On May 9, 1862, General David Hunter, declared all slaves in his theater of war (South Carolina, Georgia and Florida) free. Lincoln revoked Hunter's emancipation order, just as he had Fremont's.
Why would Lincoln repeal both these acts, and then sign into effect an Emancipation Proclamation just four months later?
To understand this more fully, we need to re-examine two things: our understanding of the Constitution, and the Emancipation Proclamation.
The Constitution
The Constitution actually protected slavery. Article IV Section 2 of the Constitution states "No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due."
Note the first clause: No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof. This clause implicitly upholds (and protects) laws holding persons to service or labor (ie slavery laws) in the states.
Lincoln himself said, "nothing in the Constitution or laws of any State can destroy the right of property in a slave".
The Proclamation
The Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in the states that were in rebellion. Many history books say the reason for this was that Lincoln didn't want to enflame the border states--Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky and Missouri; slaves states that had remained in the Union--and push them to secede as well.
The truth is, there was very little danger of the border states seceding. They were already committed to the Union, for economic and political reasons. Furthermore, in 1862, in four of the border states Democrats (the party of secession) didn't hold enough Congressional seats, or state legislative seats, to successfully vote for secession. The Unionists party was the majority party in Kentucky, Maryland, and Missouri state legislatures. And although the Democrats held the majority in Delaware, they couldn't possibly effectively secede, being sandwiched between Maryland, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania.
So what was the real reason that Lincoln didn't free the slaves in Union states?
Looking Deeper
The reason that Lincoln could only free slaves in the states that were in rebellion is because the constitution protected slavery in the Union states. However, in Confederate states, their property (slaves) could be legally seized as punishment for treason, and then this property could be set free, "as a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said rebellion" (Emancipation Proclamation).
Lincoln respected law and order, and the Constitution. He could emancipate slaves in rebellious states, but he could not free them in Union states. This is why the 13th Amendment was necessary.
In regards to Fremont's edict, Lincoln stated "that must be settled according to laws made by law-makers, and not by military proclamations" and "can it be pretended that it is any longer [a]...government of Constitution and laws, wherein a General, or a President, may make permanent rules of property by proclamation?" (Lincoln Papers)
Lincoln revoked Fremont's emancipation order because Missouri was a Union state, and it was unconstitutional for Fremont to free slaves in a state not in rebellion.
Lincoln justified his Emancipation Proclamation as "warranted by the Constitution, upon military necessity" ie, Lincoln was invoking the emergency war powers given to the President in the Constitution. He revoked Hunter's emancipation order (even though South Carolina, Georgia and Florida were states in rebellion) because Hunter, as a General, had no such emergency war powers.
Lincoln was NOT against freeing slaves. He was against freeing them UNCONSTITUTIONALLY. He believed in justice, but he also believed it needed to be brought about through the proper channels.
Some people who are new to the idea of Constitutionalism may find this absurd. Lincoln really held a piece of paper in higher regard than the freedom of individuals? Indeed, it may seem like that to some.
But we must understand why Lincoln would not compromise this document, for anything. Because it would be this document--amended for a 13th, 14th, and 15th time--that would protect the slave once free. And if he were to trample this document under his feet, what then? What would uphold and protect the liberty of the freeman? If Lincoln could ignore Article IV, Section 2 in 1862, then why could not another president ignore the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments in some future time?
As Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said so profoundly, "it it is wrong to use immoral means to attain moral ends."
The Constitution is "the supreme law of the land" (Article VI, Clause 2). Lincoln asserted "we must enforce all laws of the United States, lest anarchy ensue" (Lincoln Papers). It was essential that Slavery be abolished in accordance with the Constitution. And today, it is also essential that all laws and actions be taken in accordance with the Constitution; otherwise, we are on the road to anarchy.
**THIS ARTICLE IS PART OF A FOUR-PART SERIES**
Sources:
Grosvenor, Edwin S., Lincoln, (New Word City), loc. 1232-1263.
James G. Randall, Lincoln the President, 4 vols. (New York, 1946-54), II, 21
James M. McPherson, Battlecry of Freedom, (New York, 1988), 352-359, 498-499.
Lincoln Papers, Library of Congress, CWL, IV, 517-18.
Martin Luther King, Jr., Letter from Birmingham Jail, pg 6.
https://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/documents/Letter_Birmingham_Jail.pdf
United States Constitution, Article IV, Section 2; Article VI, Clause 2.
No comments:
Post a Comment