Freedom's First Day - January 1, 1863 (1 Viewer)

[jazzeum]

On September 22, 1862, Lincoln issued his preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, which was scheduled to come into effect on January 1, 1863.

However, as 1862 drew to a close, the nation’s attention was riveted on whether President Abraham Lincoln would finalize the Emancipation Proclamation. They had little to worry about on that score. In the last days of 1862, Lincoln and his cabinet were not debating whether the administration should go ahead with the proclamation, but fussed over its exact wording. While these details certainly were important, it was clear from the discussions that the Emancipation Proclamation was going ahead.



“Watch Night Meeting”: Slaves await midnight on December 31, 1862

On the morning of January 1, 1863, after an 11 A.M. reception at the White House, he signed the final, official copy of the document, which had been prepared by the State Department. Frederick Seward, the son of Lincoln’s Secretary of State, was an eyewtiness:

At noon, accompanying my father, I carried the broad parchment in a large portfolio under my arm. We, threading our way through the throng in the vicinity of the White House, went upstairs to the President’s room, where Mr. Lincoln speedily joined us. The broad sheet was spread open before him on the Cabinet table. Mr. Lincoln dipped his pen in the ink, and then, holding it a moment above the sheet, seemed to hesitate. Looking around, he said:​

“I never in my life felt more certain that I was doing right, than I do in signing this paper. But I have been receiving calls and shaking hands since nine o’clock this morning, till my arm is stiff and numb. Now this signature is one that will be closely examined, and if they find my hand trembled they will say ‘he had some compunctions.’ But anyway, it is going to be done.”​

So saying, he slowly and carefully wrote his name at the bottom of the proclamation. The signature proved to be unusually clear, bold, and firm, even for him, and a laugh followed at his apprehension. My father, after appending his own name, and causing the great seal to be affixed, had the important document placed among the archives. Copies were at once given to the press.

​

A Union soldier reads the proclamation to an enslaved family in this 1864 engraving by J.W. Watts

Some, such as the late great historian Richard Hofstadter, said that the Proclamation had all the majesty of a bill of lading as it was written in precise legal language. However, at the end of the Proclamation, President Lincoln wrote, in part, "I do order and declare that all persons held as slaves within said designated States, and parts of States, are, and henceforward shall be free; and that the Executive government of the United States, including the military and naval authorities thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of said persons."

One effect of the Proclamation was to make possible the use of African Americans as Union troops. In a famous 1864 letter Lincoln said, in part, after his proposal for compensated emancipation was rejected by the border states:

I was, in my best judgment, driven to the alternative of either surrendering the Union, and with it, the Constitution, or of laying strong hand upon the colored element. I chose the latter.
​

The USCT (United States Colored Troops) became a significant part of the Union Army and without it the war might not have been won. Here we see members of the USCT whose role was made possible by the Emancipation Proclamation. Photos courtesy of the Library of Congress.

 

[Poppo]

Lincoln is probably the greatest president of the USA, but the "Proclamation of emancipation" was purely a " military measure".

At that time, the Union had big military problems to win the war so Lincoln made this act hoping to let blow up a rebellion in the southern enemy states that actually never took place beacuse the hugest part of the slaves felt very near their masters in this war.A sudden rebellion would have stopped the war in a few weeks as all the southern men from 17 to 50 were at the front, and only women and children were with the slaves. This act was supposed to be vaulable ONLY in the "enemy" southern states and consequently had no legal value in the areas where it was supposed to rule. It had no moral , ethic value either as the allies southern states could keep the " peculiar institution".

So this act was a total failure both in pragmatic and in ethical points of views.

Actually Lincoln, before the war ,planned the solution of gradually freeing the slaves with compensation of up to year 1900 ( and the southern intelighenzia agreed).this would have been a reasonable decision which would have avoided the sudden destruction of the southern economy, and would have avoided the creation of ghettos in the northern big cities( still on today).

Instead of the "Proclamation of emancipation", a forward-looking and effective act was made by general Lee and president Davis:the volunteer enrollment of black slaves in the southern army. According to this law, those who would have served with honour and loyalty would have received not only the citizenship, but also a piece of land, that is to say a "job". Unfortunately this law was made too late at the end of the war.


As every one knows history is written by the winners.....

 

[Poppo]

Lincoln is probably the greatest president of the USA, but the "Proclamation of emancipation" was purely a " military measure".

At that time, the Union had big military problems to win the war so Lincoln made this act hoping to let blow up a rebellion in the southern enemy states that actually never took place beacuse the hugest part of the slaves felt very near their masters in this war.A sudden rebellion would have stopped the war in a few weeks as all the southern men from 17 to 50 were at the front, and only women and children were with the slaves. This act was supposed to be vaulable ONLY in the "enemy" southern states and consecuently had no legal value in the areas where it was supposed to rule. It had no moral , ethic value either as the allies southern states could keep the " peculiar institution".

So this act was a total failure both in pragmatic and in ethical points of views.

