Civil War Interactive Discussion Board Home
Home Search search Menu menu Not logged in - Login | Register


Emancipation Proclamation - General Civil War Talk - Civil War Talk - Civil War Interactive Discussion Board
 Moderated by: javal1
 New Topic   Reply   Printer Friendly 
 Rate Topic 
AuthorPost
 Posted: Sun Mar 9th, 2008 05:37 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
1st Post
fedreb
Member


Joined: Tue Jan 16th, 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 239
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

 I understand why Lincoln exempted the Union affiliated Border States and areas such as the counties making up West Virginia from the Emancipation Proclamation but why no mention of Tennessee, was this State not deemed to be in rebellion against the Union? I think I need some help here in understanding the politics.



 Posted: Sun Mar 9th, 2008 09:22 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
2nd Post
Kernow-Ox
Member
 

Joined: Tue Feb 26th, 2008
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom
Posts: 142
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top


I'm writing from memory so am probably a bit hazy on the detail but as far as I understand it, Tennessee had been divided on secession in 1861 but the pro-Union side failed to divorce itself in the way West Virginia did. Moreover, after the fall of Nashville Andrew Johnson was appointed military governor of the state. The Emancipation Proclamation is carefully worded to avoid losing the support of any areas with pro-Union leanings, hence the lists of parishes that are specificlaly  excluded in Louisinana for example. So I think it's safe to say that there was sufficient union control - and political support for the union - for it to be excluded.




 Posted: Sun Mar 9th, 2008 12:36 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
3rd Post
PvtClewell
Member


Joined: Wed Jun 13th, 2007
Location: North Carolina USA
Posts: 420
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

I absolutely love this — two guys from England discussing between themselves, and knowledgably, about the Emancipation Proclamation. Wow.

I also notice all our friends from England indicate they are from the United Kingdom. Interesting. I'm from North Carolina, but I don't go around saying I'm from the United States.

So: If the reigning monarch is Queen Elizabeth, therefore wouldn't you be from the United Queendom? :D Or would that be something entirely different?



 Posted: Sun Mar 9th, 2008 06:22 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
4th Post
fedreb
Member


Joined: Tue Jan 16th, 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 239
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Kernow -ox,
Thanks for that, I was obviously confusing the political and the military as the battle of Stones River was being fought at the very time of the Proclamation.

PvtClewell,
In my experience the whole UK thing comes from the USA. Anywhere else in the world I can be English but try telling that to a US Immigration Officer, our Passports state "Citizen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" so to them England doesn't exist, put anything other than UK on your green card when you arrive in the States and it is "Go to the back of the queue and fill it in properly..." but hey, I love my trips to the States so I'll be anything they want me to be



 Posted: Sun Mar 9th, 2008 06:33 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
5th Post
PvtClewell
Member


Joined: Wed Jun 13th, 2007
Location: North Carolina USA
Posts: 420
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Holy smokes. You mean we even get Europeans tied up in our own bureaucratic red tape? I had no idea.

Sorry about that. Is there anything I can get you? A Guinness perhaps. Or better yet, a Yuengling? Or a Leinenkugel?



 Posted: Sun Mar 9th, 2008 07:20 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
6th Post
fedreb
Member


Joined: Tue Jan 16th, 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 239
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

A Sam Adams would do just fine.....



 Posted: Sun Mar 9th, 2008 08:06 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
7th Post
fedreb
Member


Joined: Tue Jan 16th, 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 239
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Back to the Emancipation Proclamation. I have often read of certain manouvers, both political and military, described as the best in the war, (Grants crossing of the James comes to mind or Jacksons attack at Chancellorsville ), but I think the proclamation, where Lincoln declared henceforth and forever free slaves he actually had no control over anyway was a masterstroke in that it also served to deter any lingering thoughts of involvement from across the Atlantic by Britain or France. I know that is a bit of a simplistic view on my part and that there was a lot more involved but does anyone out there have any particular favourite manouver?



