Talk:Emancipation Proclamation/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Slavery Abolition Act

Why is there a disambiguation link to the (UK's) "Slavery Abolition Act" at the top of the page? Although the "Slavery Abolition Act" and "Emancipation Proclamation" deal with similar issues, there really isn't a way that they can be confused. I'm moving the link to the bottom of the page as a see also link.-ZD67.83.48.21 00:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Why?

Lincoln said in his inaugural address that he wouldn't meddle with the institution of slavery. What changed his mind to issue this?

-- times changed a moral cause to the war he forced europeans like britian to acknowledge that they can't support the south because that would be supporting slavery(note britain supplied the south with hundreds of small ships in the beginning of the war). it also gave most people in the union a better reason for fighting the war other than to "save the union".

When he was elected Lincoln was attempting to save the union from collapse, however when the south seceded that changed the game.

Slaves were part of the war machinery - he did not say anything as simple as he "would not meddle with slavery"--JimWae 06:22, 2005 Jan 21 (UTC)

At first, Lincoln fought the war for the Confederacy, to keep it together; not to free slaves. He changed his mind almost a year later. That is when he wrote the Emancipation Proclamation. He wrote it in secret, thinking that when all the slaves in the states of rebellion were freed, they would join the Union army. His advisers advised him to wait to release the Emancipation Proclamation until a victory in battle, that way it wouldn’t look like the Union government needed the blacks to help save them. Then the Confederacy army won Antietam in 1862, Lincoln warned the Confederacy that if they did not return to the Union by January 1, 1863, he would put the Emancipation Proclamation to work. Although Lincoln gave the Confederacy three months to change their minds, they ignored him. On the contrary to what the title of this proclamation is though, Lincoln didn’t free a single slave. It “emancipated slaves where it could not reach them, and left them in bondage where it could have set them free.” (http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v13/v13n5p-4_Morgan.html) Mary Jones, a woman in Georgia, thought that the emancipated slaves would be the ones to suffer most through the war. In her journal, she wrote: “With their emancipation, must come their extermination.”

In a letter to Horace Greeley, Lincoln said to the world, as Greeley was a newspaper editor, that "If I could save the Union by freeing all the slaves, I would do that. If I could save the Union by leaving all the slaves alone, I would do that. And if I could save the Union by freeing some, and leaving others be, I would also do that." Note that that quote was from memory and likely slightly off, which is why I didn't add this to the artical. --KinkoBlast 17:34, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Ah, here is the exact wording: "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and not either to save or to destroy slavery.

If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that." Gota love Project Gutenburg, great source. http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/14721 --KinkoBlast 17:43, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

i cant figure out how to sign off...but here goes...

Lincoln changed his views from being a person "not in favour in bringin out racial equality in any way" during the Lincoln/Douglas debates to being "naturally opposed" to slavery 2 days before the EP was issued.

the key thing to remember before you think that he is a racist and only changing to suit the times according to politics and the fact that the union was spiraling downwards in the war and Lincoln needed o prevent the British recognising the south is that slavery not race was the key issue. race became an issue later (this is clear post structuralism). and they are two different things. Lincoln was a staunch advocate of colonisation of all black Americans to Liberia because it would "solve all the problems we have". slavery however was rather disgusting and base and should not be supported. you have to look at Lincoln in context. for more info go read this great book:

Miller, W.L. (2002). Lincoln’s Virtues – an Ethical Biography. The United States of America: Third Printing Press.

This is my first try at any of these discussion things, so here goes. In the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln was not freeing the slaves up North (of which there were), but trying to free the slaves down South of which he had no say. Actually Lincoln was not a friend to blacks at all. He wanted to rid the country of them and send them to either Central America, South America, or Africa. Lincoln also believed that the black man was not equal to the white man and never would be. [User: dixielee ] 18:11, 12 July 2006

Perhaps DixieLee will tell us what a true friend of the black man would have done. Rjensen 01:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

=

Change of wording

From "In short, if you remained loyal to the Union you could continue to own slaves." to "In short, border states that remained loyal to the Union allowed to retain their slaves."

Do we really need this statement? I believe that this is a little redundant. This fact has been stated 4 different times in 4 different ways before the reader would actually see that sentence. Should we delete it? RiseRobotRise 09:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Never questioned by ANY legal scholar?

I am certainly not a legal expert or anything, but just reading the introduction to this article the claim that "no court or legal scholar has questioned [the Proclamation's] validity" struck me as a really broad, sweeping statement to make without including any real support, and I find it hard to believe that NO legal scholar has EVER questioned this. Unless someone has a citation or something to substantiate that claim, I think it should be considered (at best) original research and probably needs to be modified somehow. Would anyone object to this?********* --ChrisHack20

the legal status is discussed in the depth in the comprehensive referenced legal studies that look at the legal history (like Belz, Vorenberg) None of them report any serious legal challenge. It is not original research to report the findings of scholars. (add as well Harold Hyman, McLaughlin and James Randall on Constl History)--did they perhaps miss some major case???? Rjensen 06:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC) hello this is the BFK

why is this significant to us history?

what is the significance of emancipation proclamation to us history? what effect did this have on the war? was it advantageous for the north to free slaves?

I'd advise you to read Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation by Allen C. Guelzo, which explains the issue far better than any of us here could. In a nutshell, this was the culmination of the various emancipation attempts and represents the point at which emancipation could not be taken back. Its actual effect on the war effort is debatable. It helped insure that the anti-slavery European nations wouldn't enter the war (although by the point the Proclamation was issued, they had discovered cotton in Egypt, so they were less concerned about protecting the South). It also paved the way for blacks to perform more and more duties for the Union military, eventually leading to combat duty. However, it reinforced racism in the North, gave the South a moral boost and led to the Republicans taking heavy hits in the 1862 election. As for "advantageous", you'll have to define whether you mean morally, politically or somewhere in the middle. Stilgar135 20:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Leftist POV and REAL Intent of Emanc. Pro.

Modern Americans are taught by their fanatical, ethnomasochist leftist overlords downright lies. Lincoln spoke the following words in Washington, D.C. on Sept. 22, 1862 on the REAL meaning of the Emancipation Proclamation:

"I have urged the colonization of the Negroes, and I shall continue. My Emancipation Proclamation was linked with this plan. There is no room for two distinct races of white men in America, much less for two distinct races of whites and blacks. I can conceive of no greater calamity than the assimilation of the Negro into our social and political life as our equal...We can never attain the ideal union our fathers dreamed, with millions of an alien, inferior race among us, whose assimilation is neither possible nor desirable." (Lincoln, Collected Works, Vol. V, pp. 371-5).

Your cite is bogus -- there is no such quote on the volume and pages you listed. Removing POV tag until you at least present an argument. Out of context quotes and claims of leftist conspiracies don't constitute rational argument. Tom (North Shoreman) 02:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Your claim that the cite is bogus is itself bogus. Only modern left-wing deniers of historical reality would contest the obvious. The above statement by Lincoln, the supposed champion of racial equality, is entirely consistent with the worldview he held his whole life, evidenced by the following:

"Negro equality. Fudge! How long in the Government of a God great enough to make and maintain this Universe, shall there continue knaves to vend and fools to gulp, so low a piece of demagoguism as this?" (The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln. The Abraham Lincoln Assoc., Springfield, Ill., Roy P. Basler, editor; New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1953; September 1859, Vol. III, p. 399).

Lincoln also wrote: "A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation, but as immediate separation is impossible the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together...Such separation, if ever affected at all, must be effected by colonization...The enterprise is a difficult one, but 'where there is a will there is a way.'"

In 1858: "I am not, nor ever have been in favor or bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races. I am not nor have ever been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with White people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality." (Fourth Debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Charleston, Ill.)

America's founding fathers were in complete agreement with Lincoln here. The words of another alleged champion of racial equality, Thomas Jefferson, have been criminally distorted; it is sanctimoniously chiseled into the granite of the Jefferson Memorial in DC that Jefferson believed that "Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people are to be free"; but the words, as they been spuriously taught to Americans, constitute a serious deception and lie. The critical second part of his point was cleverly left unchiseled: "nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government. Nature, habit, opinion have drawn indelible lines of distinction between them. It is still in our power to direct the process of emancipation and deportation, peaceably, and in such slow degree, as that the evil will wear off insensibly, and their place be ...filled up by free White laborers. If, on the contrary, it is left to force itself on, human nature must shudder at the prospect held up."

It's time for a reality check.

• The only references I could find on google for your quotes from Lincoln are from KKK and Aryan-nation websites. I think you had better be prepared to back up those very controversial remarks you make above with some real references. I'm removing the POV tag, as your claims are bogus. --CapitalR 05:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Wait, because certain words of Lincoln are used by modern extremist groups, that means these quotes must, by sheer necessity, not exist? Please learn to separate your modernist emotivity from reality, please. The reality I am simply trying to point out has been long-recognized by honest researchers. See, for example, Thomas DiLorenzo's exposition on Lincoln's true worldview:

http://www.theoccidentalquarterly.com/archives/vol4no1/rsg-dilorenzo.html

It is time for Nietzschian idol-smashing, folks.

Very peculiar--the first quotation you provide is cited as taking up four or five pages of Lincoln's collected works, but it takes up a few lines of text on my screen!65.213.77.129 (talk) 14:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Why is it everyone disagreeing with Tom here fails to address whether or not Lincoln said this stuff? He gives several quotes, you claim it's from racists. He backs it up, you say the passage is too short? Ridiculous. 71.83.198.208 (talk) 15:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I am Tom and I am not the one providing the quotes. What I did contest is the accuracy of a specific quote and its attribution to the Collected Works of Lincoln. This work is online at [1] and searchable -- the alleged quote is not there. You claim the quote is legitimate -- so prove it.

Second, context is important. Isolated quotes rarely tell the whole story. In this case, the subject is the Emancipation Proclamation, not the complete social and political equality of African Americans. The quotes, other than the fake one, are attributed to 1858 and 1859 -- their relevance to a nation that by 1862 is in the middle of a civil war is minimal. The claim that Lincoln was the "supposed champion of racial equality" is a straw man argument often used by Neo-Confederate types who like to pretend the war wasn't about slavery. It was quite possible in the 19th Century to realize that slavery was evil (Lincoln's actual view) without calling for a 21st Century position on racial equality. History is a little more complex than simply finding isolated, out of context quotes that say what you want them to say. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

New Image

I'd like to offer the following image to maintainers of this article. It is a photograph of a reproduction of the Emancipation Proclamation taken at the National Underground Railroad Freedom Center in Cincinnati, Ohio. I hope you can use it! MamaGeek ^{(talk/contrib)} 02:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Did the 13th amendment also free slaves in New Jersey?

