The Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation

Today was the sesquicentennial of Abraham Lincoln’s issuing the Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation.  An interesting essay on this by historian Richard Striner is here.  Historian Donald Shaffer points us to views by other historians regarding emancipation here.

“President Lincoln, writing the Proclamation of Freedom,” by David Gilmour Blythe.

I like to stress it as the Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation because a lot of people don’t realize there were two separate documents.  The Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, issued September 22, 1862, was issued as a warning, or, if you prefer, a threat to the rebellious states that if they failed to lay down their arms and return their allegiance to the Union by January 1, 1863, then their slaves would be legally freed.  You can read the text of it here.  Reading it will surprise many folks.  The Final Emancipation Proclamation, issued January 1, 1863, is the document that actually freed the slaves in the areas still considered under rebellion.  You can read the text of that document here.  Few things are so misunderstood as the emancipation of the slaves.

The Preliminary EP starts with Lincoln affirming that the cause of the Federals is Union:  “… hereafter, as heretofore, the war will be prosecuted for the object of practically restoring the constitutional relation between the United States, and each of the States, and the people thereof, in which States that relation is, or may be, suspended or disturbed.”  This echoes Lincoln’s letter to Horace Greeley dated August 22, 1862.  That letter is used [actually, misused is probably a more accurate term] by many folks who Professor Robertson labels as “Professional Southerners” to claim that Lincoln really didn’t care about slavery.  In that letter, Lincoln writes:

“As to the policy I ‘seem to be pursuing’ as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.


“I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free.”  [Abraham Lincoln to Horace Greeley, August 22, 1862, in Roy Basler, ed., The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, Volume V, pp. 388-389]

I say they misuse it because the vast majority of the time they leave out the last sentence and try to make it appear as though Lincoln really didn’t want to emancipate anyone.  However, as we can see, while Lincoln does want to see the slaves freed, his number one purpose in the Civil War is saving the Union.  He would use emancipation as a tool to save the Union or he would not use it as a tool to save the Union, depending on his reading of the situation and his view of what was needed.  That doesn’t mean he didn’t care about the slaves.  He did.  But it means that if he could not save the Union, none of the rest of it would be worth anything.

Next, in the Preliminary EP, Lincoln again offers compensated emancipation and colonization to the slave states not in rebellion, and asks Congress to provide financial aid for those states who adopt gradual emancipation:


Lincoln’s support of colonization of the freed slaves is also used [or rather misused] to make a point that he was not interested in any good for African Americans.  We have to recall that Lincoln believed it wasn’t possible for African Americans to find social and political equality in the United States due to his belief they would always be looked down on by white Americans.  He felt this could ultimately result in racial violence, and to prevent that from happening he supported the voluntary colonization of African Americans outside the United States.  He wasn’t seeking to forcibly deport African Americans; it would be voluntary only.  Lincoln eventually saw the error in his thinking and by the summer of 1864 he dropped the idea of colonization.  Here in the fall of 1862, though, he is still supporting that idea, and he is supporting the idea of the Federal government providing financial incentive to help the slave states emancipate their slaves.


If the rebellious states wish to keep their slaves, though, they need to no longer be in rebellion against the United States as of January 1, 1863.  He then identifies how to determine conclusively if a state is not in rebellion against the United States:


He next calls attention to various acts of Congress dealing with the military not returning fugitive slaves, and the slaves of those who are participating in the rebellion being freed.  He then promises compensation for loyal citizens:


Many criticize Lincoln for freeing slaves in areas that were not under his control, or as these critics claim, where he didn’t have the power to free slaves, and not freeing slaves in areas that were  under his control, or as these critics claim, where he had the power to free them.  These critics are completely wrong.  The prevailing constitutional interpretation of the time held that slavery was a state issue, not a federal issue, and the President had no authority to free slaves in the states.  However, Lincoln interpreted his war powers as commander-in-chief of the U.S. military as giving him the authority to do so in the rebellious states.  The reason for this is the slave labor was being used to support the rebellion, and taking away that labor would be a war measure to weaken the rebellion.

What’s your view of the Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation?  Do you have any criticisms of Lincoln regarding this document?

About these ads


  1. [...] Proclamation less than two months before the November 1862 midterm elections. (Tip of the hat to Albert Mackey for bringing this piece to my [...]

  2. Emancipation would mark the largest redistribution of wealth in American history.

    1. That’s a very good point, Pat, but I would modify it a bit. To me, it’s more of an outright loss of wealth, since emancipation meant nobody owned the slaves outside the slaves themselves. A redistribution implies that someone else owned that wealth. I suppose we could say it was redistributed to the slaves. Thanks for the comment.

  3. Everybody over here in England thinks the Civil war was a simple cut and dried, black and white (!) issue of a Lincoln-led Northern crusade fighting to free the slaves. I have known differently for a long time as a student of the conflict, but I will be interested to see what steven Speilberg’s slant on it is when I go and see ‘Lincoln’ tomorrow night.
    From what I’ve heard so far it may indeed be painted along those lines.

    1. Thanks for the comment, Kerry. Over the years I’ve had internet conversations with Brits who are quite sympathetic to the confederates and believe as Charles Dickens did that it was nothing more than a war of economic conquest. I think we all tend to try to simplify issues, even complex issues. It seems to be part of human nature. Even the English Civil War wasn’t so cut and dried, was it?

Leave a Reply


You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture


Facebook photo


Google+ photo


Connecting to %s


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 290 other followers

%d bloggers like this: