On January 1, 1863 Boston’s abolitionist community gathered on a cold, cloudy, and gloomy day in anticipation of the news that Abraham Lincoln had signed the Emancipation Proclamation.
“That this first day of the new year will prove the complement of the 4th of July 1776..."
Exactly. I see the Emancipation Proclamation as an addendum to the Declaration of Independence. And both of these documents required military action to be effective.
For those people- particularly Lost Causers- so desperate to believe that the EP was a useless measure, it makes me wonder how they really feel about Black people, and other Americans of color, for that matter. 160+ years later and they still can't deal with Black freedom. Good grief.
Lincoln's signature on this document has to be the most consequential of his Presidency...and certainly gave far more teeth to the equality of man articulated by our founders. Freedom became the battle cry and purpose for crushing the confederacy. We need to remember that.
Indeed, a great post. The article in North & South from which you took that map was one of the best things they published. An important distinction here---and I think this is what drove Lincoln to push for the 13th Amendment---is between de facto and de jure freedom. Slaves that had run away to Federal lines were only de facto emancipated prior to the EP; after the EP they were legally (de jure) emancipated so long as the rebellion (the underlying authority for the EP) was ongoing. It was an open legal question whether those slaves freed under the EP could be reclaimed once the rebellion was put down. (Personally, I find it hard to believe such a case could be made, but my track record on what is legally valid is not very good.) The many slaves in the Port Royal area as well as the huge numbers from Mississippi and Alabama who had run north to Federal lines were legally freed as of 1/1/1863.
And, yes, one still reads this "Lincoln did free anyone" line all the time.
Great post. I think it’s also important to note the political realities that constrained Lincoln. The Emancipation Proclamation reflected Lincoln’s understanding of the Constitution. Areas in rebellion no longer enjoyed constitutional protections of property, and thus the institution of slavery could be altered by unilateral executive action through Lincoln’s capacity as Commander in Chief. On the other hand, Lincoln, and most all moderate Republicans believed that slavery was protected by state law in areas not in rebellion. In those places, slavery could only be altered by state legislation or by a constitutional amendment. Lincoln worked very hard to encourage the border states to adopt emancipation legislation, and supported the abolition of slavery in Washington D.C., which was accomplished in April 1862. When the border states proved reluctant to pass emancipation measures, Lincoln used significant political capital to get the 13th Amendment passed. In short, Lincoln attacked slavery when and where he could given the constitutional constraints that the president has placed on him.
The North was just as racist as the South. The Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in the states that had seceded and were in active rebellion against the legally constituted authority of the Federal Government. If there had never been a Civil War and let us say Lincoln was the president, which he was during that time period, and let us say an agreement had been made with the slave holding states not to expand slavery into the territories. Slavery would have still been allowed to exist, and would have continued to exist until who knows when. It remains an unanswered question open to speculation. The year 1860 was only forty years away from 1900 and the 20th Century. I find it hard to believe that slavery would have continued into the 20th Century. It is such a ghastly institution.
"The Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in the states that had seceded and were in active rebellion against the legally constituted authority of the Federal Government."
I suggest you read the post and take a close look at the map. You will see the areas in red that, on January 1, 1863, were not in active rebellion against the US. The rest of your comment has nothing to do with this post.
It seems worth recalling that in 1858 in Chicago, Abraham Lincoln gave what’s remembered as his “electric cord” speech. He meant to persuade countrymen that even if they did not descend by blood from the founders at the time of the Declaration, they descended by philosophy. Excerpt:
We have besides these men—descended by blood from our ancestors—among us perhaps half our people who are not descendants at all of these men … . If they look back through this history to trace their connection with those days by blood, they find they have none, they cannot carry themselves back into that glorious epoch and make themselves feel that they are part of us, but when they look through that old Declaration of Independence they find that those old men say that “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,” and then they feel that that moral sentiment taught in that day evidences their relation to those men, that it is the father of all moral principle in them, and that they have a right to claim it as though they were blood of the blood, and flesh of the flesh of the men who wrote that Declaration, and so they are. That is the electric cord in that Declaration that links the hearts of patriotic and liberty-loving men together, that will link those patriotic hearts as long as the love of freedom exists in the minds of men throughout the world.
"I sing the body electric" was a sort of refrain often used in Walt Whitman's 'Song of Myself', an extended poem first published in 1855. The telegraph was quite new then and the idea that people could communicate instantaneously with others hundreds of miles away vastly expanded their nervous systems. Mesmerism was also popular then.
Teach in NE North Carolina and I make it a point to refer to Jan 1 as Emancipation Day in my classes. The number I see often is around 40-50,000 were freed on Jan. 1. Most of my students are familiar with Juneteenth but this is always a good lesson for them.
Just a quick note that I had to ban a reader today for abusing the comments section. Please stay on topic and please don't use this space simply to push your own agenda. Thank you.
