Re: Did Lincoln free the slaves? (yes and no)

[Jim Farmelant <farmelantj@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, 29 Aug 2000 19:38:14 -0400 Norman Mikalac
<mikalac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> correct, the docs state that slaves were LEGALLY free, but not
> necessarily ACTUALLY free.  in 2000, many people will tell us that
> US
> slaves are STILL not free!
>
> norm
>
>
> Carrol Cox wrote:
> >
> > Norman Mikalac wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > therefore, on 1/1/63, Lincoln's Proclmation freed the slaves in
> the
> > > rebellious states.
> > > on 12/6/65, the XIIIth amendment freed all slaves from all the
> states.
> >
> > I hereby declare that Mumia is free!
> >
> > Lincoln's word had as much effect in the rebellious states as my
> word does in
> > Pennsylvania. In fact it could be regarded as a bribe offer: Come
> home, and you can
> > have your slaves back!

The way I always have understood it, one of the purposes of the
Emancipation Proclamation was to encourage slaves to rebel and/or
run away.  By 1862, the Lincoln Administration realized that the
rebellion of the Southern states could not be crushed without an
attack on slavery as an institution.  It is certainly true that Lincoln
came to this position more as a result of the pressure of events
than out of inner conviction (he had run for president as a politician
who dislike slavery but was no abolitionist) but it was one that
he did nevertheless come to embrace.

No doubt there is some truth in Carrol's statement.  The Proclamation
only applied to the "states in rebellion" which thereby excluded
the border states like Maryland where slavery existed but which
had not seceded.  However, I think that even in 1862 it was widely
understood that the issuance of the Proclamation signaled that
the Lincoln Administration intended to destroy slavery as an
institution. It should also be noted that the issuance of the
Emancipation
Proclamation went a long way to building public support   in Europe for
the Union cause.  Prior to its issuance, the British and French
government
had been seriously contemplating intervention in the American
Civil War on the Confederate side.  After all, the textile mills of
Manchester
depended upon the importation of cheap American cotton.   By
making the Civil War a war to end slavery, Lincoln whether he intended
to or, won the support of European workers movement.  That in turn
had some effect on the fact that the British and the French ultimately
declined to intervene in the American Civil War.  I think a reading
of Marx's articles and essays on the Civil War would be enlightening
on this subject.

> >
> > The argument is of course more complex than this, but it also much
> more complex
> > than equating the Emancipaiton Proclamation with any simple
> freeing of *any* slaves
> > anywhere.

Sure, but the fact is, almost as soon as Lincoln was elected, South
Carolina responded by seceding from the Union, and was soon
followed by most of the other Southern states.  From their perspective,
they made the logical decision because while Lincoln was no abolitionist
and as he himself stated on more than one occasion was willing to
tolerate slavery for the sake of preserving the Union, the Southern
planters realized that behind the election of Lincoln were powerful
economic and political forces that were clearly inimical to their
interests.  They realized that the election of Lincoln was an event that
put the future viability of the "peculiar institution" into doubt and
they responded by withdrawing from the Union.

Jim F.

> >
> > Carrol

________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk!  For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.