Why did Lincoln wait to issue the Emancipation Proclamation?












38















(Apologies in advance: not being American, while I've read up somewhat about the military aspects of the Civil War, I am somewhat unclear as to its political dimension.)



Lincoln did not declare the slaves free until 1863, despite his personal beliefs.



Did he wait because he was not sure of the political support in the North for accepting Abolition as a war aim, along with stopping Secession? Or did he wait to preserve the possibility of negotiations with the Confederacy? If it was the second reason, is there any indication of what he was willing to compromise on? If the first, what changed?



Yes, I've seen What is the context of Lincoln saying: "if I could save the union without freeing any slave I would do it" but it doesn't tell me why he waited and what got him to commit to abolition.










share|improve this question




















  • 29





    Lincoln didn't actually have the power to free slaves. Basically, what he did was declare any slaves in the states in rebellion, as with other property, spoils of war (booty), thus declaring ownership of those slaves for the federal government, and then they could be freed. That did nothing for the slaves that were in the states not in rebellion. It took an amendment to the Constitution to actually end slavery, and that didn't happen until after the war.

    – Ron Maupin
    Jan 16 at 7:59








  • 3





    The movie Lincoln is worth watching. In it, President Lincoln admits that the Emancipation Proclamation was based on tortured logic that would never stand up to judicial review, and was mostly only good as a symbolic gesture to throw a wrench in the gears of the Confederacy, which is why they needed a Constitutional amendment to actually free the slaves and make it work.

    – Mason Wheeler
    Jan 16 at 17:10






  • 3





    @RonMaupin: That should be an answer.

    – Ben Crowell
    Jan 16 at 17:13






  • 1





    @BenCrowell, it doesn't directly answer the question about the timing, which is why I put it as a comment. I thought it was good auxiliary information, but the question is actually different.

    – Ron Maupin
    Jan 16 at 17:28






  • 9





    @MasonWheeler: That's a great movie, but it's not completely historically accurate. The fact that the "President Lincoln" character "admits" something in that movie does not necessarily mean that the real President Lincoln admitted it, or would have admitted it, or believed it.

    – ruakh
    Jan 17 at 0:49
















38















(Apologies in advance: not being American, while I've read up somewhat about the military aspects of the Civil War, I am somewhat unclear as to its political dimension.)



Lincoln did not declare the slaves free until 1863, despite his personal beliefs.



Did he wait because he was not sure of the political support in the North for accepting Abolition as a war aim, along with stopping Secession? Or did he wait to preserve the possibility of negotiations with the Confederacy? If it was the second reason, is there any indication of what he was willing to compromise on? If the first, what changed?



Yes, I've seen What is the context of Lincoln saying: "if I could save the union without freeing any slave I would do it" but it doesn't tell me why he waited and what got him to commit to abolition.










share|improve this question




















  • 29





    Lincoln didn't actually have the power to free slaves. Basically, what he did was declare any slaves in the states in rebellion, as with other property, spoils of war (booty), thus declaring ownership of those slaves for the federal government, and then they could be freed. That did nothing for the slaves that were in the states not in rebellion. It took an amendment to the Constitution to actually end slavery, and that didn't happen until after the war.

    – Ron Maupin
    Jan 16 at 7:59








  • 3





    The movie Lincoln is worth watching. In it, President Lincoln admits that the Emancipation Proclamation was based on tortured logic that would never stand up to judicial review, and was mostly only good as a symbolic gesture to throw a wrench in the gears of the Confederacy, which is why they needed a Constitutional amendment to actually free the slaves and make it work.

    – Mason Wheeler
    Jan 16 at 17:10






  • 3





    @RonMaupin: That should be an answer.

    – Ben Crowell
    Jan 16 at 17:13






  • 1





    @BenCrowell, it doesn't directly answer the question about the timing, which is why I put it as a comment. I thought it was good auxiliary information, but the question is actually different.

    – Ron Maupin
    Jan 16 at 17:28






  • 9





    @MasonWheeler: That's a great movie, but it's not completely historically accurate. The fact that the "President Lincoln" character "admits" something in that movie does not necessarily mean that the real President Lincoln admitted it, or would have admitted it, or believed it.

    – ruakh
    Jan 17 at 0:49














38












38








38


4






(Apologies in advance: not being American, while I've read up somewhat about the military aspects of the Civil War, I am somewhat unclear as to its political dimension.)



Lincoln did not declare the slaves free until 1863, despite his personal beliefs.



Did he wait because he was not sure of the political support in the North for accepting Abolition as a war aim, along with stopping Secession? Or did he wait to preserve the possibility of negotiations with the Confederacy? If it was the second reason, is there any indication of what he was willing to compromise on? If the first, what changed?



Yes, I've seen What is the context of Lincoln saying: "if I could save the union without freeing any slave I would do it" but it doesn't tell me why he waited and what got him to commit to abolition.










share|improve this question
















(Apologies in advance: not being American, while I've read up somewhat about the military aspects of the Civil War, I am somewhat unclear as to its political dimension.)



Lincoln did not declare the slaves free until 1863, despite his personal beliefs.



Did he wait because he was not sure of the political support in the North for accepting Abolition as a war aim, along with stopping Secession? Or did he wait to preserve the possibility of negotiations with the Confederacy? If it was the second reason, is there any indication of what he was willing to compromise on? If the first, what changed?



Yes, I've seen What is the context of Lincoln saying: "if I could save the union without freeing any slave I would do it" but it doesn't tell me why he waited and what got him to commit to abolition.







american-civil-war






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Jan 19 at 6:17







Italian Philosopher

















asked Jan 16 at 0:21









Italian PhilosopherItalian Philosopher

894513




894513








  • 29





    Lincoln didn't actually have the power to free slaves. Basically, what he did was declare any slaves in the states in rebellion, as with other property, spoils of war (booty), thus declaring ownership of those slaves for the federal government, and then they could be freed. That did nothing for the slaves that were in the states not in rebellion. It took an amendment to the Constitution to actually end slavery, and that didn't happen until after the war.

    – Ron Maupin
    Jan 16 at 7:59








  • 3





    The movie Lincoln is worth watching. In it, President Lincoln admits that the Emancipation Proclamation was based on tortured logic that would never stand up to judicial review, and was mostly only good as a symbolic gesture to throw a wrench in the gears of the Confederacy, which is why they needed a Constitutional amendment to actually free the slaves and make it work.

    – Mason Wheeler
    Jan 16 at 17:10






  • 3





    @RonMaupin: That should be an answer.

    – Ben Crowell
    Jan 16 at 17:13






  • 1





    @BenCrowell, it doesn't directly answer the question about the timing, which is why I put it as a comment. I thought it was good auxiliary information, but the question is actually different.

    – Ron Maupin
    Jan 16 at 17:28






  • 9





    @MasonWheeler: That's a great movie, but it's not completely historically accurate. The fact that the "President Lincoln" character "admits" something in that movie does not necessarily mean that the real President Lincoln admitted it, or would have admitted it, or believed it.

    – ruakh
    Jan 17 at 0:49














  • 29





    Lincoln didn't actually have the power to free slaves. Basically, what he did was declare any slaves in the states in rebellion, as with other property, spoils of war (booty), thus declaring ownership of those slaves for the federal government, and then they could be freed. That did nothing for the slaves that were in the states not in rebellion. It took an amendment to the Constitution to actually end slavery, and that didn't happen until after the war.

    – Ron Maupin
    Jan 16 at 7:59








  • 3





    The movie Lincoln is worth watching. In it, President Lincoln admits that the Emancipation Proclamation was based on tortured logic that would never stand up to judicial review, and was mostly only good as a symbolic gesture to throw a wrench in the gears of the Confederacy, which is why they needed a Constitutional amendment to actually free the slaves and make it work.

    – Mason Wheeler
    Jan 16 at 17:10






  • 3





    @RonMaupin: That should be an answer.

    – Ben Crowell
    Jan 16 at 17:13






  • 1





    @BenCrowell, it doesn't directly answer the question about the timing, which is why I put it as a comment. I thought it was good auxiliary information, but the question is actually different.

    – Ron Maupin
    Jan 16 at 17:28






  • 9





    @MasonWheeler: That's a great movie, but it's not completely historically accurate. The fact that the "President Lincoln" character "admits" something in that movie does not necessarily mean that the real President Lincoln admitted it, or would have admitted it, or believed it.

    – ruakh
    Jan 17 at 0:49








29




29





Lincoln didn't actually have the power to free slaves. Basically, what he did was declare any slaves in the states in rebellion, as with other property, spoils of war (booty), thus declaring ownership of those slaves for the federal government, and then they could be freed. That did nothing for the slaves that were in the states not in rebellion. It took an amendment to the Constitution to actually end slavery, and that didn't happen until after the war.

– Ron Maupin
Jan 16 at 7:59







Lincoln didn't actually have the power to free slaves. Basically, what he did was declare any slaves in the states in rebellion, as with other property, spoils of war (booty), thus declaring ownership of those slaves for the federal government, and then they could be freed. That did nothing for the slaves that were in the states not in rebellion. It took an amendment to the Constitution to actually end slavery, and that didn't happen until after the war.

– Ron Maupin
Jan 16 at 7:59






3




3





The movie Lincoln is worth watching. In it, President Lincoln admits that the Emancipation Proclamation was based on tortured logic that would never stand up to judicial review, and was mostly only good as a symbolic gesture to throw a wrench in the gears of the Confederacy, which is why they needed a Constitutional amendment to actually free the slaves and make it work.

– Mason Wheeler
Jan 16 at 17:10





The movie Lincoln is worth watching. In it, President Lincoln admits that the Emancipation Proclamation was based on tortured logic that would never stand up to judicial review, and was mostly only good as a symbolic gesture to throw a wrench in the gears of the Confederacy, which is why they needed a Constitutional amendment to actually free the slaves and make it work.

– Mason Wheeler
Jan 16 at 17:10




3




3





@RonMaupin: That should be an answer.

– Ben Crowell
Jan 16 at 17:13





@RonMaupin: That should be an answer.

– Ben Crowell
Jan 16 at 17:13




1




1





@BenCrowell, it doesn't directly answer the question about the timing, which is why I put it as a comment. I thought it was good auxiliary information, but the question is actually different.

– Ron Maupin
Jan 16 at 17:28





@BenCrowell, it doesn't directly answer the question about the timing, which is why I put it as a comment. I thought it was good auxiliary information, but the question is actually different.

– Ron Maupin
Jan 16 at 17:28




9




9





@MasonWheeler: That's a great movie, but it's not completely historically accurate. The fact that the "President Lincoln" character "admits" something in that movie does not necessarily mean that the real President Lincoln admitted it, or would have admitted it, or believed it.

– ruakh
Jan 17 at 0:49





@MasonWheeler: That's a great movie, but it's not completely historically accurate. The fact that the "President Lincoln" character "admits" something in that movie does not necessarily mean that the real President Lincoln admitted it, or would have admitted it, or believed it.

– ruakh
Jan 17 at 0:49










5 Answers
5






active

oldest

votes


















49














@Peter Diehr's answer is a good one and I've upvoted it - but I'd like to expand on that, remembering that Lincoln was a very good strategist.



First, The Civil War was about slavery, and the South's (correct) understanding was that the North was growing faster than it was and free states would sooner or later substantially outnumber slave states. (Some of the nominally slave states allowed slavery, but were not economically dependent on it as were the Deep South states. Sentiment for abolition was growing in those states, also. Slavery was doomed under the Union.)



If the South did nothing, they lost in maybe twenty years when the North would have the political power to abolish slavery. They had to secede when they did.



Lincoln, on the other hand, had history on his side. If he could hold the Union together, then slavery was doomed. Until the war was beyond settlement, his best bet to abolish slavery was to try to keep the Union together. So in the early days he insisted his only purpose was to hold the Union together.



