Customer Reviews

Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation: The End of Slavery in America

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(4)

 

 

Abraham Lincoln issued the final version of the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863. Near the end of that year, the artist Francis Carpenter determined to paint "a historical picture of the first reading of the Proclamation of Emancipation". Carpenter spent six months in the White House beginning in February, 1864, created a historically important painting of the reading of the Emancipation Proclamation to the cabinet, got to know Lincoln, and wrote a book detailing his experiences. Carpenter wrote that Lincoln told him regarding the Emancipation Proclamation: "It is the central act of my administration, and the great event of the nineteenth century".

Professor Allen Guelzo tells the story of the Carpenter painting (p. 220-21), includes a photograph of the painting in the book, discusses Lincoln's statement to Carpenter (p. 186) and includes much more in his detailed study, "Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation: The End of Slavery in America" (2004). This book is a worthy successor to Professor Guelzo's recent study of Lincoln's religous and political beliefs in "Abraham Lincoln: Redeemer President".

Professor Guelzo takes issue with a historical interpretation of the Emancipation Proclamation beginning with Richard Hofstadter (1948) that argues that Lincoln had little concern with the status of black Americans and issued the Emancipation Proclamation only from reasons of prudence to protect the interests of white workers. Guelzo also approaches the Emancipation Proclamation to address recent arguments by African-American scholars skeptical of Lincoln's role and pessimistic about the future of race relations in the United States.

Professor Guelzo agrees that Lincoln approached the question of Emancipation cautiously. He offers several reasons for this caution. One major reason was Lincoln's fear of the reaction of the Federal courts to an attempt by the Executive to emancipate the slaves. Lincoln had good grounds for this concern as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Roger Taney, was the author of the notorious Dred Scott decision. Lincoln also had to act with the concerns of the border states in mind as these states were critical to the Union war effort; and he had to contend with generals and a substantial portion of the population of the North that would oppose any attempt to turn the Civil War from a war to preserve the Union to a war to free the slaves. To circumvent these obstacles, Lincoln proposed a system of compensated emancipation and asked the border states to adopt such a plan with Federal financial assistance. He also wanted to explore voluntary colonization efforts under which the freed slaves would be colonized in central America or in a location in the Western United States.

Professor Guelzo describes how the border states resisted any notion of compensated emancipation. He also describes Federal legislative efforts, and efforts of some Union commanders, to protect former slaves making their way to the Union lines. These slaves were described by the term "contraband" and Congress enacted two limited statutes, called "Confiscation Acts" providing freedom for the "contrabands."

In 1862, Lincoln told Secretary of State Seward and, ultimately, the rest of the cabinet, that he had determined to free the slaves in the rebelious states. Although not a believer in any traditional sense, Lincoln stated that this course was forced upon him by God and Providence. He issued the Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation in September 22, 1862 and the final Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863.

Professor Guelzo describes the origins of the Proclamation, and the effect of its issuance on the Union, the Confederacy, the free blacks, and the slaves. He also describes the impact of the Proclamation on the foreign affairs of the United States and on the conduct of the War -- as is well known, following the Proclamation the Civil War changed in character to total warfare.
He describes the precarious legal basis for the Emancipation Proclamation and points to Lincoln's courage and determination in the face of doubt. Although some scholars have argued that the Proclamation had, in fact, no legal effect and freed no slaves, Professor Guelzo argues persuasively that it was and remains the pivotal event of the Civil War and the single most important factor in the destruction of slavery.

Following Lincoln's assasination, the Freedmen from the Southern states contributed funds for the construction of a statue of Lincoln emancipating a slave. The statue stands in Lincoln Park in Washington, D.C. It was dedicated in 1872, with remarks by Frederick Douglass. (I was moved to visit Lincoln Park to see the statue after hearing Professor Guelzo speak last year at a conference in Washington.) Douglass described Lincoln as "a white man who shared the prejudices common to his countrymen towards the colored race." (p. 249) Yet he recognized that, in issuing the Proclamation Lincoln was "swift, zealous, radical, and determined." (p. 250) In Professor Guelzo's words, the Emancipation Proclamation was "an act of spectacular political daring" (p.249)

This is a thorough, well-balanced, yet inspiring study, of what indeed has fair title to be the Great Event of the Nineteenth Century. The book will help the reader understand where our country has been in securing racial justice and in bringing to pass and expanding upon the American dream.

