Talk:Emancipation Proclamation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Slavery Abolition Act 2 Why? 3 Why the cleanup tag? 4 Make actual text available on wikisource 5 Semantic correction 6 Change of wording 7 First COnfiscation Act? 8 This order did not free anyone. 9 Never questioned by ANY legal scholar? 10 why is this significant to us history?

[edit] Slavery Abolition Act

Why is there a disambiguation link to the (UK's) "Slavery Abolition Act" at the top of the page? Although the "Slavery Abolition Act" and "Emancipation Proclamation" deal with similar issues, there really isn't a way that they can be confused. I'm moving the link to the bottom of the page as a see also link.-ZD67.83.48.21 00:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why?

Lincoln said in his inaugural address that he wouldn't meddle with the institution of slavery. What changed his mind to issue this?

-- times changed. By giving a moral cause to the war he forced europeans like britian to acknowledge that they can't support the south because that would be supporting slavery(note britain supplied the south with hundreds of small ships in the beginning of the war). it also gave most people in the union a better reason for fighting the war other than to "save the union".

When he was elected Lincoln was attempting to save the union from collapse, however when the south seceded that changed the game.

Slaves were part of the war machinery - he did not say anything as simple as he "would not meddle with slavery"--JimWae 06:22, 2005 Jan 21 (UTC)

At first, Lincoln fought the war for the Confedracy, to keep it together; not to free slaves. He changed his mind almost a year later. That is when he wrote the Emancipation Proclamation. He wrote it in secret, thinking that when all the slaves in the states of rebellion were freed, they would join the Union army. His advisers advised him to wait to release the Emancipation Proclamation until a victory in battle, that way it wouldn’t look like the Union government needed the blacks to help save them. Then the Confedracy army won Antietam in 1862, Lincoln warned the Confederacy that if they did not return to the Union by January 1, 1863, he would put the Emancipation Proclamation to work. Although Lincoln gave the Confederacy three months to change their minds, they ignored him. On the contrary to what the title of this proclamation is though, Lincoln didn’t free a single slave. It “emancipated slaves where it could not reach them, and left them in bondage where it could have set them free.” (http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v13/v13n5p-4_Morgan.html) Mary Jones, a woman in Georgia, thought that the emancipated slaves would be the ones to suffer most through the war. In her journal, she wrote: “With their emancipation, must come their extermination.”

In a letter to Horace Greeley, Lincon said to the world, as Greeley was a newspaper editor, that "If I could save the Union by freeing all the slaves, I would do that. If I could save the Union by leaveing all the slaves alone, I would do that. And if I could save the Union by freeing some, and leaveing others be, I would also do that." Note that that quote was from memory and likly slightly off, which is why I didn't add this to the artical. --KinkoBlast 17:34, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Ah, here is the exact wording: "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and not either to save or to destroy slavery.

If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that." Gota love Project Gutenburg, great source. http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/14721 --KinkoBlast 17:43, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

i cant figure out how to sign off...but here goes...

lincoln changed his views from being a person "not in favour in bringin out racial equality in any way" during the lincoln/douglas debates to being "naturally opposed" to slavery 2 days before the EP was issued.

the key thing to rememeber before you think that he is a racist and only changing to suit the times according to politics and the fact that the union was spiralling downwards in the war and lincoln needed o prevent the british recognising the south is that slavery not race was the key issue. race became an issue later (this is clear post structuralism). and they are two different things. lincoln was a staunch advocate of colonisation of all blakc americans to liberia because it would "solve all the problems we have". slavery however was rather disgusting and base and shoudl not be supported. you have to look at lincoln in context. for more info go read this great book:

Miller, W.L. (2002). Lincoln’s Virtues – an Ethical Biography. The United States of America: Third Printing Press.

This is my first try at any of these discussion things, so here goes. In the Emancipation Proclomation, Lincoln was not freeing the slaves up North (of which there were), but trying to free the slaves down South of which he had no say. Actually Lincoln was not a friend to blacks at all. He wanted to rid the country of them and send them to either Central America, South America, or Africa. Lincoln also beleived that the black man was not equal to the white man and never would be. [User: dixielee ] 18:11, 12 July 2006

Perhaps DixieLee will tell us what a true friend of the black man would have done. Rjensen 01:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why the cleanup tag?

I'm not knowledgeable on the topic, but this article seems informative and well-written to me (one minor issue: it could do with sections). So I was wondering why/whether it deserves to be marked as requiring cleanup.