Secondly, the Union included several border states which allowed slavery, but where it wasn't the bedrock of the economy. To have a decent chance of winning the war militarily, the North had to hold on to those states. So even the Emancipation Proclamation didn't free the slaves in Union states! Key point: For the Emancipation Proclamation to have effect anywhere it needed to not push the slave states still in the Union into rebellion. So it had to exempt them.



And then thirdly, as Peter says, once Lincoln had a strong Union victory he could start pushing explicitly on ending slavery. Once the North (and foreign countries, especially Great Britain) saw that the Union would end slavery and had to power to do it its moral authority was immeasurably strengthened which sped the end of the war.






share|improve this answer





















  • 2





    "The Civil War was about slavery". You should edit this to note that it was not the only reason.

    – Infiltrator
    Jan 17 at 22:34






  • 1





    When I asked my question about this many people seemed to agree that the reason for the proclamation was to turn the war from a war of secession to a moral war about slavery, effectively ending the chance of the Confederacy to receive help from say France or Great Britain. I don't know what to make of the fact that many people say Lincoln was waging a moral crusade against slavery. He mentioned in his inaugural address just before the civil war that he had no intention to interfere with the practice or slavery, and admitted he didn't have the power to.

    – Zebrafish
    Jan 18 at 5:19








  • 9





    @Infiltrator I think it's in his book Terrible Swift Sword that Bruce Catton quotes both Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis as having publicly said, in the first year of the war, various things which amounted to: "This war is not being fought over ending (or preserving) slavery." Catton then makes it clear he doesn't quite believe either of them; that was something they were saying for political effect. Without slavery, there wouldn't have been a Civil War at all, and the ramifications of that issue strongly affected everything else that was going on in 1861.

    – Lorendiac
    Jan 18 at 9:38








  • 1





    @Zebrafish Lincoln wasn't going to end slavery, he was going to weaken it, and set up the next president to weaken it further, and the next... The south saw the march of history away from slavery, and they decided to cut and run rather than see it weaken another iota. Succession was explicitly about slavery. The civil war was about preserving the union: Lincoln would take a union where slavery survived another 5, 10, 20, 30 years over a civil war. But such a union would almost certainly lead to the end of slavery, eventually, or at least both Lincoln and the slave states believed.

    – Yakk
    Jan 18 at 15:36













  • Slavery was a great evil, but so is civil war. No decent person would deliberately choose either if a strategy was available that might end one without triggering the other. Even if it requires fibbing.

    – Mark Olson
    Jan 18 at 22:13



















25














Lincoln waited until there was a great union victory; the early losses, and the poor showing of the Union generals did not give him a very firm place to stand and make promises.



Antietam was the victory he was waiting for, and a preliminary declaration was issued at that time.



See this History channel article on the Emancipation Proclamation for further details and analysis.






share|improve this answer



















  • 2





    True enough (+1) but one could quibble that Antietam wasn't a "great union victory" since it was tactically a draw in which McClellan failed to destroy Lee's army despite having a dominant position. Still, a draw which left you in a strategically better position was at least a partial victory after a long run of failure.

    – John Coleman
    Jan 16 at 14:13






  • 3





    @JohnColeman - In tactical lingo, the "Victor" of an engagement is the force that holds the field at the end. You could quibble with the "great" part I suppose, but Antietam was objectively a Union victory. (To be fair, The Antietam WP page currently has this wrong in exactly the way you suggest).

    – T.E.D.
    Jan 16 at 15:34








  • 1





    @kuhl As I said, it was a quibble. Strategically it was a Union victory, which was enough for Lincoln (though doubtless he would have preferred a more clear-cut victory).

    – John Coleman
    Jan 17 at 13:41






  • 2





    To give more data: if you look at the battles fought in 1862 with the goal of finding a decent union victory preceding Antietam, they are hard to find. The best candidates are Fort Donelson, Shiloh, and Pea Ridge. The battles in the east were better covered by the press, and were all fiascos for the Union., except for one: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Elizabeth_City

    – Nathan Hughes
    Jan 17 at 19:11






  • 4





    Also obviously Lincoln knew Antietam wasn't that great a victory, because he got rid of McClellan (who couldn't wipe out Lee in spite of having the intel for all his movements literally handed to him) as soon as he could. it was the best thing at hand, and he didn't know how long he'd have to wait til the next one.

    – Nathan Hughes
    Jan 17 at 19:19





















9














Because, as Lincoln stated, "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery".



Initially, North expected short victorious war and quick reunification. If this would happened, slavery would be intact. After full year of struggle it became clear that the war is not going to be short, and became questionable if it is going to be victorious.



Lincoln issued Emancipation Proclamation when it became obvious that freeing slaves in rebellion states would help save the Union, and without this action the war could be lost.



Consider following:




  1. Before Lincoln's inauguration, Congress passed constitutional amendment that would shield slavery from the constitutional amendment process and from abolition or interference by Congress (Corwin Amendment). This was attempt to end secession peacefully; Lincoln publicly supported this proposed amendment. It was ratified by few states but did not get required three fourths states to make to Constitution.


  2. As a president, Lincoln did not have an authority to end slavery (to change the Constitution). However, as a commander in chief, during the war he could order to deprive the rebels from their property of military use. On September 22, 1862 Lincoln
    announced that all slaves in territory that was still in rebellion as of January 1, 1863, would be free. So it was up to southern states to stop fighting and save their slaves, or continue straggle and risk losing slaves if they loose the war.


  3. For Lincoln, ending slavery was another "struggle", which he tried to win (unsuccessfully) by persuasion. He offered compensation to slave states still in Union to end the slavery within these states; they rejected his offer. Before the end of the war Congress passed 13th amendment, abolishing slavery, and these states lost all slaves without any compensation.



BTW, on February 1865, couple of month before Confederacy collapsed, Lincoln offered Confederacy compensation for lost slaves if they agree to stop fighting and return to the Union. Jefferson Davis rejected this proposal, causing thousands unnecessary casualties, humiliating military defeat, and much more painful longer reunification.






share|improve this answer































    7














    While there were plenty of altruistic abolitionists who hated slavery purely on its in-humanity, much of the political drive ($$$) for the war was driven by the fear of the northern factory owners.



    Like almost every war, the United States Civil War was not primarily about ideology, it was about economics. The northern, industrialized states were concerned that after several labor saving devices (i.e. cotton gin, steam engine) that the South's excess labor pool and the increasing industrialization of the south would threaten their near monopoly on manufacture. Imagine just one point, cotton; if the south had the raw materials (cotton) and the ability to use slave labor to manufacture the cotton cloth and even cotton clothing. That would put a big dent in the northern factory owners earning stream.



    Lincoln's timing for the emancipation proclamation was purely based on the failure of diplomacy to end the war before major conflict (Antietam). It served largely propaganda purposes.






    share|improve this answer













    Some of the information contained in this post requires additional references. Please edit to add citations to reliable sources that support the assertions made here. Unsourced material may be disputed or deleted.










    • 1





      Something I want to add to this is that it was pretty clear that slavery was less efficient by the time the civil war was happening. Had the civil war just not happened, slave states would have lost their economic power because the system just couldn't keep up with compete forms of labor. Putting the slaves to work in factories probably wouldn't have helped too much because slaves are just less efficient than paid workers; slaves don't want to be at work so they drag their feet.

      – Steve
      Jan 17 at 16:40






    • 1





      This is why the south didn't produce perishable products in their plantations. Slaves would have taken too long to harvest it and most of it would have spoiled in the fields.

      – Steve
      Jan 17 at 16:40






    • 2





      More people need to look at economics to understand the civil war. It's not a simple moral matter. Freeing the slaves too early honestly would have just crashed the economy and caused a war anyway. That's why southern reconstructions was so important. Too bad Lincoln got killed at the play.

      – Steve
      Jan 17 at 16:40













    • For cotton states slave owners raw cotton production was far more profitable than anything else, and it was huge growing demand for raw cotton, domestically and abroad (it constituted vast majority of US export). It is why these cotton states were not producing enough goods for their own needs, and was buying manufacture goods from New England, mules from Kentucky, food from Midwest, slaves from Virginia. And it is why northerners manufacturers were not concerned about South's excess labor pool but mostly about flow of raw cotton supply from South

      – Alexander Barhavin
      Jan 19 at 0:10





















    2















    Question:
    Why did Lincoln wait to issue the Declaration of Emancipation?



    (Apologies in advance: not being American, while I've read up somewhat about the military aspects of the Civil War, I am somewhat unclear as to its political dimension.)



    Lincoln did not declare the slaves free until 1863, despite his personal beliefs.



    Did he wait because he was not sure of the political support in the North for accepting Abolition as a war aim, along with stopping Secession? Or did he wait to preserve the possibility of negotiations with the Confederacy? If it was the second reason, is there any indication of what he was willing to compromise on? If the first, what changed?







    Background:

    In the United States the most reliable way to end slavery was a constitutional amendment. This takes the most political consensus (2/3rds of the house and Senate and then 3/4th of the states) and is thus the most difficult to implement and reverse.

    The Thirteenth amendment was first introduced Dec 1863, and failed to pass in the house on the first vote June 15, 1864 by 13 votes. Lincoln organized a pretty masterful political offensive involving government jobs for outgoing congressmen in a lame duck congress in order to finally pass the amendment through the House which was the most difficult stage of the process. Still it took years and right up until the final vote in congress, passing it was not a forgone conclusion. Lincoln passed the first part of these hurdles during the Civil war( Apr 12, 1861 - Apr 9, 1865) with the ratification of of the 13th Amendment by the senate(April 8, 1864) followed by the house 9 months latter (January 31, 1865). Ratification by 3/4ths of individual states after the war could be relied upon as the Southern secessionist governments would be controlled by the Union during reconstruction. As predicted the states achieved the 3/4th's majority to ratify it after the end of the War, Dec 6, 1865.



    Lincolns signature on the Presidential order the Emancipation Proclamation Jan 1, 1863 was not his lasting solution to slavery. It was a message who's primary intended recipient was not domestic. Lincoln knew the next president could easily repeal it, and the current Supreme Court once the crisis of war was over would have likely declared it unconstitutional. It was about politics. Lincoln could not dictate timing for a constitutional amendment, but he could with a presidential order; and that's what he did.






    Short Answer

    Lincoln was looking to redefine the war. It was previously defined as a war to preserve the Union, now Lincoln would telegraph ending slavery as a major war goal. Through this redefinition Lincoln hoped to block Britain and France from getting involved. These countries who were considering recognizing the confederacy (Britain and France) were popularly against slavery. By making the American Civil War about slavery Lincoln targeted these European nations making recognition of the south politically untenable for them domestically.




    Detailed Answer:

    So Lincoln knew he needed a constitutional Amendment to end slavery in a meaningful way. Why did he sign the Presidential order the Emancipation Proclamation in Jan 1, 1863, knowing the next President could simply repeal Lincolns order? The next President, Lincoln's vice President, Andrew Johnson, a slaveholding politician from a Southern state probable would have. Lincoln also knew the supreme court likely would have declared the Emancipation proclamation unconstitutional in the absence of a change to the Constitution.

    Lincoln did it to preserve the union. Simple put the American Civil war was fought on many fronts. Economic, Political, Military, and Diplomatic. It was the diplomatic war which needed Lincoln's action on Jan of 1863. Britain and France were threatening to enter the war on behalf of the Confederate States. Lincoln used the Emancipation Proclamation to reframe the war from one about preserving the Union, into a war to end slavery. That's what the emancipation proclamation did. It announced that ending slavery would be a major goal of the Union in the War. Lincoln knew if the war was framed as one against slavery it would make Britain and France's intervention untenable giving both countries had already abolished slavery Britain(Slavery Abolition Act in 1833) and France (Louis X abolished slavery in 1315, although slavery continued in French Colonies until 1848).



