I’m somewhat embarrassed by it, but until late this past summer, I didn’t realize that Maryland took action to free slaves in the state… and yes, this happened before the end of the Civil War. I’ve been looking into this a bit more and mostly following the flow of thoughts and events through the wartime newspapers of western Maryland. What continually “pinged” on me in the course of my research is the way that some people (today) feel a need to believe that the Emancipation did nothing. The situation in Maryland becomes even more interesting when one considers how many of these same folks regularly bring up that the other slaveholding states that did not secede weren’t covered under the EP. Now, this Maryland thing aside, I would argue that they are wrong regarding the EP, but WITH the Maryland information before me now, I’m even more convinced that the EP did a great deal more than some seem to think. Now, don’t get me wrong. Maryland’s independent emancipation of slaves was not a smooth and easy process. It was excruciatingly painful to many slaveholders and slaves alike. In some ways, I think this is one of the very things that slaveholders in the seceding states feared rather intensely (a greater incentive to go to war in defense of “rights”, perhaps…). I can also see how the non-slaveholders were concerned about the impact of freeing slaves (not that I couldn’t see it before, but it became even more clear with my findings in Maryland). Nonetheless, the Maryland legislature made it happen and a reversal of the independent emancipation (in the event that the Union lost the war), wasn’t in the proposal that became law on 1 November 1864. Another thing that I found of interest was Lincoln’s appeal to the Maryland legislature to free slaves. I’ll have more on this later.
On the opinion that the Emancipation Proclamation didn’t free any slaves…
Posted on December 18, 2009 by Robert Moore
Jeffry Burden
December 18, 2009
I’ve never understood that old claim, given that anywhere form 20,000 to 100,000 slaves (based on estimated I’ve seen), who were in Union -controlled Southern territory that was not part of the states and counties exempted in the EP, were in fact freed on 1/1/63 by the terms of the EP.
Robert Moore
December 18, 2009
Jeffry,
Exactly. I think what is rather remarkable is the appeal that Lincoln made to Maryland Legislators to pass legislation to free the slaves. I plan on posting it here, soon.
Ernest E. Blevins
December 19, 2009
I’m one that the Emancipation Proclamation did not free any slaves, but it did do a lot in terms of playing an important role in the war. First, I’ll state why it did not free any slaves because it freed the slaves in areas that were not under Federal control. This means that areas including coastal South Carolina (Beaufort area between Charleston and Savannah which fell early in the war and remained in Union hands to the end), Tennessee, and some areas in the west where there was Federal control slaves were still slaves. Areas in rebellion where the Confederacy was in control (and thus by definition the Federals weren’t) were still slave holding for all those in the area concerned despite what a Federal edict says – remember they also don’t consider themselves part of the United States anyway. So how can one free the part of the territory without controlling it? So no, it did not technically free any slaves on the timeline it states.
The Maryland story is interesting but they were not under jurisdiction of the Emancipation Proclamation since they were in Federal control.
What the Emancipation Proclamation did do was to keep England and Europe from entering the war on the Confederate side and added a new level to the war as an effort to free the slaves (some will debate this but for this discussion we’ll leave it as the war to bring (or keep) the South back to the United States). Now if you extrapolate it out you could say that the Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves because of t his but that is of course years after the date of the claim.
So in my opinion (and what I’ve taught in my classes when I have taught this period) is that the interpretation of the Emancipation Proclamation as freeing the slaves in January 1864 is wrong, but it did play a very important role in the war and did turn the tide of the war on several fronts defining a new cause for the war, keeping potential allies of the Confederacy out of the war, and while many in the Union army weren’t happy for laying down their lives for slaves (they were there to defend the Union) there are many who I’m sure it was a moral booster.
Robert Moore
December 19, 2009
Hi Ernie,
I have to disagree as to the legal “reach” of the EP, but I’m not quite sure about some of what you say. The impact of the EP and recognition of the power of the same was not just defined in the terms you outline. First, the reach of the EP was dependent upon those who recognized Federal authority over Confederate authority. Yet, I’m sure that those who recognized Federal authority may have had their hands tied, to some degree, when Confederate authority ruled the area in which they lived. I’m also sure there were even Unionist slaveholders who were reluctant to recognize the reach of the EP. As for the Federal army, it was not an element sent to enforce the EP, though some Federal commanders took this initiative on their own. Nonetheless, yes, the EP did legally free slaves as long as there were slaveholders in secession areas who did not recognize secession or the authority of the Confederacy. I’m sure, however, we will never know exactly how many were freed on the legality of the EP, just as we will never know, exactly, how many slaves were not freed.
I’m not sure you understand my discussion of Maryland, or perhaps I did not make a clear point. I agree, Maryland was not covered under the EP, yet, the Maryland legislature took independent action to free the slaves. Now, this doesn’t mean that it was a unanimous vote. I don’t have the exact numbers in front of me, but the vote for passage of the new Maryland Constitution was rather narrow. The point that I am trying to make is that the EP (and Lincoln’s personal appeal) made enough of an impact on Maryland to move them toward independently emancipating the slaves within the boundaries of the state. It was something that was moving forward prior to the EP, but the EP may be considered a factor in moving things along. It didn’t simply impact those Maryland slaveholders who were supporting the Confederacy, but also impacted some very strong Unionists in the western and central part of the state.
As for the mental impact of the EP on Southerners (slaveholders and slaves), I would argue that it was significant and probably served to fuel dissent among the two groups on two very different levels; more dissent against Federal authority by the slaveholders who were convinced that the EP was another measure of infringement on personal “rights”, and encouraging many slaves to liberate themselves. As for the impact on the institution of slavery in the secession states, I believe that the EP had another impact in that it was directed at the ability of the Confederacy to maintain its economic system in order to wage war.