 Posted: Sun Mar 9th, 2008 08:13 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
8th Post
susansweet
Member


Joined: Sun Sep 4th, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 1420
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Fedreb did you know that that is Paul Revere on the bottle of Sam Adams?  They were afraid the picture of Sam Adams would drive people away.

Susan



 Posted: Sun Mar 9th, 2008 08:18 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
9th Post
Crazy Delawares
Member


Joined: Fri Feb 22nd, 2008
Location: New Jersey USA
Posts: 143
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Fedreb, understanding politics...good luck with that one! If you can nail it down, GREAT! I'll be reading this board from time to time to get some idea myself!



 Posted: Sun Mar 9th, 2008 08:50 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
10th Post
fedreb
Member


Joined: Tue Jan 16th, 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 239
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Susan,
There's a picture? Hard to tell with the bottle between your teeth!
You are a mine of information good lady, where do you store it all?



 Posted: Sun Mar 9th, 2008 10:47 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
11th Post
susansweet
Member


Joined: Sun Sep 4th, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 1420
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Fedreb lol.  I am full of it for sure .  I do have tons of books around the house on various subjects.  What ever has caught my attention over the years . 

Susan



 Posted: Mon Mar 10th, 2008 05:45 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
12th Post
cklarson
Member
 

Joined: Sun Sep 23rd, 2007
Location:  
Posts: 111
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Dear FedReb et al.

Very good question regarding the Emancipation Proclamation. This is why people need to read my biography of Anna Ella Carroll, _Great Necessities: The Life, Times and Writings of AEC, 1815-1894_ (http://www.xlibris.com/amazon.com) in which I reprint the 4 major legal pamphlets Carroll wrote for Lincoln, at his request, on the war powers of the Federal Government, including emancipation and the rights of Southerners. She is considered one of the best trained legal minds in the country at the time.

In her pamphlet _The Relatoin of the National Government to the Revolted Citizens Defined_, Carroll goes into the difference between foreign and civil wars. In a foreign war, every citizen of the enemy state is considered a belligerent. But in a civil war, one has to actually take up arms against the govt. to be considered a rebel which is why military commission trials for citizens were held during the war: to determine their belligerent status (as well as guerrilla status for war crimes prosecution). Because of this the government could not confiscate property (slaves) of citizens who were not rebels or who were not governed by martial law. During the war, the Confederacy was the only region that was fully governed by military law, as it was the seat of war in which military operations were taking place and in which citizens were in rebellion. Thus, as stated in the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln freed the slaves only in the states deemed in rebellion, because the use of slave labor had become a potent part of the Confederacy's military machine. He freed the slaves as a temporary war measure under his powers as commander-in-chief. As Carroll wrote, the Proclamation could not be a general transfer of property title and it had to expire once the war emergency expired as war measures can only be temporary--to meet the crisis of the war. That is why the 13th Amendment had to be passed: to abolish slavery.

CKL
[See note on my books in announcements]



 Posted: Wed Mar 12th, 2008 03:54 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
13th Post
HankC
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 6th, 2005
Location:  
Posts: 517
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

fedreb wrote:  I understand why Lincoln exempted the Union affiliated Border States and areas such as the counties making up West Virginia from the Emancipation Proclamation but why no mention of Tennessee, was this State not deemed to be in rebellion against the Union? I think I need some help here in understanding the politics.

99% of discussions and questions are rehash of well-worn topics. This is a gem in the slag; I do not recall previous mention of Tennessee being excluded from the EP...
 
It is an interesting point that the section of Tennessee longest under firm union control (the west) was the most secessionist part of the state, and the most pro-union region (the east) was the last to be conquered.
 