You write: "There was nothing inevitable about the end of slavery during the war."
I find that hard to understand. Isn't it a given that the reason for secession was -ultimately- slavery, and that ending the war on secession (thus) inevitably involved abolition?
Or do you mean that there was nothing inevitable about an ultimate Union victory? I would very strongly disagree with that.
First, there is a wonderful new biography of Higginison by Douglas Egerton, which I highly recommend.
Secession was largely fueled by the divisive issue of slavery, but Lincoln made it clear that the war was being fought to preserve the Union. That remained his primary goal throughout, but emancipation gradually came to be seen as a means to achieve that end.
The EP was signed on January 1, 1863, but the war could have ended before this point. In that event, Lincoln would have achieved his primary goal and slavery would still remain largely intact.
I also believe that there was nothing inevitable about Union victory. The Confederacy came close to independence on more than one occasion. Suggesting otherwise ignores the importance of contingency.
Thanks. I understand this is a widely accepted view.
However, I think that any end to the war that would have allowed slavery to continue would have likely resulted in very short time in further conflicts, rebellions, and uprisings, making the war's conclusion merely temporary.
But the war didn't end that way of course, so it remains guesswork.
Despite this statement being factually incorrect, it is important to remember that enslaved people were freeing themselves even before January 1, 1863. I am reading the letters from a private in the 2nd Minnesota regiment. On March 31, 1862, his unit was near Columbia, Tennessee. He wrote his wife that, "The slaves are leaving their masters every day. There was a man in camp this morning a looking for one. He did not get much satisfaction from us." He added that some of the soldiers wished that all enslaved people and all of their masters were dead because they were ones who started the war.
From the text of the Proclamation: “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.”
I never denied that there were no Black Confederate soldiers. I discussed the men who were recruited in the last weeks of the war by the Confederate government. Once again, you are demonstrating your ignorance by showing that you never read the book. Do you enjoy embarrassing yourself in public?
“That this first day of the new year will prove the complement of the 4th of July 1776..."
Exactly. I see the Emancipation Proclamation as an addendum to the Declaration of Independence. And both of these documents required military action to be effective.
For those people- particularly Lost Causers- so desperate to believe that the EP was a useless measure, it makes me wonder how they really feel about Black people, and other Americans of color, for that matter. 160+ years later and they still can't deal with Black freedom. Good grief.
Lincoln's signature on this document has to be the most consequential of his Presidency...and certainly gave far more teeth to the equality of man articulated by our founders. Freedom became the battle cry and purpose for crushing the confederacy. We need to remember that.
Indeed, a great post. The article in North & South from which you took that map was one of the best things they published. An important distinction here---and I think this is what drove Lincoln to push for the 13th Amendment---is between de facto and de jure freedom. Slaves that had run away to Federal lines were only de facto emancipated prior to the EP; after the EP they were legally (de jure) emancipated so long as the rebellion (the underlying authority for the EP) was ongoing. It was an open legal question whether those slaves freed under the EP could be reclaimed once the rebellion was put down. (Personally, I find it hard to believe such a case could be made, but my track record on what is legally valid is not very good.) The many slaves in the Port Royal area as well as the huge numbers from Mississippi and Alabama who had run north to Federal lines were legally freed as of 1/1/1863.
And, yes, one still reads this "Lincoln did free anyone" line all the time.
Great post. I think it’s also important to note the political realities that constrained Lincoln. The Emancipation Proclamation reflected Lincoln’s understanding of the Constitution. Areas in rebellion no longer enjoyed constitutional protections of property, and thus the institution of slavery could be altered by unilateral executive action through Lincoln’s capacity as Commander in Chief. On the other hand, Lincoln, and most all moderate Republicans believed that slavery was protected by state law in areas not in rebellion. In those places, slavery could only be altered by state legislation or by a constitutional amendment. Lincoln worked very hard to encourage the border states to adopt emancipation legislation, and supported the abolition of slavery in Washington D.C., which was accomplished in April 1862. When the border states proved reluctant to pass emancipation measures, Lincoln used significant political capital to get the 13th Amendment passed. In short, Lincoln attacked slavery when and where he could given the constitutional constraints that the president has placed on him.
The North was just as racist as the South. The Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in the states that had seceded and were in active rebellion against the legally constituted authority of the Federal Government. If there had never been a Civil War and let us say Lincoln was the president, which he was during that time period, and let us say an agreement had been made with the slave holding states not to expand slavery into the territories. Slavery would have still been allowed to exist, and would have continued to exist until who knows when. It remains an unanswered question open to speculation. The year 1860 was only forty years away from 1900 and the 20th Century. I find it hard to believe that slavery would have continued into the 20th Century. It is such a ghastly institution.
"The Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in the states that had seceded and were in active rebellion against the legally constituted authority of the Federal Government."
