lincoln received a letter from eight Union loyal border slave State congressmen. They informed him of a secret plan being proposed by the leadership of the CSA:

“... the leaders of the Southern rebellion have offered to abolish slavery amongst them as a condition to foreign intervention in favor of their independence as a nation. If they can give up slavery to destroy the Union; We can surely ask our people to consider the question of Emancipation to save the Union.”
https://www.loc.gov/resource/mal.1713000/?r=-0.818,-0.749,2.636,3.213,0

Eight days later Lincoln introduces his own “Confederate” Emancipation Proclamation to head off Confederate efforts to gain foreign support. The CSA was still engaged in such an effort via the Duncan Kenner mission when Lee surrendered in ‘65. Obviously the Confederate cause was not slavery as the modern popular narrative claims, if they were willing to give it up to gain independence! And it appears Lincoln was only interested in emancipation as a “war measure” to head off Confederate attempts to gain foreign alliances.
 

Mango Hill

Corporal
Joined
Jul 23, 2020
I refer you to your calendar, Dec31, 1862-January 2, 1863 are the dates of the Battle of Stones River.
More below.

That's understood but it doesn't address the part about the issuance of the EP, which was on September 22, 1862. That was partly corrected in your follow up post but there's still another puzzling observation made;

"The timing of The Battle of Stones River, or any other battle, had nothing to do with the Issuance of the Proclamation"

It's generally accepted as fact that the Battle of Antietam had everything to do with the issuance of the EP.
 

Rhea Cole

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 2, 2019
Location
Murfreesboro, Tennessee
That's understood but it doesn't address the part about the issuance of the EP, which was on September 22, 1862. That was partly corrected in your follow up post but there's still another puzzling observation made;

"The timing of The Battle of Stones River, or any other battle, had nothing to do with the Issuance of the Proclamation"

It's generally accepted as fact that the Battle of Antietam had everything to do with the issuance of the EP.
I don’t know what is generally understood. The documentary record of the genesis, political considerations & Lincoln’s part in the issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation exist. The decision leading up to awaiting a Union victory exists & doing so was without doubt the correct decision. The fortuitous pairing of the effective date of the Proclamation & the victorious Battle of Stones River was shouted to the hilltops at the time. Stacks of newspapers & personal accounts document that. History is about what can be documented, that is how we know what happened.
 

Mango Hill

Corporal
Joined
Jul 23, 2020
I don’t know what is generally understood. The documentary record of the genesis, political considerations & Lincoln’s part in the issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation exist. The decision leading up to awaiting a Union victory exists & doing so was without doubt the correct decision. The fortuitous pairing of the effective date of the Proclamation & the victorious Battle of Stones River was shouted to the hilltops at the time. Stacks of newspapers & personal accounts document that. History is about what can be documented, that is how we know what happened.

Just for the record, and in order to clear things up (on my end at least), this is how I perceive where there's a difference of opinion in our arguments. After the Battle of Antietam Lincoln issues the preliminary EP. This goes contrary to the claim "or any other battle, had anything to do with The Issuance of the Proclamation" and would be in opposition to the facts. If the argument you propose is that the final EP had nothing to do with any battle, that would also be in opposition to any facts because the preliminary EP was issued due to Lincoln jumping at the opportunity that the outcome Battle of Antietam presented a so-called victory. One hundred days was the grace period given in said preliminary EP thus the final EP is issued on January 1, 1863. This fact should be so transparent as to erase any doubts as to what is generally understood (unless someone falls in Mr. Ryan's camp).

When it comes to the effects that the final EP and the Battle of Stones River had on the White Southern population, I'll neither agree or disagree because I don't know.
 

Joshism

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Location
Jupiter, FL
Obviously the Confederate cause was not slavery as the modern popular narrative claims, if they were willing to give it up to gain independence!

And yet their ordinances secession and the CSA constitution clearly says slavery was central to the Confederate cause.

The topic of Confederate psychology toward the end of the war is a curious one and probably understudied. Some individuals, like Cleburne, were not personally invested in slavery and thought it expendable. Others, like Howell Cobb, never lost sight of what the rebellion was really about.

