There were a few months between the end of the fighting and the passage of the 13th Amendment, which freed the slaves everywhere in the United States. Both events happened in 1865, but I don’t remember offhand what the months were.
Okay, here’s the dates:
The 13th Amendment was passed by Congress (sending it to the states) in January 1865. Confederate forces (Richmond, Lee, and the rest) surrendered throughout April 1865. Honest Abe was gunned down in April. The 13th Amendment was ratified by the final state in December, 1865. So there were about eight months between the execution of the Emancipation Proclamation in the occupied territories, and the freeing of the states in Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware, and possibly West Virginia. (I can’t remember if West Virginia began its existence slave or free.)
Here are some sources for you all:
http://www.americancivilwar.com/tl/timeline.html http://www.fathermag.com/US_Constitution/13th_amendment.shtml
I think Iowa, Minnesota, and Pennsylvania might be upset they weren’t included. Would South Bend, Indiana then secede from that newly-formed republic?
“It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in an argument” - William McAdoo
For the definitive answer to the Constitutional issue, I take you, as any good attorney would, to a decision of the United States Supreme Court. The following quotation is from Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1868), a case where the issue was whether Texas was required to honor a series of bonds issued before the Civil War, but nullified by the Confederate government. In answering the question of whether Texas ever ceased to be a part of the United States via secession, the Court stated:
“Did Texas, in consecuence of these acts, cease to be a State? Or, if not, did the State cease to be a member of the Union?
It is needless to discuss, at length, the question whether the right of a State to withdraw from the Union for any cause, regarded by herself as sufficient, is consistent with the Constitution of the United States.
The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form, and character, and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these the Union was solemnly declared to ‘be perpetual.’ And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained ‘to form a more perfect Union.’ It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?
But the perpetuity and indissolubility of the Union, by no means implies the loss of distinct and individual existence, or of the right of self-government by the States. Under the Articles of Confederation each State retained its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right not expressly delegated to the United States. Under the Constitution, though the powers of the States were much restricted, still, all powers not delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. And we have already had occasion to remark at this term, that cthe people of each State compose a State, having its own government, and endowed with all the functions essential to separate and independent existence,’ and that ‘without the States in union, there could be no such political body as the United States.’ Not only, therefore, can there be no loss of separate and independent autonomy to the States, through their union under the Constitution, but it may be not unreasonably said that the preservation of the States, and the maintenance of their governments, are as much within the design and care of the Constitution as the preservation of the Union and the maintenance of the National government. THE CONSTITUTION, IN ALL ITS PROVISIONS, LOOKS TO AN INDESTRUCTABLE UNION, COMPOSED OF INDESTRUCTABLE STATES.
When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration, or revocation, except through revolution, or through consent of the States.
Considered therefore as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. The obligations of the State, as a member of the Union, and of every citizen of the State, as a citizen of the United States, remained perfect and unimpaired. It certainly follows that the State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union. If this were otherwise, the State must have become foreign, and her citizens foreigners. The war must have ceased to be a war for the suppression of rebellion, and must have become a war for conquest and subjugation.
Our conclusion therefore is, that Texas continued to be a State, and a State of the Union, notwithstanding the transactions to which we have referred. And this conclusion, in our judgment, is not in conflict with any act or declaration of any department of the National government, but entirely in accordance with the whole series of such acts and declarations since the first outbreak of the rebellion.”
SoxFan59
“Its fiction, but all the facts are true!”
It sounds like Supreme Court retroactively struck the Emancipation Proclamation down. Lincoln realized that he had no power to abolish slavery in any Union state. The justification at the time was that the Confederate states were another country, so Lincoln could make decisions in them as a conquering power (once they were conquered, of course).
If the Confederacy never really did secede, and the invading Union armies were just the national armed forces, rather than a conquering power, then the martial law, reconstruction governments, Emancipation Proclamation, Freedmen’s Bureaus, etc., were all unconstitutional.
The legislatures elected under martial law, with carpetbaggers and illegally freed slaves voting and former rebel soldiers barred from voting, would also have been invalid. So the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments which were ratified only with the consent of the reconstruction legislatures would also have been invalid.
In short, I disagree with the 1868 Supreme Court on this issue. The secessions were legal; Fort Sumter was an act of war; the Confederacy was a conquered power we could deal with as we liked.
In short, I disagree with the 1868 Supreme Court on this issue. The secessions were legal; Fort Sumter was an act of war; the Confederacy was a conquered power we could deal with as we liked.>>>>Boris
That, and 50 cents, will buy you a pack of gum.
SoxFan59
“Its fiction, but all the facts are true!”
Damn, gum is getting expensive these days.
Well, I didn’t expect your hair would turn white. A lot of SDMB discussions gravitate to the U.S. Constitution and its interpretations. If somebody can say the government covered up an alien crash landing in Arizona, I can disagree with the Supreme Court. Plus my favorite gum is Black Jack, which is more than 50 cents at the tobacco shop.
New Mexico, Boris. You want Contestant #3 to come flame you?? 
Well, Arizona isn’t that new, and it’s practically part of the United States anyway.