Allen C. Guelzo wrote this superb book as a work to counter the prevalent [revisionist] school of thought that holds
that Lincoln was a very reluctant emancipator - if even that. What many people hold against Lincoln, as is well known, is that he only touched slavery where slaves were out of his reach [i.e. living in confederate states in rebellion], and did not set people free where they were within his reach [i.e. in the loyal Border States of Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky & Missouri]. HOWEVER: as Guelzo points out: when Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, he invoked the constitutionally warranted [and untried] WAR POWERS in his role as Commander-in-Chief, which only apply during wartime/times of rebellion. Slavery did NOT fall under FEDERAL jurisdiction, but under STATE jurisdiction. In other words: the institution of slavery was "protected" by the firewall protecting states from any intervention on the part of the federal government. Should Lincoln have ended slavery in the BORDER states, his action would have been declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL by the Supreme Court in a heartbeat. After all: the Border states were NOT in rebellion (and thus protected, by the U.S. Constitution, from presidential decrees/proclamations pertaining to slavery!).

Further complications: Roger B. Taney [Dred Scott case!] was still chief justice of the Supreme Court (!), not exactly somebody you'd call a friend of emancipation. Further more: such executive action would surely have resulted in
the loyal Border States actually joining the Confederacy. In the fall of 1862, there was even the threat of a march on Washington D.C., a military 'Coup-d'Etat,' led by Union Commander George McClellan at the head of the Army
of the Potomac. McClellan, in no uncertain terms, "warned" Lincoln to not intervene with slavery (!). Conclusion: Lincoln did what he could do without violating the U.S. Constitution - and certainly risked his political neck.

As early as 1861, Lincoln advanced his own favored plan of gradual, compensated emancipation. Lincoln knew the limits of federal power as far as ending the institution of slavery was concerned: only the legislatures of individual states could vote to end slavery legally. Therefore: Lincoln doctored a plan to offer economic incentives that would make it attractive to
slave states to abolish slavery by their own choice. The federal government would issue federal bonds to states that would end slavery as compensation for the capital loss emancipation would bring about. Lincoln's Secretary of the
Treasury, Salmon Chase, calculated that should the federal government buy the freedom of all four million slaves in America at the time of the Civil War, this would still be less costly to the U.S. than a singly year of fighting the Civil War (!).

When I asked Guelzo how he'd assess the meaning of the Emancipation Proclamation during a teacher seminar at the Ashbrook Center for Public Affairs in Ohio, his answer was, "The Emancipation Proclamation was to the abolishment of slavery what D-DAY was to the end of the war in Europe." Lincoln would use ANYTHING within his power to legally end slavery, whether by proclamation or compensated
emancipation. In the end, it was the 13th Amendment to the Constitution which legally ended the institution of slavery in America.

"Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation" is a must-read that will enlighten and captivate both teachers and students of American History.

Lincoln the Strategist

This is a wonderful book. It paints a portrait of a side of Lincoln rarely discussed, Lincoln the cunning politician and master of strategy. Lincoln by careful political and military maneuvering did what the fiery rhetoric of the abolitionists had failed to; free all slaves everywhere.

The majority of Northern whites were not abolitionists and were not willing to fight a war with the South, strictly to free black slaves. Lincoln knew and understood this, and cast the war in terms of preserving the union. However thru a series of gradual, and seemingly unconnected actions, Lincoln set the die for the eventual abolition of slavery and the equality of all people.

Consider Lincoln's decision to accept southern slaves into the union army. This decision could be easily be justified on the grounds of military expediency. It was common practice for one army to seize the property of the opposing side and then to use that property against it's former owner. When the Union overran a Confederate artillery position, they would seize the cannons and use them against the South. What could be more sensible and non controversial than to use seized southern property(slaves) against the south?

However by training and arming recently freed black slaves and clothing them in the uniform of the U.S. Government, Lincoln seriously eroded the thesis of slavery; that blacks were an inferior race deserving only of slavery and not citizenship. When the war was over these black veterans would be another obstacle to a continuation of the previous precarious, legal status of blacks. It was inconceivable that a slave who had joined the Union army and fought for the Union could later be returned to slavery or denied citizenship.

The Emancipation Proclamation was a conditional document issued by Lincoln pursuant to his powers as commander in chief. The proclamation provided that, in six month if the rebellion was still active then all persons held as slaves where the Union was not in power would be freed. Thus the Emancipation Proclamation could be defended as part and parcel of the war effort and not a special effort to free slaves or improve the status of blacks. If the rebels did not lay down their arms and submit to the Union within the generous period of time of six months, their most useful and valuable property, their slaves would be forfeit. After all, what country at war does not seize the property, either public or private of it's enemy. To this day the United States, like most countries has a "Trading with the Enemy Act" which provides for the seizure of the private property of citizens of a foreign country, which the United States is in conflict with.

