Hilzoy wishes Happy Birthday to the Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, which is one hundred and forty two today:
That on the first day of January in the year of our Lord, one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State, or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the executive government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom.
This morning my father mentioned one theory of how it was that Lincoln was able to so easily turn 1861's War to Hold the Union Together into 1863's War to Abolish Slavery. The theory was that in 1862 the War Democrats who had joined the Union army went south and, for the first time, saw slavery in action as it was--and then wrote back home.
Posted by DeLong at September 22, 2004 08:11 PM | TrackBackI'm just finishing up re(re(re(re)))-reading McPherson's "Battle Cry of Freedom". The theory your father cites is certainly one element McPherson metions. Another was the recognition that slave labor was a major boost to the CSAs war efforts, and freeing the slaves in CSA territory (or inducing them to flee to Union lines) was a way to weaken the enemy.
The latter, of course, was Lincoln's stated reason for the EP, and was the *military* rational he put forward to justify issuing it "by virtue of the power in me vested as Commander-In-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States in time of actual armed rebellion against the authority and government of the United States, and as a fit and necessary war measure for supressing said rebellion".
And, many thanks for reminding me to say "Happy Birthday Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation" today!
Posted by: Jim at September 22, 2004 08:31 PMYeah, those Union troops, freed from the mills and the mines, exposed to the fresh air, found the South so bucolic and pastoral, their lurid prose back home about, "these Dixon lands are surely closer to heaven than anywhere else on earth, and their Southern women surely the most fair to have tread so elegantly upon it", so upset their spoken-for Northern brides-to-be, and their hell-fire-and-brimstone Calvinist future fathers-in-law, that the torrent of protest mail pouring into the White House overwhelmed the US Postal Service, and thereby threatened to stop the Civil War in its tracks.
So Lincoln cast the old black magic on the whole business, 'free the poor slaves from their cruel Saddamite masters', and sure enough, it worked then, just as it's still working in Iraq today, here, one hundred and forty two years later.
In footnote, when the Rebs were routed and the infrastructure rubbleized, Lincoln sent in his carpetbaggers and bankers to finish the task.
Sound familiar?
If the popularity of the Confederacy even today is any indication, then we can expect a vibrant Iraqi resistance movement still causing trouble for the Union NeoCons far into the 23rd century.
Cheney was right. This is perpetual war, but not to free the slaves. To make *everyone* a slave, equally, indentured to the banks and government, driven off their land, stuck on some cul-de-sac subdivision, mortgaged to their eye teeth and trembling at work in front of their flickering computer monitor like a salivating dog, waiting for the chew toy ... or the lash.
Learn, or die.... The South shall rise again!
Posted by: Harry Possue at September 22, 2004 09:24 PMBrad writes: The theory was that in 1862 the War Democrats who had joined the Union army went south and, for the first time, saw slavery in action as it was--and then wrote back home.
And the fact that starting the rebellion (or - at least - pinning the Southern men at home to prevent one) would help to bring the Confederacy to its knees had nothing to do with it?
Posted by: a at September 22, 2004 10:26 PM"The South shall rise again!"
. . . and continue to accuse Northerners of being "unpatriotic" while embracing the Confederate flag -- if not a symbol of slavery, than a symbol of blatant treason.
Heck, why would the South rise? They own the entire friggin' government.
Ah, the Bible Belt. . . where "everyone else" is a hypocrite.
Posted by: Dragonchild at September 22, 2004 10:31 PMI get kinda upset when Yankees and Californians and suchlike completely gloss over this part
"the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States;"
without acknowledging that this means the Union states - those not then in rebellion - could KEEP slaves, and DID, for some years.
I think it's barbaric to celebrate this particular Proclamation, Brad: it condones slavery in the USA.
Root around for a subsequent document that frees all of them, OK?
Posted by: Johnny Reb at September 23, 2004 02:53 AMHappy Birthday!
Posted by: lise at September 23, 2004 04:17 AM"without acknowledging that this means the Union states - those not then in rebellion - could KEEP slaves, and DID, for some years."
