The Painful Truth about the Emancipation Proclamation

[Jefferson]

The Painful Truth about the Emancipation Proclamation

This is the show from Friday, December 31st, 2021

SUMMARY:

* On the 150th Anniversary of the Proclamation, the Surprising Truth: With tomorrow (January 1st, 2022) being the 159th anniversary of the Emancipation Proclamation, Bob Enyart and guest Jamie Schofield analyze the meaning and actual intent of that sad document. For this was no abolitionist policy (as a contemporaneous report in the Rocky Mountain News makes clear), but an example of moral compromise that ended in failure.



The Proclamation was actually comprised of two announcements, not just one. The first half – the preliminary proclamation – set the policy and gave a deadline of 100 days. It was addressed not to the common citizens of the nation or to the Union military, but rather to the states in rebellion at that time. What was Lincoln’s declared policy on slavery at that time? He made that very clear in a letter to Horace Greeley on Aug. 22, 1862, just days before the issuance of the preliminary proclamation:



If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. . . . I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free.



Lincoln’s goal was not the abolition of slavery but rather the preservation of the Union, and if that meant keeping slaves in bondage everywhere, he would support and practice exactly that. And this non-abolitionist stance is reflected in the text of the Emancipation Proclamation.

The Preliminary Proclamation, September, 1862



In short, the stated intent and purpose of this policy was to offer the Confederate states the opportunity to keep their slaves if they would choose to stop rebelling within a 100-day deadline. Essentially, it said that if your state ceases its rebellion against the union, you may keep your slaves.



I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States of America, and Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy thereof, do hereby proclaim and declare that hereafter, as heretofore, the war will be prosecuted for the object of practically restoring the constitutional relation between the United States... 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;



Any state still in rebellion against the Union on Jan. 1 would be subject to the Proclamation, which would declare any current slaves in those areas to be free. The stated goal was not to free any slaves, but rather to preserve the Union. Was it a success? Before hearing the answer, Bob predicted that such a policy would bear no fruit, and he was right. In fact, not a single state took Lincoln up on his offer. By its own standard, the Proclamation was an abject failure! In fact, all the proclamation did in that regard was to infuriate the Confederate states more than ever, deepening their resolve to reject the Union.



Perhaps even worse, the preliminary proclamation also explicitly ordered slaves to be returned to their slave owners in specific circumstances, thus actually ordering the enforcement of keeping such men in bondage:



Sec.10. And be it further enacted, That no slave escaping into any State, Territory, or the District of Columbia, from any other State, shall be delivered up, or in any way impeded or hindered of his liberty, except for crime, or some offence against the laws, unless the person claiming said fugitive shall first make oath that the person to whom the labor or service of such fugitive is alleged to be due is his lawful owner, and has not borne arms against the United States in the present rebellion, nor in any way given aid and comfort thereto;



In other words, if a slave escaped to an area controlled by the Union, all a Southern slave owner had to do was show up, give an oath (no evidence required) that he was the lawful owner of that slave, and swear that he had never taken up arms against the Union, and then “here’s your slave back.”



The Emancipation Proclamation, January 1, 1863



This document was the culmination of the policy already given 100 days earlier. Not a single Confederate state had taken Lincoln’s offer to cease rebellion and keep their slaves. Therefore, this document declared (largely symbolically) the slaves in those non-Union-controlled areas to be free. But, at the same time, and as one should expect in such a compromised and non-abolitionist policy, it also explicitly listed all of the areas in the U.S. where slaves would be kept in bondage. Thus, this policy actually authorized the continuing wicked enslavement of innocent men, women and children, for example in many counties in Louisiana, especially around New Orleans, as well as in the newly-forming West Virginia.



Many abolitionists of the day decried the Emancipation Proclamation, rightly pointing out its moral compromise. Lincoln’s own secretary of state, William Seward, commented that "We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free." Unlike Lincoln, Seward knew the atrocities of slavery firsthand, having been raised by a slave-owning family. "I early came to the conclusion that something was wrong... and [that] determined me to be an abolitionist."



On the other hand, in their coverage of the Proclamation, the now-defunct Rocky Mountain News here in Colorado celebrated on their front page the fact that this policy was not abolitionist, and mocked abolitionists who disagreed with it, praising Lincoln for going against the “radical” abolitionists. The newspaper wrote:



“The last mail... brought scores of Eastern and Western papers with similar recommendations. The voice of the press is almost unanimous in its approval. That is a pretty correct index of popular opinion, and we may therefore set down that almost the entire loyal States endorse the action of the President. It must be expected that the ultra Abolitionists will kick against it, as too conservative [not going far enough] for their radical views. Let them squirm! ‘Honest Abe’ has shown that he will be no tool of theirs.”