In regard to the EP and its impact on the Federal army, I think it varied. There were those who did not support the thought (and I think I may have a Union relative who deserted because of it), but I think, for the most part, that it fueled some in their ideas of abolition, and sparked in most of the rest, another sense of purpose in fighting (beyond just fighting for the Union).
Thanks for the comment!
Neil Hanlon
December 19, 2009
I’m just happy, Robert, that with your insight and devotion to CW “fairness” thinking that you have started this blog. Lincoln’s heart and head went into the EP. Maybe it was the very first of win, win moves in history. He got the movement started to severe the bonds of slavery while securing the bonds to other nations (i.e. England and France).
He had to write it up as he did or risk losing the border states…and it worked.
Keep up the good work!
Robert Moore
December 19, 2009
Thanks, Neil!
Craig Swain
December 19, 2009
I would take issue, perhaps splitting hairs, with those who claim the E.P. freed no slaves. First, there were a small number of slaves within the Federal lines which had not been freed. I’ve read a few accounts from Arkansas and West Tennessee where smaller farmers, sitting out the war for all intents, simply continued on as usual. Although I’d admit many of those localities covered blue on the map were remote, and likely had never seen a Federal column march up the road. But again, we could split hairs.
However, the most practical direct application of the E.P. was to formalize the status of those escaped slaves who had come into Federal lines. Recall earlier in the war this had become a sticky wicket. The E.P. eliminated any possibility of a Fugitive Slave Law-like arbitration down the road.
David S
December 21, 2009
I seem to remember one of the oral histories in “Bullwhip Days: The Slaves Remember” by James Mellon, recounting an “owner” gathering his slaves together in order to announce that Lincoln had set them all free. There was no mention of escape or the immanent approach of federal troops. Rather, he glumly discussed how they might continue to work for pay.
If memory serves and this was the case, then it would not surprise me given the complex web of regional sentiment and government loyalties. Unfortunately, I loaned out “Bullwhip Days” several years ago and never got it back
Otherwise I would leave a decent citation. If anyone has it, feel free to correct me.
Robert Moore
December 24, 2009
Thanks, David,
I recall seeing accounts of Southerners releasing slaves after the EP, but couldn’t recall one specifically. This helps…
Bob Hudleston
January 12, 2010
The Emancipation Proclamation freed slaves in areas considered to be in rebellion, many of which were controlled by the United States on January 1, 1863.
The Declaration of Independence did not make the US a “free and independent nation.” That took seven more years to accomplish. And, had the British prevailed, the Declaration would be of interest only to students of failed revolutions. All of the slaves in the areas delineated were free de facto with thirty months of the Emancipation Proclamation and a large number were freed immediately. The Emancipation Proclamation was prospective, i.e., it would free slaves as the United States Army marched south, and they were on the advance.
Reading the Emancipation Proclamation, and comparing the areas included and excluded, shows that the immediate effect of the Emancipation Proclamation was to free a large number of slaves, in areas under United States’ control, but still considered to be in rebellion. The Emancipation Proclamation preserved slavery only those areas *not in rebellion,* not those areas under United States’ control on January 1, 1863. And that is a huge difference.
Note that in Louisiana, the excluded areas are New Orleans, the Mississippi Delta and the area immediately west of the Delta (county lines were a little different in 1863 than now, but close enough to use Rand-McNally). However, the US Army had occupied more of the state to the North, heading, as they were, towards Port Hudson. So all of those slaves were freed.
The excluded areas of Virginia included West Virginia (small slave population anyway), and Berkeley County, which is the start of the strip of West Virginia which today takes in both Berkeley and Jefferson (Harpers Ferry) counties. But Jefferson County was not excluded. (Trivia point: obviously the boundaries of the new state of West Virginia were still in a bit of a state of flux. I believe [which means I do not know enough West Virginia history to say one way or another] the inclusion of the lower Shenandoah Valley into West Virginia was a political stroke to make certain that if there was a peace treaty between the US and the CS, the B&O Railroad would all be in the United States).
The only other parts of Virginia excluded were the Eastern Shore (the peninsula that stretches South from Eastern Maryland towards Cape Charles), and the area around Norfolk-Hampton-Fortress Monroe.
However, the United States controlled *all* of Virginia north of the Rappahannock, including, obviously, Alexandria County, which then consisted of Arlington and Alexandria. They also had a presence in the Shenandoah.
Now “control” is a relative word: John Mosby would have disputed the above paragraph! But, nevertheless, the Confederacy did not control most of Northern Virginia.
So there are two big areas, and, in the case of Virginia, important areas, where the slaves *were* freed on January 1, 1863.
In addition, the Emancipation Proclamation freed slaves in Arkansas, Georgia and the Carolinas. On Emancipation Day, the United States controlled much of tidewater and the barrier islands of Georgia and North and South Carolina. The Union also controlled the Ozarks of Arkansas (not many slaves) but also the heavily slave areas of the extreme northeastern counties of Arkansas. The blue coats were in possession of major portions of North Mississippi and Alabama, and they would, within a few months, liberate the densely slave occupied areas of the Mississippi black belt between the Mississippi and the Yazoo.
Quite a large number – probably hundreds of thousands, maybe even a million or more, of the slaves *were* freed – and freed immediately – by the Emancipation Proclamation.
And the balance of the four million would be de facto free within eighteen months.
Robert Moore
January 12, 2010
Bob, Thanks for commenting. I agree with most of what you say, but the objective of my post was to point out that the EP, while not directly impacting Maryland, did have a direct impact on Maryland’s decision to take the initiative and free slaves on her own. I don’t think they would have been as nearly aggressive in taking that step if the EP was not in play.