Remind me again of how many Japanese Americans were convicted of espionage again?
Oh, that’s right. NONE.
If find your ideas repulsive and would like to unsubscribe from your newsletter.
And how many disloyal Japanese Amercians did they find in the end? My country did the same stupid thing and as far as I know the removal of rights of citizens is more of a blot on our record than a wise move. I also think that it had no benifit whatsoever.
This is preposterous. What you are saying is that it is permissible to put American citizens in captivity merely because of their ancestry. Would it be equally permissible to incarcerate all Arab-Americans because “everything changed after 9-11”? There was not a “good reason” for FDR’s illegal act, a black mark on an otherwise outstanding presidency.
I guess you haven’t seen this @.
Asshole.
–Cliffy
Legal or no – Lincoln had no practical authority over the CSA. The OP is ultimately correct that, at the time of its enaction, the Emancipation Proclamation freed exactly zero slaves, although it was later used as authority to free slaves in newly conquered areas of the Confederacy. But the OP is wrong to say that Lincoln never freed slaves, as many slaves were freed during his Administration and all the rest were freed rather soon after his assassination due to the 13th Amendment, which was a Lincoln policy initiative.
–Cliffy
Recognition only works if you win the war. And the Supreme Court found the secession to be ineffective (void, a nullity), which made the war a civil one. Civil wars do not violate international law, but those who perpetrate them usually violate the domestic law of the country with which they make war. That was the case here. So the war was “legal,” the secession was not effective, and the recognition was irrelevant.
Close to zero, but not exactly zero. On 1/1/1863 the North occupied a few areas within the Confederacy that weren’t exempted from the Proclamation–for example, the sea islands off the coast of the Carolinas. In these areas ceremonies were held on “Proclamation Day” at which the former slaves were formally declared forever free.
I thought France had granted the CSA “belligerent” status rather than full recognition.
With respect to Lincoln, I would make the argument that without him, the North would not have won the Civil War and hence slavery would have persisted in the south for probably a generation or so. Keep in mind that his primary goal was to preserve the union and he was on record as saying that if it could be done without freeing slaves, he’d do it and if it could be done with freeing them, he’d do it.
Some of the moves that Lincoln made were symbolic. The Emancipation Proclamation was probably one of them. Although it was also “a military measure designed both to deprive the Confederacy of slave labor and bring additional men into the Union Army, advocated its immediate release.” http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/alhtml/almintr.html
I was watching a history of the Civil War the other day. There it was pointed out that at the beginning of the conflict, slaves who escaped to the North were sent back to their owners. Eventually someone realized that since the South was claiming to be another country, it couldn’t claim rights under the Fugitive Slave Act. They began keeping the escaped slaves and using them as laborers. (I wonder whether this act, if seized upon by clever international lawyers, could have been construed as acquiesence in the South’s secession–alas, it wasn’t). The Proclamation gave an additional legal ground for this decision (I’m not sure of the timing though).
At any rate, the Proclamation served a more important purpose. It made the Civil War a war about human rights instead of money and property. Lincoln feared intervention on the side of the South by other countries. Such intervention could have spelled defeat for the Union. The Proclamation, “restrained England and France, which had already abolished slavery, from pursuing their economic interests and supporting the Confederacy.” http://www.historicaldocuments.com/EmancipationProclamation.htm
It wasn’t so much that they were claiming to be another country, but that they were “in rebellion” and waging war against the federal government. It might seem like a pedantic distinction, but it’s not–no one could deny that the Union had armies in the field fighting a war, but the government could and did deny that the enemy was a foreign country. Acceptance of the first didn’t imply recognition of the second.
The eventual Union Army policy was that slaves who escaped to Army camps were “contraband of war”–that is, property which had been used by the enemy to advance their cause–and as such would not be returned. However, since the Union Army didn’t own slaves, they would be treated as free persons and paid for their labor.
The key words in the Emancipation Proclamation were “then, thenceforward and forever”. It eliminated any possibility of a negotiated settlement to the Civil War in which slavery would be retained in the seceding states. While the Proclamation was largely symbolic in its immediate impact on January 1, 1863, it wasn’t symbolic at all in the long run, and it’s important to recognize that Lincoln never backed down an inch from its terms as Union armies penetrated deeper into the South and carried the Proclamation into effect.
That’s right! I had forgotten that part. Thanks.
Excellent clarifications by someone who clearly knows more about the topic than I do.
And to legitimize it, in 1862, Congress passed the “Confiscation Acts”, which said, among other things:
The second Confiscation Act is here, btw:
http://www.history.umd.edu/Freedmen/conact2.htm
They also, back in March of 1862, passed the following article of war:
Cliffy:
[Moderator Hat ON]
Cliffy, calling someone an asshole is NOT allowed in this forum. If you absolutely must flame someone, take it to the BBQ pit, but keep it out of GD.
[Moderator Hat OFF]
I do understand that. Surprisingly, I think it’s something we were taught in grade school when we first learned about the Civil War.
I recently read a book about the Civil War which discussed how long the possibility of the Emancipation Proclamation was on the table. That is, Lincoln (and/or his advisors) had been considering it for some time, but they waited until the most advantageous time in the war to issue it (whether militarily or from a PR standpoint I can’t recall).
I understand that as a practical matter–there are many reasons why people might wait to implement a law or an idea, now matter its inherent worth. But it did challenge the idea (often promoted among schoolchildren, I think) that Lincoln was such an inherent lover of his fellow man that freedom for slaves was his first priority. If that’s how he felt, he would have gone for Emancipation first thing, wouldn’t he?
Was the book right in this?
Lincoln’s first priority as President was to end the rebellion and restore peace. As president, he took an oath to defend the Constitution, and he took the oath seriously. All of his other goals as president were subordinate to that. That being said, I think it’s safe to say that Lincoln wanted some sort of black emancipation.
But yes, the book is right that he put off the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation until the “victory” at Antietim. The battle ended on Sept. 17, 1862, he issued it on September 22. He knew that the proclamation would be controversial and wanted good news to accompany it.
You need to remember that Lincoln wasn’t a dictator. He was the president of a federal republic with Constitutional limits on his powers (which, admittedly, the Civil War stretched). He couldn’t do whatever he wanted. He had to pay attention to the law and to public opinion, and neither the law or public opinion let him singlehandedly abolish slavery.
Lincoln freed the slaves as a strategic move to undermine the Confederacy. It was never his primary goal and if he could have kept the Union together without doing it, he may well have. He didn’t seem to have a deep-seated moral objection to slavery, nor the feeling that it had to be abolished. It was a political lever that he used to the best possible effect for the preservation of the Union.
He said it pretty clearly in his August 22, 1862 letter to New York Tribune:
I think this makes his motives pretty clear. Abolition was a side effect for Lincoln, which doesn’t take away the fact that he did indeed free the slaves. He just didn’t care about it as an end unto itself.
The paradox is that the most effective way for Lincoln to free the slaves was to act like he didn’t care about them. Legally he could only justify emancipation as a war measure, and politically it wouldn’t fly as a humanitarian gesture.
A large segment of Northern public opinion would fight to stomp the rebels but not to free the slaves, and Lincoln couldn’t afford to alienate such people. He needed their bodies in the army and their votes in future elections. As it was the North suffered from draft riots and desertions, and despite Lincoln’s best efforts the white backlash against emancipation cost the Republican Party dearly in the 1862 elections. Had he taken the opposite position in his famous letter to Greeley (quoted above), the backlash might have been far worse.