Emancipation Proclamation: War no longer over slavery?

[TheRuins]

Re: Emancipation Proclamation: War no longer over slavery?

Your questions I think highlight the importance of the 1st and 2nd Confiscations Acts, which are often non mentioned with the EP.

Was there any discussion, though, of issuing it as a law that also applied to loyal areas? That would have been obviously illegal, wouldn't it? As Denis Branca says above, Chief Justice Taney was right there ready to babysit what Lincoln did, and I'd think that confiscating private property of loyal citizens and just abandoning it (rather than putting it to some specific, necessary use, as in eminent domain) would have been too blatantly unconstitutional to attempt, even beyond the political implications.

I'm not sure, but I suspect that there was some debate over whether or not to extend the EP to loyal states, but I think it would have unnecessarily created political controversy; also keep in mind that among the "loyal" border states, MO and KY had pretty much by late 1862 fallen to Federal Military Control--so the 1st & 2nd Confiscation Acts still applied to those states.

As to the legality of extending the Act, the only legal problem I see is Constitutional--The EP was an executive order, and didn't come from congress (based on the assumption that slaves were a form of interstate commerce and it was the purview of the legislature, not the Executive).

Along those same lines, do you think there was any hope (or fear) in the north that the slaves would do what the south feared, once word of the EP hit? The south accused the north of trying to start a slave rebellion and create a blood-bath as slaves rose against their former masters. Instead, of course, what happened was that slaves mostly continued to just walk away.
It didn't create a whole host of Nat Turners.

Again, I'm not an expert on the specific literature on this particular issue, but from what I've read, the war itself, and esp. the EP did cause more intractable behavior from slaves, which often manifested in violence, but on the whole I think (going back to the 1st and 2nd Confiscation Acts) that the template had been established--slaves were just content to flee and walk away from their masters, many of whom were women by late 1863. There was no bloody Haitian Revolution or Nat Turner scenario necessary to gain freedom, and I think many northern politicians, esp. Lincoln, recognized as such, although they could have expressed some concerns or doubts.

I wonder if Lincoln and other pro-EP politicians secretly hoped the slaves would rebel, or feared the slaves would rebel and make the US government appear to be instigating war crimes, or were they confident the slaves would just walk away, as actually happened?

I think Lincoln and other pro-EP politicians were counting on slaves to continue what they were doing without much bloodshed--just leave plantations and escape bondage; I have no primary sources to prove if there was or wasn't speculation, but considering how quickly Lincoln decided to arm African Americans, I think it's safe to say based the vast majority of their behavior, Lincoln was hedging his bets. Certainly there was some risk involved, but many historians have pointed out how Lincoln's opinion on both slavery and blacks evolved as the war progressed.

Put simply, he was counting on slaves to just continue what they had been doing since the war started--running away from plantations, flooding union lines (not in the Northern states, mind you) and depriving the Confederacy as a source of manpower for their economy and military.

In many ways, I think the 1st and 2nd Confiscation Acts are just as important as the EP and provide a firm military, political, and economic understanding of the EP; I know I have not directed you to any specific literature, but I know STephen Oates, Eric Foner, and James McPherson would be really helpful.

On the subject of Union soldiers fighting for issues surrounding slavery, check out McPherson's For Cause and Comrades, which is based solely on soldiers' letters.

Hope these posts have been helpful.

CLS

[2nd Lt. Samuel Teague]

Re: Emancipation Proclamation: War no longer over slavery?

There is an excellent book made from the diary of Col. Charles Wainwright who fought with the army of the Potomac from 1861 through 1865. In one of his letters, Wainwright refers to the abolitionists as follows:

"

October 5, 1862...The President's abolition proclamation seems to cause a good deal of excitement in New York, as do all the radical movements. It seems sometimes as if these fellows, having now got the power in their own hands, meant to force all their vile notions upon the country as war measures. Lincoln, if one could judge from his earlier speeches and sayings, does not approve them. Still, he appears to be gradually yielding to their constant pressure."

In Wainwright's January 4th, 1863 journal entry, he continues to be agitated by Lincoln's decision to issue the emancipation proclamation.

"To my mind he is thus only doing all in his power to turn into rebels those who have heretofore been union men, and still to further embitter the feelings of all; while it will tend to divide the people of the northern states and may make rebels of Maryland and Kentucky."

Earlier in the book, Wainwright identifies himself as a Democrat and a loyal McClellan man. It isn't quite clear whether Wainwright continued these feelings, or if he simply was bitter about Lincoln by 1863, as were many men in the Army of the Potomac by this point in the war. It still is quite the interesting perspective on one of our now most studied and loved Presidents. Again, the book is called A Diary of battle: The Personal Journals of Col. Charles S. WainWright, 1861-1865 ISBN #0-306-80846-3

~Matt Wood