From what I've read (I don't have the source available), there were 12 slaves in New Jersey according to the 1860 census. These were those who wouldn't have been freed under the gradual emancipation law that went into effect on July 4, 1804, and weren't freed by the general emancipation in 1845. It isn't known if any of these 12 were still alive in December, 1865, when the 13th amendment was ratified.

04:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)Stanleykr

It freed every slave in the United States. Jmlk17 22:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, laddie, you're wrong, the proclamation did NOT free every slave in the Union. Five states that were in the Union, that supported the union throughout the Civil War, were not affected by the Proclamation. This is also a point that is laughable about the proclamation. The Confederate States believed that they were a separate country, so how, therefore, could they be affected by the Union's proclamation? This was something many Confederates scoffed at. A total of over 3 million slaves were not affected by the proclamation in the aforementioned states. Of course, later on, slavery was abolished there was well. Spotty11222 (talk) 00:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake, I should have read the topic title. I thought you were referring to the Proclamation, not the 13th. Sorry. Spotty11222 (talk) 00:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Protection from anonymous editing?

This article seems to be attracting quite a bit of vandalism. Should it be locked from anonymous editing? Red Harvest (talk) 00:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Should this page be semi-protected again? Since the protection template was removed (07:52, 8 March 2009 Nishkid64), there has been a lot of vandalism again. Diane M (talk) 12:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

JimWae's revert

So, JimWae, what is your problem with my edits in the lede? Do you think its inappropriate to point out a) the unpopularity of the EP in the north? b) that it was issued when things looked grim for the north? c) to point out the military/strategic rationale for the EP? All of these are sourced. Is it a political correctness thing, or what? PhilLiberty (talk) 15:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

It freed hundreds immediately & millions in the months to come. The view in the North was not one-sided. Misuse of the word "cause" is a problem in much historiography. When first EP was issued, the North had just won a major battle. Sources disagree - you cannot cherry-pick sources & present them as facts. You are battling all the other editors & not attempting to persuade anyone until after you make radical changes to the article, and then engage in a series of revert wars when people do not accept your non-NPOV changes. --JimWae (talk) 16:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

JimWae> "It freed hundreds immediately" False, and contradicted several places in the article.

• • Such as in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_Proclamation#Immediate_impact ??? --JimWae (talk) 16:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

JimWae> "The view in the North was not one-sided." No one said it was. The way to improve the article is not to delete sourced material, but to add sourced material for balance.

JimWae> "When first EP was issued, the North had just won a major battle." Not according to Wiki's List of American Civil War battles and related articles. Which "major battle" are you referring to?

JimWae> "Sources disagree - you cannot cherry-pick sources & present them as facts." Please cite the sources, and tell what specifically they disagree with. Then add them into the article if appropriate. Simply reverting sourced material because someone somewhere disagrees is POV. PhilLiberty (talk) 16:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• If you know anything about this topic, you should know that sources disagree. You cannot cherry-pick quotes from apologists & present them as facts--JimWae (talk) 16:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I am aware that it has sometimes been claimed that no slaves were freed immediately by the Emancipation Proclamation. When I saw the widely acclaimed documentary TV series on the war a few years ago I was slightly surprised to find that this appears to be a myth. In fact, as it pointed out, 2 groups of slaves were freed immediately by the proclamation: those held in contraband camps, and the inhabitants of the Sea Islands in Georgia. Also, and I thought this was well known and undisputed, the proclamation was issued in the aftermath of the Union victory at the Battle of Antietam. PatGallacher (talk) 16:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Several issues with Phil's edits. (1) DiLorenzo is not a reliable source. The timing of the announcement of the EP came BEFORE Fredricksburg so DiLorenzo's claims that it was somehow related to the Battle of Fredricksburg is a serious factual error. (2) Phil writes, "The rationale of the Proclamation was twofold: 1) to incite slave rebellions against the women and children left on the Southern plantations, and 2) to try to induce Britain and France not to militarily support the South." Phil sources this to DiLorenzo but, in fact, DiLorenzo is simply quoting a fellow non-historian, Sheldon Vanauken -- Vanauken clearly is not discussing Lincoln's ACTUAL rationale but the belief held by some people in Great Britain. (3) The claim that the EP freed no slaves is, as others have noted, factually incorrect. in addition to the slaves immediately freed, additional slaves were freed everytime the Union army advanced. (4) The claim that the riots in NY were caused by the EP makes one wonder why they were actually called the New York Draft Riots. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Pat> "the proclamation was issued in the aftermath of the Union victory at the Battle of Antietam."

The North didn't win at Antietam - "the battle was tactically inconclusive" according to the article you link, which is correct. Lincoln was advised to wait for a victory before he announced it, but he had to settle for a non-loss.

Pat> "2 groups of slaves were freed immediately by the proclamation: those held in contraband camps, and the inhabitants of the Sea Islands in Georgia."

Could be. I'd like to see a citation for that. You can't always believe what you see on TV.

Tom> "(1) DiLorenzo is not a reliable source."

Wrong. He is a published author and expert on Lincoln. Here are his credentials: Thomas DiLorenzo.

Tom> "The timing of the announcement of the EP came BEFORE Fredricksburg so DiLorenzo's claims that it was somehow related to the Battle of Fredricksburg is a serious factual error."

The first part of the EP was issued before, the second part after, Fredericksburg - both when "the Confederate States were winning the war" according to Vanauken. So DiLorenzo was correct about the military context of the Proclamation. Lincoln himself said he had reached "the end of the rope on the [military] plan of operation." (Paul M. Angle, The Lincoln Reader)

Tom> "DiLorenzo is simply quoting a fellow non-historian, Sheldon Vanauken"

The article you linked shows Vanauken studied at Oxford University and taught history and literature at Lynchburg College.

Tom> "Vanauken clearly is not discussing Lincoln's ACTUAL rationale but the belief held by some people in Great Britain."

One can only make educated guesses about what was going on in Lincoln's mind. But Vanauken, the historian, is making those guesses and backing them up with English newspaper and commentators opinions. These are less biased than American sources, especially since Lincoln had already shut down hundreds of opposition newpapers. I could add another quote from DiLorenzo: "Lincoln himself maintained that the Proclamation was merely a war measure, not an attempt at genuine emancipation. ... What might have been its objectives as such? Most likely, Lincoln understood that the European powers, who had recently abolished slavery peacefully, would balk at trading with and otherwise supporting the Confederacy if he introduced emancipation as one purpose of the war. It is also likely that he entertained the notion that the Proclamation might incite a slave insurrection or at least the threat of one. There were very few white males left on the plantations..." The Real Lincoln p. 37-8.

Tom> "The claim that the riots in NY were caused by the EP makes one wonder why they were actually called the New York Draft Riots."

Yes, especially when it happened four months after the conscription law was announced, and mainly involved assaulting and lynching blacks. Did New Yorkers think that blacks were responsible for the draft? Or were they pissed because of the bait and switch excuses for war (not unlike Bush). Another effect: "The Emancipation Proclamation also caused a desertion crisis in the US army. At least 200,000 Federal soldiers deserted; another 120,000 evaded conscription; and at least 90,000 Northern men fled to Canada to avoid conscription while thousands more hid out in the mountains of central Pennsylvania to place themselves beyond the reach of enrollment officers." TRL, DiLorenzo, who cites McPherson What They Fought For: 1861-1865 for these facts.

Hey, here's a review of a recent book called Greatest Emancipations: How the West Ended Slavery: How the West (Except for the U.S.) Ended Slavery PhilLiberty (talk) 03:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Bottom line -- your proposed changes to the lede are, at best, based on fringe scholarship. Some comments:

You added, “It did not free a single slave.” This has been effectively rebutted above. Some slaves were freed immediately -- others freed as the Union armies moved South.

Draft Riots -- You argue that “it happened four months after the conscription law”, but it also occurred six months after the EP went into effect. More important, it happened on the very day that the draft was to be executed in New York City. The rioters had a lot of grievances and racism was certainly part of it -- your attempt to make it entirely about the EP is inaccurate and overly simplified.

Timing -- You ignore the fact that Lincoln’s original intention to issue the EP, before he informed his cabinet, was unrelated to the course of the war. It was Seward and others that persuaded him to time it after a Union victory.

Purpose -- There is not evidence whatsoever that Lincoln or the Union ever planned to incite “slave rebellions against the women and children.” In fact, if such had occurred it was believed that this would have made Britain more likely to intervene on humanitarian grounds.

Desertion -- DiLorenzo is famous for his improper and inaccurate use of primary and secondary sources. I seriously doubt that ANY historian linked 200,000 desertions specifically to the EP. In fact, Donald, Baker, and Holt in “The Civil War and Reconstruction” (page 239) place TOTAL UNION DESERTION at 200,000. -- another strike against DiLorenzo’s “scholarship”. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Tom> "You added, “It did not free a single slave.” This has been effectively rebutted above."

I'm willing to change my mind on this, if something more than "I saw it on TV" is provided as evidence that it immediately freed some slaves.

Tom> "The rioters had a lot of grievances and racism was certainly part of it -- your attempt to make it entirely about the EP is inaccurate and overly simplified."

I didn't say it was entirely about the EP. Evidence shows that that was a part of it. The assaults and lynchings happened over a long period - the "riot" was merely the climax. The people assulted were usually blacks, not recruiters. We should say that the EP contributed to the violence and rioting.

Tom> "You ignore the fact that Lincoln’s original intention to issue the EP, before he informed his cabinet, was unrelated to the course of the war."

That's ridiculous. Lincoln's own letters (e.g. to Horace Greely) and speeches show that he was willing to continue slavery early on. Due to how badly the war was going, he decided to issue the EP as a war measure. He admitted this. All you've shown, at most, is that some of the lost battles occurred after he thought he might issue the proclamation.

Tom> "There is not evidence whatsoever that Lincoln or the Union ever planned to incite slave rebellions against the women and children."