By making the Emancipation Proclamation a conditional document Lincoln set the stage for the 13th Amendment(which abolished slavery everywhere): had the war ended with the Emancipation Proclamation still in effect all the slaves of the confederacy would have been free, however thousands of slaves in the border states would remain in bondage. This would be an untenable situation, leaving aside the fact that the war had converted many union soldiers into hard core abolitionists, it would re ignite many of the pre civil war problems, like the fugitive slave issue.

This was the genius of Lincoln. Through a series of small and carefully plotted steps he brought the Country and the body politic, to a place where they had not intended to go, but did so in a manner, that few noticed the change in direction, and fewer still objected.

The Emancipation Proclamation is one of those documents that people think they know off the top of their head "Oh it freed the slaves" but don't understand what it really meant. That is what Guelzo sets out to fix. He places one of Lincoln's most famous, yet least understood documents in context of the civil war, and of Abraham Lincoln himself. The document was not an idea flowing fully blown from Lincoln's mind. Rather it was a process of slow development that led to one of the boldest moves of the Civil War. By focusing on just this one slice of the Civil War, Guelzo is able to explore a number of related ideas and forces in depth and weave the document into the larger tapestry of the war. It takes a little bit to get into the author's prose, but after the initial setting of the stage, the story flows well, allowing the reader to see the unfolding of time leading up to the document's release. The final tragic coda of the story shows how, after Lincoln's assassination, the accomplishments and promise of the Emancipation Proclamation quickly unraveled as we moved into Reconstruction. A good look at a moment in history.

I tip my hat to Dr. Guelzo for writing this outstanding book about President Abraham Lincoln and the Emancipation Proclamation. This book receives my strongest recommendation.

Misunderstandings of the man and this important document's meaning and effect seem to run rampant. This is due, in no small part, to lackluster scholarship and/or some sort of Kantian absolutism--both which the author briefly refers to in his introduction. Indeed, the introduction is itself something that people who want to understand Lincoln should read. The operative term here: prudence.

The book covers the issuance of the Proclamation and time leading up to it from several angles-militarily, politically, legally, ethically and even theologically. Of course, none of the aforementioned dimensions were so easily divisible, as Guelzo notes. Had Lincoln not taken political and constitutional considerations into account in making military plans, he would have risked serious setbacks to the cause of the Union through a re-election defeat or by an adverse Supreme Court decision rendering him helpless to save the Union.

The Border States were crucial to the survival of the Union and a Congress supporting the war effort was likewise essential. None of these were guaranteed, as Lincoln and his supporters had much work before them to ensure that a nation reluctantly plunged into war would not back out and elect a peace-seeking, compromise Democrat who would ultimately dissolve the Union.

One need hardly mention that it was the Supreme Court that helped plunge the nation into war with the horrendous Dred Scott decision, and that Lincoln also had to be mindful that that same Court could certainly strike down the Proclamation as exceeding the scope of the President's War Powers.

Gulezo conveys the sense of care and caution with which Lincoln promulgated the Proclamation and does so in a gripping fashion. This book is superbly written and is a read worthy of any admirer of America's greatest President.

Allen Guelzo has chosen to become the modern day champion of Abraham Lincoln, hoisting his banner to stand out on Winthrop's "city upon a hill." Not satisfied with scholarship that either labels Lincoln merely a scheming politician- producing a document for propaganda purposes- on the one hand, or apologizing for either the ends or the means of what Lincoln effected on the other hand, Guelzo proudly labels Lincoln as the true and effective emancipator that acted through legislative prudence to ensure a lawful, constitutional and unbreakable emancipation. Indeed, it is only by gaining an understanding of the Enlightenment notion of prudence that one can piece together the motivation of Lincoln through looking at his actions from his election in1860 onwards.