How were slaves freed and slavery abolished, then?



It’s important to note that the Emancipation Proclamation didn’t outlaw slavery anywhere. It declared current slaves in those areas to be free, in areas where the Union had no control. It essentially “freed” them in word only, and was largely a symbolic gesture. As the Union military moved through the Confederate states in rebellion, they did free slaves they encountered. In truth, they could have done this with or without the Proclamation. The Proclamation was simply used as an excuse to do it, but they would have been right to do it, regardless. Lincoln gave orders to the Union Army to free those slaves, apart from the Proclamation, which wasn’t addressed to the Union Army, but to the Confederate States themselves. He could have ordered the Union Army to do this without such a proclamation. And even if Lincoln hadn’t issued that order, it would have still been right for Union forces moving through the South to free those slaves, anyway. If you are a military unit and have taken over an area from the enemy, and you find men who have been kidnapped and brutalized by the people there, the right thing to do would be to free those victims. The Proclamation didn’t free anyone, although it did serve as a political excuse to do so.

What of the abolition of slavery, then? That was accomplished later, in some areas at the state level, and in the rest of the nation through federal action. Unlike in the Emancipation Proclamation, in all of these cases it was a principled, no-compromise, abolitionist policy that required the complete abolition of slavery in each state.



For example, West Virginia (which had ironically seceded from Virginia while the latter was seceding from the Union) wasn’t allowed to join the Union as a new state unless their constitution abolished slavery without exception. In Maryland, Arkansas and Louisiana in 1864, they abolished slavery at the state level as their citizens ratified new state constitutions. In Missouri in January of 1865, that governor abolished slavery via executive order. In all other Southern states, slavery was ultimately abolished through the ratification of the 13th amendment to the U.S. Constitution, in December of 1865.



In all of these cases, it was a no-compromise policy that we would describe today as “pro-personhood.” Slavery was ultimately abolished despite the pro-slavery policy of the Emancipation Proclamation, not because of it.



Today's Resource: Have you seen the Government Department at our KGOV Store? We are featuring Bruce Shortt's vitally-important book, The Harsh Truth about Public Schools. And also, check out the classic God's Criminal Justice System seminar, God and the Death Penalty, Live from Las Vegas, and Bob on Drugs DVDs, and our powerhouse Focus on the Strategy resources!

 

[Clete]

Race based slavery was not an American idea. I was not new during the Civil War, nor even when the United States was founded and had certain compromises not been made, America would not have abolished slavery at all (not for at least another whole generation, anyway).

Had Lincoln failed to preserve the Union, then how much longer would race based slavery persisted, not just here but throughout most of western civilization? Had Lincoln not won the civil war then not only would race based slavery have continued, it would have thrived all the more and would likely not have ended at all until both the United and Confederate States of America collapsed and ceased to exist at all. After which there is simply no telling what sort of chaos would have ensued on this continent. (Just imagine if the later quarter of the 19th century and all of the 20th century in America hadn't happened?)

The fact is that the civil war was fought, primarily, over slavery and the good guys won and, as a result, we don't do race based slavery anymore. No, it didn't go away over night but that doesn't change the fact that, had Lincoln not preserved the union, race based slavery would not have gone away at all. In other words, fighting and then winning the civil war in a manner that preserved the union were necessary steps in the direction of the eventual complete abolition of race based slavery in this country. Had Lincoln failed in his effort to preserve the union, there would not have been any such thing as new state constitutions which abolished slavery nor would there have been the 13th Amendment to the United States constitution because there would have been no United States of America. You might not be a fan of incrementalism but the fact is that that's how societies change. The only alternative is all out war until one or both sides ceases to exist.

Clete

 

[Yorzhik]

Race based slavery was not an American idea. I was not new during the Civil War, nor even when the United States was founded and had certain compromises not been made, America would not have abolished slavery at all (not for at least another whole generation, anyway).

Had Lincoln failed to preserve the Union, then how much longer would race based slavery persisted, not just here but throughout most of western civilization? Had Lincoln not won the civil war then not only would race based slavery have continued, it would have thrived all the more and would likely not have ended at all until both the United and Confederate States of America collapsed and ceased to exist at all. After which there is simply no telling what sort of chaos would have ensued on this continent. (Just imagine if the later quarter of the 19th century and all of the 20th century in America hadn't happened?)

