Between the start of the Civil War and the Declaration of Emancipation, what was the reason for Lincoln's...
(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
add a comment |
(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
add a comment |
(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
(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
american-civil-war
asked 7 hours ago
Italian PhilosopherItalian Philosopher
662311
662311
add a comment |
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
@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 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 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 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 it's moral authority was immeasurably strengthened which sped the end of the war.
add a comment |
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.
add a comment |
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
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fhistory.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f50649%2fbetween-the-start-of-the-civil-war-and-the-declaration-of-emancipation-what-was%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
@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 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 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 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 it's moral authority was immeasurably strengthened which sped the end of the war.
add a comment |
@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 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 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 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 it's moral authority was immeasurably strengthened which sped the end of the war.
add a comment |
@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 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 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 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 it's moral authority was immeasurably strengthened which sped the end of the war.
@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 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 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 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 it's moral authority was immeasurably strengthened which sped the end of the war.
answered 4 hours ago
Mark OlsonMark Olson
1,659511
1,659511
add a comment |
add a comment |
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.
add a comment |
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.
add a comment |
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.
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.
answered 5 hours ago
Peter DiehrPeter Diehr
5,54711440
5,54711440
add a comment |
add a comment |
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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fhistory.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f50649%2fbetween-the-start-of-the-civil-war-and-the-declaration-of-emancipation-what-was%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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