Emancipation Proclamation.

OpnCoronet

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
"...This declared indifference, but, as I must think, covert real zeal for the spread of slavery, I can not but hate. I hate it because of the monstrous injustice of slavery itself. I hate it because it deprives our republican example of its just influence in the world--enables the enemies of free institutions, with plausibility, to taunt us as hypocrites--causes the real friends of freedom to doubt our sincerity, and especially because it forces so many really good men amongst ourselves into open war with the very fundamental principles of civil liberty--criticizing the Declaration of Independence, and insisting that there is no right principle of action but self-interest..."

Source: From Lincoln's speech at Peoria, Illinois, Oct. 16, 1854.



Thanks. I knew it was there, but, I am finding it more and more difficulty to locate my hard copy references accurately.
 

OpnCoronet

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
We are talking of two Lincoln's the one before 1863 and the one after... The greater good is not saving the union but saving our national soul...
Yes, He was first willing to throw all the slaves under the bus to save the union. He whines that slavery corrupts our Consitution principles but keeping people in slavery to save union not only corrupts our constitutional principles more but our humanity even more...
I acknowledge he created it and sign but not within events on the ground and Trumbull guiding him to do it...



The Lincoln negotiating with Border State leaders to implement planned gradual emancipation, as part of his plan of ending the war quickly, before 1863 was the same Lincoln who issued the EP as part of a plan of ending the war quickly after 1863(the same man, the same reasoning for his actions)

Lincoln believed Slavery tolerable in the united States, Only, in the belief and expectation that it was on the road to ultimate extinction. He did or said nothing that contradicted that belief.

Lincoln and most thinking secessionists, were in agreement, the enclosing of the slaves as provided by the 1850 Compromise, would lead to the extinction of slavery over time. Lincoln, under the constraints of the Constitution in peace time, could still afford to wait, to achieve the end of slavery in America, the secessionists could not, if they wanted to save their peculiar institution.
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
"...My friends, I have detained you about as long as I desired to do, and I have only to say, let us discard all this quibbling about this man and the other man -- this race and that race and the other race being inferior, and therefore they must be placed in an inferior position -- discarding our standard that we have left us. Let us discard all these things, and united as one people throughout this land, until we shall once more stand up declaring that all men are created equal..."

Source: Speech of Abraham Lincoln, at Chicago, July 10, 1858.
 
Last edited:

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
When Barack Obama was a Senator of Illinois, who wrote an article entitled: "What I see in Lincoln's eyes."

One paragraph deals explicitly with Lincoln's image as the Great Emancipator and how African Americans perceive this legacy:

"Still, as I look at his picture, it is the man and not the icon that speaks to me. I cannot swallow whole the view of Lincoln as the Great Emancipator. As a law professor and civil rights lawyer and as an African American, I am fully aware of his limited views on race. Anyone who actually reads the Emancipation Proclamation knows it was more a military document than a clarion call for justice. Scholars tell us too that Lincoln wasn't immune from political considerations and that his temperament could be indecisive and morose. But it is precisely these imperfections--and the painful self-awareness of those failings etched in every crease of his face and reflected in those haunted eyes--that make him so compelling. For when the time came to confront the greatest moral challenge this nation has ever faced, this all too human man did not pass the challenge on to future generations."
 
Last edited:

Borderruffian

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Location
Marshfield Missouri
We are talking of two Lincoln's the one before 1863 and the one after... The greater good is not saving the union but saving our national soul...



Yes, He was first willing to throw all the slaves under the bus to save the union. He whines that slavery corrupts our Consitution principles but keeping people in slavery to save union not only corrupts our constitutional principles more but our humanity even more...



I acknowledge he created it and sign but not within events on the ground and Trumbull guiding him to do it...

Seems you think Abe was elected King and should have issued a Royal edict ending slavery upon his coronation. Things in a representative republic work a little differently to change a law...and make no mistake slavery was legal in certain states, the law has to be changed by people elected by people to represent their interests no one man has that power to change laws without consulting the elected senate and house who represent the people.
Lincoln was no fan of slavery.......but he was a fan of the US.
To him while slavery was horrible as horrible as it was it was not more horrible than the loss of the union....so yes ending slavery was not on the front burner early in the war, but eventually it got there.Often things have to change before mission changes ....sorry thats life.
 