Actually Lincoln, before the war ,planned the solution of gradually freeing the slaves with compensation of up to year 1900 ( and the southern intelighenzia agreed).this would have been a reasonable decision which would have avoided the sudden destruction of the southern economy, and would have avoided the creation of ghettos in the northern big cities( still on today).

Instead of the "Proclamation of emancipation", a forward-looking and effective act was made by general Lee and president Davis:the volunteer enrollment of black slaves in the southern army. According to this law, those who would serve with honour and loyalty would receive not only the citizenship, but also a piece of land, that is to say a "job". Unfortunately this law was made too late at the end of the war.


As every one knows history is written by the winners.....

 

[maddadicus]

Lincoln is probably the greatest president of the USA, but the "Proclamation of emancipation" was purely a " military measure".

At that time, the Union had big military problems to win the war so Lincoln made this act hoping to let blow up a rebellion in the southern enemy states that actually never took place beacuse the hugest part of the slaves felt very near their masters in this war.A sudden rebellion would have stopped the war in a few weeks as all the southern men from 17 to 50 were at the front, and only women and children were with the slaves. This act was supposed to be vaulable ONLY in the "enemy" southern states and consequently had no legal value in the areas where it was supposed to rule. It had no moral , ethic value either as the allies southern states could keep the " peculiar institution".

So this act was a total failure both in pragmatic and in ethical points of views.

Actually Lincoln, before the war ,planned the solution of gradually freeing the slaves with compensation of up to year 1900 ( and the southern intelighenzia agreed).this would have been a reasonable decision which would have avoided the sudden destruction of the southern economy, and would have avoided the creation of ghettos in the northern big cities( still on today).

Instead of the "Proclamation of emancipation", a forward-looking and effective act was made by general Lee and president Davis:the volunteer enrollment of black slaves in the southern army. According to this law, those who would have served with honour and loyalty would have received not only the citizenship, but also a piece of land, that is to say a "job". Unfortunately this law was made too late at the end of the war.


As every one knows history is written by the winners.....

The Proclamation was also a bold strategic move as it prevented England and France from actively intervening to help the cotton rich South..Neither country could justify a war against the freeing of slaves which became the focus of the ACW's final years...Michael

 

[jazzeum]

In the December 31, 2012 Editorial section of the New York Times, Eric Foner, author of the Pulitzer prizewinning "The Fiery Trial: Abraham Lincoln and American Slavery," writes about what the Emancipation Proclamation meant to America, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/01/opinion/the-emancipation-of-abe-lincoln.html?ref=opinion

Notes Foner:

The proclamation did not end slavery in the United States on the day it was issued. Indeed, it could not even be enforced in most of the areas where it applied, which were under Confederate control. But it ensured the eventual death of slavery — assuming the Union won the war. Were the Confederacy to emerge victorious, slavery, in one form or another, would undoubtedly have lasted a long time.

Nonetheless, the proclamation marked a dramatic transformation in the nature of the Civil War and in Lincoln’s own approach to the problem of slavery. No longer did he seek the consent of slave holders. The proclamation was immediate, not gradual, contained no mention of compensation for owners, and made no reference to colonization.

In it, Lincoln addressed blacks directly, not as property subject to the will of others but as men and women whose loyalty the Union must earn. For the first time, he welcomed black soldiers into the Union Army; over the next two years some 200,000 black men would serve in the Army and Navy, playing a critical role in achieving Union victory.
​

 

[Scott]

View attachment 114759

Poppo, This photo is the unit in Union service. The greatcoats and trousers appear grey but are the sky blue US issue.

 

[jazzeum]

Poppo, This photo is the unit in Union service. The greatcoats and trousers appear grey but are the sky blue US issue.

That is because the Native Guards were originally a Confederate unit. However, they were not used as the Confederate government refused to accept them into the army and they eventually disbanded. When New Orleans was captured the unit was reconstituted.

 

[jazzeum]

Several popular images of the Proclamation:



President Lincoln Writing the Proclamation of Freedom, January 1, 1863 by David Gilmour Blythe



First Reading of the Emancipation Proclamation by Francis Carpenter (who spent six months at the White House drawing the painting, which now resides in the U.S. Capitol)

Several other images, popular at the time or late 19th Century:

The second image is entitled Abraham Lincoln and his Emancipation Proclamation and is from The Strobridge Lith. Co., Cincinnati, circa 1888.

 

[jazzeum]

The first of the last two images in the preceding post is entitled Emancipation, a wood engraving by Thomas Nast, 1865, published by S. Bott, Philadelphia.

