Photos
Blog
NewslettersEmancipation Proclamation
Submitted by egret57 on Sun, 2008-03-02 15:35.
In Saturday's BG in the Opinion section, an article was posted about a Bill to celebrate Juneteenth. It may be a misprint, but in parenthesis it said that "The Emancipation Proclamation freed only those slaves in the states fighting with the Union."
Actually the Proclamation freed only the slaves in the states fighting against the Union, or those in the CSA, in its attempt to secede. It did not free any slaves in the north. Of course some states, like Massachusetts had already passed legislation, but other states like New York had not. The only other federal action to free all slaves occurred with the passage of the 13th amendment after the war in 1865.
- egret57's blog
- Login to post comments
- 687 reads
Recall also that Lincoln offered, before the EP, to enforce the laws against runaway slaves who were in the north, if the south would return to the Union.
Lincoln was not a man minded on equality - he simply wanted to make life hard on the South when he drafted the EP. Further, exactly what basis in LAW did the President have to free slaves? Slaves were the property of the owners and were entitled to comnpensation for the taking of property
Lincoln had ZERO legal basis to free slaves. He also did not suspend the runaway slave laws. . . thus, slaves captured in the north on a list could ahd were in fact detained for years - and offered freedom if they fought the South in black african battalions. Prison or War - nice choice, huh?
Lincoln was every bit the danger to the Constitution that Nixon became.
From what I read, Lincoln was not the author or leader for the freedom of slaves. The Abolitionists were the leaders and they convinced congress to pass laws to free all slaves, but you are right, many in congress did now want to pass a law taking property from owners of slaves in the north. Some suggested d paying the owners for their slaves, but with a war going on, they didn't have the money.
A compromise was made in congress to pass the law effective only in the south because many northern leaders thought the slavery issue was a matter for the states. States rights was popular in the north too. The law would relieve the northern states from having to deal with the slavery owners in their states.
Lincoln reluctantly signed the bill realizing that he needed the slavery issue as an incentive for the war and to raise morale among those who thought freeing slaves was a motive to fight.
Comparing Lincoln to Nixon is a far cry. Lincoln broke many laws, including closing newspapers with federal troops that were critical of him and his policies. Talk about losing your freedom of speech!
Well, I'm joefArrell = not the commonly misspelled joefErrell - unless that is everyone's way of claiming I am one just vowel short of a full alphabet?!
Nixon abused power because of the limits he imposed on succeeding Presidents by reason of the laws Congress passed to try to control the executive branch. Bush 43 seems to have taken the power back from Congress, but its staying power needs to be examined, along with the expectation that the power Bush took back only related to protection from enemies foreign and domestic, insofar are the Domestic enemies are really foreign enemies.
Lincoln violated his oath in my opinion, but just try to convince people of that.
There with your comments, we have in writing a greater understanding of the basis for the lack of friendship between Philadelphians and New Yorkers. Even though they were only 100 miles apart they were worlds apart in their understanding of the slavery issues. The Quakers were against slavery, they didn't fight in the Civil War because of their religion, so the soldiers came from the Anglican and Evangelical Lutheran populations of Pennsylvania. Meanwhile the more recent Irish immigrants in New York refused to bear arms and riots ensued.
I wonder if that friction has been resolved by 2008?
If I remember the date correctly slavery was outlawed in Pennsylvania in 1789 in Germantown, Montgomery County, which later became a part of Philadelphia. Don't recall when MA outlawed it, but do know MA began the first public schools.
Here is what President Lincoln wrote to A.G. Hodges, editor of a Knoxville newspaper.
"I am naturally anti-slavery. If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong. I can not remember when I did not so think and feel. And yet I have never understood that the Presidency conferred on me an unrestricted right to act officially on this judgment and feeling."
This was written in April of 1864, after the Emancipation Proclamation but before Lincoln's election to a second term. His abhorrence of slavery during his lifetime is well documented.
Lincoln's legal justification for the Emancipation Proclamation was that it was necessary and appropriate for the conduct of the war. Surely he also felt that the abolition of slavery was a moral imperative, but he recognized that the President had no unilateral legal right to declare it's end. In that sense, he was defending the constitution, not violating it.
