It is my understanding that the Emancipation Proclamation didn’t free any slaves. It said that the slaves in the Confederate States were free, but any state that came back to the Union could keep their slaves. My girlfriend (as well as many others) contest this idea and think I’m mistaken.
So, is my understanding of the Emancipation Proclamation wrong?
You can read the Emancipation Proclamation here:
http://www.nps.gov/ncro/anti/emancipation.html
As of January 1, 1863, it freed all slaves that were held in areas in rebellion against the US at the time. Legally, all those slaves were freed. However, as a practical standpoint, those areas being in rebellion against the US at the time, the (former) slaves didn’t really get much immediate benefit out of it. However, from that point on, whenever the Union army conquered territory, those slaves in the places conquered could enjoy their freedom.
I think what you’re thinking of is an earlier proclamation in September, 1862 in which Lincoln said that rebellious states had until January 1 to stop being in rebellion or else their slaves would be freed.
Slaves in the parts of the United States of America were freed during a collection of acts that went into effect at various times. By the end of 1865, all of them were free. (If I recall correctly, the last legally held slaves were in by birth state of Kentucky, thus proving a famous Mark Twain quote.) Lincoln bashers may point out that technically, Lincoln did not “free all the slaves”. That’s only because he died prematurely, murdered in April of 1865. Had he lived a little longer, then all slaves in the United States would have been freed during his administration.
Arguably the USA had no authority to impose laws on the CSA.
It was, and still is the position of the United States, that that secession was illegal. Therefore there never was a “CSA”, only states that failed to accept the validity of United States law.
Mr. Lincoln freed slaves the same way that the Continental Congress made the U.S. independent: he made the decision, then told the armies to “make it so.” They carried out his orders, and each time the Army advanced into Confederate territory, slaves were freed, on his orders.
It’s true that the Proclamation only applied to areas under rebellion, and not to slave states that were still in the Union. That’s because Mr. Lincoln issued the proclamation under his war-making powers as commander-in-chief, which only extended to the areas of the United States that were in rebellion.
Sorry I can’t wrap my mind around the concept of a illegal war, be it Iraq or CSA. Illegal is a police matter, not a millitary one.
Also the CSA was recognized by another nation (France IIRC), so it remains on the table.
I think it’s more likely that he didn’t want to antagonize or alienate the slave states that remained in the Union–a very practical decision, in my view.
(shrug) When the shooting starts, a lot of legal niceties have to go by the wayside. Quite a number of Lincoln’s actions were of questionable legality, but so what? He did what he thought necessary to win the war.
I don’t recall that the Confederacy was ever recognized by any major European power. Do you have a cite for this?
According to Wikipedia:
It’s my understanding that he had no legal authority to free slaves in the Union; that had to be done by another way. He couldn’t just announce a new law freeing all slaves, because that is not how the United States government works.
Which is why the Thirteeth Amendment was necessary to complete the job.
At least that’s how it worked until 1942 when FDR interned by executive order a whole bunch of people who had been born in the USA.
Point well taken, David. Do you think we will see Guantanamo in the same light someday?
Since Lincoln could not free the slaves in the Union states, the freeing of the slaves in the states in rebellion seems to me like a fairly straight acknowledgement that he didn’t see the those states as continuing to be part of the Union.
Really? I would think it showed he considered them as being in rebellion, but still a part of the Union, and thus was looking for a way to punish them so he could bring the war to a quicker conclusion.
It’s not the war itself that he’s calling illegal, it’s the act of secession from the Union.
And with good reason, too.
And that reason would be ?
Not bloody likely. There is still very heated debate over the Civil War.
That many Japanese Americans were disloyal and presented a serious potential danger to the United States, and that attempting to sort the sheep from the goats simply was not practical.