Emancipation Proclamation: War no longer over slavery?

[Hank Trent]

Re: Emancipation Proclamation: War no longer over slavery?

I take it we are primarily looking for abolitionists in the Garrisonian tradition: immediatist, integrationist, and full of an evangelical fervor against the institution. Who are distinct from most Republicans, Lincoln included, who are first and foremost anti-slavery: free soil men opposed to slavery's expansion and the "slave power" in Congress.

Yes, I was looking for those who were for abolition, in the sense that they wanted this to be a war to end slavery. Whether they cared about blacks as individuals, or wanted racial equality, is irrelevant.

However, it now seems that those people were generally very supportive of the Emancipation Proclamation. And most people in general saw it as a sign that the war was indeed becoming more of a war to end slavery, whether they wanted that or not.

So now I'm especially puzzled about Seward's comments that I quoted in my first post. If most people thought the proclamation made the war more about slavery, why did he, as secretary of state, say, "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..."?

Read literally, the September 1862 Emancipation Proclamation really does seem to be saying, if you quit rebelling in the next three months, you can all keep your slaves; we don't care. Seward was right.

But apparently the literal words didn't matter. The spirit behind the proclamation was what thrilled the abolitionists and upset those who didn't want to "fight for the negroes."

Edited to add: Maybe I'm reading Seward wrong. Maybe he is saying that ending slavery and union are both priorities now. Can't tell. I think now that it could be read both ways.

Also, anybody have any ideas about that letter from Baltimore I quoted above? Why would the emancipation proclamation help with recruiting?

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

[lukegilly13]

Re: Emancipation Proclamation: War no longer over slavery?

I've always enjoyed reading about the ranking officers playing political games at the battle of Petersburg. Hank, it's maybe not EXACTLY what you're looking for but it may turn up good information. When I get home I can cite particulars, however the great charge was intended to be lead by a "colored troop". It was rejected by Burnside who believed the major assault might just end the war and he didn't want the black soldiers to get the credit.

[Gallinipper]

Re: Emancipation Proclamation: War no longer over slavery?

Maybe he is saying that ending slavery and union are both priorities now. Can't tell. I think now that it could be read both ways.

Hank,

"Both ways" may be an excellent choice of words actually. Just my $.02 worth, but that is how I read it, also. It is not a Union with conditional slavery that will be maintained now.

From what I understand of Seward's character, he was a bit of a "have our cake and eat it too" kind of guy anyway.

Rich Croxton

[bAcK88]

Re: Emancipation Proclamation: War no longer over slavery?

I've always enjoyed reading about the ranking officers playing political games at the battle of Petersburg. Hank, it's maybe not EXACTLY what you're looking for but it may turn up good information. When I get home I can cite particulars, however the great charge was intended to be lead by a "colored troop". It was rejected by Burnside who believed the major assault might just end the war and he didn't want the black soldiers to get the credit.

Are you referring about the Crater? If so, you're incorrect about Burnside.

The 4th Division of the 9th Corps (USCT division) was intended to lead the charge on Pegram's Battery after the mine had been sprung. Since it was the only division that hadn't seen extended combat during the Overland Campaign, Burnside wanted to use it. Now the 4th Division hadn't seen combat during that campaign because the higher-ups in the AoP were not sure how these black soldiers would react to combat, so they were kept in the rear, while the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Divisions (like the rest of the AoP) were bled white. By late June, early July of 1864, those divisions were experiencing shell shock or battle fatigue, and while it wasn't called that back then, the commanders could still recognize it. Anyway, it was because of this reason that Burnside selected the 4th Division to lead the assault.

However, Meade being Meade, thought that because the 4th Division had yet to see combat, they were unreliable (ironic isn't it) and so he forced Burnside begin the assault with the white divisions. Grant also had reservations about using the 4th Division, but it was more out of fear of Northern reaction if the assault failed and the USCTs took heavy casualties. Northern reaction would be that the black soldiers were needlessly expended on a doomed assault, and with 1864 being a reelection year, Grant wanted to avoid that negative press.

So in the end, the division that was training this assault from the get-go was put in the rear hours before it began, and an unprepared, ill-equipped white division was put in its place.

BB

[DougCooper]

Re: Emancipation Proclamation: War no longer over slavery?

I have the great good luck to have both slave owners and abolitionists in the family who served on both sides. The slave owners (Louisiana officers) went to war to preserve their property and way of life. Economic ruin would result from losing the war, EP or not. I wish I could find one of their letters that discusses the EP, but one was dead and the other invalided out by Sept 62.

The abolishionists come from a long line of such including the Adams family from Massachusetts, as well as Wisconsin and New Hampshire. Many of them were active before the war in the cause, but again, no letters yet discovered on reaction to the EP. Nobody quit or joined the other side though, so I assume they thought it OK. :)

[ewtaylor]

Re: Emancipation Proclamation: War no longer over slavery?