    The timing was dictated by politics, and as previous answers said more precisely by a Union victory at Battle of Antietam. Technically Antietam wasn't a victory for the Union it was a stalemate. But after months and months of seeing his armies retreating from the gates of Richmond, seeing Lee retreat from Maryland back into Virginia was represented in the Northern Newspapers as a victory. So Lincoln used that "victory" to roll out his diplomatic offensive against Britain and French intervention.




    Emancipation Proclamation

    As Lincoln had hoped, the Proclamation turned foreign popular opinion in favor of the Union by gaining the support of anti-slavery countries and countries that had already abolished slavery (especially the developed countries in Europe such as Great Britain or France). This shift ended the Confederacy's hopes of gaining official recognition.[99]



    Since the Emancipation Proclamation made the eradication of slavery an explicit Union war goal, it linked support for the South to support for slavery. Public opinion in Britain would not tolerate direct support for slavery. British companies, however, continued to build and operate blockade runners for the South. As Henry Adams noted, "The Emancipation Proclamation has done more for us than all our former victories and all our diplomacy." In Italy, Giuseppe Garibaldi hailed Lincoln as "the heir of the aspirations of John Brown". On August 6, 1863, Garibaldi wrote to Lincoln: "Posterity will call you the great emancipator, a more enviable title than any crown could be, and greater than any merely mundane treasure".[100]



    Mayor Abel Haywood, a representative for workers from Manchester, England, wrote to Lincoln saying, "We joyfully honor you for many decisive steps toward practically exemplifying your belief in the words of your great founders: 'All men are created free and equal.'"[101] The Emancipation Proclamation served to ease tensions with Europe over the North's conduct of the war, and combined with the recent failed Southern offensive at Antietam, to cut off any practical chance for the Confederacy to receive British support in the war.




    Sources:




    • Thirteenth Amendment

    • History of the Thirteenth Amendment

    • Emancipation_Proclamation

    • Abolitionism

    • Battle of Antietam






    share|improve this answer
























      protected by Pieter Geerkens Jan 19 at 18:24



      Thank you for your interest in this question.
      Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).



      Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?














      5 Answers
      5






      active

      oldest

      votes








      5 Answers
      5






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      49














      @Peter Diehr's answer is a good one and I've upvoted it - but I'd like to expand on that, remembering that Lincoln was a very good strategist.



      First, The Civil War was about slavery, and the South's (correct) understanding was that the North was growing faster than it was and free states would sooner or later substantially outnumber slave states. (Some of the nominally slave states allowed slavery, but were not economically dependent on it as were the Deep South states. Sentiment for abolition was growing in those states, also. Slavery was doomed under the Union.)



      If the South did nothing, they lost in maybe twenty years when the North would have the political power to abolish slavery. They had to secede when they did.



      Lincoln, on the other hand, had history on his side. If he could hold the Union together, then slavery was doomed. Until the war was beyond settlement, his best bet to abolish slavery was to try to keep the Union together. So in the early days he insisted his only purpose was to hold the Union together.



      Secondly, the Union included several border states which allowed slavery, but where it wasn't the bedrock of the economy. To have a decent chance of winning the war militarily, the North had to hold on to those states. So even the Emancipation Proclamation didn't free the slaves in Union states! Key point: For the Emancipation Proclamation to have effect anywhere it needed to not push the slave states still in the Union into rebellion. So it had to exempt them.



      And then thirdly, as Peter says, once Lincoln had a strong Union victory he could start pushing explicitly on ending slavery. Once the North (and foreign countries, especially Great Britain) saw that the Union would end slavery and had to power to do it its moral authority was immeasurably strengthened which sped the end of the war.






      share|improve this answer





















      • 2





        "The Civil War was about slavery". You should edit this to note that it was not the only reason.

        – Infiltrator
        Jan 17 at 22:34






      • 1





        When I asked my question about this many people seemed to agree that the reason for the proclamation was to turn the war from a war of secession to a moral war about slavery, effectively ending the chance of the Confederacy to receive help from say France or Great Britain. I don't know what to make of the fact that many people say Lincoln was waging a moral crusade against slavery. He mentioned in his inaugural address just before the civil war that he had no intention to interfere with the practice or slavery, and admitted he didn't have the power to.

        – Zebrafish
        Jan 18 at 5:19








      • 9





        @Infiltrator I think it's in his book Terrible Swift Sword that Bruce Catton quotes both Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis as having publicly said, in the first year of the war, various things which amounted to: "This war is not being fought over ending (or preserving) slavery." Catton then makes it clear he doesn't quite believe either of them; that was something they were saying for political effect. Without slavery, there wouldn't have been a Civil War at all, and the ramifications of that issue strongly affected everything else that was going on in 1861.

        – Lorendiac
        Jan 18 at 9:38








      • 1





        @Zebrafish Lincoln wasn't going to end slavery, he was going to weaken it, and set up the next president to weaken it further, and the next... The south saw the march of history away from slavery, and they decided to cut and run rather than see it weaken another iota. Succession was explicitly about slavery. The civil war was about preserving the union: Lincoln would take a union where slavery survived another 5, 10, 20, 30 years over a civil war. But such a union would almost certainly lead to the end of slavery, eventually, or at least both Lincoln and the slave states believed.

        – Yakk
        Jan 18 at 15:36













      • Slavery was a great evil, but so is civil war. No decent person would deliberately choose either if a strategy was available that might end one without triggering the other. Even if it requires fibbing.

        – Mark Olson
        Jan 18 at 22:13
















      49














      @Peter Diehr's answer is a good one and I've upvoted it - but I'd like to expand on that, remembering that Lincoln was a very good strategist.



      First, The Civil War was about slavery, and the South's (correct) understanding was that the North was growing faster than it was and free states would sooner or later substantially outnumber slave states. (Some of the nominally slave states allowed slavery, but were not economically dependent on it as were the Deep South states. Sentiment for abolition was growing in those states, also. Slavery was doomed under the Union.)



      If the South did nothing, they lost in maybe twenty years when the North would have the political power to abolish slavery. They had to secede when they did.



      Lincoln, on the other hand, had history on his side. If he could hold the Union together, then slavery was doomed. Until the war was beyond settlement, his best bet to abolish slavery was to try to keep the Union together. So in the early days he insisted his only purpose was to hold the Union together.



      Secondly, the Union included several border states which allowed slavery, but where it wasn't the bedrock of the economy. To have a decent chance of winning the war militarily, the North had to hold on to those states. So even the Emancipation Proclamation didn't free the slaves in Union states! Key point: For the Emancipation Proclamation to have effect anywhere it needed to not push the slave states still in the Union into rebellion. So it had to exempt them.



      And then thirdly, as Peter says, once Lincoln had a strong Union victory he could start pushing explicitly on ending slavery. Once the North (and foreign countries, especially Great Britain) saw that the Union would end slavery and had to power to do it its moral authority was immeasurably strengthened which sped the end of the war.






      share|improve this answer





















      • 2





        "The Civil War was about slavery". You should edit this to note that it was not the only reason.

        – Infiltrator
        Jan 17 at 22:34






      • 1





        When I asked my question about this many people seemed to agree that the reason for the proclamation was to turn the war from a war of secession to a moral war about slavery, effectively ending the chance of the Confederacy to receive help from say France or Great Britain. I don't know what to make of the fact that many people say Lincoln was waging a moral crusade against slavery. He mentioned in his inaugural address just before the civil war that he had no intention to interfere with the practice or slavery, and admitted he didn't have the power to.

        – Zebrafish
        Jan 18 at 5:19








      • 9





        @Infiltrator I think it's in his book Terrible Swift Sword that Bruce Catton quotes both Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis as having publicly said, in the first year of the war, various things which amounted to: "This war is not being fought over ending (or preserving) slavery." Catton then makes it clear he doesn't quite believe either of them; that was something they were saying for political effect. Without slavery, there wouldn't have been a Civil War at all, and the ramifications of that issue strongly affected everything else that was going on in 1861.

        – Lorendiac
        Jan 18 at 9:38








      • 1





        @Zebrafish Lincoln wasn't going to end slavery, he was going to weaken it, and set up the next president to weaken it further, and the next... The south saw the march of history away from slavery, and they decided to cut and run rather than see it weaken another iota. Succession was explicitly about slavery. The civil war was about preserving the union: Lincoln would take a union where slavery survived another 5, 10, 20, 30 years over a civil war. But such a union would almost certainly lead to the end of slavery, eventually, or at least both Lincoln and the slave states believed.

        – Yakk
        Jan 18 at 15:36













      • Slavery was a great evil, but so is civil war. No decent person would deliberately choose either if a strategy was available that might end one without triggering the other. Even if it requires fibbing.

        – Mark Olson
        Jan 18 at 22:13














      49












      49








      49







      @Peter Diehr's answer is a good one and I've upvoted it - but I'd like to expand on that, remembering that Lincoln was a very good strategist.



      First, The Civil War was about slavery, and the South's (correct) understanding was that the North was growing faster than it was and free states would sooner or later substantially outnumber slave states. (Some of the nominally slave states allowed slavery, but were not economically dependent on it as were the Deep South states. Sentiment for abolition was growing in those states, also. Slavery was doomed under the Union.)



      If the South did nothing, they lost in maybe twenty years when the North would have the political power to abolish slavery. They had to secede when they did.



      Lincoln, on the other hand, had history on his side. If he could hold the Union together, then slavery was doomed. Until the war was beyond settlement, his best bet to abolish slavery was to try to keep the Union together. So in the early days he insisted his only purpose was to hold the Union together.



      Secondly, the Union included several border states which allowed slavery, but where it wasn't the bedrock of the economy. To have a decent chance of winning the war militarily, the North had to hold on to those states. So even the Emancipation Proclamation didn't free the slaves in Union states! Key point: For the Emancipation Proclamation to have effect anywhere it needed to not push the slave states still in the Union into rebellion. So it had to exempt them.



      And then thirdly, as Peter says, once Lincoln had a strong Union victory he could start pushing explicitly on ending slavery. Once the North (and foreign countries, especially Great Britain) saw that the Union would end slavery and had to power to do it its moral authority was immeasurably strengthened which sped the end of the war.






      share|improve this answer















      @Peter Diehr's answer is a good one and I've upvoted it - but I'd like to expand on that, remembering that Lincoln was a very good strategist.



      First, The Civil War was about slavery, and the South's (correct) understanding was that the North was growing faster than it was and free states would sooner or later substantially outnumber slave states. (Some of the nominally slave states allowed slavery, but were not economically dependent on it as were the Deep South states. Sentiment for abolition was growing in those states, also. Slavery was doomed under the Union.)



      If the South did nothing, they lost in maybe twenty years when the North would have the political power to abolish slavery. They had to secede when they did.



      Lincoln, on the other hand, had history on his side. If he could hold the Union together, then slavery was doomed. Until the war was beyond settlement, his best bet to abolish slavery was to try to keep the Union together. So in the early days he insisted his only purpose was to hold the Union together.



      Secondly, the Union included several border states which allowed slavery, but where it wasn't the bedrock of the economy. To have a decent chance of winning the war militarily, the North had to hold on to those states. So even the Emancipation Proclamation didn't free the slaves in Union states! Key point: For the Emancipation Proclamation to have effect anywhere it needed to not push the slave states still in the Union into rebellion. So it had to exempt them.



      And then thirdly, as Peter says, once Lincoln had a strong Union victory he could start pushing explicitly on ending slavery. Once the North (and foreign countries, especially Great Britain) saw that the Union would end slavery and had to power to do it its moral authority was immeasurably strengthened which sped the end of the war.







      share|improve this answer














      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer








      edited Jan 17 at 17:05









      CopperKettle

      4331413




      4331413










      answered Jan 16 at 3:26









      Mark OlsonMark Olson

      2,235613




      2,235613








      • 2





        "The Civil War was about slavery". You should edit this to note that it was not the only reason.

