22 sep 2012

of the people you know, how many do you think really understand the emancipation proclamation? are you including yourself? when you ask most people about it, they would say that the emancipation proclamation "freed the slaves" and while it's hard to say that doesn't sum up the effect in four words or less, it's not precisely correct. i am sure there are also a good number of people who believe the emancipation proclamation begins: "Four score and seven years ago...."

the emancipation proclamation was an executive order. in case you don't know, the president of the USA can issue executive orders, and if the legislative branch doesn't challenge an order for 30 days, it becomes law. at least, that's how it is now... not sure it was like that on 22 sep 1862 when president lincoln issued the preliminary emancipation proclamation.

according to the federal register, as of 15 sep 2012, president obama has signed 134 executive orders. george w bush signed 290. bill clinton, 363. it's all at the federal register. you can look it up for yourself. the whole executive order thing seems a bit off-target, to me. laws are meant to come from the legislative branch. i am not convinced that the EO is a good mechanism.

at any rate, the emancipation proclamation began it's life as an EO which would free all slaves held in the 10 states which had seceded in 1861 and which were still in rebellion. states had until 1 jan 1863 to return to the union and not be subject to the emancipation proclamation. states not in rebellion were not subject to the emancipation proclamation. slave-holding was legal in delaware, kentucky, missouri, and maryland -- four states that remained in the union. tennessee was also not named because at that point the union had established a military government in nashville. also exempt were 55 counties in virginia that were busy seceding from virginia to become west virginia. new orleans also was exempt. see? it's a bit trickier than "freed the slaves".

why was new orleans exempt? i don't know for sure but suspect it had something to do with the french. in the non-exempt states, there were 3.1million slaves. in all of the USA, there were 4million, so the vast majority were in those states. i'd venture to guess most people would be surprised to learn that president lincoln was a republican and that myriad northern leaders, mostly democrats, were willing to accept slavery as a price of peace. by issuing the proclamation, lincoln made the war about not only restoring the union, but also about the abolition of slavery.

the emancipation proclamation did not abolish slavery. it did not grant citizenship to the freed slaves. the 13th amendment, passed in december of 1865 made holding slaves illegal. in 1866, the 14th amendment guaranteed citizenship to former slaves and changed them in the eyes of the law from three-fifths of a person to whole persons. in 1869, the 15th amendment gave black men the right to vote. (women didn't get the right to vote until 1920.)

anyway, my point here is that while the end result of the process begun by the emancipation proclamation was to free slaves, to make holding slaves illegal, to grant citizenship and the right to vote to former slaves and their descendants -- although all those things came from the push of the emancipation proclamation, the emancipation proclamation itself didn't really do any of that.

i do still wonder what was up with new orleans, and i am continually intrigued by the way that history fits together. in school, we were given bits and pieces... the first time i saw 'dances with wolves' i was like, omg, what an idiot i am. the opening of the west and the civil war were simultaneous. i don't think i am alone in having compartmentalised them, and i blame history class.