Hank,
This has nothing to do with your initial question, please forgive me. I just thought I would relate some family history of my own.
My 4th great grandfather, William Feazell (Feasel), was a teacher in Franklin and Henry counties Virginia. He was a staunch abolitionist, along with the members of his church. One day, in 1860, he was arrested for teaching slave children to read and write. He spent a day under arrest until it was found out he was actually teaching free mulatto children. Apologies were issued but he moved his family to Raliegh County (now in West Virgina) because he felt his name had been ruined. About four other families from the church moved west with my family.
In 1861, two of his sons went back to Franklin county and joined the 57th Va. Inf. William volunteered his services to the local Confederate militia group as a doctor, but did not leave the area when they did.

The older of the 2 sons, Sgt. Joab Feazell (who later became Sheriff of Charleston, WV) was wounded at Gettysburg. After the War he was asked why a man so against slavery would risk his life to preserve it. He stated he hated slavery, but thought it wrong for the Federal Gov't to invade the South to end it.

So here is an example of Southern Abolitionists fighting for the South.

[mudlark]

Re: Emancipation Proclamation: War no longer over slavery?

There is no reason to get rude, since you do not agree with Hanks assertion i can see why you would get bent out of shape. If i was not clear before I do not believe the north was fighting to end slavery but I do believe the south’s primary aim was to keep it.

So when debating the cause of the war you must look at whom you are talking about northern farmer or southern farmer, southern aristocrat or northern aristocrat, ext. Here Hank is debating the northern governments War aims. I am simply agreeing with my good friend Hank and adding to the conversation. But since you bring it up Mr. White where are your quotes?

PM sent your way.

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Emancipation Proclamation: War no longer over slavery?

Hallo!

"Anti" comments are easier, but here goes...

Connecticut private Uriah Parmelee wrote to his mother, April 18, 1862:

"I am fighting for Liberty, for the slave & the white man alike."

Feeling that constitutional guarantees of slavery had been "one & all forfeited by the rebel slave owners & slave drivers of the South."

Writing to his brother on April 23, 1863 Parmelee wrote:

"I am more of an abolitionist that ever-- right up to the handle--if I had money enough to raise a few hundred contrabands & arm them I'd et up an insurrection among the slaves--told Capt. I'd desert to do it."

and

"The present contest will indeed, settle the question for some years at least, as to whether Union or Secession, the Constitution or Rebellion shall triumph."

warning

"...but the great heart wound, Slavery, will not be reached."

To his mother, he wrote on September 8, 1862:

"I thought that the progress of events must surely bring about universal Emancipation, this either as an indirect result of our subduing the rebels, or a direct result of the light which would dawn on men's minds."

After the Proclamation, to his father on September 29th, 1862:

"I do not intend to shirk now there really is something to fight for--I mean Freedom. Since the First of January it has become more & more evident to my mind that the war is henceforth to be conducted upon a different basis. Those who profess to love the Union are not so anxious to preserve Slavery, while those who are opposed to the war acknowledge in all their actions that its continuance will put an end to that accursed system. So then I am willing to remain & endure whatever may fall to my share."

Promoted to Lieutenant in the 1st Conn. Cavalry for bravery at Chancellorsville, then to captain for his actions as Ashland, he was capture during the Valley Campaign.
He escaped and returned to duty. He was killed at Five Forks on April 1, 1865.

Private Oren Farr, a New Hampshire Republican wrote to his wife on January 12, 1863:

"But slavery is a curse to a nation and to humanity not so much to the slave as to the holders"

Former New York farmer, Private John Foote, wrote to his father from Virginia on May 22, 1863:

"I thought to myself that it was no wonder there was war as long as slavery was in the land. It is not only a 'Relic of barbarism' but is barbarism itself. I almost pitied the very soil. I[t] seemed as if it were crying out for deliverance."

Recruiter James Ayers, a Methodist minister wrote in his diary (I don't have the date...)

"And my friends who you Reflect that this is a A war for slavery waged by those ungodly Southern Slave drivers and Slave breeders, to spread there [sic] unholy and monstrous sistom [sic] of making merchandise of Human soals [sic] all over this best of all governments and thereby blot out our fair name as A free people and Destroy our free institutions and make us Alike, all not only stink in the Nostrils of men but of God himself and A proverb and A Hissing to the world who will then be astonished at our zeal in this Defensive war, for Defensive it is."


After the victories at Vicksburg and Gettysburg, Lt. William Lusk of New York wrote (I don't have the date...):

"Slavery has fallen, and I believe Heaven as well as earth rejoices."

Former Unionist Virginian David Strother serving in the Federal army had been an opponent of the Proclamation, but wrote in his diary on October 10, 1863:

"When the Emancipation Proclamation came the war took a turn & the Rebellion [sic] has been going under from that day."

Curt

[LeftCoastYank]

Re: Emancipation Proclamation: War no longer over slavery?

Hey Pards,

Forgive my reviving a fairly cold thread without a worthwhile contribution (seriously, I am always SO VERY impressed with the academic depth of knowledge so many folks posses). This was a particularly great thread to read, there were some great first-hand quotations.

My question is, where were these abolishionist/anti-slavery soldiers typically from? Did they tend to end up in the same units, if so which units? I've always been quite interested in this specific topic, but I've not come across many specifics in my readings.