Lincoln's mismanagement of this act lead to the second act and then to the EP...

The failure of the First Confiscation Act had very little if anything to do with Lincoln. Treating real property and slaves as if they were prizes seized upon the high sea made congressman from both sides of the aisle as well as Federal prosecutors unsure of the constitutionality of its provisions such as the seizure of real property and holding the hearing "in rem," or in other words, holding a hearing without the property owner present to defend himself. Also, the transfer of title of a seized slave to the United States making the Federal government a slave owner did not sit well with Lincoln and others as Lincoln pointed out in a July 17, 1862 message to Congress:

"It is startling to say that Congress can free a slave within a State, and yet if it were said the ownership of the slave had first been transferred to the nation, and that Congress had then liberated him, the difficulty would at once vanish. And this is the real case. The traitor against the General Government forfeits his slave at least as justly as he does any other property; and he forfeits both to the government against which he offends. The government, so far as there can be ownership, thus owns the forfeited slaves, and the question for Congress in regard to them is, 'Shall they be made free or be sold to new masters?' I perceive no objection to Congress deciding in advance that they shall be free."

The intentional refusal of Federal prosecutors to bring the confiscation cases before the courts were one of the major reasons, among others, for the Act's failure:

"But in almost all respects the new statutes proved to be duds, reflecting the patchwork mixture of sovereign and belligerent powers in the laws, and the distaste almost everyone involved felt concerning enforcement. Known miscreants remained untouched by perjury, treason, or confiscation prosecutions.14 Conflicting, half-comprehended imperatives tore at congressmen of both parties and at executive and judicial officers, and produced what appeared to be timid behavior with respect to enforcing the confiscation laws. Eager to punish rebels and suppress disloyalists, willing to expend treasure and, eventually, even to free slaves if necessary to kill the rebellion, congressmen and other officials simultaneously revered property, as states defined it. This intense,
tenacious, compelling property-consciousness was magnified because of lawyers' rise to prominence in politics.15

Once enacted the confiscation laws received little enforcement. Partly this was due to the small number and overburdened work loads of government lawyers, who by terms of the statute would prosecute. More important, federal attorneys from Bates down never pushed confiscation prosecutions very hard because they distrusted proceedings (known as "in rem" actions) against property; Bates positively obstructed confiscation proceedings when he could. Further, during most of the War the great part of rebels' property was untouchable in portions of the South still unoccupied by Union troopers. And complications kept intruding. Property confiscations conflicted with presidential pardons and amnesty, with the uncertainty surrounding the legal nature of the War, with emancipation, and with the treason law still on the books. All of which justified Von Hoist's verdict that these punitive laws, ''brought to the surface by the civil war . . . [led] to a whirlpool of conflicting conclusions. . . . [D]octrines of constitutional law . . . were not clearly stated and sharply defined by reason of the civil war, but were rather obscured thereby.'16

Why this confusion at a time when professionals in the law were heightening their influence on every level of government, and when the absence from Congress of the seceded southern delegations eased passage of deterrent and punitive statutes? Part of the reply is that the literature of law was silent, incomplete, or contradictory on many matters which the War dredged up."
A More Perfect Union - The Impact of the Civil War and Reconstruction on the Constitution, Harold M. Hyman, pp. 178-179
 

OpnCoronet

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Lincoln was not in front of his times. He was his time until he signed the EP and became the angelic Lincoln, @unionblue favors... the myth...


The policies advocated by Lincoln before the War, were based on the assumption that they would result in eventual emancipation.

The ignorance and stupidity of the Secessionists, in seceding, merely gave Lincoln the change eventual to immediate.
 

ForeverFree

Major
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Location
District of Columbia
We are talking of two Lincoln's the one before 1863 and the one after... The greater good is not saving the union but saving our national soul...



Yes, He was first willing to throw all the slaves under the bus to save the union. He whines that slavery corrupts our Consitution principles but keeping people in slavery to save union not only corrupts our constitutional principles more but our humanity even more...

There is a good discussion to be had about the tension between Lincoln's feelings on slavery and the actual policies he proposed or implemented during his lifetime. Unfortunately some of the language you've used renders the issues in simplistic ways, and also, contains insinuations of insult (if not outright insult) that charges the discussion with unneeded emotion.