In an earlier paragraph of the Proclamation, Lincoln references his proposal to Congress for compensated emacipation of slaves in territores not in rebellion.
You're too hard on Lincoln, when you criticze him for not including all slaves in the Proclamation. You have to think of this in terms of the legal constraints on the powers of the presidency.
The president, in the abstract, does't have the power to abolish slavery. After the Dred Scott decision, even Congress could't do it without paying for the slaves, any more than Congress today could take your house to contruct a highway without paying for it. A constitutional amendment, of course, could get around this problem, but amending the Constitution would require dealing with the legal status of the rebellious states--would they count among the 3/4 of the states that would have to approve an amendment?
Lincoln, being a rather clever lawyer, designed the Emancipation Proclamation as a way around all these legal obstacles. Emancipation was justified as a military measure against the rebels, within the president's powers as commanderin-chief, just as Lincoln could authorize federal troops to sieze food supplies in the south, or destroy railroads.
Of course, the president's commander-in-chief pwoers have their limts, and thus Lincoln couldn't use them to justify freeing slaves in territory not in rebellion. Lincoln understood, however, that the Proclamation would destroy slavery as an institution in this country, and that freedom for the rest of the slaves would inevitably follow.
Posted by: rea at September 23, 2004 05:39 AMBy 1863, the military had re-captured significant portions of the Confederacy and needed to have a policy for the slaves in those lands. To continue slavery would have made the union army responsible for enforcing slavery. This was not a popular policy. The union army had enough problems with the Confederate army without having to deal with slave revolts and escapees. The emancipation proclamation was meant to be a blow to the southern economy. Large losses of slave labor would further the manpower shortage in the Confederate states.
The problem became really acute during Sherman's march to the sea when his army was followed by legions of former slaves. Sherman did not really have the resources to feed them all and some of his commanders behaved very badly resulting in deaths of many former slaves. Sherman hired some of the black men into the army as part of his pioneer corp, but believed that the former slaves could not just be turned loose with no prospect for livelihood. The US settled on the policy of 40 acres and a mule and settled former slaves on land abandoned by their former masters.
Posted by: bakho at September 23, 2004 07:19 AMhttp://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/23/opinion/23gates.html?hp
When Candidates Pick Voters
By HENRY LOUIS GATES Jr.
The Voting Rights Act - signed into law on Aug. 6, 1965 - was a high point of the civil rights era. In 1965, there were 5 black members of Congress; today there are 39. No single piece of legislation since the 14th Amendment has had such a measurable and dramatic effect on the political fortunes of black Americans.
What's not so clear is whether the effect is now mainly a positive one.
In 1965, in the infamous "Bloody Sunday" police riot on Pettus Bridge in Selma, a young civil rights leader named John Lewis risked his life for the cause of black enfranchisement. Yet two years ago, the same John Lewis, now a congressman from Georgia, found himself accused by John Ashcroft's Justice Department of violating the Voting Rights Act.
That's because he and his fellow Georgia Democrats backed a plan to reduce the concentration of minority voters in various districts. And Section 5 of the act prohibits "retrogression": a change in district boundaries that would diminish a district's percentage of black voters.
It sounds like some political "Freaky Friday": was Mr. Ashcroft really trying to protect black Georgians from Mr. Lewis? Not exactly.
Mr. Lewis says Georgia is now a place where black candidates can be elected by black-white coalitions. "More and more, black and white voters, especially in the South, see that they're in the same boat," he says. "A lot of issues, like protecting the environment, creating jobs, protecting neighborhoods, cleaning up a toxic site, or trying to do something about Iraq, have very little to do with race."
Meanwhile, Mr. Ashcroft's record shows little concern for black voters but abundant concern for Republican candidates. As governor of Missouri, he vetoed two bills designed to redress racial inequalities in voter registration.
As U.S. attorney general, he has effectively seconded the Justice Department's Voting Section to the G.O.P. Remember Tom DeLay's plan to redistrict Texas to gain seats for Republicans? As Jeffrey Toobin has reported in The New Yorker, career lawyers at the Voting Section had drafted a long internal memo arguing that the DeLay plan would illegally dilute minority voting power. But late last year, Mr. Ashcroft's political staff approved the plan anyway. Come November, you'll see the results.