Right - this is a logical deduction. We don't know for sure what was going on in Lincoln's mind.

Tom> "I seriously doubt that ANY historian linked 200,000 desertions specifically to the EP."

And no historian would deny the EP was a major factor in the massive desertions. The average northern soldier thought he was fighting for union, and suddenly he is fighting for "niggers." You seem to be admitting that the EP was a factor, but want to quibble over the exact numbers.

Tom> "... another strike against DiLorenzo’s “scholarship”."

But you yourself just supported DiLorenzo's claim on numbers. DiLorenzo does not claim (as you misinterpret him) that all desertions were caused by the EP. He claims that the EP caused a crisis. Big diff. Then he gives the total number of desertions, which you apparently agree with. PhilLiberty (talk) 17:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Removed from lede

removed from lede:

In this, Lincoln's proclamation echoed that issued at the beginning of the American War for Independence by Virginia's royal governor, John Murray, Earl of Dunmore. Lord Dunmore's Proclamation (dated November 7, 1775) declared "all indentured Servants, Negroes, or others, (appertaining to Rebels,) free, that are able and willing to bear Arms" for King George III. Although it applied only to slaves belonging to rebels, it still inspired thousands of African slaves (regardless of whether their masters were rebels or loyalists) to join the British Army throughout the war in hopes of earning their freedom.

For the EP, slaves did not need to become soldiers, the emancipation was unconditional. While this paragraph might be relevant later in article, it is not appropriate for the lede. Itis also not unique, as a similar proclamation was issued during War of 1812. --JimWae (talk) 16:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

This should be edited and reinserted:

There were at least four Emancipation Proclamations in American History. Abolitionism was a long movement. The first Emancipation Proclamation was issued by the British in 1775 during the American Revolution. It allowed men who were slaves to enlist in the British Army if they were able to escape from their master and travel to British lines.

The Second Emancipation was declared by Major General John Fremont (the losing Republican Presidential Candidate in 1856)on August 31, 1861:

"All persons who shall be taken with arms in their hands within these lines shall be tried by court-martial, and, if found guilty, will be shot. The property, real and personal, of all persons in the State of Missouri who shall take up arms against the United States, and who shall be directly proven to have taken active part with their enemies in the field, is declared to be confiscated to the public use; and their slaves, if any they have, are hereby declared free."

The British Proclamation presaged Abraham Lincoln's First Emancipation Proclamation while Fremont's presaged Lincoln's Second.

Freeing American slaves and the subsequent Civil Rights movement that started immediately after release have been a very long road. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.100.241.31 (talk) 20:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Preliminary Proclamation

The Preliminary Proclamation is not in wikisource --JimWae (talk) 08:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Exemptions

Why were parts of Louisiana exempt from the proclomation?

Eric J. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.32.16 (talk) 19:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Immediate Impact

Former3L: I like your rewrite on this section changing my text. I was not happy with what I wrote and like your version better. It would be interesting to know how the original Archive website got written with that sentence. Most other webpages were obvious copies of that one. It should have been reliable and many that copied it, trusted it as such. How did you get the Archives to correct their site? Liberty4u (talk) 16:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I notified the National Archives using their "contact us" page, citing the EP's text, Harris's articles, and newspaper articles from early 1863. I was favorably surprised by the speed of their reply. It would be interesting to see where the "EP didn't free a single slave" idea got started. I suspect it was fairly recent--I've seen plenty of older sources (1880s-1900) that disparaged the EP as cynically motivated or not very effective in practice, but I don't recall seeing the "not a single slave" idea back then.Former3L (talk) 22:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Why it was controversial in North and Europe

I readded the part explaining why the EP was so controversial:

It was very controversial in the North, contributing to race riots in New York City, since Lincoln's original justification given for the war was to "save the Union." The Proclamation was issued at a nadir of the war for the North, after a stunning defeat at Fredericksburg. The rationale of the Proclamation was twofold: 1) to incite slave rebellions against the women and children left on the Southern plantations, and 2) to try to induce Britain and France not to militarily support the South.

PhilLiberty (talk) 16:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Let me see; the Proclamation was issued after Antietam and nine months before the Draft Riots; which were, as the name suggests, produced by the draft, when the Union introduced it a year after the Rebels. Please stop revert warring for nonsense. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, the Proclamation contains the following statement: "I hereby enjoin upon the people so declared to be free to abstain from all violence, unless in necessary self-defence . . .". Hardly a call for a slave uprising.Former3L (talk) 04:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure you can find many political speeches saying "be kind to Indians" during the genocide. And saying that the US is fighting for freedom as it occupies foreign lands and murders anyone up after curfew or in the path of a convoy. We need to give such political cover the weight it deserves. PhilLiberty (talk) 17:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

This article is not about the Indian Wars, or about later foreign policy actions of the USA, and your statements are therefore irrelevant. There were no large-scale slave uprisings, and you (and the sources you cite) have presented no reason to take the EP's call for nonviolence as actually intended to cause violence.Former3L (talk) 19:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

It is ridiculous POV to present the rationale as being twofold & to ignore all other reasons. It is ridiculous POV to see it as a conspiracy to incite rioting at all - though some feared that, there is no evidence it ever took place. My edit summary said no refs - it should have said only "fringe" refs --JimWae (talk) 19:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Saying that the NYC riots happened after the EP supports the position that the EP "contributed." Most white potential draftees were racist, and didn't want to fight for "niggers." There is no hint that the rationale for criticism was two-fold. The main reasons for criticism are given, and you are welcome to add more. You are not welcome to delete contemporary criticism as if there was none. We want NPOV, not victor's history. PhilLiberty (talk) 19:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Your text very clearly asserts a fringe "theory" as a fact: it says "THE RATIONALE WAS TWOFOLD" - completely ignoring reasons given at the time. Your source is "lost cause" POV & his statements cannot be presented as fact - and do not belong in the lede at all --JimWae (talk) 19:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

It gives the opinion of a prominent scholar and author. You may not like that opinion, but that's not sufficient reason to delete it. But I changed it to say "according to critics" to (hopefully) satisfy you. PhilLiberty (talk) 17:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

There was indeed a lot of anti-Americanism in England especially among the upper classes, which included the proprietors of almost all the major newspapers. They were really worried about the rise of the democracy in England itself, which threatened their superior position, and the projected their fears across the Atlantic. In fact, these British aristocrats were very poorly informed about the course of the war. For example, the newspapers carried accounts of Lee's heroic defense of Richmond, neglecting the overwhelming disasters happening to the Confederacy in Western operations, such as the capture of New Orleans and loss of most of the Western rivers. Readers interested in this upper-class British reaction should look at this scholarly article: Hugh Dubrulle, "'We Are Threatened with...Anarchy and Ruin": Fear of Americanization and the Emergence of an Anglo-Saxon Confederacy in England during the American Civil War" Albion: A Quarterly Journal Concerned with British Studies, Vol. 33, No. 4 (Winter, 2001), pp. 583-613 online at JSTOR. Rjensen (talk) 04:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Actual Text

Perhaps someone should insert the actual text of the proclamation instead of having people click to wikisource. Math Champion | sign! 00:44, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Implementation - immediate impact (wording)

It is common to encounter the hypothetical insinuation that the Emancipation Proclamation did not immediately free a single slave. That is pettifoggery—in practice it actually freed thousands a day from the day it was announced (with freedom legally taking effect on Jan. 1).

I am uncomfortable with such wording as "insinuation" and "pettifoggery" in an article. 71.205.149.37 (talk) 01:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Two proclamations?

There was only one EP, formally issued on Jan 1 1863. The Sept announcement was a only a 90-day warning. See Foner (2010) ch 8 Rjensen (talk) 06:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

This order did not free anyone.

http://library.thinkquest.org/J0112391/myth_8.htm

Someone needs to get the information right.

--Vehgah 19:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

IN Reality this proclamation didn't free any slaves in either the North or South. In fact, it was stated that only success by the Union army could free the slaves. Vinaq 16:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Vinaq

in reality it feed over 3 million slaves--what else did? Rjensen 17:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The slaves were freed by the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which, although it was passed by the U.S. Congress on 31 Jan. 1865, was not ratified until 6 Dec. 1865, eight months after Lee's surrender at Appomattox. Although the 13th Amendment was originally passed by the U.S. Senate, 38 to 6, on 8 April 1864, the U.S. House defeated the resolution, 95 to 66 (!), in June. It was not passed until the U.S House reconsidered it at the end of January, seven and a half months later. As for the Emancipation Proclamation, it specifically stated that it did NOT apply to slaves in the states of Delaware, Maryland, West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Missouri, and a dozen or so parishes of Louisiana around New Orleans. It further specified that it only applied to territories in the Confederate States of America which were NOT under control by Union forces. Therefore, since it ONLY applied to land controlled by the Confederate States of America, it freed no slaves in those territories. And further, it WOULD HAVE freed slaves in the states of Delaware, Maryland, West Virginia, Kentucky, and Missouri, (all of which were technically still part of the United States) except for the fact that Lincoln and the Union politicians carefully crafted the document to make sure that Union slaves were NOT freed. The point is that the Emancipation Proclamation was not the "humanitarian document" that some would have school children believe that it was. Instead, it was a document that freed no slaves in either the U.S.A. nor the C.S.A. Sorry. "Read" history, don't "re-write" history. Check out the article on the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. PGNormand (talk) 03:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Wrong, many slaves were indeed freed by the E.P. (educate yourself by reading the article for starters.) There were many that had already come from areas still in rebellion for example who became free directly. The majority of the slaves were in fact freed by the E.P. well before the 13th Amendment was ratified and the remainder had been freed by other means by then.) Although important, the 13th Amendment was more of an absolute ban than an effective one. The states of which you speak had few slaves left anyway by 1865 and most had some sort of state introduced emancipation by then. (It would be wise of you to heed your own advice and read history rather than attempting to rewrite it.) There were a relatively small number of slaves that were actually exempted in the original E.P. Yes, there was political expediency involved in trying to keep Northern Democrats and such in the fold, but that did little to relieve the sledgehammer blow to the vast majority of the slave holding regions. Any vulnerable region along the coast or near enough the front to be raided (or traversed by runaways) became essentially unusable for slave based agriculture or industry. The impact was tremendously disruptive to the CSA war effort. Red Harvest (talk) 05:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Here are both sides of the argument, in short. Legally, no slaves were freed because the states addressed by the Emancipation Proclamation were no longer under the jurisdiction of the US/Union Government. However, after the proclamation, Union troops were legally able to utilize runaways, in effect, "freeing" them to contribute to the Union's side of the war (the reason for the proclamation in the first place). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angel99303 (talk • contribs) 19:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