Just on the comment "he was first willing to throw all the slaves under the bus to save the union." It was not just to save the Union. It was also to save lives.

As with many people, I do wish that Lincoln and the United States had embraced abolition from the git go. As Lincoln himself said, military necessity prompted his policy of emancipation and black enlistment.

But Lincoln was not "throwing slaves under the bus"... that was not his calculation. Lincoln wanted to avoid the deadly cost of war. Had the status quo of Union been preserved at the outset, hundreds of thousands would not have died. I can understand why Lincoln and the Congress and officials in the states might want to maintain slavery as a way to maintain the Union and thus avoid war.

Meanwhile, it should be noted that historians such as James Oakes have made the point that Lincoln's Republican Party did have a goal of making America into a free labor nation. How that would have occurred absent war is not clear; but many of Lincoln's fellow party members did want, and said they wanted, to make the US a place that would be "all free." Secessionists were aware of this threat: for example, the South Carolina secession declaration states that the "sectional" Republican Party wanted to use the power of the government to "wage a war" against slavery. The point is that preserving the Union did not mean that in the long term, or maybe even short term, that slavery was "safe." Certainly secessionists did not think so.

One other thing. It is unfortunate that there is this notion that preserving the Union was merely "an idea" or "an ideal." it was that, as historian Gary Gallagher has noted. But in the context of secession and insurrection, there was more to it than that. People in the free states believed in varying proportions that secessionists were traitors who annulled a fair election because they didn't like the results, and who became an economic, military, and geo-political threat to the United States. The US was not just fighting "for the Union," it was fighting against insurrectionists who had used military force to attack the United States. I think it is important to understand the actual nature of the threat, because it offers insight into why certain policy choices were pursued and made at various times.

- Alan
 
Last edited:

ForeverFree

Major
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Location
District of Columbia
I'm fan-boy if Abe....but of other reasons than the EP. You do realize that he had more on his plate then freeing slaves, stuff like preserving the union? You know this...right?

You also know that its his signature on the EP right? That he didn't have to sign the document, but did, right?

I do make the point to people that it was not inevitable that the United States embarked on a policy of emancipation and black enlistment. Had another man been in office who did not see slavery as morally wrong, or who believed that slavery was morally right and must be preserved, there is no telling how events would have unfolded. I do not see an emancipation policy coming from the Democratic Party.

It is precisely because the Republican Party was the party of free labor (and had some members who were outright anti-slavery and abolitionist) that an emancipation policy was thinkable and executable.

- Alan
 
Last edited:

19thGeorgia

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
The policies advocated by Lincoln before the War, were based on the assumption that they would result in eventual emancipation.

the Secessionists, in seceding, merely gave Lincoln the change eventual to immediate.
???????

Wasn't Lincoln promoting an emancipation plan during the war that stretched to the year 1900?
 

major bill

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Forum Host
Joined
Aug 25, 2012
I would say Lincoln early in the War beliwve slavery needed to end but was willing to allow slavery to die out gradually over time. So yes slavery might have lasted another 50-100 years.

This is why the nation is in debt to The Great Emancipator. Had we had a president who was unwilling to support the EP, slavery could well have lasted another 50 to 100 years perhaps longer.
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
"...In December 1860, Lincoln killed a sectional compromise designed to preserve the Union and to stall the momentum of secession. This compromise (the Crittenden Compromise) would have permitted the continued expansion of slavery. Lincoln shot down this compromise to save the Union by instructing his fellow Republicans to "entertain no proposition for a compromise in regard to the extension of slavery. The instant you do, they have us under again; all our labor is lost, and sooner or later must be done over ...Have none of it. The tug has to come & better now than later."

Source: Father Abraham: Lincoln's Relentless Struggle To End Slavery, by Richard Striner, chapter 1, Lincoln And Slavery: The Problem, pg. 8-9.

I'm having trouble seeing Lincoln throwing slaves "under the bus" when he could have agreed with the above compromise and avoided Civil War.

Unionblue
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
The policies advocated by Lincoln before the War, were based on the assumption that they would result in eventual emancipation.

The ignorance and stupidity of the Secessionists, in seceding, merely gave Lincoln the change eventual to immediate.

???????

Wasn't Lincoln promoting an emancipation plan during the war that stretched to the year 1900?