Sorry if this has be covered elsewhere, I'm admittedly not the most sophisticated AC searcher. . .

[flattop32355]

Re: Emancipation Proclamation: War no longer over slavery?

From the book "Brother Against Brother: The Lost Civil War Diary of Lt. Edmund Halsey", p74:

"The proclamation issued by the President is either the best thing or the worst thing which could be done - Best if it does not irritate the border states or divide us."

Edmund was from an abolitionist family in New Jersey. He went to war more to eliminate slavery than to preserve the Union. His elder brother, Joe, had married a Southern girl, owned a plantation and slaves, and was fighting in the ANV.

[LWhite64]

Re: Emancipation Proclamation: War no longer over slavery?

One thing to remember, Anti-Slavery and Abolitionist need not be the same thing, although all Abolitionists were Anti Slavery, all Anti-Slavery men were not Abolitionists. Basically, Abolitionists opposed slavery for moral and religious reasons, ie Slavery is wrong. Anti-Slavery could oppose slavery for more practical reasons, ie not wanting to have to compete with slave labor on the frontier, etc. Check out Eric Foner's Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men, and for a real quick answer google Free Labor.

Lee

[lukegilly13]

Re: Emancipation Proclamation: War no longer over slavery?

.... you're incorrect about Burnside.....
BB

Sorry it has taken me so long to reply but the reviving of the thread made me realize that I owed you credit. You are correct and I was mispoken. I do however, think that the motives of the commanders associated with Petersburg is debatable. I find it difficult to believe that they would think that the "shell shocked" soldiers would be of better use than the well trained division.

This time I do plan to go home and revisit my Petersburg books. Thanks for the correction.

[TheRuins]

Re: Emancipation Proclamation: War no longer over slavery?

Edited to add: Maybe I'm reading Seward wrong. Maybe he is saying that ending slavery and union are both priorities now. Can't tell. I think now that it could be read both ways.

Also, anybody have any ideas about that letter from Baltimore I quoted above? Why would the emancipation proclamation help with recruiting?

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

Hank:

I can't speak to what extent Union soldiers supported or hated the EP, but I think your take on Seward's interpretation of the EP is spot on. I'm pretty sure there's some stuff written on this issue--I'm just not familiar with it.

I teach a CW class, and have a rather lengthy lecture on the EP and the evolution of the decision to eventually free the slaves.

First, a few observations: True, the act was a political one designed to elicit more support for the war in the northern states, but it was also can be viewed as military tool to weaken the Confederacy. It's very important to understand the military's policy early in the war was shaped by the 1st and 2nd Confiscations Acts, which was in response to the Confederacy using slave labor to build fortifications and assist the war effort.

Here's a good summary:

http://www.usgennet.org/usa/mo/county/stlouis/ct.htm

Lincoln said it himself, that his paramount object was to save the Union. In the beginning of the war, if he could do it without getting rid of slavery, he would have. But enough bloodbaths had convinced him (as well as others) that saving the Union included having a Union without slavery, which explains why the act had a direct political and military purpose.

By issuing the EP as a law that only applied to rebelling states, it only continued a phenomenon that had begun when the war started: slaves were leaving plantations and the EP served to only continue the process, and deprive the Confederacy of an important source of labor, not only to produce staple crops, but laboring for the army.

Many use the rather complicated and nuanced history of the EP to claim that it was just a "political" act and since it didn't apply to slaves in the borders states, then it was meaningless: this argument simply denies what happened--it was both a military and political calculation to not only deprive the Confederacy of a source of labor, but to transform the war into something much "higher" than just saving the Union, or as you interpret Seward, he along with many, many others came to the conclusion that any "Union" that was saved had to be somehow without the institution of slavery.

I think there's actually two lines of discussion in this thread--the political and military purposes of the EP and what the soldiers thought about the act, which I think are two different questions altogether. I know the latter has elicited a lot more conflicting interpretations among historians.

[OldState]

Re: Emancipation Proclamation: War no longer over slavery?

Maybe the reason for Seward's ambiguous language had to do with Chief Justice Taney and the Supreme Court. In Ex parte Merryman the year before, Taney made it clear he was going to enforce constitutional limitations on Lincoln's prosecution of the war. In Merryman, Taney noted that Lincoln had exercised legislative powers in suspending habeas corpus (only Congress has that power Article I Sec. 9). Here again Lincoln is exercising legislative powers. If the the southern states were always part of the Union, as the Lincoln administration maintained, then slaves could only be freed by Congress.

I would be interested in knowing how many soldiers understood the constitutionality of the EP and dismissed it as political posturing.

[Hank Trent]

Re: Emancipation Proclamation: War no longer over slavery?

Surprised to see this thread resurrected!

By issuing the EP as a law that only applied to rebelling states, it only continued a phenomenon that had begun when the war started: slaves were leaving plantations and the EP served to only continue the process, and deprive the Confederacy of an important source of labor, not only to produce staple crops, but laboring for the army.

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.

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.

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?

Hank Trent
hanktrent@gmail.com