Remember that before his election (in 1858) Lincoln famously said that:
"A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved -- I do not expect the house to fall -- but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new -- North as well as South."
Yes, he fought the war to preserve the Union. But he also understood that the Nation could not endure part slave, which meant that the institution of slavery had to fall. When it became clear that war was the means to cause that fall, he did not shrink from war.
Slavery finally ended as it should have. By expunging it from the Constitution and declaring in the 13th Amendment to the Constitution:
"Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."
As long as we are quoting the Great Emancipator, try these on for size:
I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races--that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which will ever forbid the two races living together in terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together, there must be the position of superior and inferior. I am as much as any other man in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.
I agree with Judge Douglas that he is not my equal in many respects, certainly not in color or even in intellectual and moral endowments.....
(v. 3, pp. 247-8. Sixth Debate with Steven A. Douglas at Quincy, Ill., Oct. 13, 1858)
It did not stop there. Later, Lincoln addressed a black audience, and insultingly told them what to go do with themselves. His views go beyond apartheid to actual deportation of the black people of America:
But for the Negro race among us there could not be war, although many men engaged on either side do not care for you one way or the other. Nevertheless, I repeat, without the institution of Slavery and the colored race as a basis, the war could not have an existence.
It is better for us both, therefore, to be separated. ...I suppose one of the principal difficulties in the way of colonization is that the free colored man cannot see that his comfort would be advanced by it. You may believe you can live in Washington or elsewhere in the United States the remainder of your life, perhaps more so than in any foreign country, and hence you have come to the conclusion that you have nothing to do with the idea of going to a foreign country. This is (I speak in no unkind sense) an extremely selfish view of the case.
(v. 5, pp. 372-5. Address on Colonization to a Deputation of Negroes, Aug. 14, 1862)
Lincoln forced the war between the states because the south seceeded not because of slavery. He demanded a forced adherance to his power base. Lincoln was in favor of more power to the federal government I.E. himself. He used the emancipation proclamation to draw more blacks into the military which it accomplished. If not then why only the states in the south? He did not want to create any more division in the north. Pure cheap politics. Slavery was already illegal in the United states just being the dumb lawyer Lincoln was he did not know how to argue or care to argue the point. "all men are created equal" Not a Lincoln phrase but from the US constitution. The legal ability to stop slavery existed all along. Lincoln could have persued that but didn't, Why?
While I agree with your comment overall, slavery was not 'illegal' in the United States when South Carolina seceded.
moreover, the phrase 'All Men are created equal' was crafted by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence which has no force of law in this country. Likewise, the phrase' the 'right' to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is not one which is an enforceable 'right.'
That all being said, slavery was an excuse people used. Lets not forget that the 3/5ths clause, wherein blacks were counted as 3/5ths of a person for Congressional representation was put in the Constitution by the Northern states, the south ALWAYS wanted their colored folk to be fully counted.
Slavery was the health care of the 19th Century. Look, Clinton and Obama are both legislators; they are Senators and could easily put their health care plans before the Senate for argument and drafting as a bill tomorrow - they could have done it last year and it could be law by now. Just like the great orators and Senators of the 19th Century COULD have offered a law or amendment outlawing slavery at ANY time before the civil war. But, they didn't. Why not? Because they did not want to risk losing political power by offering bills that had NO chance of becoming law.
Lincoln violated his oath of office by using military tribunals to try citizens of civil and military offenses, by suspending habeas, by closing down newspapers who disagreed with him, by any number of actions clearly in violation of the bill of rights. In fact, raising the Army and driving it South after the attack on Fort Sumter and declaring war on the CSA was NOT within the powers of a President. Do not forget, only Congress has the power to declare war. Lincoln presented congress with a fiat d'accompli and while they were recessed, declared war and threatened them with arrest if they came back into session to undo the war. This is all in the historical record and glossed over in modern history because the North won, and the winners get to spin history in the light most favorable to them.
I grew up in the North, attended Northern schools, and until I attended college and actually read the Federalist and Anti-Federalist and saw what the intent was of the Constitution, when I became a Patriot, did I really understand that the South may have been right. Not about the 'peculiar institution,' but about what states had a right to do and expect from the federal government. The Constitution is designed to limit the power of government, yet, it is taught in the schools as what part the government uses to justify the various things it does.