19thGeorgia,

You might want to read about the emancipation plan you mention in your above post. Try the following link:

Compensated Emancipation
.

http://www.mrlincolnandfreedom.org/civil-war/congressional-action-inaction/compensated-emancipation/

Sincerely,
Unionblue
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
The True Emancipator was Senator Trumbull ( R-ill). He's the father of the 2nd confiscation act which becomes the teeth of the EP...

Note/sidebar: He tried to pass an amendment once on slavery that failed his words"“The Democrats and the men of the Border States generally opposed the measure, with very strong feeling. No matter how plausible the reason, they did not wish slavery to be touched at all. " Now that is anti-slavery passion... Lincoln would never show passion against slavery and his anti-slavery remarks were always philosophical in nature...

Lincoln's Administration action under the first confiscation act...

Not every escaped slave was treated as Union contraband. Many Union officers instead returned them through Confederate lines. Historian Robert Morse wrote that “While [Benjamin] Butler, [John C.] Fremont, and [David] Hunter were thus befriending the poor runaways, [Don Carlos] Buell and [Joseph] Hooker were allowing slave-owners to reclaim fugitives from within their lines; [Henry W.] Halleck was ordering that no fugitive slave should be admitted within his lines or camp, and that those already there should be put out; and [George B.] McClellan was promising to crush ‘with an iron hand’ any attempt at slave insurrection.”9


In March 1862, Congress passed legislation that forbade army and navy officers from return captured fugitive slaves to their owners – whatever their owners professed political loyalties. Congress also passed legislation forbidding these officers from hearing evidence concerning cases of runaway slaves. “Aimed especially at Democratic generals such as Alexander McCook, who was so obliging in returning runaways that he received praise from the Confederate press, and at Henry Halleck’s recent order denying fugitives sanctuary within his lines, this law freed no slaves, but it was clear that this was its intent.” wrote historian Richard H. Sewell. Sewell quoted Maryland Senator James A. Pearce: “It is not an act of emancipation in its terms; but…it leads directly to that result.'”10

Mark M. Krug, biographer of Senator Lyman Trumbull wrote: “Annoyed at the refusal of the administration and of the commanding Union generals to enforce his Confiscation Bill, Trumbull, immediately upon the opening of the regular session of Congress, introduced a tougher measure along the same line.”11 The Second Confiscation Act was “introduced in December [1861] by Senator Trumbull. Providing for heavy punishment for persons convicted of treason, the confiscation of property belonging to rebels, and the emancipation of slaves held by disloyal citizens, it was opposed by all conservatives – Democrats and Republicans alike,” wrote historian Hans L. Trefousse.12

Senator Trumbull the Great Emancipator, he forced Lincoln's hand...The Confiscation Act was passed on July 17, 1862..

The Confiscation Act had another impact on President Lincoln’s action, according to Treasury Secretary Salmon P. Chase. He reported on a Cabinet meeting on July 21, 1862: “I went at the appointed hour, and found that the President had been profoundly concerned at the present aspect of affairs, and had determined to take some definitive steps in respect to military action and slavery. He had prepared several Orders, the first of which contemplated authority to Commanders to subsist their troops in the hostile territory – the second, authority to employ negroes as laborers – the third requiring that both in the case of property taken and of negroes employed, accounts should be kept with such degrees of certainty as would enable compensation to be made in proper cases – another provided for the colonization of negroes in some tropical country.”33

What happened on July 22, 1862... the first reading of the first draft of the EP... So who is the true emancipator?

link... http://www.mrlincolnandfreedom.org/civil-war/congressional-action-inaction/confiscation-acts/



The 2nd confiscation act along with desperation force Lincoln into doing right! look at those dates...



To All,

And where did the above theory/post originate?

I have my own theory.

http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/books/steers.htm

Unionblue
 
Last edited:

O' Be Joyful

Sergeant Major
To All,

And where did the above theory/post originate?

I have my own theory.

http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/books/steers.htm

Unionblue


Yep, I'd say that would be a ver-ry good bet UB. When I was looking for info on Trumbull and was searching for quotes--or rather the lack thereof-- by him, the name Lerone Bennett always seemed to pop up for some strange reason.

Good find. To paraphrase 5fish ,You have found the smoke.
 
Last edited:
Top