Why did Lincoln wait to issue the Declaration of Emancipation?












13















(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




















  • 5





    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
    9 hours ago













  • 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
    8 mins ago











  • @RonMaupin: That should be an answer.

    – Ben Crowell
    5 mins ago
















13















(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




















  • 5





    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
    9 hours ago













  • 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
    8 mins ago











  • @RonMaupin: That should be an answer.

    – Ben Crowell
    5 mins ago














13












13








13


1






(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 36 mins ago









Mark C. Wallace

23.4k972111




23.4k972111










asked 16 hours ago









Italian PhilosopherItalian Philosopher

717313




717313








  • 5





    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
    9 hours ago













  • 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
    8 mins ago











  • @RonMaupin: That should be an answer.

    – Ben Crowell
    5 mins ago














  • 5





    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
    9 hours ago













  • 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
    8 mins ago











  • @RonMaupin: That should be an answer.

    – Ben Crowell
    5 mins ago








5




5





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
9 hours ago







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
9 hours ago















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
8 mins ago





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
8 mins ago













@RonMaupin: That should be an answer.

– Ben Crowell
5 mins ago





@RonMaupin: That should be an answer.

– Ben Crowell
5 mins ago










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















16














@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, OTOH, 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

































    10














    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
























    • 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
      3 hours ago











    • @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.
      1 hour ago













    Your Answer








    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "324"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fhistory.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f50649%2fwhy-did-lincoln-wait-to-issue-the-declaration-of-emancipation%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes








    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    16














    @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, OTOH, 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






























      16














      @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, OTOH, 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




























        16












        16








        16







        @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, OTOH, 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, OTOH, 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 3 hours ago

























        answered 13 hours ago









        Mark OlsonMark Olson

        1,797513




        1,797513























            10














            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
























            • 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
              3 hours ago











            • @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.
              1 hour ago


















            10














            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
























            • 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
              3 hours ago











            • @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.
              1 hour ago
















            10












            10








            10







            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 14 hours ago









            Peter DiehrPeter Diehr

            5,62711441




            5,62711441













            • 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
              3 hours ago











            • @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.
              1 hour ago





















            • 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
              3 hours ago











            • @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.
              1 hour ago



















            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
            3 hours ago





            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
            3 hours ago













            @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.
            1 hour ago







            @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.
            1 hour ago




















            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to History Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fhistory.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f50649%2fwhy-did-lincoln-wait-to-issue-the-declaration-of-emancipation%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Polycentropodidae

            Magento 2 Error message: Invalid state change requested

            Paulmy