No wonder we have a generation of victims who somehow think that government can solve their problems.
No wonder we have a generation of victims who somehow think that government can solve their problems.
Amen!
Your post is consistent with what I have read on the politics of the time. A part of Lincoln's dilemma was that in his time, some of his strategies as president were untested and he was breaking new ground, but we find some of his actions unsuitable in today's light.
The debate over slavery was mostly political. Only the Abolitionists thought it to be immoral. In fact there was much debate in religious circles about it being immoral.
In the Old Testament, slavery was an accepted practice even with Abraham, Issac and other notable religious leaders. In the New Testament, Jesus never addressed slavery as an institution. It took the Abolitionists to declare that slavery was a sin, but many religious leaders did not accept it as a sin.
Our views today may vary, but our Christian background has evolved to where we follow Jesus's teachings that we love one another as brothers and sisters. Slavery could never fit in our perception today. We may not see it as a sin, but our ownership of a person would not follow Jesus's teaching. Even so, we still have de facto slavery, mainly with pimps.
Another generality that I have read is the attitudes of owners of slaves in the north and south. Southerners in general accepted slaves as humans and taught them Christianity to have their souls saved. Even the churches have balconies where slaves and indentured servants sat. They didn't sit in the pews because in most churches at that time, each pew was "owned" by a family. Each church had a pew tax charged to the family to pay for their pew. Since slaves and indentured servants did not own a pew, they sat in the balcony which were free.
Slaves too old to work were cared for by their owners in the south until death and their basic needs attended to. Slave cemeteries were established on each plantation so that the deceased could have a decent burial. In the north, slaves too old to work were dismissed and were left to fend for themselves. Most were given freedom, but at an old age, could hardly find work. Many depended on friends or relief organizations to care for them.
Egret,
Much of what you say about attitudes toward and treatment of slaves in the South can be read first hand. The main branch of the local library has a wonderful historical section and some of the old plantation journals are available there to read. You can't check them out but you can read them. The style of penmanship is difficult at first, but once you figure it out, the content is priceless. They recorded virtually everything about the plantation and those who resided there.
A good read and well worth the effort is Giant In Grey, a book about Wade Hampton. He was not what the school systems try to politically bottle feed
students. Actually quite the opposite.
Here's a Lincoln story:
When the 93rd Pennsylvania Regiment was passing through Washington and Georgetown among the thousands who lined Pennsylvania Ave. was a very tall gaunt man with a pale countenance, stooped shoulders, dressed in a black frock coat, with a black silk hat clinging to him who called out, "Bub, Bub".
Capt. Arthur heard him and gave a soldier permission to leave the ranks and join the man who clasped the soldier's hand and then asked the soldier to excuse his manners but he wanted to know how tall the soldier was. The soldier answered that he was 6 ft. 6-1/2 inches, which then the tall man jotted down in a black covered memo pad he had taken out of his pocket. Then he introduced himself to the soldier as "I am old Abe!". Then he introduced the soldier to Vice President Hamlin, and Gen. Cameron and Gov. Curtin were also standing in the group. Abe then combined their combined heights in his memo pad as Shaaber, 93 PA Reg. as 6ft 5-1/2, Lincoln, Pres. as 6 ft. 4 in, Hamlin VP as 6ft. 2-1/2, Cameron 6ft. 1 in, and Curtin 6 ft.2 in. for a combined total of 31 ft. 4 in. Then Lincoln joked that so many tall men might not meet again.
Lincoln then gave the soldier some advice about habits, diet in camp, and no use of alcohol. He then gave the soldier a pass to get back to camp, gave the soldier a hug and said to him, "Goodbye. my son. God bless you. Come soon and dine with me".
Some time later this same soldier had occasion to visit the White House with a higher ranked sergeant to exchange some uniform clothing and when Lincoln saw the soldier he immediately recalled their previous meeting and showed him around the White House and introduced them to the guests of the day, then asked the soldiers to dine with them. The soldiers declined, and Lincoln said to the tall soldier to visit him again at the White House if the soldier would "lie around Washington in the future".
The soldier in his writings later in life said he always regretted not dining with the President.