        – Infiltrator
        Jan 17 at 22:34






      • 1





        When I asked my question about this many people seemed to agree that the reason for the proclamation was to turn the war from a war of secession to a moral war about slavery, effectively ending the chance of the Confederacy to receive help from say France or Great Britain. I don't know what to make of the fact that many people say Lincoln was waging a moral crusade against slavery. He mentioned in his inaugural address just before the civil war that he had no intention to interfere with the practice or slavery, and admitted he didn't have the power to.

        – Zebrafish
        Jan 18 at 5:19








      • 9





        @Infiltrator I think it's in his book Terrible Swift Sword that Bruce Catton quotes both Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis as having publicly said, in the first year of the war, various things which amounted to: "This war is not being fought over ending (or preserving) slavery." Catton then makes it clear he doesn't quite believe either of them; that was something they were saying for political effect. Without slavery, there wouldn't have been a Civil War at all, and the ramifications of that issue strongly affected everything else that was going on in 1861.

        – Lorendiac
        Jan 18 at 9:38








      • 1





        @Zebrafish Lincoln wasn't going to end slavery, he was going to weaken it, and set up the next president to weaken it further, and the next... The south saw the march of history away from slavery, and they decided to cut and run rather than see it weaken another iota. Succession was explicitly about slavery. The civil war was about preserving the union: Lincoln would take a union where slavery survived another 5, 10, 20, 30 years over a civil war. But such a union would almost certainly lead to the end of slavery, eventually, or at least both Lincoln and the slave states believed.

        – Yakk
        Jan 18 at 15:36













      • Slavery was a great evil, but so is civil war. No decent person would deliberately choose either if a strategy was available that might end one without triggering the other. Even if it requires fibbing.

        – Mark Olson
        Jan 18 at 22:13














      • 2





        "The Civil War was about slavery". You should edit this to note that it was not the only reason.

        – Infiltrator
        Jan 17 at 22:34






      • 1





        When I asked my question about this many people seemed to agree that the reason for the proclamation was to turn the war from a war of secession to a moral war about slavery, effectively ending the chance of the Confederacy to receive help from say France or Great Britain. I don't know what to make of the fact that many people say Lincoln was waging a moral crusade against slavery. He mentioned in his inaugural address just before the civil war that he had no intention to interfere with the practice or slavery, and admitted he didn't have the power to.

        – Zebrafish
        Jan 18 at 5:19








      • 9





        @Infiltrator I think it's in his book Terrible Swift Sword that Bruce Catton quotes both Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis as having publicly said, in the first year of the war, various things which amounted to: "This war is not being fought over ending (or preserving) slavery." Catton then makes it clear he doesn't quite believe either of them; that was something they were saying for political effect. Without slavery, there wouldn't have been a Civil War at all, and the ramifications of that issue strongly affected everything else that was going on in 1861.

        – Lorendiac
        Jan 18 at 9:38








      • 1





        @Zebrafish Lincoln wasn't going to end slavery, he was going to weaken it, and set up the next president to weaken it further, and the next... The south saw the march of history away from slavery, and they decided to cut and run rather than see it weaken another iota. Succession was explicitly about slavery. The civil war was about preserving the union: Lincoln would take a union where slavery survived another 5, 10, 20, 30 years over a civil war. But such a union would almost certainly lead to the end of slavery, eventually, or at least both Lincoln and the slave states believed.

        – Yakk
        Jan 18 at 15:36













      • Slavery was a great evil, but so is civil war. No decent person would deliberately choose either if a strategy was available that might end one without triggering the other. Even if it requires fibbing.

        – Mark Olson
        Jan 18 at 22:13








      2




      2





      "The Civil War was about slavery". You should edit this to note that it was not the only reason.

      – Infiltrator
      Jan 17 at 22:34





      "The Civil War was about slavery". You should edit this to note that it was not the only reason.

      – Infiltrator
      Jan 17 at 22:34




      1




      1





      When I asked my question about this many people seemed to agree that the reason for the proclamation was to turn the war from a war of secession to a moral war about slavery, effectively ending the chance of the Confederacy to receive help from say France or Great Britain. I don't know what to make of the fact that many people say Lincoln was waging a moral crusade against slavery. He mentioned in his inaugural address just before the civil war that he had no intention to interfere with the practice or slavery, and admitted he didn't have the power to.

      – Zebrafish
      Jan 18 at 5:19







      When I asked my question about this many people seemed to agree that the reason for the proclamation was to turn the war from a war of secession to a moral war about slavery, effectively ending the chance of the Confederacy to receive help from say France or Great Britain. I don't know what to make of the fact that many people say Lincoln was waging a moral crusade against slavery. He mentioned in his inaugural address just before the civil war that he had no intention to interfere with the practice or slavery, and admitted he didn't have the power to.

      – Zebrafish
      Jan 18 at 5:19






      9




      9





      @Infiltrator I think it's in his book Terrible Swift Sword that Bruce Catton quotes both Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis as having publicly said, in the first year of the war, various things which amounted to: "This war is not being fought over ending (or preserving) slavery." Catton then makes it clear he doesn't quite believe either of them; that was something they were saying for political effect. Without slavery, there wouldn't have been a Civil War at all, and the ramifications of that issue strongly affected everything else that was going on in 1861.

      – Lorendiac
      Jan 18 at 9:38







      @Infiltrator I think it's in his book Terrible Swift Sword that Bruce Catton quotes both Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis as having publicly said, in the first year of the war, various things which amounted to: "This war is not being fought over ending (or preserving) slavery." Catton then makes it clear he doesn't quite believe either of them; that was something they were saying for political effect. Without slavery, there wouldn't have been a Civil War at all, and the ramifications of that issue strongly affected everything else that was going on in 1861.

      – Lorendiac
      Jan 18 at 9:38






      1




      1





      @Zebrafish Lincoln wasn't going to end slavery, he was going to weaken it, and set up the next president to weaken it further, and the next... The south saw the march of history away from slavery, and they decided to cut and run rather than see it weaken another iota. Succession was explicitly about slavery. The civil war was about preserving the union: Lincoln would take a union where slavery survived another 5, 10, 20, 30 years over a civil war. But such a union would almost certainly lead to the end of slavery, eventually, or at least both Lincoln and the slave states believed.

      – Yakk
      Jan 18 at 15:36







      @Zebrafish Lincoln wasn't going to end slavery, he was going to weaken it, and set up the next president to weaken it further, and the next... The south saw the march of history away from slavery, and they decided to cut and run rather than see it weaken another iota. Succession was explicitly about slavery. The civil war was about preserving the union: Lincoln would take a union where slavery survived another 5, 10, 20, 30 years over a civil war. But such a union would almost certainly lead to the end of slavery, eventually, or at least both Lincoln and the slave states believed.

      – Yakk
      Jan 18 at 15:36















      Slavery was a great evil, but so is civil war. No decent person would deliberately choose either if a strategy was available that might end one without triggering the other. Even if it requires fibbing.

      – Mark Olson
      Jan 18 at 22:13





      Slavery was a great evil, but so is civil war. No decent person would deliberately choose either if a strategy was available that might end one without triggering the other. Even if it requires fibbing.

      – Mark Olson
      Jan 18 at 22:13











      25














      Lincoln waited until there was a great union victory; the early losses, and the poor showing of the Union generals did not give him a very firm place to stand and make promises.



      Antietam was the victory he was waiting for, and a preliminary declaration was issued at that time.



      See this History channel article on the Emancipation Proclamation for further details and analysis.






      share|improve this answer



















      • 2





        True enough (+1) but one could quibble that Antietam wasn't a "great union victory" since it was tactically a draw in which McClellan failed to destroy Lee's army despite having a dominant position. Still, a draw which left you in a strategically better position was at least a partial victory after a long run of failure.

        – John Coleman
        Jan 16 at 14:13






      • 3





        @JohnColeman - In tactical lingo, the "Victor" of an engagement is the force that holds the field at the end. You could quibble with the "great" part I suppose, but Antietam was objectively a Union victory. (To be fair, The Antietam WP page currently has this wrong in exactly the way you suggest).

        – T.E.D.
        Jan 16 at 15:34








      • 1





        @kuhl As I said, it was a quibble. Strategically it was a Union victory, which was enough for Lincoln (though doubtless he would have preferred a more clear-cut victory).

        – John Coleman
        Jan 17 at 13:41






      • 2





        To give more data: if you look at the battles fought in 1862 with the goal of finding a decent union victory preceding Antietam, they are hard to find. The best candidates are Fort Donelson, Shiloh, and Pea Ridge. The battles in the east were better covered by the press, and were all fiascos for the Union., except for one: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Elizabeth_City

        – Nathan Hughes
        Jan 17 at 19:11






      • 4





        Also obviously Lincoln knew Antietam wasn't that great a victory, because he got rid of McClellan (who couldn't wipe out Lee in spite of having the intel for all his movements literally handed to him) as soon as he could. it was the best thing at hand, and he didn't know how long he'd have to wait til the next one.

        – Nathan Hughes
        Jan 17 at 19:19


















      25














      Lincoln waited until there was a great union victory; the early losses, and the poor showing of the Union generals did not give him a very firm place to stand and make promises.



      Antietam was the victory he was waiting for, and a preliminary declaration was issued at that time.



      See this History channel article on the Emancipation Proclamation for further details and analysis.






      share|improve this answer



















      • 2





        True enough (+1) but one could quibble that Antietam wasn't a "great union victory" since it was tactically a draw in which McClellan failed to destroy Lee's army despite having a dominant position. Still, a draw which left you in a strategically better position was at least a partial victory after a long run of failure.

        – John Coleman
        Jan 16 at 14:13






      • 3





        @JohnColeman - In tactical lingo, the "Victor" of an engagement is the force that holds the field at the end. You could quibble with the "great" part I suppose, but Antietam was objectively a Union victory. (To be fair, The Antietam WP page currently has this wrong in exactly the way you suggest).

        – T.E.D.
        Jan 16 at 15:34








      • 1





        @kuhl As I said, it was a quibble. Strategically it was a Union victory, which was enough for Lincoln (though doubtless he would have preferred a more clear-cut victory).

        – John Coleman
        Jan 17 at 13:41






      • 2





        To give more data: if you look at the battles fought in 1862 with the goal of finding a decent union victory preceding Antietam, they are hard to find. The best candidates are Fort Donelson, Shiloh, and Pea Ridge. The battles in the east were better covered by the press, and were all fiascos for the Union., except for one: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Elizabeth_City

        – Nathan Hughes
        Jan 17 at 19:11






      • 4





        Also obviously Lincoln knew Antietam wasn't that great a victory, because he got rid of McClellan (who couldn't wipe out Lee in spite of having the intel for all his movements literally handed to him) as soon as he could. it was the best thing at hand, and he didn't know how long he'd have to wait til the next one.

        – Nathan Hughes
        Jan 17 at 19:19
















      25












      25








      25







      Lincoln waited until there was a great union victory; the early losses, and the poor showing of the Union generals did not give him a very firm place to stand and make promises.



      Antietam was the victory he was waiting for, and a preliminary declaration was issued at that time.



      See this History channel article on the Emancipation Proclamation for further details and analysis.






      share|improve this answer













      Lincoln waited until there was a great union victory; the early losses, and the poor showing of the Union generals did not give him a very firm place to stand and make promises.



      Antietam was the victory he was waiting for, and a preliminary declaration was issued at that time.



      See this History channel article on the Emancipation Proclamation for further details and analysis.







      share|improve this answer












      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer










      answered Jan 16 at 2:29









      Peter DiehrPeter Diehr

      6,06111541




      6,06111541








      • 2





        True enough (+1) but one could quibble that Antietam wasn't a "great union victory" since it was tactically a draw in which McClellan failed to destroy Lee's army despite having a dominant position. Still, a draw which left you in a strategically better position was at least a partial victory after a long run of failure.