Jeff Davis seems a bit unmoored from reality in the later stages of the war. He sent peace commissioners to meet with Lincoln, under explicit instructions to refuse peace that did not include independence. This was in early 1865, with Sherman in Savannah, Hood wrecked, the Shenandoah ruined, Wilmington captured, and Lincoln reelected. Davis clung irrationally to independence long past when it had the slightest possibility remaining. Why not also nonsensically be willing to barter away slavery in the process? Tunnel vision.
 

Rod

Cadet
Joined
Mar 24, 2020
And yet their ordinances secession and the CSA constitution clearly says slavery was central to the Confederate cause.

The topic of Confederate psychology toward the end of the war is a curious one and probably understudied. Some individuals, like Cleburne, were not personally invested in slavery and thought it expendable. Others, like Howell Cobb, never lost sight of what the rebellion was really about.

Jeff Davis seems a bit unmoored from reality in the later stages of the war. He sent peace commissioners to meet with Lincoln, under explicit instructions to refuse peace that did not include independence. This was in early 1865, with Sherman in Savannah, Hood wrecked, the Shenandoah ruined, Wilmington captured, and Lincoln reelected. Davis clung irrationally to independence long past when it had the slightest possibility remaining. Why not also nonsensically be willing to barter away slavery in the process? Tunnel vision.
Or, as Davis stated and as many declared in the South, the war was not about slavery. Slavery issues were merely the most recent “occasions” of the more fundamental cause of secession - a 70 year history of Northern infidelity to the Constitution.
 

Rod

Cadet
Joined
Mar 24, 2020
Also, the Confederate Constitution corrects many issues that had led to Northern economic and political exploitation of the South. Slavery in the Confederate Constitution is ultimately no different from slavery in the US Constitution. Both leave slavery up to the States to decide, and where the US Constitution protected property rights as well as the equality of the States, the Confederate Constitution merely makes explicit all the is implied in the US Constitution regarding equal access and property rights in the territories. If slavery was the ultimate cause in secession, why did the slave States secede at different times and for distinct reasons? When you look at the actions of the CSA after secession: it turned down the Corwin Amendment, it turned down Lincoln’s offer to keep slavery in the EP, it seceded from any claim to expanding slavery into the territories, and it started as early as 1862 to seek an end to slavery to gain foreign aid in its bid for a government by consent of the governed. Given all these actions, perhaps we should reconsider why only 4 of eleven seceding States mention slavery as a motive. Perhaps it was done because slavery issues represented the most recent and clear legal justification for secession? Perhaps it was to put Lincoln invthe difficult position of trying to raise an army in a racist North to invade the South over what “appeared to be slavery.” This last suggestion almost worked as members of Lincoln’s own cabinet, not to mention many in the Northern press, were calling for him to “just let the South go,” to which Lincoln had to proclaim often that his purpose for war was not about slavery. We tend to look at secession with an a priori bias that it was “about slavery.” Perhaps we should adhere to the old adage that actions speak louder than words, and look at secession as having independence as a motive, and the slavery talk as what must be reexamined instead of the other way around?
 

mobile_96

First Sergeant
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ill.
Obviously the Confederate cause was not slavery as the modern popular narrative claims, if they were willing to give it up to gain independence
They were only willing to give up slavery for the slaves that would sign up to fight for the Confederacy (and lived). Not All the slaves in the CSA as you surmise. I even think there was some issue on whether their families would be freed, at least after Winning the war.
 

mobile_96

First Sergeant
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ill.
We tend to look at secession with an a priori bias that it was “about slavery.”
I have already suggested this to another member, but will again, to you. Go read the secession Conventions by the seceding States. Then come back and tell us what was the over riding cause/s, based on Their own words, and not just 'opinions' you've read.
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
A great concern in Lincoln’s mind was foreign powers supporting the Confederacy in its bid for independence. The timing and motive of Lincoln’s announcing his EP to his cabinet is very suspect in this regard. On July 14, 1862 Lincoln received a letter from eight Union loyal border slave State congressmen. They informed him of a secret plan being proposed by the leadership of the CSA:

“... the leaders of the Southern rebellion have offered to abolish slavery amongst them as a condition to foreign intervention in favor of their independence as a nation. If they can give up slavery to destroy the Union; We can surely ask our people to consider the question of Emancipation to save the Union.”
https://www.loc.gov/resource/mal.1713000/?r=-0.818,-0.749,2.636,3.213,0

Eight days later Lincoln introduces his own “Confederate” Emancipation Proclamation to head off Confederate efforts to gain foreign support. The CSA was still engaged in such an effort via the Duncan Kenner mission when Lee surrendered in ‘65. Obviously the Confederate cause was not slavery as the modern popular narrative claims, if they were willing to give it up to gain independence! And it appears Lincoln was only interested in emancipation as a “war measure” to head off Confederate attempts to gain foreign alliances.

