Emancipation Proclamation didn't end Slavery

The Emancipation Proclamation, more than any act, exposes the real President Lincoln and hits at the core of why the mythical day of June 19 is celebrated.

Issued on the 22nd day of September in 1862, [the Emancipation Proclamation] stated that on the first day of January 1863, "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."

Clearly, this was a war measure for suppressing the so-called rebellion. If the Confederate States of America stop rebelling before Jan. 1, 1863, they could keep their slaves.

This document suggested that one could not own another human unless one was loyal to the United States. Then again, how could the president free anyone in another nation? The document did not apply to the four border states, Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland and Missouri, slave states that remained loyal to and in the United States.

Where the president had authority (in the border states), he did nothing; where he had no authority (in the CSA), he did something.

Why do African-Americans continue to praise Abraham Lincoln and the Emancipation Proclamation? Are we allowing miseducation that flatters our thinking to overtake us? Slavery, legal slavery, ended in December 1865, when three-fourths of the states ratified the 13th Amendment.

"Juneteenth," the 19th of June, started as a traditional Texas celebration and now has expanded. It marks the date when the news of Lincoln's proclamation reached parts of the state of Texas in 1865. The document had first been issued in September 1862. The president had taken advantage of a Union victory during the Civil War, the Battle of Antietam, to make his preliminary announcement of emancipation, to become effective on Jan. 1, 1863. The story goes that it was not until June 19, 1865, after Lincoln had died, that slaves in Galveston, Texas, were read General Order No. 3 "that, in accordance with the president's proclamation, all slaves were free."

The proclamation did not free slaves; nor did the order delivered by Gen. Gordon Granger on June 19, 1865. On that date, Texas was not even part of the United States, thus any orders issued to Texas would be of no consequence. Yet still slaves in Texas were told that the late President Lincoln, with the stroke of his pen, had "freed" them and other slaves in rebelling states.

Now 139 years later, this mythical date of African-American freedom is celebrated, mainly by African-Americans. They turn out with parades, holiday attire and spirit to commemorate and praise Lincoln and the document. Ironically, to many the 19th of June symbolizes African-American Independence Day and is celebrated in lieu of the Fourth of July.

Students are still instructed that Lincoln did away with slavery with the signing of the Emancipation Proclamation. To credit the 16th president of the United States with being "the Great Emancipator" is shameless hypocrisy, a pathological exercise in intellectual sissyism.

In his first inaugural address, Lincoln made it very clear that he had no interest, directly or indirectly, in interfering with slavery where it legally existed.

He was opposed to the expansion of slavery. He feared that competition with slavery would have a negative impact on free white laborers in the territories. He could not void the Constitution, which protected and encouraged slavery; an amendment to the Constitution was required.

Any individual, group or organization that parlays June 19 into a freedom-day celebration for blacks is either miseducated, misinformed or just plain hustling people who are seeking validation and acceptance. The ratification date of the 13th Amendment in 1865 would be more appropriate for a celebration.

It is time to face the facts squarely: The plain and painful truth is that Lincoln was not the Great Emancipator of African-American freedom. Neither the Emancipation Proclamation nor General Order No. 3 freed slaves in the United States or in Texas, as the Juneteenth celebration would have it.

In fact, Lincoln was as elusive on the issues of freedom for African-Americans as equality of opportunity is today.

If one interprets the documents literally, slaves in the United States remained in slavery. There is no justifiable cause to celebrate a myth or bad news.

In the abstract, Lincoln used what is known as tricky logic. He moved politically, not morally. In his words, there was an immutable physical barrier of color and probably of mental and moral inferiority separating the black and white races.

Lincoln felt that African-Americans were included in the Declaration of Independence, yet he denied and did not believe in social and political equality of the races. He refused to support the abolitionist movement.

Lincoln was not in favor of African-American citizenship in the United States and he advocated colonization as a solution to the race problem. This might explain why in August 1862, one month before he issued the Emancipation Proclamation, he called so-called African-American leaders to the White House and told them that money had been appropriated by Congress to colonize "their kind" outside the country.