        – John Coleman
        Jan 16 at 14:13






      • 3





        @JohnColeman - In tactical lingo, the "Victor" of an engagement is the force that holds the field at the end. You could quibble with the "great" part I suppose, but Antietam was objectively a Union victory. (To be fair, The Antietam WP page currently has this wrong in exactly the way you suggest).

        – T.E.D.
        Jan 16 at 15:34








      • 1





        @kuhl As I said, it was a quibble. Strategically it was a Union victory, which was enough for Lincoln (though doubtless he would have preferred a more clear-cut victory).

        – John Coleman
        Jan 17 at 13:41






      • 2





        To give more data: if you look at the battles fought in 1862 with the goal of finding a decent union victory preceding Antietam, they are hard to find. The best candidates are Fort Donelson, Shiloh, and Pea Ridge. The battles in the east were better covered by the press, and were all fiascos for the Union., except for one: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Elizabeth_City

        – Nathan Hughes
        Jan 17 at 19:11






      • 4





        Also obviously Lincoln knew Antietam wasn't that great a victory, because he got rid of McClellan (who couldn't wipe out Lee in spite of having the intel for all his movements literally handed to him) as soon as he could. it was the best thing at hand, and he didn't know how long he'd have to wait til the next one.

        – Nathan Hughes
        Jan 17 at 19:19
















      • 2





        True enough (+1) but one could quibble that Antietam wasn't a "great union victory" since it was tactically a draw in which McClellan failed to destroy Lee's army despite having a dominant position. Still, a draw which left you in a strategically better position was at least a partial victory after a long run of failure.

        – John Coleman
        Jan 16 at 14:13






      • 3





        @JohnColeman - In tactical lingo, the "Victor" of an engagement is the force that holds the field at the end. You could quibble with the "great" part I suppose, but Antietam was objectively a Union victory. (To be fair, The Antietam WP page currently has this wrong in exactly the way you suggest).

        – T.E.D.
        Jan 16 at 15:34








      • 1





        @kuhl As I said, it was a quibble. Strategically it was a Union victory, which was enough for Lincoln (though doubtless he would have preferred a more clear-cut victory).

        – John Coleman
        Jan 17 at 13:41






      • 2





        To give more data: if you look at the battles fought in 1862 with the goal of finding a decent union victory preceding Antietam, they are hard to find. The best candidates are Fort Donelson, Shiloh, and Pea Ridge. The battles in the east were better covered by the press, and were all fiascos for the Union., except for one: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Elizabeth_City

        – Nathan Hughes
        Jan 17 at 19:11






      • 4





        Also obviously Lincoln knew Antietam wasn't that great a victory, because he got rid of McClellan (who couldn't wipe out Lee in spite of having the intel for all his movements literally handed to him) as soon as he could. it was the best thing at hand, and he didn't know how long he'd have to wait til the next one.

        – Nathan Hughes
        Jan 17 at 19:19










      2




      2





      True enough (+1) but one could quibble that Antietam wasn't a "great union victory" since it was tactically a draw in which McClellan failed to destroy Lee's army despite having a dominant position. Still, a draw which left you in a strategically better position was at least a partial victory after a long run of failure.

      – John Coleman
      Jan 16 at 14:13





      True enough (+1) but one could quibble that Antietam wasn't a "great union victory" since it was tactically a draw in which McClellan failed to destroy Lee's army despite having a dominant position. Still, a draw which left you in a strategically better position was at least a partial victory after a long run of failure.

      – John Coleman
      Jan 16 at 14:13




      3




      3





      @JohnColeman - In tactical lingo, the "Victor" of an engagement is the force that holds the field at the end. You could quibble with the "great" part I suppose, but Antietam was objectively a Union victory. (To be fair, The Antietam WP page currently has this wrong in exactly the way you suggest).

      – T.E.D.
      Jan 16 at 15:34







      @JohnColeman - In tactical lingo, the "Victor" of an engagement is the force that holds the field at the end. You could quibble with the "great" part I suppose, but Antietam was objectively a Union victory. (To be fair, The Antietam WP page currently has this wrong in exactly the way you suggest).

      – T.E.D.
      Jan 16 at 15:34






      1




      1





      @kuhl As I said, it was a quibble. Strategically it was a Union victory, which was enough for Lincoln (though doubtless he would have preferred a more clear-cut victory).

      – John Coleman
      Jan 17 at 13:41





      @kuhl As I said, it was a quibble. Strategically it was a Union victory, which was enough for Lincoln (though doubtless he would have preferred a more clear-cut victory).

      – John Coleman
      Jan 17 at 13:41




      2




      2





      To give more data: if you look at the battles fought in 1862 with the goal of finding a decent union victory preceding Antietam, they are hard to find. The best candidates are Fort Donelson, Shiloh, and Pea Ridge. The battles in the east were better covered by the press, and were all fiascos for the Union., except for one: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Elizabeth_City

      – Nathan Hughes
      Jan 17 at 19:11





      To give more data: if you look at the battles fought in 1862 with the goal of finding a decent union victory preceding Antietam, they are hard to find. The best candidates are Fort Donelson, Shiloh, and Pea Ridge. The battles in the east were better covered by the press, and were all fiascos for the Union., except for one: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Elizabeth_City

      – Nathan Hughes
      Jan 17 at 19:11




      4




      4





      Also obviously Lincoln knew Antietam wasn't that great a victory, because he got rid of McClellan (who couldn't wipe out Lee in spite of having the intel for all his movements literally handed to him) as soon as he could. it was the best thing at hand, and he didn't know how long he'd have to wait til the next one.

      – Nathan Hughes
      Jan 17 at 19:19







      Also obviously Lincoln knew Antietam wasn't that great a victory, because he got rid of McClellan (who couldn't wipe out Lee in spite of having the intel for all his movements literally handed to him) as soon as he could. it was the best thing at hand, and he didn't know how long he'd have to wait til the next one.

      – Nathan Hughes
      Jan 17 at 19:19













      9














      Because, as Lincoln stated, "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery".



      Initially, North expected short victorious war and quick reunification. If this would happened, slavery would be intact. After full year of struggle it became clear that the war is not going to be short, and became questionable if it is going to be victorious.



      Lincoln issued Emancipation Proclamation when it became obvious that freeing slaves in rebellion states would help save the Union, and without this action the war could be lost.



      Consider following:




      1. Before Lincoln's inauguration, Congress passed constitutional amendment that would shield slavery from the constitutional amendment process and from abolition or interference by Congress (Corwin Amendment). This was attempt to end secession peacefully; Lincoln publicly supported this proposed amendment. It was ratified by few states but did not get required three fourths states to make to Constitution.


      2. As a president, Lincoln did not have an authority to end slavery (to change the Constitution). However, as a commander in chief, during the war he could order to deprive the rebels from their property of military use. On September 22, 1862 Lincoln
        announced that all slaves in territory that was still in rebellion as of January 1, 1863, would be free. So it was up to southern states to stop fighting and save their slaves, or continue straggle and risk losing slaves if they loose the war.


      3. For Lincoln, ending slavery was another "struggle", which he tried to win (unsuccessfully) by persuasion. He offered compensation to slave states still in Union to end the slavery within these states; they rejected his offer. Before the end of the war Congress passed 13th amendment, abolishing slavery, and these states lost all slaves without any compensation.



      BTW, on February 1865, couple of month before Confederacy collapsed, Lincoln offered Confederacy compensation for lost slaves if they agree to stop fighting and return to the Union. Jefferson Davis rejected this proposal, causing thousands unnecessary casualties, humiliating military defeat, and much more painful longer reunification.






      share|improve this answer




























        9














        Because, as Lincoln stated, "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery".



        Initially, North expected short victorious war and quick reunification. If this would happened, slavery would be intact. After full year of struggle it became clear that the war is not going to be short, and became questionable if it is going to be victorious.



        Lincoln issued Emancipation Proclamation when it became obvious that freeing slaves in rebellion states would help save the Union, and without this action the war could be lost.



        Consider following:




        1. Before Lincoln's inauguration, Congress passed constitutional amendment that would shield slavery from the constitutional amendment process and from abolition or interference by Congress (Corwin Amendment). This was attempt to end secession peacefully; Lincoln publicly supported this proposed amendment. It was ratified by few states but did not get required three fourths states to make to Constitution.


        2. As a president, Lincoln did not have an authority to end slavery (to change the Constitution). However, as a commander in chief, during the war he could order to deprive the rebels from their property of military use. On September 22, 1862 Lincoln
          announced that all slaves in territory that was still in rebellion as of January 1, 1863, would be free. So it was up to southern states to stop fighting and save their slaves, or continue straggle and risk losing slaves if they loose the war.


        3. For Lincoln, ending slavery was another "struggle", which he tried to win (unsuccessfully) by persuasion. He offered compensation to slave states still in Union to end the slavery within these states; they rejected his offer. Before the end of the war Congress passed 13th amendment, abolishing slavery, and these states lost all slaves without any compensation.



        BTW, on February 1865, couple of month before Confederacy collapsed, Lincoln offered Confederacy compensation for lost slaves if they agree to stop fighting and return to the Union. Jefferson Davis rejected this proposal, causing thousands unnecessary casualties, humiliating military defeat, and much more painful longer reunification.






        share|improve this answer


























          9












          9








          9







          Because, as Lincoln stated, "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery".



          Initially, North expected short victorious war and quick reunification. If this would happened, slavery would be intact. After full year of struggle it became clear that the war is not going to be short, and became questionable if it is going to be victorious.



          Lincoln issued Emancipation Proclamation when it became obvious that freeing slaves in rebellion states would help save the Union, and without this action the war could be lost.



          Consider following:




          1. Before Lincoln's inauguration, Congress passed constitutional amendment that would shield slavery from the constitutional amendment process and from abolition or interference by Congress (Corwin Amendment). This was attempt to end secession peacefully; Lincoln publicly supported this proposed amendment. It was ratified by few states but did not get required three fourths states to make to Constitution.


          2. As a president, Lincoln did not have an authority to end slavery (to change the Constitution). However, as a commander in chief, during the war he could order to deprive the rebels from their property of military use. On September 22, 1862 Lincoln
            announced that all slaves in territory that was still in rebellion as of January 1, 1863, would be free. So it was up to southern states to stop fighting and save their slaves, or continue straggle and risk losing slaves if they loose the war.


          3. For Lincoln, ending slavery was another "struggle", which he tried to win (unsuccessfully) by persuasion. He offered compensation to slave states still in Union to end the slavery within these states; they rejected his offer. Before the end of the war Congress passed 13th amendment, abolishing slavery, and these states lost all slaves without any compensation.



          BTW, on February 1865, couple of month before Confederacy collapsed, Lincoln offered Confederacy compensation for lost slaves if they agree to stop fighting and return to the Union. Jefferson Davis rejected this proposal, causing thousands unnecessary casualties, humiliating military defeat, and much more painful longer reunification.






          share|improve this answer













          Because, as Lincoln stated, "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery".



          Initially, North expected short victorious war and quick reunification. If this would happened, slavery would be intact. After full year of struggle it became clear that the war is not going to be short, and became questionable if it is going to be victorious.



          Lincoln issued Emancipation Proclamation when it became obvious that freeing slaves in rebellion states would help save the Union, and without this action the war could be lost.



          Consider following:




          1. Before Lincoln's inauguration, Congress passed constitutional amendment that would shield slavery from the constitutional amendment process and from abolition or interference by Congress (Corwin Amendment). This was attempt to end secession peacefully; Lincoln publicly supported this proposed amendment. It was ratified by few states but did not get required three fourths states to make to Constitution.


