1. Welcome to the CivilWarTalk, a forum for questions and discussions about the American Civil War! Become a member today for full access to all of our resources, it's fast, simple, and absolutely free!
Dismiss Notice
Join and Become a Patron at CivilWarTalk!
Support this site with a monthly or yearly subscription! Active Patrons get to browse the site Ad free!
START BY JOINING NOW!

Emancipation Proclamation.

Discussion in 'Civil War History - General Discussion' started by Sons of Liberty, Jan 1, 2015.

  1. Sons of Liberty

    Sons of Liberty Sergeant

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2013
    Messages:
    717
    Location:
    State of Southern Illinois
    On this date in 1863, President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, declaring that slaves in rebel states shall be "forever free".
     

  2. (Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)
  3. 5fish

    5fish Captain

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2007
    Messages:
    5,120
    Location:
    Central Florida
    Lincoln's original intent was to incite a slave revolt within the states that were in rebellion with the Emancipation Proclamation. Frist, the proclamation only cover the Confederacy, not the border states or slave owners loyal to the union. Secondly, let's use Lincoln's own words, “had about come to the conclusion that we must free the slaves or be ourselves subdued.”. Lastly let's use his words again, “consequences of insurrection and massacre at the South.” Whatever the moral benefits, or immoral consequences, of emancipation he “view[ed] the matter as a practical war measure, to be decided upon according to the advantages or disadvantages it may offer to the suppression of the [Confederate] rebellion.”

    Lincoln's words show his intent was to use the Emancipation Proclamation as an instrument of war to cause a slave rebellion within the Confederacy. Here is the man who wrote the legal brief claiming Lincoln had the right to free the slaves within the Confederacy. Grosvenor Lowery, a US Treasury Department lawyer who wrote legal pamphlets supporting the expansion of the president’s wartime powers. Lowery argued for Lincoln that emancipation was legal as a wartime measure, which the government should use to win the war even at the risk of a Southern slave rebellion. Lowery echoes Lincoln word's in legal terms. Without Lowery's legal memo no Emancipation Proclamation...

    English and French thought as Lincoln, Opinions similar to those above were echoed by a number of prominent British and French newspapers. The London Times asked whether “the reign of [Lincoln’s presidency was] to go out amid the horrible massacres of white women and children, to be followed by the extermination of the black race in the South?” According to Jones, the French “…Conservative press thought the Proclamation would cause slave rebellions and a ‘fratricidal war’ that would envelop America in ‘blood and ruins.’”

    Senator Sumner hoped it would incite as well, “I know of no principle…by which our [Southern White] rebels should be saved from the natural consequences of their own action…They set the example of insurrection…They cannot complain if their slaves…follow it.

    My point is the original intent of Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation was to incite a slave rebellion all but in words. It was to be a weapon of war upon the Confederacy forcing the south to fight a two-front war. It did not happen as wished for by Lincoln but later was rebranded by history as Lincoln taking the moral high ground from the Confederacy in the war...

    Rebranding is based on last verse of the proclamation not there in the original reading but there in the final written version:

    Lincoln added the following paragraph to the final version, which was altogether missing from the September 22 version: 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.


    Link... http://discerninghistory.com/2015/0...clamation-trying-to-incite-a-slave-rebellion/

     
  4. 5fish

    5fish Captain

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2007
    Messages:
    5,120
    Location:
    Central Florida
    Uncomfortable that our hero Lincoln was planning to incite death across the Southern plantations. So Do you not like how he adds a verse in at the end trying to soften his incite to revolt....
     
    James N. and Rebforever like this.
  5. leftyhunter

    leftyhunter Lt. Colonel

    Joined:
    May 27, 2011
    Messages:
    10,076
    Location:
    los angeles ca
    So your argument is that Lincoln had no legal or moral right to free slaves in the areas of rebellion?
    Lincoln should of simply allowed the Confederacy to enjoy and make use of coerced labor in support of the Confederacy.
    Lincoln has of January 1st 1863 had no legal authority to abolish slavery in loyal areas. Let us not overlook that Lincoln did pass,and amendment to the constitution to abolish slavery just two years latter.
    Senator Sumner made a good point that if the slaves did rebel that's not the Union 's problem.
    Leftyhunter
     
  6. War Horse

    War Horse Captain Forum Host Silver Patron Trivia Game Winner Regtl. Quartermaster Gettysburg 2017 Member of the Year

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2014
    Messages:
    6,062
    Location:
    Lexington, SC
    had about come to the conclusion that we must free the slaves or be ourselvessubdued.”.

