Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: stevem
This was a political document used to keep England from siding with the Confederacy. It freed zero slaves except where the Union Army was standing at any point in time.

Why would the Proclamation have influenced England? Hadn't England long since abolished slavery, the slave trade, including in its colonies?

70 posted on 02/10/2007 7:21:50 AM PST by MACVSOG68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies ]


To: MACVSOG68
Why would the Proclamation have influenced England? Hadn't England long since abolished slavery, the slave trade, including in its colonies?<

In 1860 and 1861 the loss of the cotton trade through the blockade (the Anaconda Plan) hurt English manufacturing a great deal. The Confederacy had ambassadors and trade reps in England encouraging them to step in and negotiate a cease fire at best or a military alliance with the South if needed so they could start trade anew. I'm not sure the Union could have coped with that.

Since the war "wasn't about slavery" there was no reason for England to stay neutral. On the other hand, Lincoln knew full well that England could not step in supporting the Confederacy for moral reasons if it meant saving the institution England had outlawed.

If you read the Proclamation, it only affected territory in rebellion, hence people in places like Maryland and Kentucky could keep their slaves. Since Lincoln and the North controlled precious little territory in rebellion, the Proclamation only had affect wherever the Union Army happened to be standing at that time. This fact even caused some serious problems for Sherman and a large number of runaway slaves that followed the Army since it was the only place where they were remotely safe. I believe it was in South Carolina where Sherman crossed a river and left a legion of runaways behind to face a vindictive group of Confederates. This was a catastrophe for the blacks in that episode.

I don't think you can look at the Emancipation Proclamation as a sign that Lincoln abhored the institution. You can, however, look at the rest of his life to catch a glimpse of how he felt about it. Some people said he felt the way he did because, as a youth, his own father treated him as a slave to be sold to other homesteaders to do forced manual labor so the old man could rake in a few pennies.

Whatever the reason, it's utterly silly to indict Lincoln as a racist. He was an emancipator of the first order comparing him to most citizens of that era. He was positively cutting edge as an emancipator among people that had a chance to do anything about the institution.

76 posted on 02/10/2007 10:25:29 AM PST by stevem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson