I know this is an old topic, but I believe this is a new spin on it, so bear with me. :)
I just read the Emancipation Proclamation, and here's what struck me. It was issued in two parts, the September announcement that slaves in disloyal areas would be declared free in January, and the statement in January announcing what those areas were.
So in September 1862, the areas where slaves would soon be declared free were subject to change. Any area that stopped rebelling in the next three months, could keep their slaves. The proclamation could actually be seen as a way of encouraging slavery within the Union, or at least offering it as a bribe for loyalty. In fact, that's how Secretary Seward spun it overseas in a September circular:
If I were an abolitionist who'd signed up to fight against slavery in 1861, I'd be mad. Now, suddenly, between September and January, the more victories we had, the more areas might give up rebelling, and therefore the more slave territory there would be, come January. I'd literally be fighting for the expansion of slavery in the U.S. Ouch.
Historians typically say that the Emancipation Proclamation changed the war in the north from one about preserving the union, to one about ending slavery. For example, Bruce Catton:
Typically, also, it's reported that there was discontent among some soldiers in the Union army after the Proclamation, since it changed the avowed purpose of the war to a war against slavery, and they said they hadn't joined to fight for negroes.
And yet, taken at face value, reading the text as I might in September 1862, I don't see it that way. In fact, just the opposite. So here, at long last, is my question.
Has anyone run across examples of abolitionist Union soldiers, reporting unhappiness with the Emancipation Proclamation in the fall of 1862, for the reasons above? Or was the negative reaction only among non-abolitionist ones, who didn't like the war becoming more about slavery?
Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net
I just read the Emancipation Proclamation, and here's what struck me. It was issued in two parts, the September announcement that slaves in disloyal areas would be declared free in January, and the statement in January announcing what those areas were.
So in September 1862, the areas where slaves would soon be declared free were subject to change. Any area that stopped rebelling in the next three months, could keep their slaves. The proclamation could actually be seen as a way of encouraging slavery within the Union, or at least offering it as a bribe for loyalty. In fact, that's how Secretary Seward spun it overseas in a September circular:
In the opinion of the President, the moment has come to... make [southerners] understand that if these States persist in imposing upon the country the choice between the dissolution of this Government... and the abolition of Slavery, it is the Union, and not Slavery, that must be maintained and saved. With this object, the President is about to publish a Proclamation... (Seward's Circular to American Representatives Abroad, published in the New York Times, Oct. 27, 1862)
Historians typically say that the Emancipation Proclamation changed the war in the north from one about preserving the union, to one about ending slavery. For example, Bruce Catton:
Until that moment, the Federal Government was fighting solely to restore the Union; officially, slavery had nothing at all to do with the war. Once the proclamation was signed, the Government was also fighting for human freedom.
And yet, taken at face value, reading the text as I might in September 1862, I don't see it that way. In fact, just the opposite. So here, at long last, is my question.
Has anyone run across examples of abolitionist Union soldiers, reporting unhappiness with the Emancipation Proclamation in the fall of 1862, for the reasons above? Or was the negative reaction only among non-abolitionist ones, who didn't like the war becoming more about slavery?
Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net
Comment