No, Lincoln went ahead with the Emancipation Proclamation in SPITE the British thinking it was a half-baked plan of having slaves rise up and massacre Southern whites, Lincoln took a risk with British intervention over the Proclamation.

As for the so-called efforts of the Kenner Mission, it was the Confederate delegates already in England and France who obstructed Kenner from making any serious effort to free the slaves in order to get foreign support.

Even Davis did not reveal the Kenner Mission with any real clarity to the Confederate Congress or people as the majority of both parties were against emancipating the slaves for any reason.

There is no getting around the idea that the Confederacy brought on secession for the protection, even the expansion, of slavery. Even when it came desperately clear that slavery was preventing their efforts at foreign recognition, they could not let the institution go.
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
Or, as Davis stated and as many declared in the South, the war was not about slavery. Slavery issues were merely the most recent “occasions” of the more fundamental cause of secession - a 70 year history of Northern infidelity to the Constitution.

Sorry, but his is modern revisionism to cover up actual history. If one could bring themselves to read the book, The Slave Power: The Free North and Southern Domination, 1780-1860, by Leonard L. Richards, one would see it was the slaveholding South that ruled the Federal Government for nearly the first 70 years of the Republic, not the North.

As for infidelity to the Constitution, it was not the North who insisted that slaves count as 3/5ths of a person, demanded a Fugitive Slave Act, or got ticked off when it lost a free and fair election in 1860.
 

JerseyBart

Brigadier General
Moderator
Forum Host
Joined
Jul 19, 2006
Location
New Jersey
Or, as Davis stated and as many declared in the South, the war was not about slavery. Slavery issues were merely the most recent “occasions” of the more fundamental cause of secession - a 70 year history of Northern infidelity to the Constitution.

Among others,

Fugitive Slave Laws, Secession Documents, Crittenden Compromise, Confederate Constitution, Corwin Amendment, Cornerstone Speech say otherwise. And that's not modern or revisionist history. That's them...then. Ignoring them...then is modern revisionist history.
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
* look out * there is a spaghetti post here
Always look both ways before you read a paragraph!
Be mindful of any meatballs! Not sure what a Spaghetti Post is? Learn More Here...


@Rod , posted:

Also, the Confederate Constitution corrects many issues that had led to Northern economic and political exploitation of the South.

Wow. The minor changes made by the Confederacy in their almost direct copy of the US Constitution offer nothing of worth when the primary concern expressed in that copy is the preservation and enshrinement of slavery in their so-called founding document.

Slavery in the Confederate Constitution is ultimately no different from slavery in the US Constitution.

Except one goes out of it's way to actually say slavery, protect it, and demands any state later joining it must approve of slavery within any new state joining it. I'll give you a hint, it wasn't the US one.

Both leave slavery up to the States to decide, and where the US Constitution protected property rights as well as the equality of the States, the Confederate Constitution merely makes explicit all the is implied in the US Constitution regarding equal access and property rights in the territories. (with regards to specifically pointing out slavery.)

You got most of the above right.

If slavery was the ultimate cause in secession, why did the slave States secede at different times and for distinct reasons?

They didn't secede over different reasons, as slavery was at the core of every slave state for seceding. The evidence is clearly there in their own words, slavery was their main reason for seceding.

When you look at the actions of the CSA after secession: it turned down the Corwin Amendment, it turned down Lincoln’s offer to keep slavery in the EP, it seceded from any claim to expanding slavery into the territories,

It did all of the above because it felt slavery would not be secure under Lincoln and it WANTED to expand slavery into the territories, it never "seceded from any claim to expanding slavery into the territories." If you have evidence or a historical source for such a claim, I would like to see it.

and it started as early as 1862 to seek an end to slavery to gain foreign aid in its bid for a government by consent of the governed.