The creation of black-majority districts was necessary when the Democratic Party had a monopoly in the South, and whites would almost never vote for blacks. But since 1990, districting deals between Republicans and black Democrats have led to political mischief. Shepherding black voters into black districts left other districts lily-white - and skewed to the right. You saw the consequences in 1994, when the House came under Republican control.
In Georgia and elsewhere, there has been a clash between what the constitutional scholar Richard Pildes calls "descriptive" and "substantive" representation. Descriptive representation is centered on the symbolism of skin: a black face for a black constituency. But it came at the cost of substantive representation - the likelihood that lawmakers, taken as a whole, would represent the group's substantive interests. Blacks were winning battles but losing the war as conservative Republicans beat white moderate Democrats.
Still, Georgia v. Ashcroft - finally settled in favor of the Georgia Democrats by the Supreme Court - is really a symptom of a bigger problem: not racial districting but partisan districting. "The United States is the only country that places the power to draw election districts in the hands of self-interested political actors," Mr. Pildes says. "The joke is that the voters don't really choose the candidates; the candidates choose their voters."
Harry Possue,
The South has Risen.
It is in charge of the Presidency and it controls the Congress of these United States of America.
And now that you've done the plantation owners bidding and smashed the evil yankee tyranny - the federal government of the USA, are you happy with your works? Is this the ground that will build a new Jerusalem?
I beg of you, son of the South, heed not the men who would harness your pride for their evil designs.
Bakho -- 40 acres and a mule was never U.S. government policy. It was just a promise made by Sherman personally. What you say about the ex-slaves following Sherman is true, but "the U.S." never settled on that policy, just Sherman.
I suppose the ratification of the 13th amendment might be a more fitting thing to celebrate, if you want to celebrate the freedom of all slaves. That would be December 18th, 1865. Alternatively, there's Juneteenth (June 19th), the liberation of the last slaves in Texas.
Historians! Did states like Missouri keep their slaves until the ratification of the 13th amendment, or did they abolish it before June 19th, making Texas really the last place to have its slaves freed? Or is Juneteenth just the last slaves freed under Emancipation Proclamation, but other states (like Missouri, etc) kept their slaves, which were later freed under the 13th amendment? I ought to know this, but I don't.
Posted by: Julian Elson at September 23, 2004 12:11 PMJulian- That was a field order from Sherman that had the support of Lincoln's cabinet. It made a lot of sense at the time. The order was in effect for one year, but some people received permanent property. Some islands off the Georgia coast are still owned by black descendents of ex-slaves. Some land was given and then reneged.
Posted by: bakho at September 23, 2004 06:13 PMJulian -- FWIW, this site (http://www.slavenorth.com/author.htm)
asserts that slavery was legal in Delaware until the 13th Amendment took effect.
The Kentucky Historical Society
http://history.ky.gov/Research/FAQs_African_American.htm
states that slavery was legal in Kentucky until the 13th Amendment took effect.
The web site of the Office of the Secretary of State for Missouri
http://www.sos.mo.gov/archives/resources/africanamerican/guide/image005c.asp
states that Missouri passed an ordinance on 11 January 1865 abolishing slavery in Missouri.
So, slavery in the US persisted beyond June 19, 1865, but had already been abolished in Mo.
Best,
Jim
As to the relationship between slavery and the origins of the Civil War, I believe the secessionists stated their motives quite clearly. In particular, four states (SC, MS, GA, and TX) issued "declarations of the causes of secession". They can be found at
http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/reasons.html
In particular, the Mississippi secessionists stated:
"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world."
While those of Georgia said:
"The prohibition of slavery in the Territories is the cardinal principle of [the Republican party].
And those of Texas asserted:
"We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable."
"... [T]hat the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations"
The secessionists chose to fight the lawfully elected government of the US to protect their ability to expand slavery. The unionists choose to fight to preserve our nation.
In 1862, Lincoln recognized that by freeing the slaves in those areas under rebellion, he would weaken the rebellion. I, for one, and very happy he did so.
Best,
Jim