It is true that this website states that no slaves were freed immediately by the EP, but I'm afraid that the webite is wrong. (It also attacks the straw man of the claim that all slaves were freed by the EP.) This claim is often made, but I realised that is was wrong when I watched the widely-acclaimed TV series on the Civil War a few years ago. It mentionded that there were 2 groups of slaves freed immediately at the EP. Firstly, runaway slaves held in contraband camps were told at midnight that they were free to leave. Secondly, the Sea Islands off the coast of Georgia had already been occupied by the Union Navy, the whites had fled to the mainland while the blacks remained largely running their own lives, naval officers read them the EP and told them that they were free. PatGallacher (talk) 21:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I hate to interrupt a "healthy" although apparently rude discussion, but the 13th Amendment was passed for particular reasons... First, the EP did not free any slaves in the Union or in Border States--where some slavery was still legal since not being outlawed by State law. Second, there was concern over the specific legalities of the EP. We can disagree, but the EP didn't free ALL slaves in the Confederate States. Rather, some areas in Louisiana were left "untouched." I too recommend you go read the Document here (http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/featured_documents/emancipation_proclamation/transcript.html). The specific language is "That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, 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;"... So slaves in Union states were not freed. Thus a problem requiring the 13th Amendment... The EP "freed" them but did not remove the shackles until the slave was rescued by the Union army/others or until the slave(s) found a way to Union territory. While "on the plantation," the slave was still a slave (no freedom) after the EP was issued. The areas exempted from the EP are listed IN the EP, "Now, therefore I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, by virtue of the power in me vested as Commander-in-Chief, of the Army and Navy of the United States in time of actual armed rebellion against the authority and government of the United States, and as a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said rebellion, do, on this first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and in accordance with my purpose so to do publicly proclaimed for the full period of one hundred days, from the day first above mentioned, order and designate as the States and parts of States wherein the people thereof respectively, are this day in rebellion against the United States, the following, to wit:

Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, (except the Parishes of St. Bernard, Plaquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James Ascension, Assumption, Terrebonne, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including the City of New Orleans) Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia, (except the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkley, Accomac, Northampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Ann, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth[)], and which excepted parts, are for the present, left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued." So, we all can be educated :) GL with this article on wiki... 98.67.82.124 (talk) 01:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)Counsel Dew

there were about 50,000 or so slaves freed by the 13th amendment in Dec 1864. The other 4 million were freed by EP or state action--as the article makes clear. see The Fiery Trial: Abraham Lincoln and American Slavery by Eric Foner (2010) ch 8 Rjensen (talk) 02:21, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

If there was nothing to the EP (saying no one was freed) why were the confederates so mad at this, and Jefferson Davis stated - Now we can never go back? Just because someone on tv says the EP didn't free anyone, doesn't meant it is true (PershingBoy)205.204.248.86 (talk) 16:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Coming in late, but the EP was a soundbite with no legal force. It "freed" only slaves in areas that it could not actually be enforced. If a slave in a Confederate state had refused to work or tried to run away from the plantation he would have been punished severely. The "we can never go back" comment meant that if the Confederacy were to surrender these slaves would become truly free, while if the war continued they could be forced to continue in servitude. Before the EP there was always the possibility of returning to the Union AND keeping slavery. The EP ensured that these two things could no longer coexist.--Khajidha (talk) 14:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I just broke out the "Commander-in-Chief" explanation into its own separate section titled "Authority". It is a first cut to lay out the valid issues raised here. The section now explains that before Lincoln's action could be nullified by the Supreme Court, the Amendment had already taken hold making such questions moot. The source I found is an excellent read.--Tdadamemd (talk) 19:59, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

wheres the location of this proclamation?

abraham lincoln was one of my ansestors and i need to know the exact loaction where this proclamation was issued took place on january 1 ,1863 i want my ansestor information to be very complete 69.208.14.63 (talk) 14:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Lincoln's Proclamation "IMMEDIATELY" freed no one. If you want to keep that word there, PROVIDE SOME DOCUMENTATION

Sir, you can plainly see that your wording of this article has been challenged and yet you insist.

The document did not "immediately" free anyone. Not a single soul. If it had, they would have walked from their fields and shanties as freed men in that moment. But the document had no authority in the south at that time.

This is not a point of southern apology, but a fact. So get over yourself and change the wording so that it is factual, please.

I wish this document had freed the slaves and recognized their equal rights and turned bullets into butterflies, but it did none of those things. We would have to wait until LBJ in 1964 for a president to sign and enforce.

Now, either change the wording or kindly provide documentation of a person who actually went free upon the ink drying on that document.

To address this: "Firstly, runaway slaves held in contraband camps were told at midnight that they were free to leave. Secondly, the Sea Islands off the coast of Georgia had already been occupied by the Union Navy, the whites had fled to the mainland while the blacks remained largely running their own lives, naval officers read them the EP and told them that they were free. PatGallacher (talk) 21:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)"

I would argue that they were not, at that point, being held as slaves and that they freed themselves prior to the EP.

Vinson L Watkins (talk) 04:20, 10 July 2011 (UTC)Vinson L Watkins 07/09/2011

I'd like to echo Vinson L Watkins here. The text of the EP states that "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", but if such places were in active rebellion Lincoln had no power over them by definition. Lincoln's words sounded nice, but any slave in the Confederacy that took them to heart was risking severe punishment or death. The Confederacy had just as much right to ignore the EP as the Founding Fathers did to ignore Proclamation of Rebellion.--Khajidha (talk) 15:06, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

the salves were all LEGALLY free on Jan 1. when they got their actual freedom from control of the masters varied by the fortunes of war. All sales of slaves after Jan 1 were null and void (the debts could never be collected) and the ex-slaves could now enlist in the US Army. The Confederacy was illegal and it had no rights at all, and anyone who disagreed would be shot by Grant and Sherman. Rjensen (talk) 04:40, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The United States itself was illegal in 1776. Just as Washington, Jefferson, et al would have been hanged as traitors if the US had lost the Revolution; so would the slaves have continued to be enslaved if the Confederacy had won. Again, how does a proclamation that by definition is only in effect outside of the area of control of the government making it have any power? It would be as if Obama were to declare that French was no longer an official language of Canada, it's not under his control so it has no force. --Khajidha (talk) 20:51, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

the EP was an order to the US Army saying that it will treat all blacks as free. The army was on the march and every day it freed dozens, hundreds, thousands of slaves until it freed them all. The slaves quickly learned this and flocked to Army lines by the tens of thousands. How many were freed on any one specific day seems a trivial question. (On Jan 1 1863 it did free tens of thousands of slaves who were under Union control in areas not excluded by teh ER). Rjensen (talk) 06:55, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Then the order did not free them, the Army did. Again, if the Union had lost then the slaves would have remained property. --Khajidha (talk) 14:03, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

legalisation of slavery in the northern territories

the document excluded slave states that were on the unions side and therefore ensured that slavery remained legal within the union - it took further amendments to ensure freedom (also should we mention that freedom did not mean citizenship). should we use the term 'freedom from slavery' rather than just freedom. Dave-o-dagenham (talk) 16:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

deportation of any freed slaves

lincoln wanted slaves to be deported back to africa and form their own colonies - this was his implementation strategy for this proclamation - not attual freedom for slaves Dave-o-dagenham (talk) 16:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Authority section

This edit added a paragraph to the Authority section with an edit summary saying, "I found a problem with this section- majority what was there is false." I tweaked the edit to avoid the errors which the {{cite web}} templates were throwing.

However, the edit adds an assertion that "Lincoln had no constitutional authority to instate an act that would effect the South because it was not part of the Union ...". The assertion is supported by a cited source but, having only online access, I am unable to verify whether that assertion clearly reflects the source content or whether it is an interpretation by a WP editor. Regardless, it does not appear to be a statement of undisputed historical fact. It looks to me like the opinion of either the book's authors or of the WP editor adding the assertion.

Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1868), would appear to pertain here. See Texas v. White#Decision, which quotes from that decision saying in part, ""Considered therefore as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. The obligations of the State, as a member of the Union, and of every citizen of the State, as a citizen of the United States, remained perfect and unimpaired. It certainly follows that the State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union. ..." Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:53, 25 October 2011 (UTC) It appears to me that either the edit should be reverted or that significantly differing viewpoints should be represented, per WP:DUE.

yes. the person who added it seems a bit confused--if the Confederacy was out of the Union it had no constitutional rights whatever and was an enemy country. I just dropped the addition which was a misreading of the source. Rjensen (talk) 04:03, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Rjensen What leads to you to believe a person would be "confused" While you are correct in stating the Confederacy being out of the Union had no US Constitutional rights. I am assuming you referred to the US constitution not the Confederate or State Constitutions which still applied. Why would the foreign country of the Confederacy of which the US invaded be an enemy country other than the US invasion of foreign soil? In such a case the US had no authority on foreign soil to treat with. On the other hand if the Confederacy truly was still in the Union as the US or Union had argued, then the southern States were indeed under the US Constitution and under such the President also had not Authority to legislate an Emancipation at all. Federal Legislation has to be passed by the House and Senate, Not just because a President Decree's something and can enforce whatever and arrest whoever his chooses by Military force even though Lincoln got away with it. Be that as it may Lincoln Assuming the southern States part of the Union, the question that the Proclamation covers is not one covered in the listed limited enumerated powers which means by the 10th Amendment that power belongs to each individual State and not the Federal Government. So in that case Lincoln did not have Authority either. Not that it ever stopped him. ~~Bobby Ronayne — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobby ronayne (talk • contribs) 14:05, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for presenting your theory about the subject. However what we are interested in, and what wikipedia is based on, is the facts and opinions generated by reliable sources. What sources (be specific -- work and page numbers) present the same arguments that you are making? When you simply present your own interpretation of events w/o being able to attribute the materials to such sources, then you are engaging in original research. If you have such sources, take the warnings placed on your talk page seriously and discuss them here first. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:26, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

"Reliable" is an entirely relative term depending on the person interpreting it. The POV which currently remains in this listed in this article is that Lincoln had authority simply because he could enforce it which in my interpretation is unreliable. I can not take credit for what you refer to as a theory nor do I wish to.