It's a rather interesting engraving and here is the description from the Library of Congress:

Thomas Nast's celebration of the emancipation of Southern slaves with the end of the Civil War. Nast envisions a somewhat optimistic picture of the future of free blacks in the United States. The central scene shows the interior of a freedman's home with the family gathered around a "Union" wood stove. The father bounces his small child on his knee while his wife and others look on. On the wall near the mantel hang a picture of Abraham Lincoln and a banjo. Below this scene is an oval portrait of Lincoln and above it, Thomas Crawford's statue of "Freedom." On either side of the central picture are scenes contrasting black life in the South under the Confederacy (left) with visions of the freedman's life after the war (right). At top left fugitive slaves are hunted down in a coastal swamp. Below, a black man is sold, apart from his wife and children, on a public auction block. At bottom a black woman is flogged and a male slave branded. Above, two hags, one holding the three-headed hellhound Cerberus, preside over these scenes, and flee from the gleaming apparition of Freedom. In contrast, on the right, a woman with an olive branch and scales of justice stands triumphant. Here, a freedman's cottage can be seen in a peaceful landscape. Below, a black mother sends her children off to "Public School." At bottom a free Negro receives his pay from a cashier. Two smaller scenes flank Lincoln's portrait. In one a mounted overseer flogs a black field slave (left); in the other a foreman politely greets Negro cotton-field workers.​

 

[Scott]

That is because the Native Guards were originally a Confederate unit. However, they were not used as the Confederate government refused to accept them into the army and they eventually disbanded. When New Orleans was captured the unit was reconstituted.

Thanks Jazz. Neo-Confederates sometime stretch who was actually in the Confederate armies as soldiers.

 

[Poppo]

Poppo, This photo is the unit in Union service. The greatcoats and trousers appear grey but are the sky blue US issue.

It was late and I just put some photos found on internet without paying attention......What counts is the piece I wrote, not the photos..:wink2:

 

[jazzeum]

About the only thing we seem to agree upon is that the Emancipation Proclamation was a military measure within the President's powers as Commander in Chief.

The rest of the reasoning seems a little garbled. Slaves had been going over to the Union side since 1861 when slaves (later dubbed "contrabands") went to Fort Monroe. This later became a torrent and the Union authorities had to figure out what to do with all the slaves that went to Fort Monroe. You might want to read Adam Goodheart's 1861 (published in 2011) for some background. For the most part, whenever slaves had the opportunity to escape they did so.

As has been pointed out, this was the first time a national measure had been passed against slavery and while it could not be enforced in the Southern states, it had immense moral value as slaves continued to abandon their masters (see below). Moreover, prior to the issuance of the Proclamation, slaves were not just standing still waiting to be freed but taking action to gain freedom. The Emancipation Proclamation resulted in more freedom for tens of thousands of ex-slaves in Union-occupied areas of the South.

In addition, it was a decisive turning point that shifted federal policy beyond earlier anti-slavery measures because of the way it implemented new policies of enticement (encouraging slaves to leave southern plantations) and enlistment (paying black men to serve in the Union army).

Thus, your conclusion just isn't supported by the evidence.

Factually, you are incorrect about compensated emancipation. This was not planned before 1860 but in 1862. Under Lincoln's plan, Congress would have had to issue bonds to pay for the emancipation. However, Lincoln could not persuade the border states to go along with this proposal and it was at this point that he began thinking about issuance of an Emancipation Proclamation. The rest of your statement doesn't really make any sense (and is quasi rascist) because the freed black people in the 1880s (and after) only moved northwards because they were denied economic opportunity in the South.

Lastly, you raise the myth of Black Confederates. Rather than wasting time on this, I will gladly admit my error on this if you can point to a specific regiment of Black soldiers. Now, this is different than the body servants or the laborers that helped the Confederate Army or the occasional Black who fired a gun against Union forces.

I would urge to read Eric Foner's book "The Fiery Trial."

 

[Scott]

It was late and I just put some photos found on internet without paying attention......What counts is the piece I wrote, not the photos..:wink2:

I know you meant well Poppo.

 

[Rob]

Brad, as always with your ACW related articles I thank you very much indeed for posting them, I always find them fascinating. The demise of the hideous practice of slavery in the US and the War that was fought around it (and other issues of course) is very interesting indeed. Thanks again and if you don't mind me asking.....keep em coming mate!:wink2:

Rob

 

[jazzeum]

Rob,

Thanks. I enjoyed putting it together, particularly researching the photos at the Library of Congress website, which is an extraordinary treasure trove of information, particularly the Photograph and Prints Division.

Brad

 

[jazzeum]

Here's a video about the Emancipation Proclamation at the National Archives.

 

[jazzeum]

The claim is often made that the Proclamation didn't free any slaves. Here is a map showing otherwise.




For a larger view, see http://cwmemory.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/photo-e1357088415393.jpg

In addition, please see the following article from the Disunion blog, showing that Lincoln’s proclamation formally freed tens of thousands of slaves in Union-controlled areas of Arkansas, Florida, Mississippi and North Carolina — as well as the South Carolina Sea Islands, http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/31/the-grove-of-gladness/#more-138182

 

[Scott]

 

[VIRIATO]

Very interesting stuff, one day I'll have to find the time and read about the ACW.
Thanks for posting,
Paulo

 

[Jack]

I have often wondered how long slavery would have lasted without the Civil War. Amazing to think that a few decades longer and it would have lasted into the 20th century.