catching up on reading and came across this interesting article from the NTY opinion page on "The Forgotten Emancipation" as part of this whole sesquicentennial of the U.S. Civil War.


http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/03/04/the-forgotten-emancipation/?ref=opinion

March 4, 1865, is remembered as the day of Abraham Lincoln�s Second Inaugural address, but it was also a moment that has been forgotten in the long history of slave emancipation in America.

As Lincoln spoke of malice toward none, almost 100,000 slaves went free in states loyal to the Union. All were women and children, emancipated by an act of Congress designed to �encourage Enlistments� by black men in the Union Army.

This wartime liberation has disappeared from public memory. But it was a turning point in the downfall of American slavery � in which slaves played a leading part in transforming the Civil War into a war for abolition.

The Enlistment Act reached beyond the Emancipation Proclamation, which applied only to areas in rebellion. By declaring �forever free� the black soldier�s wife and children, the act brought liberation to slaves owned by loyal masters in the border states � human property that Lincoln had pledged the Civil War would leave untouched.

By 1865, saving the Union had become inseparable from destroying slavery. But men still enslaved in the border states refused to wage war for the Union unless, in exchange, they won their families� freedom as well as their own.

The Enlistment Act was revolutionary. In a world in flux, where constitutional change flowed from the tides of war, it based abolition on slave marriage. It assumed precisely what slavery denied � the right of chattel property to marry and have a family. And, for the first time, Congress stripped loyal slaveholders of property without compensation, a challenge to the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment.

Fascinating article indeed. Of course the Confederacy had already long lost the war by the time the Enlistment Act was passed into law.

Interesting stuff. Thanks for posting.

Considering Lincoln was determined to crush the confederacy regardless of the slave issue, he was either very shrewd or very lucky (likely both) to have the whole slave freedom movement associated with the Union.

The interesting question still remains: did he do more damage than good using the federal government militarily against states? How would the US be different had both sides decided to respect the Mason-Dixon line as a border between countries?

I firmly believe slavery would still be outlawed (thinking the union army was a white knight force for slave rescue is a rather comical idea still alluded to, at least here in the North), but the US would be a strange place without a single and large federal government.

As far as the events of world history are concerned and the evolution of the US as a nation, I'm glad that we have a single unified country today. Having said that, I also believe that the South had some very compelling and valid Constitutional arguments supporting their case.

Agreed, although who's to say the south wouldn't have won had the north sat around discussing the morality of pursuing a war longer.

It would have been even more interesting around WWI if the north and south were different countries though. The Zimmermann telegram may have only considered Mexico invading the southern "country"; hell the north might have ended up joining the axis or something, creating a front on US soil.

Plenty of oddball historical scenarios fresh for the taking, game devs take note

Interestingly enough, the last state to have legally owned slaves was....



Kind of goes against the narrative, doesn't it?

Ya but they stayed with the Union. Its way easier to make the other guys do it when there are zero political repercussions. In mid 19th century America the only folks who could afford slaves where well off folks indeed. They also hold a lot of political clot. be like telling every small business owner to get rid of their SUV with no compensation. It aint going to go well. And that is not even touching on the moral issue of just how damned evil slavery is.

If the US had stayed split I think both would have gotten gobbled up by some European power. The Great White fleet would not have been as great. Less man power all around. North would have had issues with textiles and the South with heavy industry. Just do not think the US would have been in much of position to tell Europe to piss off.

[quote=Peally]Agreed, although who's to say the south wouldn't have won had the north sat around discussing the morality of pursuing a war longer.

It would have been even more interesting around

I think that slavery would have died on its own and by then, they would have re-united.

Do you think that the south would have gotten round
to deciding slavery was immoral, and rejecting it,
after looking around and noticing they were all alone
in "western" countries with slavery, or do you think
some other force would have caused it - and after how
much time, remembering that de facto repression and
disenfranchisement of blacks by a campaign of lynching
and intimidation continued for at least another 25 years,
until outward behaviours indicative of racial equality
were successfully obliterated?

I'm not saying it would have been perfect, but I think they would have ended slavery. Every other nation managed to end slavery peacefully. There are a couple of reasons for it:

1. Britain would have continued to stop the slave trade, they also would have put political and economic pressure to end it. After all a big reason they weren't ever recognized by England was slavery, even though men like Lord Acton were sympathetic to the cause.
2. No longer would slaves need to go to Canada, rather they just needed to cross the Mason-Dixon/Ohio River and they were free. Escape would have made the Northern and Central Southern States in an uneconomic position for keeping slaves.
3. There were more abolitionist organizations and supporters in the South than in the North, until Nat Turner's Rebellion.
4. According to Alexis De Tocqueville race relations were much better in the Antebellum South. It wasn't uncommon for black preachers to preach to white and mixed race crowds before the War. I have to wonder how much of the bitterness and ill treatment came about because of the War.
5. Thomas Sowell points out that it wasn't the free market that was racist, the railroads and later the buses for example wanted to accept black riders in the same compartments as white, because it was more economical and they could even pick up a few 1st Class fares (mostly from rich NO mulattoes).
6. Let's not forget that the North used vagrant codes to keep blacks from migrating North for nearly 50 years, so the North wasn't this racial harmony paradise either.

American slavery should have been abolished in 1776. It is a tragedy and shame that it was not.

Many in writing the Constitution wanted to end slavery, but the situation presented wouldn't allow it. When the Constitution was written, the seeds of it's destruction were presented. Had they outright outlawed slavery, most of the South would not had ratified the Constitution.

please elaborate on these compelling and valid constitutional arguments
thanks!

interesting!