The Emancipation Proclamation was Federal legislation under the premise of Lincoln's POV that the southern states were still part of the United States which was bound by The Constitution of the United States. This assumes that the seceeding states were part of the country of the United States, The Federal Government has thee power to Legislate such law, and finally that the President himself has the power to enact such legislation due to being able to enforce it via the Army and Navy under martial law.

Lincoln stating he had the power to evoke legislation is a power that resides in the Congress per the US Constitution. Does The Constitution meet the standards of a reliable source?

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription

Article. I. Section. 1. All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

For a Source of others who believed the southern states to be a foreign country, the first would be South Carolina themselves. See Page 3. I understand it has been said if the Southern States were a foreign country then the Constitution would not apply and the southern States would simply be an enemy country. Why would the foreign country of the seceding states who have not invaded be an enemy country? The US Executive Authority in foreign countries is non existent. Is this in dispute here?

http://docsouth.unc.edu/imls/southcar/south.html

AN ORDINANCE TO DISSOLVE THE UNION BETWEEN THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA AND OTHER STATES UNITED WITH HER UNDER THE COMPACT ENTITLED "THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobby ronayne (talk • contribs) 01:47, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

http://docsouth.unc.edu/imls/scconven/corresp.html

South Carolina. Convention (1860-1862). Commissioners The Correspondence Between the Commissioners of the State of So. Ca. to the Government at Washington and the President of the United States: Together with the Statement of Messrs. Miles and Keitt. Charleston: Evans & Cogswell, Printers to the Convention, 1861.

Page 3

In the execution of this trust, it is our duty to furnish you, as we now do, with an official copy of the Ordinance of Secession, by which the State of South Carolina has resumed the powers she delegated to the Government of the United States and has declared her perfect sovereignty and independence. http://docsouth.unc.edu/imls/scconven/menu.html

I have seen my edits removed under the pretense of being POV. It is all POV. I did not remove the POV that Lincoln had the authority, although by itself I find to be a biased Pro Lincoln interpretation. I have sited my sources, cant we leave both or edit this page to for and against POV for Executive authority in the Southern States? If not to me considering Lincoln a "reliable source" but not considering the southern states, their politicians or the Constitution to be is biased.Bobby ronayne (talk) 01:54, 3 October 2012 (UTC)Bobby Ronayne

Bobby ronayne (talk) 01:39, 3 October 2012 (UTC)Bobby Ronayne

Did you read the article on reliable sources or original research? Your reply suggests you didn't. The fact remains that neither of the links you provide are reliable sources for the claims you are trying to make. Simply listing the Constitution (look up the difference between primary and secondary sources) to support YOUR INTERPRETATION of the Constitution is original research. Simply listing primary documents that shows that South Carolina thinks it had created a new nation does not support your interpretation of what the implications of this were -- again you are engaging in original research.

You are wrong when you say, "The POV which currently remains in this listed in this article is that Lincoln had authority simply because he could enforce it which in my interpretation is unreliable." The article says no such thing -- it says that Lincoln claimed authority to issue the EP under his war powers. This claim is backed up by a reliable source (in fact there are dozens, if not hundreds of reliable sources that acknowledge this claim). Note that the article says only that Lincoln claimed the authority. You need comparable sources if you want to argue that Lincoln claimed this authority in error. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 02:01, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Of course it is POV. The Statement "issued the Proclamation under his authority" and "He did not have Commander-in-Chief over the four slave-holding states that had not declared a secession" are the opinion of either the editor, the book cited, or both.

"Lincoln issued the Proclamation under his authority as "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy" under Article II, section 2 of the United States Constitution.[3] As such, he claimed to have the martial power to suspend civil law in those states which were in rebellion. He did not have Commander-in-Chief authority over the four slave-holding states that had not declared a secession: Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland and Delaware, and so those states were not named in the Proclamation."

You dismissed my contribution entries as simply as solely "MY THEORY". I gave you primary sources above in the TALK page to the contrary as they are free from secondary source which would be opinion/interpretation of first hand accounts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources

A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge.

The fact that Lincoln acted under his assumption the southern States were still in the Union I thought had been established. The Primary source I posted was straight forward as per the rules. Article 1 Section 1 is straight forward. Lincoln was not in the Senate nor the House to enact legislation. So are we really disputing the Emancipation Proclamation as Law of the Land is not Legislation?

Article. I. Section. 1. All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Bobby ronayne (talk) 02:37, 3 October 2012 (UTC)Bobby Ronayne

Someone needs to add a section that provides the argument for its unconstitutionality. What are "necessary war measures"? There is nothing in the constitution enumerating any such powers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tap1tika (talk • contribs) 02:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Unconstitutional? where does the Constitution say the president lacks the war powers? (It says he has the war power). In all wars in history one side captures enemy property and keeps it. Rjensen (talk) 04:43, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Where in the constitution do you see that it says the President has "the war power"? Article 1, Section 8 of the constitution says that congress has the power "To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water". What is this constitutional "war power" which you assert that the president has, and where does the constitution say that he has it? See the War Powers Clause and War Powers Resolution articles, and the text of the constitution) Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:59, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Article II says "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States." He can order the Army to do anything to fight the war, and no one can overrule him. Rjensen (talk) 06:08, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Can we agree that there are at least two points of View on Lincolns authority here and only one is being presented making this article heavily biased? I think Lincolns authority should have it's own page. The two most prevalent points of view are the one currently presented which suggests that the southern States were still part of the Union and Lincoln had authority via brute force as Commander of the military, and the second most common Point of View is the one that the southern Sovereign States were sovereign and had the right to form their own Confederacy which did not recognize the foreign government of the USA. [2] Only one point of view is being portrayed here. Bobby ronayne (talk) 22:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)Bobby Ronayne

well no that is not the issue. The EP was an executive order given to the US army and navy by their commander in chief regarding how they should treat slaves in certain areas. Rjensen (talk) 23:02, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Then we definitely disagree on what the issue is here. Even assuming the US president had the authority within the Union, the southern View that they were a separate country would mean from their point of view that the Union president was one of a foreign land and for that reason had no authority domestically to the south. That power if it exist belonged to Jeff Davis. This point of view is widely spread and almost as conventional as the one that Lincoln had authority, however it is not represented here at all. This article as it stands suggest the only Point of View is that Lincoln had authority. The idea that Lincoln had absolute authority wasn't even unanimous throughout even with people who were pro union such as Judges and other politicians however you would not know that reading this highly biased article. I truly believe this has become a sacred cow because of what this article claims. Had the president used this same unchecked claimed authority to do something horrible I dont feel this would be defended with such vigor. I propose we compromise and break Authority in half. There are plenty of other pages with more than one perspective that show both perspectives.I dont see why that can not be done here.Bobby ronayne (talk) 19:46, 19 October 2012 (UTC)Bobby ronayne

does someone say that Lincoln did not have authority over the US Army???? who said that? Bobby ronayne seems to assume (falsely) that the EP was an order to Confederate army units or Confederate Courts. It was not and they ignored it. The basic problem is that Bobby ronayne is either using secret sources or making up an argument out of his own imagination. Rjensen (talk) 21:59, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Rjensen That is not what I said at all. You suggesting such is a red herring, although my comment remains in tact. Of course Lincoln had command of the US military. What I said was whether you believe the CSA to be a separate sovereign country independent from The USA at the time depends on your point of view. At the time half the country in the south believed it was. Enough so that they voted through their State Legislatures to leave the Union of States. What I am saying is if you believe the view that the CSA was a separate nation, then the USA (President, Military etc. had no authority inside that foreign nation any more than the USA would have authority inside Great Britian. Bobby ronayne (talk) 10:53, 7 November 2012 (UTC)Bobby Ronayne

That's not true. If the CSA was a foreign country then it was invaded by a more powerful army and that army could and did take charge and freed the slaves as ordered by Lincoln. People who protested could join the CSA army and get shot at. happens all the time in wars. Rjensen (talk) 11:06, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Of course it is true. If the CSA is a foreign country then the USA's authority inside that foreign country is via military force. Under the US constitution, the Military is for the "Common Defense" Raising an Army to invade a sovereign foreign country that has not attacked you on your own soil is not defense and therefore unconstitutional to raise such an army for the purpose of invading conquering, and acting as dictator under the US constitution. Common Defense is the sole Constitutional purpose for raising or employing an army. Therefore if the CSA is a foreign country the President did not act on his authority by invading and acting as dictator through the army, he far exceeded it.

1 Section 8 The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;22:14, 15 November 2012 (UTC)Bobby RonayneBobby ronayne (talk) 22:16, 15 November 2012 (UTC)Bobby Ronayne

Furthermore, in response to your statement that "If the CSA was a foreign country then it was invaded by a more powerful army and that army could and did take charge and freed the slaves as ordered by Lincoln." in addition to invading a foreign country that has not attacked you on your sovereign soil not meeting the requirement of Common Defense as per the Constitution, Lincoln himself expressed his opinion about presidents invading and going to war with the foreign country of Mexico without Congress declaring war, even after Texas being attacked. By his own statement that if the CSA was a foreign country that because congress did not declare war he would not have authority to go to war with the foreign nation of the CSA. Of course if President Lincoln did not invade the south there would be no troops to command to enforce any decree he might make such as he did with the Emancipation Proclamation. While the USA constitution as you pointed out earlier would have no bearing on the CSA and afford them no rights under the US constitution, the sitting US president and his authority would still be bound by it regardless concerning war with foreign countries and thereby war with which would include (troop invasion, conquering, and enforcement of any decrees on foreign nations) .