    There is no question the potential consequences of The Emancipation Proclamation included Slave Rebellion. Lincoln was well aware of this potential and undesired repercussion.

    Wheather Lincoln’s actions were based on morality or not, his true intent was to make the war solely about slavery. Thurs ending any threat of foreign intervention. It worked and an insurrection never happened.

    As for the final version of the EP. There were IIFC seven total drafts. Had he have added the final paragraph after a slave insurrection. Then I might believe he was attempting to cover his hind end.
     
    Bee, Copperhead-mi and leftyhunter like this.
  7. Rebforever

    Rebforever Captain

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2012
    Messages:
    7,496
    Lincoln spent a lot of time covering his a** on various things. Like sending slaves back to their owners for one. Not letting Blacks come into DC. And doing that is an indication he didn’t care one bit about the slaves.
     
  8. War Horse

    War Horse Captain Forum Host Silver Patron Trivia Game Winner Regtl. Quartermaster Gettysburg 2017 Member of the Year

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2014
    Messages:
    6,062
    Location:
    Lexington, SC
    Perhaps and perhaps not. Lincoln did however care about the Union and was willing to takes risks to preserve it.
     
    Bee, Canadian and leftyhunter like this.
  9. 5fish

    5fish Captain

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2007
    Messages:
    5,120
    Location:
    Central Florida
    I am not thinking if Lincoln had the authority to free the slave but he wanted to plan a slave rebellion in tne South. The war was going bad and he was looking for a game changer for the union effort. The emancipation was his way of inciting a slave rebellion without calling out for one. He knew like he could not fire the first shots of the war. He could not directly call for a slave revolt and have that blood on his hands. The emancipation would have given him deniability of the slave revolted so not to hurt the union effort.

    I disagree because he left it off the that was read out and given to the world. It was an after thought the verse was put it... He cover him if the slave revolted and started killing their white slave masters.
     
    Andersonh1 and Rebforever like this.
  10. ForeverFree

    ForeverFree Captain

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2010
    Messages:
    7,427
    Location:
    District of Columbia
    The Emancipation Proclamation was also a black enlistment proclamation. The third paragraph from the bottom of the EP states: 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.

    Note that when the war began, it was not legal for black men to join the army, and slaves could not join the navy (90% of African Americans were enslaved when the war began). Black enlistment was legally authorized by the United States in the summer of 1862.

    When issued on 1/1/1863, the EP itself did not force a single slaveholder to free a single slave.

    What happened is that, the Union took the EP down South, read it to enslaved people and said, "who wants to join in the fight that will give you your freedom?" Enslaved people understood, no victory, no freedom. Many were thus motivated to fight. Some were told to fight.

    The idea of the EP as an enlistment proclamation was stated by Lincoln himself. In his Third Annual Message to Congress, dated December 8, 1863, Lincoln said

    The preliminary emancipation proclamation, issued in September, was running its assigned period to the beginning of the new year. A month later the final proclamation came, including the announcement that colored men of suitable condition would be received into the war service. The policy of emancipation and of employing black soldiers gave to the future a new aspect...​

    Some northerners were troubled by the EP. Some said black men lacked the courage and intellect to be good soldiers. Some thought that the freedmen might stampede up North and take jobs from white men. Some just didn't want to fight to free slaves. In August 1863, Lincoln wrote a letter which was printed in the northern press that gave the justification for the EP:

    You say you will not fight to free negroes. Some of them seem willing to fight for you; but, no matter. Fight you, then exclusively to save the Union. I issued the proclamation on purpose to aid you in saving the Union. Whenever you shall have conquered all resistence to the Union, if I shall urge you to continue fighting, it will be an apt time, then, for you to declare you will not fight to free negroes.

    I thought that in your struggle for the Union, to whatever extent the negroes should cease helping the enemy, to that extent it weakened the enemy in his resistence to you. Do you think differently? I thought that whatever negroes can be got to do as soldiers, leaves just so much less for white soldiers to do, in saving the Union. Does it appear otherwise to you?

    But negroes, like other people, act upon motives. Why should they do any thing for us, if we will do nothing for them? If they stake their lives for us, they must be prompted by the strongest motive--even the promise of freedom. And the promise being made, must be kept.​

    Abraham Lincoln is essentially the great negotiator, who is brokering a deal that will gain the support of negroes as soldiers and sailors. "If they stake their lives for us," says Lincoln, that will only be done with the promise of freedom.

    Both sides keep up their side of the bargain. Some 200,000 black enlistees, and countless more civilians, provide direct military or civilian help to the United States. And upon victory, the United States passes the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendment.