          2. As a president, Lincoln did not have an authority to end slavery (to change the Constitution). However, as a commander in chief, during the war he could order to deprive the rebels from their property of military use. On September 22, 1862 Lincoln
            announced that all slaves in territory that was still in rebellion as of January 1, 1863, would be free. So it was up to southern states to stop fighting and save their slaves, or continue straggle and risk losing slaves if they loose the war.


          3. For Lincoln, ending slavery was another "struggle", which he tried to win (unsuccessfully) by persuasion. He offered compensation to slave states still in Union to end the slavery within these states; they rejected his offer. Before the end of the war Congress passed 13th amendment, abolishing slavery, and these states lost all slaves without any compensation.



          BTW, on February 1865, couple of month before Confederacy collapsed, Lincoln offered Confederacy compensation for lost slaves if they agree to stop fighting and return to the Union. Jefferson Davis rejected this proposal, causing thousands unnecessary casualties, humiliating military defeat, and much more painful longer reunification.







          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered Jan 18 at 7:25









          Alexander BarhavinAlexander Barhavin

          1,544314




          1,544314























              7














              While there were plenty of altruistic abolitionists who hated slavery purely on its in-humanity, much of the political drive ($$$) for the war was driven by the fear of the northern factory owners.



              Like almost every war, the United States Civil War was not primarily about ideology, it was about economics. The northern, industrialized states were concerned that after several labor saving devices (i.e. cotton gin, steam engine) that the South's excess labor pool and the increasing industrialization of the south would threaten their near monopoly on manufacture. Imagine just one point, cotton; if the south had the raw materials (cotton) and the ability to use slave labor to manufacture the cotton cloth and even cotton clothing. That would put a big dent in the northern factory owners earning stream.



              Lincoln's timing for the emancipation proclamation was purely based on the failure of diplomacy to end the war before major conflict (Antietam). It served largely propaganda purposes.






              share|improve this answer













              Some of the information contained in this post requires additional references. Please edit to add citations to reliable sources that support the assertions made here. Unsourced material may be disputed or deleted.










              • 1





                Something I want to add to this is that it was pretty clear that slavery was less efficient by the time the civil war was happening. Had the civil war just not happened, slave states would have lost their economic power because the system just couldn't keep up with compete forms of labor. Putting the slaves to work in factories probably wouldn't have helped too much because slaves are just less efficient than paid workers; slaves don't want to be at work so they drag their feet.

                – Steve
                Jan 17 at 16:40






              • 1





                This is why the south didn't produce perishable products in their plantations. Slaves would have taken too long to harvest it and most of it would have spoiled in the fields.

                – Steve
                Jan 17 at 16:40






              • 2





                More people need to look at economics to understand the civil war. It's not a simple moral matter. Freeing the slaves too early honestly would have just crashed the economy and caused a war anyway. That's why southern reconstructions was so important. Too bad Lincoln got killed at the play.

                – Steve
                Jan 17 at 16:40













              • For cotton states slave owners raw cotton production was far more profitable than anything else, and it was huge growing demand for raw cotton, domestically and abroad (it constituted vast majority of US export). It is why these cotton states were not producing enough goods for their own needs, and was buying manufacture goods from New England, mules from Kentucky, food from Midwest, slaves from Virginia. And it is why northerners manufacturers were not concerned about South's excess labor pool but mostly about flow of raw cotton supply from South

                – Alexander Barhavin
                Jan 19 at 0:10


















              7














              While there were plenty of altruistic abolitionists who hated slavery purely on its in-humanity, much of the political drive ($$$) for the war was driven by the fear of the northern factory owners.



              Like almost every war, the United States Civil War was not primarily about ideology, it was about economics. The northern, industrialized states were concerned that after several labor saving devices (i.e. cotton gin, steam engine) that the South's excess labor pool and the increasing industrialization of the south would threaten their near monopoly on manufacture. Imagine just one point, cotton; if the south had the raw materials (cotton) and the ability to use slave labor to manufacture the cotton cloth and even cotton clothing. That would put a big dent in the northern factory owners earning stream.



              Lincoln's timing for the emancipation proclamation was purely based on the failure of diplomacy to end the war before major conflict (Antietam). It served largely propaganda purposes.






              share|improve this answer













              Some of the information contained in this post requires additional references. Please edit to add citations to reliable sources that support the assertions made here. Unsourced material may be disputed or deleted.










              • 1





                Something I want to add to this is that it was pretty clear that slavery was less efficient by the time the civil war was happening. Had the civil war just not happened, slave states would have lost their economic power because the system just couldn't keep up with compete forms of labor. Putting the slaves to work in factories probably wouldn't have helped too much because slaves are just less efficient than paid workers; slaves don't want to be at work so they drag their feet.

                – Steve
                Jan 17 at 16:40






              • 1





                This is why the south didn't produce perishable products in their plantations. Slaves would have taken too long to harvest it and most of it would have spoiled in the fields.

                – Steve
                Jan 17 at 16:40






              • 2





                More people need to look at economics to understand the civil war. It's not a simple moral matter. Freeing the slaves too early honestly would have just crashed the economy and caused a war anyway. That's why southern reconstructions was so important. Too bad Lincoln got killed at the play.

                – Steve
                Jan 17 at 16:40













              • For cotton states slave owners raw cotton production was far more profitable than anything else, and it was huge growing demand for raw cotton, domestically and abroad (it constituted vast majority of US export). It is why these cotton states were not producing enough goods for their own needs, and was buying manufacture goods from New England, mules from Kentucky, food from Midwest, slaves from Virginia. And it is why northerners manufacturers were not concerned about South's excess labor pool but mostly about flow of raw cotton supply from South

                – Alexander Barhavin
                Jan 19 at 0:10
















              7












              7








              7







              While there were plenty of altruistic abolitionists who hated slavery purely on its in-humanity, much of the political drive ($$$) for the war was driven by the fear of the northern factory owners.



              Like almost every war, the United States Civil War was not primarily about ideology, it was about economics. The northern, industrialized states were concerned that after several labor saving devices (i.e. cotton gin, steam engine) that the South's excess labor pool and the increasing industrialization of the south would threaten their near monopoly on manufacture. Imagine just one point, cotton; if the south had the raw materials (cotton) and the ability to use slave labor to manufacture the cotton cloth and even cotton clothing. That would put a big dent in the northern factory owners earning stream.



              Lincoln's timing for the emancipation proclamation was purely based on the failure of diplomacy to end the war before major conflict (Antietam). It served largely propaganda purposes.






              share|improve this answer













              While there were plenty of altruistic abolitionists who hated slavery purely on its in-humanity, much of the political drive ($$$) for the war was driven by the fear of the northern factory owners.



              Like almost every war, the United States Civil War was not primarily about ideology, it was about economics. The northern, industrialized states were concerned that after several labor saving devices (i.e. cotton gin, steam engine) that the South's excess labor pool and the increasing industrialization of the south would threaten their near monopoly on manufacture. Imagine just one point, cotton; if the south had the raw materials (cotton) and the ability to use slave labor to manufacture the cotton cloth and even cotton clothing. That would put a big dent in the northern factory owners earning stream.



              Lincoln's timing for the emancipation proclamation was purely based on the failure of diplomacy to end the war before major conflict (Antietam). It served largely propaganda purposes.







              share|improve this answer












              share|improve this answer



              share|improve this answer










              answered Jan 16 at 22:38









              bdoylebdoyle

              791




              791



              Some of the information contained in this post requires additional references. Please edit to add citations to reliable sources that support the assertions made here. Unsourced material may be disputed or deleted.




              Some of the information contained in this post requires additional references. Please edit to add citations to reliable sources that support the assertions made here. Unsourced material may be disputed or deleted.









              • 1





                Something I want to add to this is that it was pretty clear that slavery was less efficient by the time the civil war was happening. Had the civil war just not happened, slave states would have lost their economic power because the system just couldn't keep up with compete forms of labor. Putting the slaves to work in factories probably wouldn't have helped too much because slaves are just less efficient than paid workers; slaves don't want to be at work so they drag their feet.

                – Steve
                Jan 17 at 16:40






              • 1





                This is why the south didn't produce perishable products in their plantations. Slaves would have taken too long to harvest it and most of it would have spoiled in the fields.

                – Steve
                Jan 17 at 16:40






              • 2





                More people need to look at economics to understand the civil war. It's not a simple moral matter. Freeing the slaves too early honestly would have just crashed the economy and caused a war anyway. That's why southern reconstructions was so important. Too bad Lincoln got killed at the play.

                – Steve
                Jan 17 at 16:40













              • For cotton states slave owners raw cotton production was far more profitable than anything else, and it was huge growing demand for raw cotton, domestically and abroad (it constituted vast majority of US export). It is why these cotton states were not producing enough goods for their own needs, and was buying manufacture goods from New England, mules from Kentucky, food from Midwest, slaves from Virginia. And it is why northerners manufacturers were not concerned about South's excess labor pool but mostly about flow of raw cotton supply from South

                – Alexander Barhavin
                Jan 19 at 0:10
















              • 1





                Something I want to add to this is that it was pretty clear that slavery was less efficient by the time the civil war was happening. Had the civil war just not happened, slave states would have lost their economic power because the system just couldn't keep up with compete forms of labor. Putting the slaves to work in factories probably wouldn't have helped too much because slaves are just less efficient than paid workers; slaves don't want to be at work so they drag their feet.

                – Steve
                Jan 17 at 16:40






              • 1





                This is why the south didn't produce perishable products in their plantations. Slaves would have taken too long to harvest it and most of it would have spoiled in the fields.

                – Steve
                Jan 17 at 16:40






              • 2





                More people need to look at economics to understand the civil war. It's not a simple moral matter. Freeing the slaves too early honestly would have just crashed the economy and caused a war anyway. That's why southern reconstructions was so important. Too bad Lincoln got killed at the play.

                – Steve
                Jan 17 at 16:40













              • For cotton states slave owners raw cotton production was far more profitable than anything else, and it was huge growing demand for raw cotton, domestically and abroad (it constituted vast majority of US export). It is why these cotton states were not producing enough goods for their own needs, and was buying manufacture goods from New England, mules from Kentucky, food from Midwest, slaves from Virginia. And it is why northerners manufacturers were not concerned about South's excess labor pool but mostly about flow of raw cotton supply from South

                – Alexander Barhavin
                Jan 19 at 0:10










              1




              1





              Something I want to add to this is that it was pretty clear that slavery was less efficient by the time the civil war was happening. Had the civil war just not happened, slave states would have lost their economic power because the system just couldn't keep up with compete forms of labor. Putting the slaves to work in factories probably wouldn't have helped too much because slaves are just less efficient than paid workers; slaves don't want to be at work so they drag their feet.

              – Steve
              Jan 17 at 16:40





              Something I want to add to this is that it was pretty clear that slavery was less efficient by the time the civil war was happening. Had the civil war just not happened, slave states would have lost their economic power because the system just couldn't keep up with compete forms of labor. Putting the slaves to work in factories probably wouldn't have helped too much because slaves are just less efficient than paid workers; slaves don't want to be at work so they drag their feet.

              – Steve
              Jan 17 at 16:40




              1




              1





              This is why the south didn't produce perishable products in their plantations. Slaves would have taken too long to harvest it and most of it would have spoiled in the fields.

              – Steve
              Jan 17 at 16:40





              This is why the south didn't produce perishable products in their plantations. Slaves would have taken too long to harvest it and most of it would have spoiled in the fields.

              – Steve
              Jan 17 at 16:40




              2




              2





              More people need to look at economics to understand the civil war. It's not a simple moral matter. Freeing the slaves too early honestly would have just crashed the economy and caused a war anyway. That's why southern reconstructions was so important. Too bad Lincoln got killed at the play.

              – Steve
              Jan 17 at 16:40







              More people need to look at economics to understand the civil war. It's not a simple moral matter. Freeing the slaves too early honestly would have just crashed the economy and caused a war anyway. That's why southern reconstructions was so important. Too bad Lincoln got killed at the play.