No, it didn't. In fact, the Confederate government got so exasperated with England over not going to war with the United States over cotton, they kicked out ALL of the British Counsels in the South in frustration. And the Kenner Mission failed when the other Confederate delegates in Europe could not bring themselves to offer slavery in exchange for foreign recognition.

Given all these actions, perhaps we should reconsider why only 4 of eleven seceding States mention slavery as a motive. Perhaps it was done because slavery issues represented the most recent and clear legal justification for secession?

Perhaps if one would actually read the Secession Convention Journals of every seceding state to see what topic (slavery) was most discussed and debated at such conventions? And slavery was used as justification for an unlawful rebellion, in spite of the free and fair election results held under the US Constitution?

Perhaps it was to put Lincoln invthe difficult position of trying to raise an army in a racist North to invade the South over what “appeared to be slavery.”

That "difficult position" disappeared the moment Ft. Sumter was fired on and the North rallied around Lincoln to preserve the Union. Some seem to forget it was the slaveholding South that secede over the issue of slavery, not the North.

This last suggestion almost worked as members of Lincoln’s own cabinet, not to mention many in the Northern press, were calling for him to “just let the South go,” to which Lincoln had to proclaim often that his purpose for war was not about slavery. We tend to look at secession with an a priori bias that it was “about slavery.” Perhaps we should adhere to the old adage that actions speak louder than words, and look at secession as having independence as a motive, and the slavery talk as what must be reexamined instead of the other way around?

Perhaps we need to stop blaming the North about going to war over slavery when it was actually the slaveholding South who really did such over their expressed concerns over the institution of slavery. There is no bias in saying what actually took place for the reasons stated at the time, loud and clear and said often enough to where no foreign power would intervene to help a rebellion predicated on human slavery.

Until our next post,
Unionblue
 

Joshism

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Location
Jupiter, FL
“Resolved, that the platform on the party known as the Black Republican Party contains unconstitutional dogmas, dangerous in their tendency and highly derogatory to the rights of slave states, and among them the insulting, injurious and untruthful enunciation of the right of the African race of their country to social and political equality with the whites.”
-George B. Smoote, March 1861

Guess which state Smoote hailed from: SC? MS? VA? TX? Nope, Arkansas. One of those Upper South states who didn't secede until after Fort Sumter. This is a pretty typical of how Southerners viewed the Republican party.
 

Mango Hill

Corporal
Joined
Jul 23, 2020
Perhaps it's my fault for not making it clear in the OP but I really would appreciate it if the reason for secession was left for another thread. The original intent of the OP has to do with an alternative reason other than the Battle of Antietam for the Issuance of the preliminary EP. I also realize there was a lack of clarity on my part because I failed to include "preliminary" in the OP. I honestly felt that it would be taken for granted that it was the issuance of the preliminary EP since both Antietam and, in reverse, the threat posed to Kentucky's status by the twin invasions of Bragg and Kirby Smith (Ryan's hypothesis), occurred before September 22, 1862.

Kind regards,

MH
 

wausaubob

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Location
Denver, CO
And yet their ordinances secession and the CSA constitution clearly says slavery was central to the Confederate cause.

The topic of Confederate psychology toward the end of the war is a curious one and probably understudied. Some individuals, like Cleburne, were not personally invested in slavery and thought it expendable. Others, like Howell Cobb, never lost sight of what the rebellion was really about.

Jeff Davis seems a bit unmoored from reality in the later stages of the war. He sent peace commissioners to meet with Lincoln, under explicit instructions to refuse peace that did not include independence. This was in early 1865, with Sherman in Savannah, Hood wrecked, the Shenandoah ruined, Wilmington captured, and Lincoln reelected. Davis clung irrationally to independence long past when it had the slightest possibility remaining. Why not also nonsensically be willing to barter away slavery in the process? Tunnel vision.
Jefferson Davis must have a sequence close to secession/recognition/readmission, which makes all the acts of war the legal assertion of the power of an independent authority. Why would the US agree to that when Hood's army had evaporated and Sherman was safe on the Atlantic coast? He was bargaining to save his own skin and unconcerned about was had happened to So. Carolina and what was going to happen to the people of Richmond.
 

Similar threads

Top