In the parlance of battlefield stratagem it is considered a great folly to divide one's force in the face of an enemy with superior numbers. Make no mistake, Guelzo is outnumbered and has chosen to take on all forces at one time. Beginning with Richard Hofstadter's essay of 1948, much of the negative scholarship of Lincoln has focused on him primarily as a political animal that used the Emancipation Proclamation as propaganda tool only. It was the protection of the white laborer that motivated Lincoln, Hofstadter would argue, and not the freedom of the slave. Even in the African American community this line of reasoning and resentment towards Lincoln has become popular as well. Well into the first half of the 20th century Lincoln was revered among black Americans, but as the civil rights movement and Pan-Africanism gained traction Lincoln had come to be seen as a white supremacist by black intellectuals and political leadership who found it more convenient to argue that slaves had freed themselves. Guelzo hides from none of these critics. His portrayal of the prudent emancipator seeks to answer the challenges of each Lincoln critic in turn.

On the other side of this battlefield are those whom Guelzo labels the "Lincoln apologists." Rather than confront the substance of what underpins Hofstadter's criticisms of Lincoln, they choose to tacitly agree with him. By seeking to explain away Lincolns `failings' they accept Hofstadter's premise that Lincoln's motivations were flawed to begin with. Both sides of this scholarly debate are making two fundamental errors. First, they are making an a priori assumption that an immediate and total emancipation by Lincoln upon his election is the only morally justifiable action he could have made. This is simply a bridge too far for any mid 19th century President to cross that had a war to win as well as slaves to free. Second, both sides simply lack the understanding that Guelzo brings about the personal, political prudence of Abraham Lincoln.

"I believe that Abraham Lincoln understood from the first that his administration was the beginning of the end of slavery and that he would not leave office without some form of legislative emancipation policy in place." This sentence- in a nutshell- sums up Guelzo's attack on the Lincoln critics and the Lincoln apologists. Neither side seems able to accept that Lincoln was an enemy of slavery from the beginning, but Guelzo sets out to prove just that.

In order to do this Guelzo must answer several questions about Lincoln's actions as President. Why did he not support the military generals that had enacted a form of de facto emancipation in their given districts under the justification of martial law? Why was Lincoln not an ardent supporter of the two Confiscation Acts passed by congress before the Emancipation Proclamation? How does one justify Lincoln's initial support for colonization of freedmen? Finally, what if anything did the actual proclamation accomplish? Was it not aimed only at areas that were, in point of fact, not under the control of the federal government? On all of these questions save one Guelzo is to be given full marks for thorough and convincing answers that elevate Lincoln's face back to the mountainside where it is so rightly enshrined among America's pantheon of great Presidents.

In dealing with the issues of the Confiscation Acts, the contraband definition of General Butler and the martial law declaration of General Fremont, Guelzo shows Lincoln was confronted with the lack of permanence of each of these solutions to slavery. Chief orchestrator of this was Lincoln's judicial nemesis: Chief Justice Roger Taney. Taney had continually shown himself to be a check to federal power expansion and a friend of slavery. Author of the landmark Dred Scott decision, Taney had also acted to thwart Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus in his Ex-parte Maryland decree. Guelzo's portrayal of the prudent, enlightenment Lincoln allows one to see why Lincoln could not support these measures. Lincoln could not have believed that any of these three means of emancipation would have withstood a challenge in court. That, of course, is the crux of Guelzo's book. A permanent and unshakable emancipation was Lincoln's goal, and he would not settle for anything else.

The question then must be asked what proactive steps did Lincoln take to initiate this permanent emancipation. This, Guelzo tells us, is Lincoln's effort at compensated emancipation in the Border states that would eventually be given to the rebel states as they reentered the Union. This step would have accomplished two goals for Lincoln at one time. First and most important, a legislative plan of compensated emancipation (acceded to by each state legislature in turn) would have been untouchable by Justice Taney and the Supreme Court. Finally, once the Border states had agreed to compensated emancipation, the hope that the South had of ever winning these states to their cause would have been utterly destroyed. Does Guelzo succeed in this part of his argument? On the one hand, Lincoln did assuredly offer these proposals to the legislatures of the Border states with the hope of their success, but most assuredly these efforts were a miserable failure. Guelzo presents enough evidence for one to assume that Lincoln did believe these proposals had a fair shot at success, but was it not a colossal act of naivety on Lincoln's part to ever hope these measures would succeed? Are we to judge him harshly for even trying this step? If we were to judge him in such a way, then we would fall into the same trap the Guelzo exposes in this book. For Lincoln not to have tried this step at compensated emancipation would have been too out of character for the man of prudence. This was a reasoned and practical step with political and military advantages to follow had it been successful. That Lincoln misread the sentiment of the populace only weakens the argument that he was the consummate politician that Hofstadter makes him out to be.

