It seems pertinent to say after the foregoing that one consequence of
Lincoln’s love of definition was a war-time policy toward slavery which
looked to some like temporizing. We have encountered in an earlier speech
his view that the Negro could not be classified merely as property. Yet
it must be remembered that in the eyes of the law Negro slaves were
property; and Lincoln was, after all, a lawyer. Morally he believed them
not to be property, but legally they were property; and the necessity
of walking a line between the moral imperative and the law will explain
some of his actions which seem not to agree with the popular conception
of the Great Emancipator. The first serious clash came in the late
summer of 1861, when General Fremont, operating in Missouri, issued a
proclamation freeing all slaves there belonging to citizens in rebellion
against the United States. Lincoln first rebuked General Fremont and then
countermanded his order. To O. H. Browning, of Quincy, Illinois, who had
written him in support of Fremont’s action, he responded as follows:
You speak of it as the only means of saving the government. On
the contrary, it is itself the surrender of the government. Can
it be pretended that it is any longer the Government of the
United States—any government of constitution and laws—wherein a
general or a president may make permanent rules of property by
proclamation?[100]
This was the doctrine of the legal aspect of slavery which was to be
amplified in the Second Annual Message to Congress:
Doubtless some of those who are to pay, and not to receive,
will object. Yet the measure is both just and economical. In a
certain sense the liberation of the slaves is the destruction
of property—property acquired by descent or by purchase, the
same as any other property.... If, then, for a common object
this property is to be sacrificed, is it not just that it be
done at a common charge?[101]
It is a truism that as a war progresses, the basis of the war changes,
and our civil conflict was no exception. It appears to have become
increasingly clear to Lincoln that slavery was not only the fomenting
cause but also the chief factor of support of the secessionist
movement, and finally he came to the conclusion that the “destruction”
of this form of property was an indispensable military proceeding.
Even here though—and contrary to the general knowledge of Americans
today—definitions were carefully made. The final document was not a
proclamation to emancipate slaves, but a proclamation to confiscate the
property of citizens in rebellion “as a fit and necessary measure for
suppressing said rebellion.” Its terms did not emancipate all slaves, and
as a matter of fact slavery was legal in the District of Columbia until
some time after Lincoln’s death.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account