Why do I always get these things wrong? I’m used to Easterners getting Western states all mixed up, but I’m a Westerner. I went to college in D.C. where all the Easterners used to point at us leftcoasters and laugh. They always asked me how I got to the East coast. Eventually I gave up trying to explain international airports, and allowed that I’d had a harrowing journey by covered wagon.
But I digress. The point is, I had a nice classmate from Salt Lake City. Once I referred to her home state as … Wyoming. That deflating sound you here is a bass trombone playing portamento. At least I know that Alaska isn’t located in a little box off the coast of California.
Boris: are you on crack? The justification never was “the Confederacy was a separate county.” They were “the areas currently in rebellion” at the time.
Criminy!
monty
Wait a minute I dropped one of my little vials. There we go. Ahh, that’s good. Hhhmm. Okay, now I’m a little shaky, but I’ll give it a shot.
Sure, Lincoln used the “those areas now in rebellion” verbage, but the question remains were the Confederate States separate countries or U.S. states. The President can’t just go around banning things in states by decree. The President can order the armed forces around, and conquering powers’ armed forces are pretty much soveign in occupied territories.
Sure, Lincoln felt the secession was not valid due probably to “eternal union” rhetoric, but that’s where I disagree with him. After the war … wait a minute my lighter isn’t working … there was controversy between the radical Republicans who claimed the South could be treated as a prostrate enemy, and Andrew Johnson who felt that they were just regular states in which some crooks had been subdued.
My point was that people who invoke the 13th through 15th Amendments obviously believe they are valid, and I don’t see how they could be valid if they were ratified with the help of illegally-imposed legislatures. The shakes are starting to wear off now.
My point was that people who invoke the 13th through 15th Amendments obviously believe they are valid, and I don’t see how they could be valid if they were ratified with the help of illegally-imposed legislatures. The shakes are starting to wear off now.>>> Boris
I may be wrong, but I thought 13, 14 , and 15 were ratified by the necessary states in the states who stayed loyal to the Union, but still counting the Confederate States. That is to say, there were enough states that stayed loyal to the Union or that were admitted during the War to cover the two-thirds number, INCLUDING the seceding states. So, the Supremes would still be right.
SoxFan59
“Its fiction, but all the facts are true!”
So in essence, SoxFan, you’re saying that the Supremes had a hit in 1868 with “Someday We’ll Be Together”??
Actually, Mr. Carp, it should be “Always and Forever.”
SoxFan59
“Its fiction, but all the facts are true!”
Kansas was admitted to the Union as the 34th State in 1861. To be added to the Constitution, an amendment would have to be ratified by three-quarters of the states, or 26. 11 states seceded, 23 did not. The votes of three seceding state would have been needed to ratify the 13th-15th Amendments.
Of course, by now it doesn’t matter if the martial law was legal or not, since the Amendments have been recognized as part of the Constitution for so long. I suppose it’s mainly of academic interest.
Pardon me if these questions have already been answered; I was just skimming through.
Boris B
According to Battle Cry of Freedom by James McPherson, one of the conditions surrounding WV’s admission to the Union was that they had to get rid of their slaves.
Regarding the existence of slaves in the South after the Civil War: They did exist illegally until at least the 1920’s, except it was refered to as “peonage.” (Thanks, GregAtlanta!)
Mea Culpa, I was calculating the number needed to ratify the amendment as two thirds, not three fourths.
Looking at some of the other history, it appears that Congress, while recognizing the Supreme Courts view that sesession was a nullity (and therefore “void ab initio” to use the technical term), the fact that the states were in Rebellion allowed both Congress and the Courts to play both sides of this issue. Whether all of it can be justified or harmonized would take more time than I have to look into it.
But it is clear that the defeated southern states were treated like an occupied foreign nation. congress required that each of the states be readmitted to the Union (which would go against the Texas v. White quote in a purists sense. Yet, I think it can be reconciled in the same way a member of a condominium association forfeits thier rights when they fail to pay their association fees. To have their voting rights restored, they just have to bring themselves into “good standing.”) Its not a perfect comparison, but Congress basically required that the former confederate states bring themselves back into good standing.
In order for reunification the confederate states needed to accept the following terms:
Constitutional Conventions elected by blacks and loyal whites were to frame constitutions guaranteeing male suffrage including blacks.
The federal Congress needed to individually ratify these constitutions.
Qualified voters in each confederate state were to elect state legislatures that would ratify the Fourteenth Amendment. After ratifying the Fourteenth Amendment, states could apply for readmission in Congress. What was once the Confederate States was broken down into five military districts with a Major General in command of each area’s reconstruction.
Tennessee was the first state to rejoin the Union in 1866. (Tennessee’s secession vote was suspect to begin with; there is some good authority to show that had not some rabid secessionists grabbed control of Tennessee state government, Tennesse would have remained in the Union.
North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida, Arkansas, Louisiana, Alabama were admitted in 1868 and by 1870, Virginia, Georgia, Mississippi, and Texas were admitted.
Eventually, then, all of the former Confederate States did adopt the 14th amendment, and by applying for readmission, consented to the 13th.
SoxFan59
“Its fiction, but all the facts are true!”