In Saturday's BG in the Opinion section, an article was posted about a Bill to celebrate Juneteenth. It may be a misprint, but in parenthesis it said that "The Emancipation Proclamation freed only those slaves in the states fighting with the Union."
Actually the Proclamation freed only the slaves in the states fighting against the Union, or those in the CSA, in its attempt to secede. It did not free any slaves in the north. Of course some states, like Massachusetts had already passed legislation, but other states like New York had not. The only other federal action to free all slaves occurred with the passage of the 13th amendment after the war in 1865.
When the Emancipation Proclamation was written and read, it only freed the slaves in the north. Being that the south was rebelling, theres no way the south would free its slaves because the "Norther" president said so. Basically, it would be like Bush signing a law that would end child slavery in India. He couldn't do that unless he went over there and actually took control...Of course, thats what Lincoln did lol. The Emancipation Procolomation only freed the slaves in the south as the Union marched through and captured the Confederate states.
The EP ONLY freed slaves in the areas of the union in rebellion, i.e., the seceded states in the South. What do you mean it 'only freed slaves in the North?' Have you read it? See an explanation and read it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_Proclamation
http://www.nps.gov/ncro/anti/emancipation.html
The EP did not free any slaves in the North because, by definition, there WERE NO SLAVES in the North. It did not affect the status of escaped slaves and at the time, it was anticipated that slaves could be returned to their owners in the South and thereon freed. The Northern business interests believed that the escaped slaves, though now free, owed some work to their former masters.
Joe you must have gone to public school and never learned American History - the drivel that people believe as truth. . . . Lincoln NEVER freed a single person over whom he had jurisdiction. The 13th Amendment abolished all servitude in the United States, but was passed and ratified AFTER his death. We will not even discuss if the 14th Amendment was ever properly and legally ratified.
"They recorded virtually everything about the plantation and those who resided there."
Just who wrote all this history? The slave owners and other whites. Somewhat one-sided "history" I would think.
Of course it is a one sided history and was indeed written by the white plantation owners. But, upon reading a few of them I quickly came to understand that the perceptions we have from "Mandingo", "Roots", and the like are a gross misinterpretation of what really occured, at least in this immediate area. They indicate a system here that was other than "overseer" controlled. Black craftsmen and journeymen supervised their own areas of endeavor. Blacks here had their own farming collectives and were able to sell their goods and have money. The journals I have read indicate that the resident slaves were considered members of the family although I would think these slaves were probably considered lesser memebers of the family. There are entries that allude to having the local doctor visit to tend to the ills and injuries of both slaves and white members of the "family". They seemed to have a sincere concern for the health and well being of all members of the plantation family.
One fact never mentioned is that only the wealthy owned slaves. 25% of the population in 1860 had slaves, but 75% did not. Lots of people think that every white family had slaves which is not true. Fact is there were some free blacks who also bought slaves. Most of the population were small farmers that depended on large families plus a hired hand or two to run their farms. There were also merchants and store owners (lots of small family run general stores scattered around in small towns and communities.)
And topscooter is right. Nearly all plantations had managers and a hierarchy of supervisors. Most were responsible leaders and earned their positions. The owners depended on that structure to succeed and their time was spent overseeing and delegating responsibilities, much as executives in business today.
As in any society, there were some bottom feeders and cruel owners. That being said, stories from the wealthy industrial owners in the north east had similar stories. Even children were working in some of those factories.
There are a lot of new books and publications written by southern researchers today and they tell a different story than that found in traditional books by northern authors. Many references about the attitudes and kind of society that existed then are from newspapers, letters, diaries and transcribed stories passed down.
I posted this before, but I have a copy of a diary written by an ancestor, a captain, in the CSA. He writes of his feeling that "slavery is an abomination in a Christian nation." He joined the CSA to "free the south from the aggressive overlording north trying to wreck the southern economy." He was probably referring to the import and export tarriffs passed by congress that would cripple the businesses including the cotton production and that triggered the fight for secession.
It is discouraging to be reminded that the myth of the old confederacy is still hanging on in the south despite all those damn Yankees moving down here.
Topgun –I read some of those personal accounts in the Beaufort County Library you referred too back in the 1960s (Thanks Mr. Christy and Mrs. Cooley). Despite attending all 12 school grades right here in Beaufort, the only local civil war connection discussed in class was Robert Smalls and that was in Mrs. Adams 6th Grade class at Beaufort Elementary School in 1963/64 located just a few blocks from his former home. Notice that this home is currently for sale.