    - Alan
     
    Last edited: Nov 24, 2017
  11. ForeverFree

    ForeverFree Captain

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2010
    Messages:
    7,427
    Location:
    District of Columbia
    As I read what you've posted, it does not appear that Lincoln himself hoped there would be massive revolts, but rather that he feared there would be massive revolts, and so he added such language as he did.

    I do understand that others hoped there would be revolts.

    Lincoln did clearly intend that black men would engage in resistance against their masters as soldiers and sailors in the United States armed forces. And in fact some initial attempts at enlisting negroes occurred even before January 1, 1863.

    - Alan
     
    OpnCoronet, Bee, major bill and 2 others like this.
  12. ForeverFree

    ForeverFree Captain

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2010
    Messages:
    7,427
    Location:
    District of Columbia
    FYI, there were numerous slave revolts before the EP, and of course Confederates (accurately) noted that the US was at least partly responsible. You might find this thread of interest.

    - Alan
     
    Bee and leftyhunter like this.
  13. leftyhunter

    leftyhunter Lt. Colonel

    Joined:
    May 27, 2011
    Messages:
    10,076
    Location:
    los angeles ca
    During wartime it is not the President of the United States responsibility to worry about the internal security of it's enemies.
    It made no sense to allow those in rebellion unrestricted use of enslaved labor.
    The Emancipation Proclamation was a very successful policy that resulted in less slave labor for the Confederacy and tens of thousands of new Union troops.
    What is the downside for the Union?
    Leftyhunter
     
  14. Rebforever

    Rebforever Captain

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2012
    Messages:
    7,496
    I don’t know for sure but I don’t think the Blacks murdered anyone. But they did escape on occasions.
     
    CSA Today likes this.
  15. leftyhunter

    leftyhunter Lt. Colonel

    Joined:
    May 27, 2011
    Messages:
    10,076
    Location:
    los angeles ca
    A little bit more then on occasion. If Union troops were near by black slaves fled to them.We even have a sourced thread that slaves from Joseph and Jefferson Davis's plantations fled when the opportunity arose. There were,quite,a few contraband camps as well. Many escaped slaves tried to tag along with General Sherman during his March to liberate Georgia.
    I have a whole thread on "irregular armed black resistance ". Yes as you know plenty of sources.
    Leftyhunter
     
    Canadian likes this.
  16. skb8721

    skb8721 Corporal

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2014
    Messages:
    278
    Location:
    New Iberia, Louisiana, on Bayou Teche
    What I find interesting about the Emancipation Proclamation is that it specifically excluded parts of the South, including the place in which I live and other river/bayou sections of south Louisiana.

    At first I thought perhaps this was because Lincoln regarded those rivers and bayous as being under Union naval control (even if the adjoining dry land was not), but I later found this was not the case. According to one Civil War historian, Lincoln excluded these south Louisiana parishes because they were sugar-growing parishes and he had received intelligence that the sugar planters of the region were Unionists!

    Thus, he did not want to cause undue hardship to these Unionists by freeing their slaves.

    I am skeptical, however, that many of these sugar planters were actually Unionists. In any event, whatever goodwill Lincoln hoped to sew among these sugar planters was promptly destroyed by Union generals Butler and Banks, who had no qualms about confiscating the harvests of these sugar planters, looting their homes, and even burning these often ornate dwellings to the ground.

    I refer to the below clause in the Emancipation Proclamation:

    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, Princess 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.


    I am in Iberia Parish, Louisiana, which did not exist during the Civil War. It was formed, however, from parts of St. Martin and St. Mary parishes in 1868, which are mentioned as being excluded from the terms of the Emancipation Proclamation. In fact, the part of Iberia Parish in which I live was in St. Martin Parish at the time of the war.

    I now see that my source for this info merely implies the explanation I gave for Lincoln excluding certain south Louisiana parishes:

    ". . . . southern Louisiana parishes, with their cohort of Unionist sugar planters, were officially exempt from its [the Emancipation Proclamation's] provisions."

    Source: Stephanie McCurry, Confederate Reckoning, Power and Politics in the Civil War South (Harvard University Press, 2012).
     
    Last edited: Nov 24, 2017
  17. jackt62

    jackt62 Sergeant Major

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2015
    Messages:
    1,834
    Location:
    New York City
    To be sure, Lincoln was shrewd enough to formulate the EP as a war measure. The language of the document and its application to some but not all enslaved persons was carefully worked out to ensure that any potential legal challenge could be defended. By late 1862, Lincoln was well aware that the preservation of the Union, in and of itself, was too limited a war aim. Lincoln used the EP as a springboard to advance the idea that the war would be fought to fulfill the unfinished promises in the Declaration of Independence. Not for nothing did Lincoln start referring to the United States as a "nation" rather than as a "union" after the EP was promulgated.
     