Another of the great critiques of the proclamation itself is that it only freed slaves in areas not under the control of the federal government. This, as Guelzo shows, is the classic political straw man argument. Lincoln's decree carried with it the authority of the United States government, an authority that would again gain legitimacy over the rebellious states in due time. One might counter by saying that, "Your argument assumes that the North will win the war." To that one can only say, "Of Course!" There simply is no point to fighting a war you do not plan on winning, and no point to making a proclamation you do not plan on enforcing. The very words and force behind of the proclamation guaranteed that at some point the Union Army would enforce this decree. As Guelzo did point out, no slaves that made it to the Union line after the proclamation were ever in bondage again.

Most troubling to any champion of Lincoln is his support for the colonization of freedmen. This solution is steeped in a belief that the white and black races cannot live together, and it is a belief that Abraham Lincoln supported. Guelzo, to his credit, does not shy away from this controversy, but his success in exonerating Lincoln on this issue is not nearly as complete as in other areas. Guelzo offers two reasons to justify Lincoln in this matter: 1) colonization would be voluntary and not conscripted and 2) there was an expectation of emancipation sooner rather than later. It is difficult for one to see how either of these points serves to make Lincoln a champion of egalitarianism. For the former point it is to Lincoln's credit that he would not force someone to be shipped off to a desolate island to fend for themselves, but that hardly justifies the fact that he would allow someone to be shipped off to a desolate island to fend for themselves voluntary or not. To the latter point it simply stands as a non sequitur to this reader. Guelzo shows very little linkage between the failed colonization scheme and the timing of the Emancipation Proclamation. Further, even if Guelzo's assumption here is true, what does it matter? Again, it is no justification for the underlying belief that the black and white races could not live together.

So why did Lincoln finally issue a proclamation that took effect on January 1st 1863? The answer that Guelzo gives is time. Lincoln had simply run out of time waiting for his pragmatic, legislative solution of compensated emancipation to take hold. Prudence demanded action; providence demanded action. Lincoln had decided it was finally time to act upon his own constitutional power to free the slaves. What has come down to us as an act of political delicacy has been shown by Guelzo to have been the culmination of Lincoln's thoughts and beliefs from the day he took office. A colossal gamble at the time he made it, the Emancipation Proclamation turned out to be an achievement of prudence and daring. Guelzo's work is essential to correcting the revisionist history of Lincoln and seems to have had some great effect. It was not without notice that America's first black president was also the first president since Lincoln to use the Lincoln Bible at his inauguration ceremony.

Places Mr. Lincoln and the Proclamation in their correct political, social and historic contexts. For me, this makes the document the result of an act of moral and political courage.

Well written and researched, this book made it easier for me to understand the 16th President, and to get behind the veil that separates us from him, socially and historically.

Interesting look into a pivotal time. Recommended.

Guelzo's book is fantastic. It provides, starting at the dawn of the Civil War, a thorough look at all aspects of Emancipation. From early attempts by Generals, to Lincoln's endorsement of voluntary, compensation Emancipation, and finally to the Emancipation Proclamation everything is covered in brilliant detail.

Guelzo even provides copies of all the available drafts of the Emancipation Proclamation at the end of the book for our perusal.

Absolutely a masterpiece, this is and will probably remain for a long time, the definitive work on the subject.

This book falls short as many before it in presenting the role enslaved laborers played in their own liberation, in addition to the president's strategy on how to win a modern war against a slaveholding power. Lincoln should be applauded for realizing the "military necessity" of supporting emanciption in the states that the U.S. government did not control. This at least tells us that he was a man who possessed a sharp pragmatic intelligence. Allen C. Guelzo could have stopped there in his assessment of the Civil War president. However, he insisted on deifying him, as the man who saw the value of emancipation long before his colleagues and the public writ large. He achieves this by ignoring evidence that contradicts his book's central arument: Lincoln was determined to abolish slavery from the very first day he was sworn in as the nation's commander and chief. Historian, Michael P. Johnson demolishes this claim point by point in a review essay published in the Journal of the Abraham Lincoln Association Vol. 26, No. 2, Summer, 2005 (pp. 75-81 ). Stephen Hahn's A Nation Under Our Feet and the Political World's of Slavery and Freedom should be the starting points for readers interested in a more even handed treatment of emancipation. Meanwhile, the Great Emancipator thesis Guelzo promotes in this book, should be discarded due to the lack evidence needed to support it.

Allen Guelzo is one of the preeminent Lincoln biographers, and this book that centers on the Emancipation Proclamation is no exception to his thorough and interesting writing.