              – Steve
              Jan 17 at 16:40















              For cotton states slave owners raw cotton production was far more profitable than anything else, and it was huge growing demand for raw cotton, domestically and abroad (it constituted vast majority of US export). It is why these cotton states were not producing enough goods for their own needs, and was buying manufacture goods from New England, mules from Kentucky, food from Midwest, slaves from Virginia. And it is why northerners manufacturers were not concerned about South's excess labor pool but mostly about flow of raw cotton supply from South

              – Alexander Barhavin
              Jan 19 at 0:10







              For cotton states slave owners raw cotton production was far more profitable than anything else, and it was huge growing demand for raw cotton, domestically and abroad (it constituted vast majority of US export). It is why these cotton states were not producing enough goods for their own needs, and was buying manufacture goods from New England, mules from Kentucky, food from Midwest, slaves from Virginia. And it is why northerners manufacturers were not concerned about South's excess labor pool but mostly about flow of raw cotton supply from South

              – Alexander Barhavin
              Jan 19 at 0:10













              2















              Question:
              Why did Lincoln wait to issue the Declaration of Emancipation?



              (Apologies in advance: not being American, while I've read up somewhat about the military aspects of the Civil War, I am somewhat unclear as to its political dimension.)



              Lincoln did not declare the slaves free until 1863, despite his personal beliefs.



              Did he wait because he was not sure of the political support in the North for accepting Abolition as a war aim, along with stopping Secession? Or did he wait to preserve the possibility of negotiations with the Confederacy? If it was the second reason, is there any indication of what he was willing to compromise on? If the first, what changed?







              Background:

              In the United States the most reliable way to end slavery was a constitutional amendment. This takes the most political consensus (2/3rds of the house and Senate and then 3/4th of the states) and is thus the most difficult to implement and reverse.

              The Thirteenth amendment was first introduced Dec 1863, and failed to pass in the house on the first vote June 15, 1864 by 13 votes. Lincoln organized a pretty masterful political offensive involving government jobs for outgoing congressmen in a lame duck congress in order to finally pass the amendment through the House which was the most difficult stage of the process. Still it took years and right up until the final vote in congress, passing it was not a forgone conclusion. Lincoln passed the first part of these hurdles during the Civil war( Apr 12, 1861 - Apr 9, 1865) with the ratification of of the 13th Amendment by the senate(April 8, 1864) followed by the house 9 months latter (January 31, 1865). Ratification by 3/4ths of individual states after the war could be relied upon as the Southern secessionist governments would be controlled by the Union during reconstruction. As predicted the states achieved the 3/4th's majority to ratify it after the end of the War, Dec 6, 1865.



              Lincolns signature on the Presidential order the Emancipation Proclamation Jan 1, 1863 was not his lasting solution to slavery. It was a message who's primary intended recipient was not domestic. Lincoln knew the next president could easily repeal it, and the current Supreme Court once the crisis of war was over would have likely declared it unconstitutional. It was about politics. Lincoln could not dictate timing for a constitutional amendment, but he could with a presidential order; and that's what he did.






              Short Answer

              Lincoln was looking to redefine the war. It was previously defined as a war to preserve the Union, now Lincoln would telegraph ending slavery as a major war goal. Through this redefinition Lincoln hoped to block Britain and France from getting involved. These countries who were considering recognizing the confederacy (Britain and France) were popularly against slavery. By making the American Civil War about slavery Lincoln targeted these European nations making recognition of the south politically untenable for them domestically.




              Detailed Answer:

              So Lincoln knew he needed a constitutional Amendment to end slavery in a meaningful way. Why did he sign the Presidential order the Emancipation Proclamation in Jan 1, 1863, knowing the next President could simply repeal Lincolns order? The next President, Lincoln's vice President, Andrew Johnson, a slaveholding politician from a Southern state probable would have. Lincoln also knew the supreme court likely would have declared the Emancipation proclamation unconstitutional in the absence of a change to the Constitution.

              Lincoln did it to preserve the union. Simple put the American Civil war was fought on many fronts. Economic, Political, Military, and Diplomatic. It was the diplomatic war which needed Lincoln's action on Jan of 1863. Britain and France were threatening to enter the war on behalf of the Confederate States. Lincoln used the Emancipation Proclamation to reframe the war from one about preserving the Union, into a war to end slavery. That's what the emancipation proclamation did. It announced that ending slavery would be a major goal of the Union in the War. Lincoln knew if the war was framed as one against slavery it would make Britain and France's intervention untenable giving both countries had already abolished slavery Britain(Slavery Abolition Act in 1833) and France (Louis X abolished slavery in 1315, although slavery continued in French Colonies until 1848).



              The timing was dictated by politics, and as previous answers said more precisely by a Union victory at Battle of Antietam. Technically Antietam wasn't a victory for the Union it was a stalemate. But after months and months of seeing his armies retreating from the gates of Richmond, seeing Lee retreat from Maryland back into Virginia was represented in the Northern Newspapers as a victory. So Lincoln used that "victory" to roll out his diplomatic offensive against Britain and French intervention.




              Emancipation Proclamation

              As Lincoln had hoped, the Proclamation turned foreign popular opinion in favor of the Union by gaining the support of anti-slavery countries and countries that had already abolished slavery (especially the developed countries in Europe such as Great Britain or France). This shift ended the Confederacy's hopes of gaining official recognition.[99]



              Since the Emancipation Proclamation made the eradication of slavery an explicit Union war goal, it linked support for the South to support for slavery. Public opinion in Britain would not tolerate direct support for slavery. British companies, however, continued to build and operate blockade runners for the South. As Henry Adams noted, "The Emancipation Proclamation has done more for us than all our former victories and all our diplomacy." In Italy, Giuseppe Garibaldi hailed Lincoln as "the heir of the aspirations of John Brown". On August 6, 1863, Garibaldi wrote to Lincoln: "Posterity will call you the great emancipator, a more enviable title than any crown could be, and greater than any merely mundane treasure".[100]



              Mayor Abel Haywood, a representative for workers from Manchester, England, wrote to Lincoln saying, "We joyfully honor you for many decisive steps toward practically exemplifying your belief in the words of your great founders: 'All men are created free and equal.'"[101] The Emancipation Proclamation served to ease tensions with Europe over the North's conduct of the war, and combined with the recent failed Southern offensive at Antietam, to cut off any practical chance for the Confederacy to receive British support in the war.




              Sources:




              • Thirteenth Amendment

              • History of the Thirteenth Amendment

              • Emancipation_Proclamation

              • Abolitionism

              • Battle of Antietam






              share|improve this answer






























                2















                Question:
                Why did Lincoln wait to issue the Declaration of Emancipation?



                (Apologies in advance: not being American, while I've read up somewhat about the military aspects of the Civil War, I am somewhat unclear as to its political dimension.)



                Lincoln did not declare the slaves free until 1863, despite his personal beliefs.



                Did he wait because he was not sure of the political support in the North for accepting Abolition as a war aim, along with stopping Secession? Or did he wait to preserve the possibility of negotiations with the Confederacy? If it was the second reason, is there any indication of what he was willing to compromise on? If the first, what changed?







                Background:

                In the United States the most reliable way to end slavery was a constitutional amendment. This takes the most political consensus (2/3rds of the house and Senate and then 3/4th of the states) and is thus the most difficult to implement and reverse.

                The Thirteenth amendment was first introduced Dec 1863, and failed to pass in the house on the first vote June 15, 1864 by 13 votes. Lincoln organized a pretty masterful political offensive involving government jobs for outgoing congressmen in a lame duck congress in order to finally pass the amendment through the House which was the most difficult stage of the process. Still it took years and right up until the final vote in congress, passing it was not a forgone conclusion. Lincoln passed the first part of these hurdles during the Civil war( Apr 12, 1861 - Apr 9, 1865) with the ratification of of the 13th Amendment by the senate(April 8, 1864) followed by the house 9 months latter (January 31, 1865). Ratification by 3/4ths of individual states after the war could be relied upon as the Southern secessionist governments would be controlled by the Union during reconstruction. As predicted the states achieved the 3/4th's majority to ratify it after the end of the War, Dec 6, 1865.



                Lincolns signature on the Presidential order the Emancipation Proclamation Jan 1, 1863 was not his lasting solution to slavery. It was a message who's primary intended recipient was not domestic. Lincoln knew the next president could easily repeal it, and the current Supreme Court once the crisis of war was over would have likely declared it unconstitutional. It was about politics. Lincoln could not dictate timing for a constitutional amendment, but he could with a presidential order; and that's what he did.






                Short Answer

                Lincoln was looking to redefine the war. It was previously defined as a war to preserve the Union, now Lincoln would telegraph ending slavery as a major war goal. Through this redefinition Lincoln hoped to block Britain and France from getting involved. These countries who were considering recognizing the confederacy (Britain and France) were popularly against slavery. By making the American Civil War about slavery Lincoln targeted these European nations making recognition of the south politically untenable for them domestically.




                Detailed Answer:

                So Lincoln knew he needed a constitutional Amendment to end slavery in a meaningful way. Why did he sign the Presidential order the Emancipation Proclamation in Jan 1, 1863, knowing the next President could simply repeal Lincolns order? The next President, Lincoln's vice President, Andrew Johnson, a slaveholding politician from a Southern state probable would have. Lincoln also knew the supreme court likely would have declared the Emancipation proclamation unconstitutional in the absence of a change to the Constitution.

                Lincoln did it to preserve the union. Simple put the American Civil war was fought on many fronts. Economic, Political, Military, and Diplomatic. It was the diplomatic war which needed Lincoln's action on Jan of 1863. Britain and France were threatening to enter the war on behalf of the Confederate States. Lincoln used the Emancipation Proclamation to reframe the war from one about preserving the Union, into a war to end slavery. That's what the emancipation proclamation did. It announced that ending slavery would be a major goal of the Union in the War. Lincoln knew if the war was framed as one against slavery it would make Britain and France's intervention untenable giving both countries had already abolished slavery Britain(Slavery Abolition Act in 1833) and France (Louis X abolished slavery in 1315, although slavery continued in French Colonies until 1848).



                The timing was dictated by politics, and as previous answers said more precisely by a Union victory at Battle of Antietam. Technically Antietam wasn't a victory for the Union it was a stalemate. But after months and months of seeing his armies retreating from the gates of Richmond, seeing Lee retreat from Maryland back into Virginia was represented in the Northern Newspapers as a victory. So Lincoln used that "victory" to roll out his diplomatic offensive against Britain and French intervention.




                Emancipation Proclamation

                As Lincoln had hoped, the Proclamation turned foreign popular opinion in favor of the Union by gaining the support of anti-slavery countries and countries that had already abolished slavery (especially the developed countries in Europe such as Great Britain or France). This shift ended the Confederacy's hopes of gaining official recognition.[99]



                Since the Emancipation Proclamation made the eradication of slavery an explicit Union war goal, it linked support for the South to support for slavery. Public opinion in Britain would not tolerate direct support for slavery. British companies, however, continued to build and operate blockade runners for the South. As Henry Adams noted, "The Emancipation Proclamation has done more for us than all our former victories and all our diplomacy." In Italy, Giuseppe Garibaldi hailed Lincoln as "the heir of the aspirations of John Brown". On August 6, 1863, Garibaldi wrote to Lincoln: "Posterity will call you the great emancipator, a more enviable title than any crown could be, and greater than any merely mundane treasure".[100]



                Mayor Abel Haywood, a representative for workers from Manchester, England, wrote to Lincoln saying, "We joyfully honor you for many decisive steps toward practically exemplifying your belief in the words of your great founders: 'All men are created free and equal.'"[101] The Emancipation Proclamation served to ease tensions with Europe over the North's conduct of the war, and combined with the recent failed Southern offensive at Antietam, to cut off any practical chance for the Confederacy to receive British support in the war.