If African-Americans are looking for pre-1865 heroes to praise, David Walker, Nat Turner, Harriet Tubman, Henry Highland Garnet, Denmark Vesey and many more would fit the criteria. If African-Americans need documentation, try reading David Walker's "Appeal," Henry Highland Garnet's "Message to the Slaves" or Frederick Douglass' "What to the Slave Is the 4th of July?"

I suggest African-Americans rethink Lincoln and the Emancipation Proclamation and Juneteenth when choosing celebrations and be careful that we do not contribute to the continuance of our own ignorance.

Dr. Theman Ray Taylor Sr. is a history professor at the University of Central Arkansas at Conway.

those who make blanket statements about secession being legal that they should qualify those statements

Consider the following from the Articles of Confederation (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/artconf.htm)

the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.

So how did the states legally secede from the Articles of Confederation and form a "more perfect union"? I submit that the secession of Texas and the other southern states from the authority of the US Constitution was just as legal as the secession of the original 13 states was from the Articles of Confederation.

You will probably contend that the main difference is that the southern states formed a new nation, whereas the original 13 states were simply changing the form of government for all 13. However, if you will read Article 7 of the US Constitution, you will see The ratification of the conventions of nine states, shall be sufficient for the establishment of this constitution between the states so ratifying the same.

The ninth state to ratify the Constitution was New Hampshire on June 21, 1788. Rhode Island and Vermont took another 2 and 2.5 years, respectively. Would Rhode Island and Vermont have had the legal right to invade and subjugate Delaware and Pennsylvania for unilaterally seceeding? After all, the Articles of Confederation specifically said the union was perpetual.

If each of the first 9 states to ratify the US Consitution had the legal right to do so, then all of the southern states similarly had the right to withdraw from one political agreement and enter into another one.

In all my reading, and all my lectures, I have come across hundreds of references to our Civil War being fought over every issue besides slavery. I think it myopic to assume that the Civil War (as prophesized by our founding fathers) was fought for any other reason. Every reference to states rights, and sovereignty can be traced directly to the question of slavery. To assume that Americans would kill each other in such numbers for anything besides a vast and irreconcilable difference of morality is both insulting, and ignorant.

To the contrary. To assume that a conflict as inescapably complex as the war and the events that led up to it may be reduced to the sole simple issue of slavery, or any other sole issue for that matter, is itself an exercise in ignorance, for it attempts to force reduction beyond the irreducable.

To be sure, those supporting the institution of slavery used every possible avenue of distraction.

Did they though? Most of the calls for secession by those who were strictly slave proponents readily identified it as their issue. Others, including slavery opponents such as Robert E. Lee, gave different reasons. Tariffs were cited by some (and it cannot be denied that Lincoln sought tariffs). Loyalty was another issue. Federalism and self government were prominent among the calls. A dispute over the composition of the cabinet was brewing. And those are just a few of the big ones. Again, to reduce the conflict beyond them is to force the irreducable into a reduction. And that may only be achieved by violating the irreducability. To do that one must (a) deny the historical evidence that renders the issue irreducable and (b) falsely inflate that to which the reduction is artificially being pursued.

Every conceivable issue was put forth as an excuse for secession. All of these put together do not even begin to equal the economic, social, and moral impacts of abolishing slavery. The South enjoyed all the benefits and riches that come from a parasitic relationship,

Did they though? The clear majority of the population in almost every single confederate state never owned a single slave. Many did, but nowhere near a majority. Similarly, economic trends worldwide were at work rendering slavery increasingly unviable as a tool of production. That is why every single western nation in the world abolished the institution in the period roughly covering 1800-1885. If what you are saying is true, only one country went to war over it - the United States. All others did it peacefully by various legislative means.

and the war was, most assuredly, fought to end that relationship.

Then why did Lincoln himself, both publicly and privately, insist otherwise throughout the war's conduction and especially during the secession period?

If one studies Lincoln's surviving works and letters, a number of themes emerge among his "reasons" for the war. Perhaps most prominent is "preserving the union." Another prominent one that appears over and over and over is the issue of collecting duties or tariffs at southern ports.

I think it very superficial to deduce what was in the mind of Lincoln by highlighting certain speeches and legislation.

It is, unless what is being highlighted is a thoroughly consistent and reoccuring theme of Lincoln's during the said time period.

The poor man was walking the most perilous tightrope in American history, and as a unionist, he would sacrifice himself, his beliefs, his morals, and his brothers and sisters to protect it. This is often taken out of context, and used to belittle his abolitionist heart.

I don't believe Lincoln ever had an abolitionist heart. He had passive moral objection to slavery's existence, but was hardly ever one to advocate support for the abolitionist movement either publicly or privately. For most of his career he was perfectly content to allow slavery's continued existence, and in at least one prominent case was willing to prolong it, so long as it did not cross one guideling that he held with nearly solid consistency, that being opposition to slavery's extension into American territories. Only when it became politically viable and beneficial to his cause did he move to abolish slavery. The move was probably consistent with his passive moral position on the issue, but came about because the circumstances were ripe.

It is only in his personal letters and correspondence that his true feelings can be considered.

It is interesting you mention that. I invite you to examine those letters if you wish, especially from the period of late 1859 to mid 1861 - the election period and secession period. You will find the union theme reoccuring, the collection of duties theme reoccuring, assertions that he is not for the abolition of slavery, and some advocacy for protectionist tariffs.

He made consissions to the South

I know of only one major secession era "concession" attempt by Lincoln, that being the constitutional amendment, and it was intentionally stalled up by the radical northerners in congress along with every other attempt at compromise, slavery related or otherwise. It made it out at the very end of the session and passed after Lincoln lobbied heavily for it, but it was too narrow in it's addressing of issues, too little in what it did, and too late to stop secession, the bulk of which had already occurred.

to save the Union only.

I'll readily agree that was the stated position of Lincoln throughout his speeches and writings. But there was definately more to it that saving the union only. Alexis de Tocqueville commented on that issue in an interesting prediction about secession itself that he made 30 years prior to the event:

"However strong a government may be, it cannot easily escape from the consequences of a principle which it has once admitted as the foundation of its constitution. The Union was formed by the voluntary agreement of the states; and these, in uniting together, have not forfeited their sovereignty, nor have they been reduced to the condition of one and the same people. If one of the states chose to withdraw its name from the contract, it would be difficult to disprove its right of doing so, and the Federal government would have no means of maintaining its claims directly, either by force or by right. In order to enable the Federal government easily to conquer the resistance that may be offered to it by any of its subjects, it would be necessary that one or more of them should be specially interested in the existence of the Union, as has frequently been the case in the history of confederations.

If it be supposed that among the states that are united by the federal tie there are some which exclusively enjoy the principal advantages of union, or whose prosperity entirely depends on the duration of that union, it is unquestionable that they will always be ready to support the central government in enforcing the obedience of the others. But the government would then be exerting a force not derived from itself, but from a principle contrary to its nature. States form confederations in order to derive equal advantages from their union; and in the case just alluded to, the Federal government would derive its power from the unequal distribution of those benefits among the states.

If one of the federated states acquires a preponderance sufficiently great to enable it to take exclusive possession of the central authority, it will consider the other states as subject provinces and will cause its own supremacy to be respected under the borrowed name of the sovereignty of the Union. Great things may then be done in the name of the Federal government, but in reality that government will have ceased to exist." - Democracy in America, Book 1, Chapter 18

There is nothing in the founding of the country or the writing of the Constitution that supports an interpretation of legal unilateral state secession.

To the contrary. It is an inherent consequence of the very foundation upon which the constitution and the nation itself is built. As Alexis de Tocqueville so eloquently put it:

And that was 30 years before the war, Walt. Tocqueville was an extremely intelligent individual and I'm willing to bet that he didn't just make that up out of nowhere. To the contrary, he studied the nature of the American government and carried out its consequences to their ends. If a union is voluntarily created, those who created it may similarly leave. And if they express their clear will to do so in an indisputable demonstration of an attempt at self government, who is to stop them from doing so?

As Tocqueville continued, none of the others nor the nation itself had that right. But that does not mean that none would do so. Rather that possibility remained, and was anticipated to occur at the hands of those who had a vested interest in the continuation of the union itself. He also predicted that persons with this vested interest would rarely if ever admit to it publicly, and rather would conduct their campaign of opposition to disunion under the "borrowed name" of the union itself.

Now who does that sound like...

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.