    Canadian and leftyhunter like this.
  18. 5fish

    5fish Captain

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2007
    Messages:
    5,120
    Location:
    Central Florida
    EP was a weapon of war, not this great document of great moral conscious as portrayed today.

    As shown by @ForeverFree it was used as a recruiting tool

    It was used to allow blacks to serve the cause as a Military Necessity.

    The document did not exist without controversy, nor were all Northern citizens initially in favor of the freedom it promised. Lincoln was cognizant of the number of those who would view such an act with disfavor and worded the freedom of the qualified slaves in terms of “military necessity,” not equality.

    link.. http://www.marinersmuseum.org/blogs/civilwar/?p=2993

    A line from the EP...

    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.

    The EP did not free the slaves because it was the right thing to do but to free the slaves to use them as weapons against their masters.

    I like to see the earlier drafts to see the changes made over time... I do think the original intent was to incite a slave rebellion... and then it morphs into this incredible document of war...



     
  19. 5fish

    5fish Captain

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2007
    Messages:
    5,120
    Location:
    Central Florida

    Here is a gem... First Draft...

    In pursuance of the sixth section of the act of congress entitled “An act to suppress insurrection and to punish treason and rebellion, to seize and confiscate property of rebels, and for other purposes” Approved July 17. 1862, and which act, and the Joint Resolution explanatory thereof, are herewith published, I, ABRAHAM LINCOLN, President of the United States, do hereby proclaim to, and warn all persons within the contemplation of said sixth section to cease participating in, aiding, countenancing, or abetting the existing rebellion, or any rebellion against the government of the United States, and to return to their proper allegiance to the United States, on pain of the forfeitures and seizures, as within and by said sixth section provided.
    And I hereby make known that it is my purpose, upon the next meeting of congress, to again recommend the adoption of a practical measure for tendering pecuniary aid to the free choice or rejection, of any and all States which may then be recognizing and practically sustaining the authority of the United States, and which may then have voluntarily adopted, or thereafter may voluntarily adopt, gradual abolishment of slavery within such State or States—that the object is to practically restore, thenceforward to be maintained, the constitutional relation between the general government, and each, and all the states, wherein that relation is now suspended, or disturbed; and that, for this object, the war, as it has been, will be, prosecuted. And, as a fit and necessary military measure for effecting this object, I, as Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, do order and declare 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 states, wherein the constitutional authority of the United States shall not then be practically recognized, submitted to, and maintained, shall then, thenceforward, and forever, be free.
    Emancipation Proclamation as first sketched and shown to the Cabinet in July 1862.

    Handbill on Infidelity (July 31, 1846)
    First Campaign Statement (March 9, 1832)
    Tagged with: Borrowed Phrasing, Emancipation, Executive Order, Private, War Powers, Wartime

    Here a link to a memo explaining the legalese of the first draft it a great little video... it is worth the time to listen too... by Matthew Pinsker
    You see that the second confiscation act is the teeth of the Emancipation Proclamation...


    http://housedivided.dickinson.edu/sites/lincoln/first-draft-of-emancipation-july-22-1862/
     
    Last edited: Nov 25, 2017
    Andersonh1 and Rebforever like this.
  20. leftyhunter

    leftyhunter Lt. Colonel

    Joined:
    May 27, 2011
    Messages:
    10,076
    Location:
    los angeles ca
    So what is your argument against the EP?
    Are you arguing Lincoln should of just passively allowed the Confederacy to enjoy and make use of coerced labor?
    Lincoln lacked the constitutional authority to outlaw slavery. The time was not right to outlaw slavery in January of 1863.
    The EP did free many blacks and allowed blacks to join the U.S. military. How is that a bad thing?
    Under the circumstances Lincoln did the best he could to end slavery. That is a lot more then Jeferson Davis did.
    Leftyhunter
     
    Canadian, major bill and War Horse like this.
  21. Copperhead-mi

    Copperhead-mi 1st Lieutenant Trivia Game Winner

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2009
    Messages:
    4,500
    Location:
    Near Ann Arbor, Michigan
    5fish's posts in this thread have been one giant straw man. He's acting as though he has uncovered the "real reason" behind the issuance of the EP while taking the opportunity to add a few unsubstantiated, unsourced "facts" for Lincoln's sinister purpose in its issuance.
     
    Jimklag, dibbern, unionblue and 6 others like this.

(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)

Share This Page


(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)