I suggest you read the post and take a close look at the map. You will see the areas in red that, on January 1, 1863, were not in active rebellion against the US. The rest of your comment has nothing to do with this post.
Off topic (a lot) but did people really use the word “electric” at that time to mean stimulating or exciting?
It seems worth recalling that in 1858 in Chicago, Abraham Lincoln gave what’s remembered as his “electric cord” speech. He meant to persuade countrymen that even if they did not descend by blood from the founders at the time of the Declaration, they descended by philosophy. Excerpt:
We have besides these men—descended by blood from our ancestors—among us perhaps half our people who are not descendants at all of these men … . If they look back through this history to trace their connection with those days by blood, they find they have none, they cannot carry themselves back into that glorious epoch and make themselves feel that they are part of us, but when they look through that old Declaration of Independence they find that those old men say that “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,” and then they feel that that moral sentiment taught in that day evidences their relation to those men, that it is the father of all moral principle in them, and that they have a right to claim it as though they were blood of the blood, and flesh of the flesh of the men who wrote that Declaration, and so they are. That is the electric cord in that Declaration that links the hearts of patriotic and liberty-loving men together, that will link those patriotic hearts as long as the love of freedom exists in the minds of men throughout the world.
Again, excellent information new to me.
"I sing the body electric" was a sort of refrain often used in Walt Whitman's 'Song of Myself', an extended poem first published in 1855. The telegraph was quite new then and the idea that people could communicate instantaneously with others hundreds of miles away vastly expanded their nervous systems. Mesmerism was also popular then.
Thank you. That’s very helpful.
Teach in NE North Carolina and I make it a point to refer to Jan 1 as Emancipation Day in my classes. The number I see often is around 40-50,000 were freed on Jan. 1. Most of my students are familiar with Juneteenth but this is always a good lesson for them.
Just a quick note that I had to ban a reader today for abusing the comments section. Please stay on topic and please don't use this space simply to push your own agenda. Thank you.
Go ahead. Block me. It's what cowards do. Tyranny silences it's opposition.
Hi Kevin,
Tears in my eyes where you quote Higginson.
You write: "There was nothing inevitable about the end of slavery during the war."
I find that hard to understand. Isn't it a given that the reason for secession was -ultimately- slavery, and that ending the war on secession (thus) inevitably involved abolition?
Or do you mean that there was nothing inevitable about an ultimate Union victory? I would very strongly disagree with that.
Hi Benjamin,
First, there is a wonderful new biography of Higginison by Douglas Egerton, which I highly recommend.
Secession was largely fueled by the divisive issue of slavery, but Lincoln made it clear that the war was being fought to preserve the Union. That remained his primary goal throughout, but emancipation gradually came to be seen as a means to achieve that end.
The EP was signed on January 1, 1863, but the war could have ended before this point. In that event, Lincoln would have achieved his primary goal and slavery would still remain largely intact.
I also believe that there was nothing inevitable about Union victory. The Confederacy came close to independence on more than one occasion. Suggesting otherwise ignores the importance of contingency.
Hope that helps and thanks for reading.
Thanks. I understand this is a widely accepted view.
However, I think that any end to the war that would have allowed slavery to continue would have likely resulted in very short time in further conflicts, rebellions, and uprisings, making the war's conclusion merely temporary.
But the war didn't end that way of course, so it remains guesswork.
Perhaps, but any number of other alternatives are just as likely.
Thank you again, Kevin, for educating those willing to learn.
Thanks, Suzanne. Happy New Year to you and your family.
And to you. Hugs for Otis!
The Emancipation Proclamation freed no one. It actually excluded slaves in Union controlled areas.
Despite this statement being factually incorrect, it is important to remember that enslaved people were freeing themselves even before January 1, 1863. I am reading the letters from a private in the 2nd Minnesota regiment. On March 31, 1862, his unit was near Columbia, Tennessee. He wrote his wife that, "The slaves are leaving their masters every day. There was a man in camp this morning a looking for one. He did not get much satisfaction from us." He added that some of the soldiers wished that all enslaved people and all of their masters were dead because they were ones who started the war.
From the text of the Proclamation: “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.”
Except those in Union controlled areas....
You are wasting your time, Brad. Facts be damned. LOL
Facts? How about you give us some facts for a change?
It's hard to take seriously someone who doesn't even comment under his real name. Happy New Year, Country Boy. LOL
It's hard to take serious someone who wrote a book about no black Confederate soldiers, when clearly there were.
I never denied that there were no Black Confederate soldiers. I discussed the men who were recruited in the last weeks of the war by the Confederate government. Once again, you are demonstrating your ignorance by showing that you never read the book. Do you enjoy embarrassing yourself in public?
You didn't even bother to read the post. I feel sorry for you.
I know you. I don't need to read it.
OK.
Thank God🙏🏾🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