                Sources:




                • Thirteenth Amendment

                • History of the Thirteenth Amendment

                • Emancipation_Proclamation

                • Abolitionism

                • Battle of Antietam






                share|improve this answer




























                  2












                  2








                  2








                  Question:
                  Why did Lincoln wait to issue the Declaration of Emancipation?



                  (Apologies in advance: not being American, while I've read up somewhat about the military aspects of the Civil War, I am somewhat unclear as to its political dimension.)



                  Lincoln did not declare the slaves free until 1863, despite his personal beliefs.



                  Did he wait because he was not sure of the political support in the North for accepting Abolition as a war aim, along with stopping Secession? Or did he wait to preserve the possibility of negotiations with the Confederacy? If it was the second reason, is there any indication of what he was willing to compromise on? If the first, what changed?







                  Background:

                  In the United States the most reliable way to end slavery was a constitutional amendment. This takes the most political consensus (2/3rds of the house and Senate and then 3/4th of the states) and is thus the most difficult to implement and reverse.

                  The Thirteenth amendment was first introduced Dec 1863, and failed to pass in the house on the first vote June 15, 1864 by 13 votes. Lincoln organized a pretty masterful political offensive involving government jobs for outgoing congressmen in a lame duck congress in order to finally pass the amendment through the House which was the most difficult stage of the process. Still it took years and right up until the final vote in congress, passing it was not a forgone conclusion. Lincoln passed the first part of these hurdles during the Civil war( Apr 12, 1861 - Apr 9, 1865) with the ratification of of the 13th Amendment by the senate(April 8, 1864) followed by the house 9 months latter (January 31, 1865). Ratification by 3/4ths of individual states after the war could be relied upon as the Southern secessionist governments would be controlled by the Union during reconstruction. As predicted the states achieved the 3/4th's majority to ratify it after the end of the War, Dec 6, 1865.



                  Lincolns signature on the Presidential order the Emancipation Proclamation Jan 1, 1863 was not his lasting solution to slavery. It was a message who's primary intended recipient was not domestic. Lincoln knew the next president could easily repeal it, and the current Supreme Court once the crisis of war was over would have likely declared it unconstitutional. It was about politics. Lincoln could not dictate timing for a constitutional amendment, but he could with a presidential order; and that's what he did.






                  Short Answer

                  Lincoln was looking to redefine the war. It was previously defined as a war to preserve the Union, now Lincoln would telegraph ending slavery as a major war goal. Through this redefinition Lincoln hoped to block Britain and France from getting involved. These countries who were considering recognizing the confederacy (Britain and France) were popularly against slavery. By making the American Civil War about slavery Lincoln targeted these European nations making recognition of the south politically untenable for them domestically.




                  Detailed Answer:

                  So Lincoln knew he needed a constitutional Amendment to end slavery in a meaningful way. Why did he sign the Presidential order the Emancipation Proclamation in Jan 1, 1863, knowing the next President could simply repeal Lincolns order? The next President, Lincoln's vice President, Andrew Johnson, a slaveholding politician from a Southern state probable would have. Lincoln also knew the supreme court likely would have declared the Emancipation proclamation unconstitutional in the absence of a change to the Constitution.

                  Lincoln did it to preserve the union. Simple put the American Civil war was fought on many fronts. Economic, Political, Military, and Diplomatic. It was the diplomatic war which needed Lincoln's action on Jan of 1863. Britain and France were threatening to enter the war on behalf of the Confederate States. Lincoln used the Emancipation Proclamation to reframe the war from one about preserving the Union, into a war to end slavery. That's what the emancipation proclamation did. It announced that ending slavery would be a major goal of the Union in the War. Lincoln knew if the war was framed as one against slavery it would make Britain and France's intervention untenable giving both countries had already abolished slavery Britain(Slavery Abolition Act in 1833) and France (Louis X abolished slavery in 1315, although slavery continued in French Colonies until 1848).



                  The timing was dictated by politics, and as previous answers said more precisely by a Union victory at Battle of Antietam. Technically Antietam wasn't a victory for the Union it was a stalemate. But after months and months of seeing his armies retreating from the gates of Richmond, seeing Lee retreat from Maryland back into Virginia was represented in the Northern Newspapers as a victory. So Lincoln used that "victory" to roll out his diplomatic offensive against Britain and French intervention.




                  Emancipation Proclamation

                  As Lincoln had hoped, the Proclamation turned foreign popular opinion in favor of the Union by gaining the support of anti-slavery countries and countries that had already abolished slavery (especially the developed countries in Europe such as Great Britain or France). This shift ended the Confederacy's hopes of gaining official recognition.[99]



                  Since the Emancipation Proclamation made the eradication of slavery an explicit Union war goal, it linked support for the South to support for slavery. Public opinion in Britain would not tolerate direct support for slavery. British companies, however, continued to build and operate blockade runners for the South. As Henry Adams noted, "The Emancipation Proclamation has done more for us than all our former victories and all our diplomacy." In Italy, Giuseppe Garibaldi hailed Lincoln as "the heir of the aspirations of John Brown". On August 6, 1863, Garibaldi wrote to Lincoln: "Posterity will call you the great emancipator, a more enviable title than any crown could be, and greater than any merely mundane treasure".[100]



                  Mayor Abel Haywood, a representative for workers from Manchester, England, wrote to Lincoln saying, "We joyfully honor you for many decisive steps toward practically exemplifying your belief in the words of your great founders: 'All men are created free and equal.'"[101] The Emancipation Proclamation served to ease tensions with Europe over the North's conduct of the war, and combined with the recent failed Southern offensive at Antietam, to cut off any practical chance for the Confederacy to receive British support in the war.




                  Sources:




                  • Thirteenth Amendment

                  • History of the Thirteenth Amendment

                  • Emancipation_Proclamation

                  • Abolitionism

                  • Battle of Antietam






                  share|improve this answer
















                  Question:
                  Why did Lincoln wait to issue the Declaration of Emancipation?



                  (Apologies in advance: not being American, while I've read up somewhat about the military aspects of the Civil War, I am somewhat unclear as to its political dimension.)



                  Lincoln did not declare the slaves free until 1863, despite his personal beliefs.



                  Did he wait because he was not sure of the political support in the North for accepting Abolition as a war aim, along with stopping Secession? Or did he wait to preserve the possibility of negotiations with the Confederacy? If it was the second reason, is there any indication of what he was willing to compromise on? If the first, what changed?







                  Background:

                  In the United States the most reliable way to end slavery was a constitutional amendment. This takes the most political consensus (2/3rds of the house and Senate and then 3/4th of the states) and is thus the most difficult to implement and reverse.

                  The Thirteenth amendment was first introduced Dec 1863, and failed to pass in the house on the first vote June 15, 1864 by 13 votes. Lincoln organized a pretty masterful political offensive involving government jobs for outgoing congressmen in a lame duck congress in order to finally pass the amendment through the House which was the most difficult stage of the process. Still it took years and right up until the final vote in congress, passing it was not a forgone conclusion. Lincoln passed the first part of these hurdles during the Civil war( Apr 12, 1861 - Apr 9, 1865) with the ratification of of the 13th Amendment by the senate(April 8, 1864) followed by the house 9 months latter (January 31, 1865). Ratification by 3/4ths of individual states after the war could be relied upon as the Southern secessionist governments would be controlled by the Union during reconstruction. As predicted the states achieved the 3/4th's majority to ratify it after the end of the War, Dec 6, 1865.



                  Lincolns signature on the Presidential order the Emancipation Proclamation Jan 1, 1863 was not his lasting solution to slavery. It was a message who's primary intended recipient was not domestic. Lincoln knew the next president could easily repeal it, and the current Supreme Court once the crisis of war was over would have likely declared it unconstitutional. It was about politics. Lincoln could not dictate timing for a constitutional amendment, but he could with a presidential order; and that's what he did.






                  Short Answer

                  Lincoln was looking to redefine the war. It was previously defined as a war to preserve the Union, now Lincoln would telegraph ending slavery as a major war goal. Through this redefinition Lincoln hoped to block Britain and France from getting involved. These countries who were considering recognizing the confederacy (Britain and France) were popularly against slavery. By making the American Civil War about slavery Lincoln targeted these European nations making recognition of the south politically untenable for them domestically.




                  Detailed Answer:

                  So Lincoln knew he needed a constitutional Amendment to end slavery in a meaningful way. Why did he sign the Presidential order the Emancipation Proclamation in Jan 1, 1863, knowing the next President could simply repeal Lincolns order? The next President, Lincoln's vice President, Andrew Johnson, a slaveholding politician from a Southern state probable would have. Lincoln also knew the supreme court likely would have declared the Emancipation proclamation unconstitutional in the absence of a change to the Constitution.

                  Lincoln did it to preserve the union. Simple put the American Civil war was fought on many fronts. Economic, Political, Military, and Diplomatic. It was the diplomatic war which needed Lincoln's action on Jan of 1863. Britain and France were threatening to enter the war on behalf of the Confederate States. Lincoln used the Emancipation Proclamation to reframe the war from one about preserving the Union, into a war to end slavery. That's what the emancipation proclamation did. It announced that ending slavery would be a major goal of the Union in the War. Lincoln knew if the war was framed as one against slavery it would make Britain and France's intervention untenable giving both countries had already abolished slavery Britain(Slavery Abolition Act in 1833) and France (Louis X abolished slavery in 1315, although slavery continued in French Colonies until 1848).



                  The timing was dictated by politics, and as previous answers said more precisely by a Union victory at Battle of Antietam. Technically Antietam wasn't a victory for the Union it was a stalemate. But after months and months of seeing his armies retreating from the gates of Richmond, seeing Lee retreat from Maryland back into Virginia was represented in the Northern Newspapers as a victory. So Lincoln used that "victory" to roll out his diplomatic offensive against Britain and French intervention.




                  Emancipation Proclamation

                  As Lincoln had hoped, the Proclamation turned foreign popular opinion in favor of the Union by gaining the support of anti-slavery countries and countries that had already abolished slavery (especially the developed countries in Europe such as Great Britain or France). This shift ended the Confederacy's hopes of gaining official recognition.[99]



                  Since the Emancipation Proclamation made the eradication of slavery an explicit Union war goal, it linked support for the South to support for slavery. Public opinion in Britain would not tolerate direct support for slavery. British companies, however, continued to build and operate blockade runners for the South. As Henry Adams noted, "The Emancipation Proclamation has done more for us than all our former victories and all our diplomacy." In Italy, Giuseppe Garibaldi hailed Lincoln as "the heir of the aspirations of John Brown". On August 6, 1863, Garibaldi wrote to Lincoln: "Posterity will call you the great emancipator, a more enviable title than any crown could be, and greater than any merely mundane treasure".[100]



                  Mayor Abel Haywood, a representative for workers from Manchester, England, wrote to Lincoln saying, "We joyfully honor you for many decisive steps toward practically exemplifying your belief in the words of your great founders: 'All men are created free and equal.'"[101] The Emancipation Proclamation served to ease tensions with Europe over the North's conduct of the war, and combined with the recent failed Southern offensive at Antietam, to cut off any practical chance for the Confederacy to receive British support in the war.




                  Sources:




                  • Thirteenth Amendment

                  • History of the Thirteenth Amendment

                  • Emancipation_Proclamation

                  • Abolitionism

                  • Battle of Antietam







                  share|improve this answer














                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer








                  edited Jan 21 at 9:39









                  Josh Rumbut

                  1033




                  1033










                  answered Jan 18 at 21:37









                  JMSJMS

                  1




                  1

















                      protected by Pieter Geerkens Jan 19 at 18:24



                      Thank you for your interest in this question.
                      Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).



                      Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?



                      Popular posts from this blog

                      Probability when a professor distributes a quiz and homework assignment to a class of n students.

                      Aardman Animations

                      Are they similar matrix