The President [Polk] claimed "after reiterated menaces, Mexico has passed the boundary of the United States, has invaded our territory and shed American blood upon the American soil. She has proclaimed that hostilities have commenced and that the two nations are now at war."[1] Some in Congress wondered if this were so, including Abraham Lincoln. He wrote in a letter to his law partner: “The provision of the Constitution giving the war-making power to Congress, was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons. Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This our Convention understood to be the most oppressive of all Kingly oppressions; and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us. But your view destroys the whole matter, and places our President where kings have always stood.” -- ABRAHAM LINCOLN

Justification of the Civil war being undeclared was that it was not international The American Civil War was not an international conflict under the laws of war, because the Confederate States of America was not a government that had been granted full diplomatic recognition as a sovereign nation by other sovereign states.[17][18] The CSA was recognized[by whom?] as a belligerent power, a different status of recognition that authorized Confederate warships to visit non-U.S. ports. This recognition of the CSA's status as a belligerent power did not impose any duty upon the United States to recognize the sovereignty of the Confederacy, and the United States never did so.Bobby ronayne (talk) 08:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Bobby Ronayne

I just noticed this discussion while running my watchlist. I often see arguments similar to Bobby ronayne's last argument made in reference to the First Philippine Republic, which was an insurgent government which fought a loosing war of rebellion (the Philippine-American War) against the U.S. in 1899-1902.

Also, see Texas v. White 74 U.S. 700 (1869), wherin Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase wrote in the Court's opinion re the perpetuity of the union of the United States:

begin insertion

Interesting. I am still looking. Radio Talk show host Mike Church is also a great secondary source. The colonies became 13 States (Countries) in a Union, not Provinces. See Mike Church movie "Spirit of '76" In fact he stated just last week the States had to secede from the Union under Articles of Confederation to join the new Union under the Constitution.[3]Secession of the 13 Colonies from England - Mike Church[4] States independent So They Could Join the Confederation in 1776 - Mike Church[5]Bobby ronayne (talk) 22:53, 15 November 2012 (UTC)Bobby Ronayne

end insertion

The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and [p725] arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual." And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union." It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?

Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:31, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I do not know what book you are quoting but The Articles of Confederation applied to the the 13 countries or States, not a single country[Mike Transcript Church November 14, 2012|http://www.mikechurch.com/daily-clip/states-were-independent-so-they-could-join-the-confederation-in-1776/] [Mike: This is the other thing with this indivisible union garbage that they fabricated. This had to be fabricated because they had to have some justification for this. Lincoln invented this indivisible union. He went all the way back and said: The United States was created by one stroke of a pen, as one union, as one nation, on July 4, 1776. That’s funny, Abraham. The State of Virginia actually declared their independence, wrote their own constitution and raised their own flag over their capital on 15 May 1776. Look it up. It’s part of great American history. What were the Virginians doing? Did they, by any act of their legislature after that, trade their independence and their sovereignty into the new continental union that was put together to fight the British that had invaded their lands, their homes and their territories on July 2, 1776? The answer to that question is not even an unequivocal no, it is an irrevocable no. Then the idea “The other states weren’t.” No, they weren’t. North Carolina, if they were already part of an indissoluble union, why didn’t North Carolina and the other twelve states then continue meeting? North Carolina didn’t finalize and even take the first vote on its constitution until December 15, 1776. I know about this because there’s a whole chapter in my audio set Spirit of ’76. I give you the story of all thirteen of the then colonies and how they declared their own independence. New Hampshire’s was a singular act. New Jersey’s happened before July 1, 1776. Pennsylvania was meeting in the room above the room where the Continental Congress was meeting and they were also discussing independence.|http://www.mikechurch.com/daily-clip/states-were-independent-so-they-could-join-the-confederation-in-1776/]Bobby ronayne (talk) 23:11, 15 November 2012 (UTC)Bobby Ronayne

Lincoln said the CSA was a rebellion not a foreign country. Indeed no nation in the world recognized it as an independent country. On the other hand the CSA thought it was one, and then thought it was fighting a war against a foreign power, to which the laws of war apply--they allow seizure of enemy property by invading armies. Rjensen (talk) 08:17, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I was aware of that however you said

"That's not true. If the CSA was a foreign country then it was invaded by a more powerful army and that army could and did take charge and freed the slaves as ordered by Lincoln. People who protested could join the CSA army and get shot at. happens all the time in wars. 11:06, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I was rebutting your argument above with two posts in the previous thread with the Common defense and the Civil war being undeclared. Lincoln being the sitting US president constitutionally would be restricted internally by the US constitution from getting as far as war, for the laws of war to apply, including his own opinion on Polk which I posted above.Bobby ronayne (talk) 08:49, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Bobby Ronayne

If you look at the war from Richmond's perspective, it was invaded by a foreign country & the laws of war apply. It certainly did not matter to Richmond whether the foreign country (USA) followed or not the USA Constitution & did or did not declare the war that was actually going on. (The Confederates of course voluntarily gave up their voice in US affairs). Why should they care about whether Lincoln followed US laws? Rjensen (talk) 09:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

This section is about Lincoln's Authority and whether or not he had such authority as a US sitting president is it not? An authority being a US president derived from the US constitution and nothing else. There are two prominent views on the war. One is the south was part of the same country that invaded it and the other in which the north being a foreign country invaded the foreign country of the CSA. Actually every State is a country recognized by Great Britain at the end of the Revolutionary war that can choose whatever Union, Confederacy it so chooses, thus the term State, rather than Province but for simplicity CSA country. In the latter the sitting US President Lincoln by his own opinion of Polk being a dictator invading Mexico, so too would Lincoln be acting as a Dictator invading the CSA. Again I am quoting you below where you said in such a scenario Lincoln would have authority.

RJensen quote "If the CSA was a foreign country then it was invaded by a more powerful army and that army could and did take charge and freed the slaves as ordered by Lincoln."

Lincoln himself in his letter disagrees with what you said by stating a President who would do so would be a "dictator". Are you changing that opinion, disagreeing with Lincoln or just pretending you did not say it? Lincoln letter to his law partner:

“The provision of the Constitution giving the war-making power to Congress, was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons. Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This our Convention understood to be the most oppressive of all Kingly oppressions; and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us. But your view destroys the whole matter, and places our President where kings have always stood.” -- ABRAHAM LINCOLNBobby ronayne (talk) 15:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Bobby Ronayne

Rjensen, re your assertion above that "Lincoln invented this indivisible union.", quoting here a snippet from the Perpetual Union article:

The concept of a Union of the American States originated gradually during the 1770s as the independence struggle unfolded. In his First Inaugural Address on Monday March 4, 1861, Abraham Lincoln stated:

"The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was to form a more perfect Union."

— "Abraham Lincoln's First Inaugural Address on March 4, 1861". AMDOCS: Documents for the Study of American History. Retrieved 2009-10-27.

Also, the snippet I quoted above asking rhetorically, "... What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?" came from the Opinion written by Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase in Texas v. White 74 U.S. 700 (1868). See [6].

Also, I see that your quote attributed to Lincoln saying, "The United States was created by one stroke of a pen, as one union, as one nation, on July 4, 1776." seems to have come from a talk show (transcript: [7]). The quote there is attributed to Mike Church. I haven't been able to find that quote in a reliable source attributing it to to Lincoln. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I can only assume the above is one post by one person even though it seems to be entered 3 times and appears to be addressing Rjensen, so if I am wrong on this I do appoligise. I have had some trouble keeping my own post neat in this thread.

1. My above mention of Mike Church was due to my thinking Wtmitchell was agreeing with me. I was quoting his transcript only for a reference of perspective, rather than any rebuttal. While I hold Mike Church and his research in high regard, it was an attempt to offer more perspective, which in retrospect probably should have been in private, rather than a rebuttal. For the later, I would have tried to have been more thorough.
2. I looked at Salmon P. Chase and some of First Philippine Republic but I did not see how either bolstered either side of the perspectives. I was not familiar with either before this discussion, so I am afraid to comment too much comparing a rebellion (and I am assuming that is what it was) to a secession. I do not know what you would consider comparable or how it is relevant.
3. Each State Succeeded from the Articles of Confederation dissolving one union even thought it was claimed to be "perpetual to form another. Secession from the Articles of Confederation How could you hold a State to a Union in which every State involved seceded from thus dissolving it entirely.
4. As every state Secesseeded from the Articles of Confederation, making it defunct, that just leaves "to form a more perfect Union". I do not see any correlation between trying to perfect a union, and being forbidden to divorce it as every State had done with the Articles of Confederation Bobby ronayne (talk) 02:42, 10 December 2012 (UTC)Bobby Ronayne

I'll try to clarify. First, the bit above beginning at "Rjensen, re your assertion above" and continuing to "I haven't been able to find that quote in a reliable source attributing it to to Lincoln." is one post by me; see [8].

On your numbered points:

1. AFAICS, Mike Church got it wrong, as I tried to show by the Lincoln snippets I quoted.

2a. Chase penned the opinion in the Supreme Court decision in Texas v. White. The snippet I quoted sums it up nicely, I think. However, reading a bit past that point in [9], one can see that Chase goes on to explain that the Texas ordinance of secession, "and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law.", saying further, "Texas continued to be a State, and a State of the Union". Regarding the union between the States of America which are united in that union, he says, that there is "no place for reconsideration, or revocation, except through revolution, or through consent of the States." My understanding is the situation re Texas and secession was the same in the other seceding states and that that the secession, legally, never happened at all; was a legal nullity (something which may be treated as nothing, as if it did not exist or never happened - see [10]) The seceding states continued to be part of the union throughout the civil war. As I understand Chase here (writing for the Supreme Court) was saying that one or more of the states of the United States could separate from the union only with the unanimous consent of all of the states in that union. Some individuals may disagree with that, legal scholars may disagree with that, but that, as I understand it, was then and still is now the legal situation re secession of U.S. states.

2b. I mentioned the First Philippine Republic (FPR) in relation to a remark mentioning the "sovereignty of the Confederacy". As I understand it, no such sovereignty existed -- similarly to the situation with the FPR, which was an insurgent revolutionary organization styling itself as (and believing themselves to be) a sovereign governmental body. I see the Confederacy and the FPR to be analogous in this regard.

3 & 4. Thanks for the link to the Secession in the United States article; I hadn't previously seen that article. There's some interesting stuff in there, and I'll probably order a copy of the Akhil Amar book mentioned therein. My understanding of the situation, however, is still as I described it in item 2a above. That article and the book came some time subsequent to the 1869 case Texas v. White in which Chief justice Chase penned his opinion speaking of the perpetuity of the union between the states. My understanding is that the Supreme Court decision in that 1869 case remains the law of the land in the U.S. today.

Hopefully, the foregoing contributed more clarity than it contributed confusion.