The fact is that the civil war was fought, primarily, over slavery and the good guys won and, as a result, we don't do race based slavery anymore. No, it didn't go away over night but that doesn't change the fact that, had Lincoln not preserved the union, race based slavery would not have gone away at all. In other words, fighting and then winning the civil war in a manner that preserved the union were necessary steps in the direction of the eventual complete abolition of race based slavery in this country. Had Lincoln failed in his effort to preserve the union, there would not have been any such thing as new state constitutions which abolished slavery nor would there have been the 13th Amendment to the United States constitution because there would have been no United States of America. You might not be a fan of incrementalism but the fact is that that's how societies change. The only alternative is all out war until one or both sides ceases to exist.

Clete

I'm not so sure. Abolitionists were hated, but they were growing stronger (the hatred of the abolitionists became more prominent because of it). Slavery was already illegal in most of the rest of the western world without war and soon ended without war where it still existed. There were already almost no slaves in the north before the war began even though it was legal in many northern locations. So it may have taken another generation for slavery to end in the south, but it would have ended even if the south seceded.

 

[Clete]

I'm not so sure. Abolitionists were hated, but they were growing stronger (the hatred of the abolitionists became more prominent because of it). Slavery was already illegal in most of the rest of the western world without war and soon ended without war where it still existed. There were already almost no slaves in the north before the war began even though it was legal in many northern locations. So it may have taken another generation for slavery to end in the south, but it would have ended even if the south seceded.

Not in the south it wouldn't have!

I don't know what you think the civil war was fought over but it wasn't the price of cheese. The abolition of slavery was going to throw a really big wrench in the economy of the south and the south didn't want that to happen and they seceded from the United States in an effort to preserve their way of life which was founded, economically and socially, on race based slavery.

More to the point, if Lincoln had failed to preserve the union, there very likely wouldn't have been a United States of America at all for much longer after the war ended. It isn't likely that the north could have survived without the south and vise versa. The whole thing would very likely have collapsed and heaven only knows what sort of government would end up taking its place. Certainly nothing that resembles the super-power that exists today.

Clete

 

[Yorzhik]

Not in the south it wouldn't have!

They said the same in all the countries that banned it before it was banned. The South wasn't so different culturally than the rest of the western world. The next generation at most.

I don't know what you think the civil war was fought over but it wasn't the price of cheese. The abolition of slavery was going to throw a really big wrench in the economy of the south and the south didn't want that to happen and they seceded from the United States in an effort to preserve their way of life which was founded, economically and socially, on race based slavery.

The civil war was fought over slavery. But like the north, and most all the other Western countries, they would have come to see that slavery could be banned with mitigated effects.

And it was the current culture of the time that was founded on slavery. "The South" had little slavery and was not based on it socially and economically not even 100 years earlier.

More to the point, if Lincoln had failed to preserve the union, there very likely wouldn't have been a United States of America at all for much longer after the war ended. It isn't likely that the north could have survived without the south and vise versa. The whole thing would very likely have collapsed and heaven only knows what sort of government would end up taking its place. Certainly nothing that resembles the super-power that exists today.

Clete

We totally agree here except to say that I think we would have ended up with a Europe of North America of sorts. The bigger picture is correct that I don't think we would have ended up with the US superpower that we have today.

 

[JudgeRightly]

I, for one, am just glad that socially acceptable slavery based on kidnapping was abolished sooner rather than later.

We can at least agree on that much, right?

 

[Clete]

They said the same in all the countries that banned it before it was banned. The South wasn't so different culturally than the rest of the western world. The next generation at most.


The civil war was fought over slavery. But like the north, and most all the other Western countries, they would have come to see that slavery could be banned with mitigated effects.

And it was the current culture of the time that was founded on slavery. "The South" had little slavery and was not based on it socially and economically not even 100 years earlier.


We totally agree here except to say that I think we would have ended up with a Europe of North America of sorts. The bigger picture is correct that I don't think we would have ended up with the US superpower that we have today.

Well, regardless, my point is simply that the Emancipation Proclamation was not the "sad document" that the OP makes it out to be. Such documents and speeches and other "largely symbolic gestures" aren't quite as symbolic as they might seem. The written and spoken word is how leaders lead, it is how governors govern. It is unfortunate that we have a society in which the law very often lags behind the society and, yes, it would be better if we didn't have laws decided by committee but the fact is that we do have such a society and the Emancipation Proclamation was a gigantic step in the correct direction. A direction made possible by the fact that Lincoln not only won the civil war but did so in a manner that kept the whole construct from collapsing into chaos and anarchy, which by any measure would have been far worse.

Clete