Crust 19:31, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

If I read the page and tag corectly, the info is correct, but the page needs cleanup in structure and "Wikification." The format is more like a print encyclopedia at the moment --KinkoBlast 17:27, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Make actual text available on wikisource

How about someone making the text of the proclamation available on wikisource and then linking to it from this article, rather than only the external link that is currently given? -- Bovineone 08:47, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Semantic correction

The preface currently has the phrase banning slavery in the United States. This is true if you read it as banning some slavery in some areas argued to part of the United States. Because there has been so much misinformation in public education, it is common to believe that the Emancipation Proclamation banned slavery everywhere. Therefore, I feel the preface should be more precise and state that proclamation banned slavery in confederate controlled states that seceded from the United States. Kainaw 16:25, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it didn't ban slavery in any part of the United States. It banned slavery in the Confederate States of America, which—for a few years, anyway—was its own country. I'm going to change it but, being a Yankee myself, it's not a semantic argument I care about terribly, so if someone has a problem with my wording, feel free to revert me. Kafziel 08:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Lincoln's position was that the rebellious areas were certainly part of the USA. Anyone who disagreed got jailed or shot. Rjensen 12:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Lincoln's position didn't really matter, which is why the Emancipation Proclamation was largely symbolic. King George III had a similar policy about the 13 colonies. That didn't stop them from being their own country. The CSA had their own president, their own laws, their own money, and their own army. Lincoln had no power over them; the whole objective of the war was for Lincoln to pull them back into the Union and under his power, and when the Emancipation Proclamation was signed, he had not yet succeeded in that goal. Saying that they were part of the US is just a case of the victors re-writing history. At the time the proclamation went out, they weren't. That would be like saying Lewis and Clark discovered part of the United States, or that the Alamo was in the United States. Kafziel 17:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

One last note: All semantic arguments aside, isn't "Confederate States of America" a lot more specific and encyclopedic than "some areas"? Kafziel 17:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Well user Kafziel gets shot for his opinion  :) Lincoln sent a million soldiers into these areas to prove he was right and even Lee had to agree. Rjensen 18:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Ha ha ha, okay, I'll face the firing squad. :) Let my last words be that I'm a Yankee through and through, but still maintain even to the end that "CSA" is better than "some parts". :) Kafziel 04:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Change of wording

From "In short, if you remained loyal to the Union you could continue to own slaves." to "In short, border states that remained loyal to the Union allowed to retain their slaves."

Do we really need this statement? I believe that this is a little redundant. This fact has been stated 4 different times in 4 different ways before the reader would actually see that sentence. Should we delete it? RiseRobotRise 09:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First COnfiscation Act?

why is first confiscation act redirected here?

Drazba 16:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)Drazba

[edit] This order did not free anyone.

http://library.thinkquest.org/J0112391/myth_8.htm

Someone needs to get the information right.

--Vehgah 19:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Never questioned by ANY legal scholar?

I am certainly not a legal expert or anything, but just reading the introduction to this article the claim that "no court or legal scholar has questioned [the Proclamation's] validity" struck me as a really broad, sweeping statement to make without including any real support, and I find it hard to believe that NO legal scholar has EVER questioned this. Unless someone has a citation or something to substantiate that claim, I think it should be considered (at best) original research and probably needs to be modified somehow. Would anyone object to this?********* --ChrisHack20

the legal status is discussed in the depth in the comprehensive referenced legal studies that look at the legal history (like Belz, Vorenberg) None of them report any serious legal challenge. It is not original research to report the findings of scholars. (add as well Harold Hyman, McLaughlin and James Randall on Constl History)--did they perhaps miss some major case???? Rjensen 06:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] why is this significant to us history?

what is the significance of emancipation proclamation to us history? what effect did this have on the war? was it advantageous for the north to free slaves?

I'd advise you to read Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation by Allen C. Guelzo, which explains the issue far better than any of us here could. In a nutshell, this was the culmination of the various emancipation attempts and represents the point at which emancipation could not be taken back. Its actual effect on the war effort is debatable. It helped insure that the anti-slavery European nations wouldn't enter the war (although by the point the Proclamation was issued, they had discovered cotton in Egypt, so they were less concerned about protecting the South). It also paved the way for blacks to perform more and more duties for the Union military, eventually leading to combat duty. However, it reinforced racism in the North, gave the South a moral boost and led to the Republicans taking heavy hits in the 1862 election. As for "advantageous", you'll have to define whether you mean morally, politically or somewhere in the middle. Stilgar135 20:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)