Getting back to the Authority section of the article, the assertion under discussion here currently says that Lincoln claimed to have the martial power to suspend civil law in those states which were in rebellion, and that he did not have that authority over the four slave-holding states that had not declared a secession. We've been discussing technicalities related to secession (and touching on some other areas such a sovereignty). On rereading the (rather brief) Authority section, I think that the problem there lies in the use of the two words rebellion and secession. How about replacing the words there currently reading, "had not declared a secession", with the words, "were not in rebellion"? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:59, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Good idea = How about replacing the words there currently reading, "had not declared a secession", with the words, "were not in rebellion"? Rjensen (talk) 05:15, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Supporting source: Holzer, Harold; Medford, Edna Greene; Williams, Chief Frank J (2006). The Emancipation Proclamation: Three Views. LSU Press. pp. 72. ISBN 978-0-8071-3144-2. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:20, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Wtmitchell that does clear up your POV, thank you for the clarification. replacing the words there currently reading, "had not declared a secession", with the words, "were not in rebellion" is not something I think would be helpful. Reason being is "secession" is a more accurate term than "rebellion". My understanding is that even conflicting views agree that the southern States were Seceding (leaving) from the Union. In contrast, Rebel was a term used by the Union POV for the southerners, even though the Southern States never had any intention of over throwing the Union Federal Government.

1. Yes I did understand your rebuttal to Church by posting Lincoln's quote. I was trying to point out that Lincoln's premise hinges on the words "Perpetual Union" Union under Articles of Confederation defunt 1789 as every State in the Union, North and South had seceded from it. I do not see why anything under the defunct Articles under a dissolved Union would be enforceable, including "Perpetual Union" which every state within it violated by 1789 by leaving it. The words "Perpetual Union" to my knowledge are not found anywhere under the Constitution of the current Union.

2. I will have to look more at Chase later

3. You're more than welcome. Like I said Ill have to look at Chase later. I have to admit, that I feel looking at a Justice or any entities opinion on whether they have authority and did not recognize the sovereignty of the States, when the Sovereign States no longer recognized the Authority of the Constitution that they withdrew from, that it is just an opinion. A Justice can not gain more authority and jurisdiction over foreign soil nor determine that Sovereign states are not permitted to leave the Union simply because that Justice is of the opinion.

4. Here is where I wish I had Church's sources for this last point. I dont have them at the moment or know if I can find them. In Church's Spirit of '76, says each State is a country. He quotes in Spirit of 76 in I believe congress discussions on dealings between different states. The rebuttal to the statement was that "in history no "foreign countries" dealt with each other in such a way." I am paraphrasing. This is for the purpose of discussion. Like I said I believe it was from "Spirit of '76", I know he had gone into detail on his show about that and other quotes about the States referring to themselves as countries, as well as dealing with other states in the Union as foreign countries. Also the Unions were Unions of States, and not Provinces such as Canada. The States obtained sovereignty after seceding from England predating the Civil War and the Federal Government. At the same time aside from the above I could not tell you off hand primary sources for the quotes.Bobby ronayne (talk) 12:27, 10 December 2012 (UTC)Bobby Ronayne

I disagree regarding the terms. Neither "secession" nor "rebellion" is more accurate than the other; those two different terms have two different meanings. What we are trying to do here is to come to a consensus about what the authority was under which Lincoln issued the proclamation. That should not be based on original research backed up by personal point of view reasoning, but should be based on and backed up by cited reliable sources. Above, I cited Holzer, Medford & Williams 2006, p. 72, which says, "... Lincoln again based the authority of his proclamation on his power as commander-in-chief and specifically termed the measure 'a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing [the] rebellion.'" Page 58 of that source quotes an early draft of the Proclamation wherein Lincoln wrote that its basis was, "the sixth section of the act of congress entitled 'an act to suppress insurrection and to punish treason and rebellion, to sieze and confiscate property of rebels and for other purposes'". Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:33, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Pursuit p 4 [11] Davis 1858 speach on State supremacy over Federal Government citing Adams and Hancock "In an 1858 speech in Faneuil Hall the the citizens of Boston. Davis hint at the civil war if the federal government continued to trample on the sanctity of states' rights. Throught the speech Davis coyly suggested that Massachussetts political heroes like Samuel Adams and John Hancock had invented the concept that states were the primary political unit in the nation. Such a view was in accordance with his belief that the Constitution was an instrument designed to govern a voluntary Union of all states.

Davis cleverly explained his bedrock belief in states' rights over federal control of those states by reminding the Bostonians that Massachusetts Governor Hancock once refused to call on President George Washington who was visiting the state. Hancock believed that the nation's president should defer to the assumed power of the state governor he was visiting. and that Washington should have called, hat in hand on him." - Jeff DavisBobby ronayne (talk) 19:05, 15 December 2012 (UTC)Bobby Ronayne

Straw poll 00:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Can we have a straw poll to probe whether consensus exists among interested editors here for replacing the words in the Authority section currently reading, "had not declared a secession", with the words, "were not in rebellion"?

Please sign your name using four tildes (~~~~) under the position you support, and please add a (hopefully brief and well thought out) comment. If you are happy with more than one possibility, you may wish to sign your names to more than one place. Extended commentary should be placed below, in the section marked "Discussion", though brief commentary can be interspersed.

Agree with the replacement

• agree, based on Holzer, Medford & Williams 2006, pp. 58, 72 - Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
• Agree "rebellion" was the precise term in use, as in "War of the Rebellion". Rjensen (talk) 21:21, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Disagree with the replacement

• Disagree, based on P3 "Pursuit: The Chase, Capture, Persecution, and Surprising Release of Confederate President Jefferson Davis" Johnson,Clint 2008[12]Bobby ronayne (talk) 19:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)Bobby Ronayne

Discussion Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

If the States are the established government predating the federal government then "Rebel" is questionable. I am not sure if oposing POV sees this as original research, but I personally do not see Lincoln as more credible than Davis.Bobby ronayne (talk) 19:14, 15 December 2012 (UTC)Bobby Ronayne

The question here does not hinge on a judgement by WP editors about whether or not the Confederate states were in a state of rebellion. The question hinges on a judgement about whether reliable sources support a judgement that Lincoln believed that his conclusion that they were in a state of rebellion opened the gate to give him authority to issue the proclamation, and the implied judgement that he did not include the four union-occupied slave states in the proclamation because those four states were not in a state of rebellion (rather than because they had not declared a secession). I don't have access to the source mentioned in support of the disagreement but, based on its title and a descriptive review here, I can't see its relevance. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:06, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

If the above is true

"The question here does not hinge on a judgement by WP editors about whether or not the Confederate states were in a state of rebellion. The question hinges on a judgement about whether reliable sources support a judgement that Lincoln believed that his conclusion that they were in a state of rebellion"

I feel there should be quotes, or some clarification that

he claimed to have the martial power to suspend civil law in those states which were in rebellion.

from the WP article that Lincoln felt those states were in rebellion rather than it being a point of fact. As it stands it does not seem clear that this is not just part of Lincolns belief, but universally accepted as fact.Bobby ronayne (talk) 03:34, 17 December 2012 (UTC)Bobby Ronayne

I've made the change. I'm not sure what you mean by the distinction about "... rather than it being a point of fact". I put the quote you requested in a footnote. I sourced the quote from the fourth paragraph of the proclamation itself. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:23, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I saw you made the change. What I mean is the way the article is currently written, although it does say "he claimed" to me it is clear that Lincoln claimed to have martial law. What is not clear is this should be stating Lincoln believed(claimed) the states they were in a state of rebellion(which is not in dispute AFAIK), as opposed to the the states actually being in a state of rebellion which is another matter all together. Actually I think if you put "rebellion" in quotes within the actual article that would clarify rebellion as Lincoln's quote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobby ronayne (talk • contribs) 08:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Hey a — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.204.39.52 (talk) 22:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

the Lincoln narrative

• There is a popular narrative according to which Lincoln was a principled abolitionist. In this narrative, Lincoln delayed his support for the abolition of slavery only for political & military expediency.
• There is a great deal of scholarly work that complicates this narrative and highlights the colonization plans which Lincoln explored for years. This scholarship also describes the Emancipation Proclamation and 13th Amendment as themselves elements of political & military strategy.
• Shouldn't Wikipedia's "Emancipation Proclamation" article address this recent scholarship seriously, rather than bumping it down to a "Criticism" section?
• For example, the Authority section contains these statements about the Thirteenth Amendment: "To ensure the abolition of slavery in all of the U.S., Lincoln pushed for passage of the Thirteenth Amendment. Congress passed it by the necessary two-thirds vote in February 1865 and it was ratified by the states by December 1865." These statements may not be false, but as Lincoln did not politically support the Thirteenth Amendment until after the election of 1864, is it possible that they obscure the whole truth regarding the Thirteenth Amendment's political origins?
• The Proclamation allowed the Union to enlist 178,000 Black soldiers, which it began to do as soon as possible in 1863. Shouldn't this fact be discussed in terms of motive and effects of the Proclamation, rather than as an aside ("... also allowed for the enrollment ... ") buried in the "Drafting and issuance of the proclamation" section?

Apologies if I'm covering well-worn ground for those who have been editing the article for longer. I'm coming to this pretty fresh after a research spree on the Thirteenth Amendment. groupuscule (talk) 22:35, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Was Lincoln a "principled abolitionist" -- well after Sept 1862 yes but not before. He denied he was an abolitionist and mostly kept his distance; he was strongly attacked by the abolitionists as late as 1865. On his support for the 13th, the 2012 movie gets it right. When he came within striking distance (after the 1864 election) he struck hard and got results. Rjensen (talk) 22:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

First time we've heard a historian say 'the movie gets it right'! Didn't see it, btw. Regardless, we agree that Lincoln began his big push for A13 after the 1864 election. Don't the above points still suggest the need for more complexity in the article's narrative? groupuscule (talk) 03:04, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Lincoln began his big push for emancipation in 1861 (in the border states) and never let up. Every year the situation changed and Lincoln moved to take advantage of it. Rjensen (talk) 03:08, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, sure he was a "principled abolitionist" his entire political career beginning, at least, in 1837 when at 29 years old, he wrote in his address to the Illinois General Assembly that "the institution of slavery is founded on both injustice and bad policy; but that the promulgation of abolition doctrines tends rather to increase than to abate its evils." and "the Congress of the United States has no power, under the constitution, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the different States." But "the Congress of the United States has the power, under the constitution, to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia; but that that power ought not to be exercised unless at the request of the people of said District." [13] This evolved into his support in 1847, while in Congress, for the Wilmot proviso outlawing slavery in new territories and in his drafting of a bill in Congress to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia through compensated emancipation. The "Principle" his "Abolitionist" views foundered upon was his view of the US constitutional requirements that the way forward was to contain and limit slavery's extent, until it died peacefully. To Lincoln, the great threat to the constitutional and human rights views of the founding fathers was the slavocracy and its expansionist and reactionary tendencies -- to bolster and spread the evil that was slavery -- these were abetted, in his view by abolitionist over-reachers. He argued this throughout the 1850's, and ran on and won the Presidency on the promise to limit the expansion of slavery, which in his 1859 Cooper Union Address, he stated was the "right" thing to do, upon which he and his party could not compromise. His initial program for emancipation and abolition was compensated abolition, but by then the slave states' secession had begun, before he even took the office. "And the war came." By then he was commander-in-chief and could abolish slavery within the limits of that office -- the constitutional settlement still needed to be had by granting the abolitionist powers to Congress and the US government as a whole, and he won on that platform in 1864. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:36, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

June 27 changes

Among the several changes on 2013-JUN-27 there are several instances of weak composition & factual oversimplification/error. I am reconsidering restoring to June 21 version --JimWae (talk) 09:26, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

We were a bit taken aback by these changes also. (Diff for the curious.) groupuscule (talk) 03:00, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I was referring to these. There were a couple of ideas in it that were worth keeping, however. Rather than a revert, I did some extensive editing to improve the composition & accuracy.--JimWae (talk) 20:39, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Regarding "Contraband"

Regarding Contraband (American Civil War), this edit looks to be on the right track. I would suggest that we should not downplay the Butler contraband decision, as we do now—not only did it set a precedent for military commanders, it also preceded (and perhaps triggered) a series of relevant codifying laws (all before the Emancipation Proclamation): the First Confiscation Act, the Act Prohibiting the Return of Slaves, and the Second Confiscation Act. By 1863 there were tens of thousands of people in these refugee camps, all across the U.S. groupuscule (talk) 22:00, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

slaves stole wagons and horses to escape?

It currently reads "Slaves fled their masters by means of wagons and horseback.[61]" I click the link but don't see that listed in the old newspaper. How common was it for a slave to steal a horse? Dream Focus 16:56, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

In the cited source, column 2, near the bottom of the page, "[...], the negroes leaving on foot in farm wagons, buggies and on horseback. [...]" Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:31, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Signed Copies

I know that there are a limited number of copies of this document that were actually signed by Lincoln himself. I was just curious as to whether it would be relevant enough to mention the current locations of known copies (like the article on the Gettysburg Address does). I don't remember what the plaque says at the Allen County Public Library in Ft Wayne Indiana but they have one copy if the Emancipation Proclamation and I believe the plaque noted locations of some other copies. Hope this helps. Shambles12 (talk) 09:18, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Barney Fife?

Is there a specific reason to include this section? It seems pretty unimportant when compared with the rest of the article. I watched the Andy Griffiths Show clip and there were no insights in the segment related to the actual Emacipation Proc., it was just an extended gag about Barney bragging about how smart he was and being embarrassed by Andy et al.

In a episode 86 of the Andy Griffith Show, Andy asks Barney to explain the Emancipation Proclamation to Opie who is struggling with history at school. Barney brags about his history expertise, yet it is apparent he cannot answer Andy's question. He finally becomes frustrated and explains it is a proclamation for certain people who wanted emancipation.

If no reasons to keep, then I am going to cut it. Thanks KConWiki (talk) 14:53, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

13th Amendment

Here, I've replaced a cite of a WP article (not a reliable source) with a {{cn}} tag. Actually, I don't think that the assertion, as written, is necessarily true in the case of unincorporated territories. See Territories of the United States#Incorporated and unincorporated territories. As I understand it, unincorporated territories are subject to U.S. jurisdiction, but are only subject to parts of the U.S. constitution which have been determined on a case by case basis by the U.S. Congress to be applicable. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Other emancipation proclamations?

There were actually a number of different emancipation proclamations in different countries at different dates, ranging over a century or two. Should we perhaps put in a hatnote linking to Abolition of slavery timeline? For example the emancipation proclamation in the Dutch colonies was 1863 I believe. Grateful thanks to anyone who would like to fix this. I may do it myself if no-one objects. Invertzoo (talk) 21:23, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I went ahead and did this. Invertzoo (talk) 15:03, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Authority: Legal reasons why Lincoln couldn't free all the slaves

I've heard all the various criticisms of the Emancipation Proclamation before, but only now realized why it was that the proclamation didn't free any slaves in the Union. The article does mention what section of the Constitution Lincoln used to justify the Proclamation, but I think it should be made clearer why the Proclamation did not free all the slaves at once. Simply put, Lincoln did not have the power to end slavery by executive order. Even in wartime the US was bound to the Constitution. So, the "Authority" section should include both what the Constitution enabled Lincoln to do and what it prevented him from doing. As Commander-in-Chief he was able to free slaves in territories under military administration (i.e. the occupied part of the CSA). But he did not have the power to end slavery in the other states. Can someone with appropriate legal knowledge please explain how the limits on Lincoln's powers affected the Proclamation? What powers did he, Congress, and the respective state legislatures have to end slavery in their jurisdictions? Roches (talk) 19:00, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

It is mentioned on in the "Authority" section, see "He did not have Commander-in-Chief authority over . . ." and footnotes but what would you suggest? Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:44, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Executive Order or Not?

The Emancipation Proclamation was not an executive order in the legal sense , since its tenets did not apply to states north of the Mason Dixon line-- it applied only to the states of the Confederacy. In fact a few states in the Union were allowed to keep slaves even after the speech and presidential memo. The Emancipation Proclamation was limited in many ways. It applied only to states that had seceded from the Union, leaving slavery untouched in the loyal border states. It also expressly exempted parts of the Confederacy that had already come under Northern control. Most important, the freedom it promised depended upon Union military victory.

It should not be called an executive order, and readers should be aware of Lincoln being careful not to violate the Constitution at the time. Slavery did not end in this nation until the passage of the 13th Amendment

We go by the RS which say it was an Executive Order. It was an order to executive agencies of the US Government. Rjensen (talk) 22:30, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually, we should not simply pick a particular source and adopt the POV which that sorce presents, if several sources of seeming topical reliability have differing POVs, we should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, per WP:DUE. As to sources -- I'm no historian but a little googling turned up

• Dirck, Brian R. (2007). The Executive Branch of Federal Government: People, Process, and Politics. ABC-CLIO. p. 102. ISBN 978-1-85109-791-3. This is the source currently cited, and says, "The Emancipation Proclamation was an Executive Order, ...".
• Clark, Willow (2013). The True Story of the Emancipation Proclamation. The Rosen Publishing Group. p. 4. ISBN 978-1-4488-9934-0. This says, about the Emancipation Proclamation, "This Executive Order ...".
• Guelzo, Allen C. (2005). Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation: The End of Slavery in America. Simon and Schuster. pp. 215. ISBN 978-0-7432-6297-2. This says, "... what was the reasoning that led Lincoln to emancipate through the use of a proclamation rather than an executive order or general military order? [... discussion follows ...]" and note 66 on p. 350 says, "... Chase had even drafted a sample executive order for Lincoln's use [source cited]". The text which is footnoted with note 66 is not previewable online, and I don't know what that might say.

As I've asid, I'm not a historian. I don't know how reliable or how relatively prominent these sources might be. There are other sources out there [14]. At a quick count, there do seem to be more sources describing the EP as an EO than sources arguing otherwise. There is at least the Guelzo source arguing otherwise, though, and Allen C. Guelzo appears to be a seriously well qualified source. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:41, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Wtmitchell, I came to the same conclusion ==more Exec Order ==after looking at the first few pages of listings at Google and also the law journals [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Emancipation+Proclamation%22++%22executive+order+%22&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=1%2C43 included in google scholar. Rjensen (talk) 07:28, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

It looks as if this mini-debate might be the result of recent events with regard to Immigration Reform. See: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/todd-brewster-lincoln-executive-action-article-1.2019470 I don't see that it really matters (now or then) because Congressional and/or Judicial action could have/can overturned/overturn this use of executive power...if either or both of the two branches had sought/seek to actually reverse it. Lincoln acknowledged as much at the time, not claiming that the proclamation was completely within his authority, nor claiming that it could not be reversed later. No concerted action reversed this executive action (under the auspices of a war power) and this allowed the executive branch to act as the lightning rod...without suffering any real damage. I'm not an attorney though, so I don't necessarily appreciate the nuances of this matter. Red Harvest (talk) 10:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Meh. Generally, looks like a "pinhead" (fake) Wikipedia dispute. The president (who is the "executive") published a "proclamation" in which he "ordered" Americans around - the end. No one but a moot court will ever litigate the EP. But yes, go with the sources. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Legal status

Is it correct that the "Proclamation only gave Lincoln the legal basis to free the slaves in the areas of the South that were still in rebellion". I see two problems with that statement. Firstly the proclamation did not give Lincoln the power to do anything, it stated that slaves covered by the proclamation were automatically emancipated. Furthermore I doubt that the proclamation had any legal status. It seems to have been beyond the powers of the president.Royalcourtier (talk) 02:59, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

The proclamation told the Army (And other government agencies) what to do with slaves. As for legal status, the Constitution gives the president power to make war. and throughout history that has included the power to seize enemy property. Rjensen (talk) 03:45, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

This proclamation came in a time of armed rebellion by slaveholders in designated places using their slaves to sustain the rebellion -- an act of war against the U.S. Enslaved populations accelerated a mass migration to Union lines throughout the South and Union generals stopped returning them to rebel enslavement for illegal purposes of rebellion. Congress passed enabling legislation enforcing the Proclamation and sustaining freed populations at army wage labor as teamsters, cooks and railroad repair crews, then it sent a proposed constitutional amendment to abolish slavery nationally to the states before Lincoln’s assassination. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:30, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

The original poster has simply expressed a personal opinion, not that of reliable sources, and generally at odds with them. Red Harvest (talk) 20:29, 21 February 2015 (UTC)