The Great Emancipator?

[OriginalWheelman]

Ok, I'm sick of this erroneous use of the emancipation proclamation. Fact: Abraham Lincoln did NOT abolish slavery with the Emancipation Proclamation. He issued a decree to set free all slave IN THE STATES THAT HAD SECEDED and failed to return by a certain date. The Confederate States of America were a separate country back then. It would be the same as if tomorrow Obama wrote a proclamation setting free all slaves in Sudan. It meant absolutely nothing. He had no power. It was a tactic to get states to rejoin the Union.

The Emancipation Proclamation consists of two executive orders issued by United States President Abraham Lincoln during the American Civil War. The first one, issued September 22, 1862, declared the freedom of all slaves in any state of the Confederate States of America that did not return to Union control by January 1, 1863. The second order, issued January 1, 1863, named the specific states where it applied.

The Emancipation Proclamation was widely attacked at the time as freeing only the slaves over which the Union had no power. In practice, it committed the Union to ending slavery, which was a controversial decision even in the North. Lincoln issued the Executive Order by his authority as "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy" under Article II, section 2 of the United States Constitution.

The proclamation did not free any slaves of the border states (Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, Delaware, and West Virginia), or any southern state (or part of a state) already under Union control.[1] It first directly affected only those slaves who had already escaped to the Union side. Hearing of the Proclamation, more slaves quickly escaped to Union lines as the Army units moved South. As the Union armies conquered the Confederacy, thousands of slaves were freed each day until nearly all (approximately 4 million, according to the 1860 census[2]) were freed by July 1865.

After the war, abolitionists were concerned that since the proclamation was a war measure, it had not permanently ended slavery. Several former slave states passed legislation prohibiting slavery; however, some slavery continued to be legal, and to exist, until the institution was ended by the sufficient states' ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment on December 18, 1865.

Slavery existed legally in the Union until the 13th amendment. The Emancipation Proclamation was made to scare states into the union. It did set the political climate for the 13th, but that was over two years later and took the work of many men.

[Cold_Zero]

The reality is this.Lincoln had worked with State Legislatures in the North promising them Federal Funds to compensate Slave Owners for their losses if the Legislature outlawed slavery. Obviously the State Legislatures did not go along with it.

The Emancipation Proclamation is an Executive Order that invoked the War Powers of the President of the United States. The thought was that since the Southern Confederacy's economy revolved around slave labor, if you freed and seized their slaves you would disrupt the ability of your enemy's ability to wage war.

Most people and I must admit it was taught to me as a kid as being a civil executive order (being justified as the right thing to do for the country) and not a militaristic act. Had they not been able to tie it (loosely) to the Civil War effort, they may not have been able to free the slaves, later. I do not believe that Lincoln was an Abolitionist, but I think General Grant was one.

NPR had a segment on this topichttp://www.npr.org/templates/s...06257

bud

[Cold_Zero]

Ok, I'm sick of this erroneous use of the emancipation proclamation. Fact: Abraham Lincoln did NOT abolish slavery with the Emancipation Proclamation.

But it did forge the way for the freeing of the slave to happen later.

Quote »He issued a decree to set free all slave IN THE STATES THAT HAD SECEDED and failed to return by a certain date. The Confederate States of America were a separate country back then. It would be the same as if tomorrow Obama wrote a proclamation setting free all slaves in Sudan. It meant absolutely nothing. He had no power. It was a tactic to get states to rejoin the Union. [/quote]True the proclamation was issued in the Confederate States, but the Confederacy according to the United States of America (North) were viewed as rebellious states and not another country. The example that you stated is a bit of a stretch because #1 we are not at war with Sudan #2 Sudan is a sovereign country and the US has no sovereign rule in the country.

The Proclamation wasn't a tactic to get states to rejoin the Union, it was a militaristic tactic to disrupt the Southern War effort.bud

Slavery existed legally in the Union until the 13th amendment. The Emancipation Proclamation was made to scare states into the union. It did set the political climate for the 13th, but that was over two years later and took the work of many men.

[Stev0n]

I, too, watched the History channel last night.

[Cold_Zero]

What was on History Channel last night?

I was watching National Geographic Channel (HD), 'Secret Experiments of the CIA.' Which was disturbing. And we have problems with Gitmo? Sheesh.

[OriginalWheelman]

I, too, watched the History channel last night.

umm.... I don't have cable. I don't know what you're talking about.

But it did forge the way for the freeing of the slave to happen later.

True the proclamation was issued in the Confederate States, but the Confederacy according to the United States of America (North) were viewed as rebellious states and not another country. The example that you stated is a bit of a stretch because #1 we are not at war with Sudan #2 Sudan is a sovereign country and the US has no sovereign rule in the country.

The Proclamation wasn't a tactic to get states to rejoin the Union, it was a militaristic tactic to disrupt the Southern War effort.bud

I realize the analogy with the Sudan is different, but I was trying to convey the point that the states had legally seceded, and in their eyes were a sovereign nation. I merely used the Sudan because slavery is still in practice there. I personally do not believe force should have been used on the south, but that's another story.It was as much of a scare tactic as a military tactic. As the Union army advanced, they freed the slaves along the way. The states not yet under attack had to hear about this happening and think if they wanted to turn back to the union, or have your slaves taken away when the union came marching through.
Modified by OriginalWheelman at 10:05 AM 1/22/2009

[Stev0n]

lol it was like 3 hours about abe lincoln : man or myth

well 1 hour about him, 1 hour about the owner of ebony magazine calling him a bad man (lol), and 1 hours about john wilkes booth's last 12 days (time of assassination to time of his death).

[Cold_Zero]

Was it any good?

[themadscientist]

I, too, watched the History channel last night.

[Jesda]

This thread interests me. Please carry on.

[Cold_Zero]

A few things:The first Emancipation proclamation was not issued by President Lincoln but by General John C Fremont in Missouri during the Civil War. Lincoln was outraged that General Fremont had acted so boldly that President Lincoln rescinded the act for fear that it would incite border states to move to the Southern Cause.

The Republican Party was born out of the Democrat Party to push an Abolitionist Agenda, especially after the Missouri Compromise and the Kansas Nebraska Act.

After being granted the right to vote, of the freed slaves that voted (700,000) in the South almost exclusively voted for Ulysses S Grant. It was President Grant that instituted Reconstructionism that was more punitive to the South and protected the freed Slaves. (Southern) Democrat Andrew Johnson wanted a fast reconciliation of the South with the North and a return to the Status Quo in the South.And yes, it was Republican President Hayes that naively ended Reconstructionism in the South. He was foolish to think that if the White Aristocracy were returned to power, that they would protect the freed Slaves in a paternalistic effort. The reverse happened and they cracked down on the freed slaves and set the stage for segregation that we knew up to the Civil Rights Movement.

The KKK was a militant wing of the Democrat (Southern) Party, contrary to the revisionist history of today.

[liquid_cool]

have ya read that book "Lincoln"? at all..it allso has some interesting stories about him..i allso recomend the book "1776" both are exceptional.

[szh]

By far the best information on this whole issue is in the three-volume history by Shelby Foote, called The Civil War. The PBS 9 episode special was based on this book.

I have read it a number of times (lots of pages!) and still find it totally fascinating reading. Highly recommended!

Z

[Cold_Zero]

There is a lot of good stuff out there. I am still waiting for my sister in law to finish her book on Andrew Jackson, so I can steal it.