 
HankC



 Posted: Wed Mar 12th, 2008 06:32 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
14th Post
Kernow-Ox
Member
 

Joined: Tue Feb 26th, 2008
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom
Posts: 142
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

HankC wroteIt is an interesting point that the section of Tennessee longest under firm union control (the west) was the most secessionist part of the state, and the most pro-union region (the east) was the last to be conquered. 
Hi Hank,

That's a fascinating point.

The political scientist in me is itching to construct a model to illustrate what I think might have been going on. Forgive the indulgence (I had a really boring day at work).

Imagine a border state with four counties (A, B, C, and D). The unionist vote/sentiment is 80%, 60%, 40%, and 20% respectively. With limited resources with which to assert union authority (troops, loyalist politicians, bribes, etc), it makes sense to mostly apportion them to counties D and C, with perhaps a little bit B just to keep the waverers in line.* People in A might be cheered by an occasional parade  but it's not going to be very difficult to assert union control in this county. Political force needs to be concentrated in places where the people aren't consenting to union rule

Now, I do not know how this model holds up in relation to Tennessee (or anywhere else for that matter). However, if the purpose of the war was to re-assert federal control in states in rebellion, then to my mind it has a ring of truth about it. The aim, after all, is to get people to assent to the rule of a government. There is little point in using the force of government among those who are content to be governed by it in the first place.

Anyhow, I guess I now need to test my arguments against some evidence. How annoying.

* For the sake of this model I am ignoring any military necessities and concentrating solely on political factors.

Last edited on Wed Mar 12th, 2008 06:33 pm by Kernow-Ox



 Posted: Thu Mar 13th, 2008 06:59 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
15th Post
HankC
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 6th, 2005
Location:  
Posts: 517
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Tennessee is a fascinating state. I hope to live there one day. IIRC, the 3 stars on the state flag represent the 3 different, and rather, disparate regions of the state.

In any event, there is one major facto in the US occupation of secessionist Tennessee ( and Missouri, and Arkansas, and etc): rivers.

The rivers were both the major conduit for the advancing union armies and also the major arteries along which slavery flourished.


HankC



You have chosen to ignore Bama46. click Here to view this post


 Posted: Thu Mar 13th, 2008 10:22 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
17th Post
Kernow-Ox
Member
 

Joined: Tue Feb 26th, 2008
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom
Posts: 142
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Ed, Hank:
It does all come back to lines of communication. It's hard to conceive of the scale of the land in a period when the time taken to traverse distances was comparatively slower, and thus the social connections between different groups within a state much weaker.

The mistake is not just to see the south (or the north) as one homogeneous block, but to also see the internal demographics of the states as similarly uniform.


Thanks for the descriptions of Tennessee and Alabama. Other than printed maps in books I have a modern road map with which I tend to refer to when I can't be bothered to fire up the web browser. As it tells me that I should expect it to take just under two hours to get to Richmond from DC I think I need to find an 1860s atlas.

(As for my previous post, gosh I can go on a bit when I can't let go of an idea)

P.



 Posted: Fri Mar 14th, 2008 02:13 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
18th Post
HankC
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 6th, 2005
Location:  
Posts: 517
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Excellent point concerning communication.

Some of the most telling evidence of the US superiority are reflected in the freedom of their leaders to travel quickly and easily. Lincoln never ventured very far, but Grant and Sherman, at least, had no compulsion about hopping on a train or steamer and visiting other areas.

IIRC, in the early spring of 1864 Sherman took quite a tour of his department, from Nashville, down the Mississippi and back, ensuring the area was adequately manned and supplied before he pushed off toward Atlanta.

In contrast, I do not recall that Lee ever left Virginia (to other southern states) after the 1862 Peninsula campaign. Obviously, he visited both Maryland and Pennsylvania ;)


HankC
http://civilwarmissouri.blogspot.com/



 Current time is 11:53 pm
Top




UltraBB 1.17 Copyright © 2007-2008 Data 1 Systems
Page processed in 0.4258 seconds (8% database + 92% PHP). 30 queries executed.