Egret57 –Do you really believe that any confederate would say or write that he fought for the right to enslave others?
It is discouraging to be reminded that the myth of the old confederacy is still hanging on in the south despite all those damn Yankees moving down here.
What is "the myth of the old confederacy"?
elida987 -You asked, "What is "the myth of the old confederacy?"
I justed Googled the phrase and was presented with a huge number of links to recent articles about the Myth of the Confederacy which was invented by Southern patriots, by mostly women at first, during the Reconstruction era throughout the former Confederate states.
We can argue the cause or anything else related to the American Civil War until the glaciers melt and the coastal plain is flooded up to the Fall Line. However, as interesting all this may be (gotta be a reason for why the ACW is so popular among book publishers), it is a waste of time to do so if one has their beliefs (i.e., facts) based on a "creation myth" that has been pasted down at school and/or in the home since the 1880s. Folks you may want to get off your duffs, turn off the computer and start reading more modern ACW historiographies. At the very least watch CSPAN Books channel on Saturdays since at there is usually one ACW related book author discussing their latest effort. Or watch past shows from the web site. Google for the URL.
"One fact never mentioned is that only the wealthy owned slaves. 25% of the population in 1860 had slaves, but 75% did not." Please state your source. For a very good read on who did and did not own slaves and why the southern yeoman fought pick up a copy of Masters of a small world, Yeoman household, gender relations and the political culture of the antebellum south by Stephanie McCurry, 1995, Oxford University Press. Hop over to here http://www.jstor.org/view/00220507/di975715/97p0390x/0 for a review. Dr. McCurry based most of her work on a studies of the upper Old Beaufort District 1850 and 1860 census records and surviving tax documents. Very interesting.
OK, enough is enough, lunch time is over.
Later
Joe
The whole point in learning about new research being done is to point out that maintaining slavery was important to only a minority of the southern population. It was not an issue to the majority of the population. The myth that southern soldiers were fighting to keep slaves was a lie promulgated during that war. Would a small farmer volunteer, leave his family to tend the crops, risk his life, to make sure the wealthy could keep their slaves? No.
For most of the volunteers, establishing a new country, the CSA, was the goal. It was the same feeling many had in the Revolutionary War to free the colonies from the tyranny of England. Even small farmers and the merchants were affected by those tariffs by the congress. It made prices go up on goods because they couldn't buy from England. Many small farmers grew cotton without slaves. Putting an export tariff on cotton made the English start buying elsewhere, creating a glut in the market and lowering the price of cotton to a loss for them. It made those southern farmers mad to have their livelihood taken from them by the tyrannical bills passed in congress. And they knew that the mill owners were buying cheap cotton and profiting on their hard sweat and labor.
Even the factory workers blamed those mill owners in the northeast. When their husbands and sons began to die in the first two years of the war, there were riots by those families around the mills. They knew who to blame.
Lincoln himself came up with the idea of the government buying out slaves from their owners. But congress did not want to spend the money.
I attribute the loss of 260,000 southern soldiers and 360,000 northern soldiers in that war to both inaction on Lincoln's idea and to the tyrannical action passing those tariffs to cripple the southern economy. Let's put the blame where it should be and that is the greed of the wealthy factory owners and their cronies in congress.
We also have to remember that secession in the 1800s was talked about before and not by the south. The northeastern states threatened to secede if the US went through with the Louisiana Purchase in 1803. The south was not the first on wanting to secede.
What we seem to ignore is that FACT that the Southern states did in fact have the legal right to secede when they did. It was the US government that was wrong in the whole deal!
It had worked for the folks in the Revolution, so the South had every reason to believe it would have worked in 1861. Remember, before the War Between the States, people used plural verbs when discussing the United States i.e. the United States are going to do something. It was only after that it became singular. If we are in this thing voluntarily, why can't we get out? If we acknowledge Kosovo's right to be independent, then can't SC be again, too?
Remember that it was James Petigru, South Carolina's greates Unionis, who said "South Carolina is too small to be a republic and to large to be an insane asylum"