The Prayer of Twenty Millions - Comments/Analysis

Greeley's entire premise for his letter is simple: Enforce the Second Confiscation Act. His letter is mainly concerned with the fact that Union generals and other officers are ignoring a law that was duly passed. He gives example of a group of fugitive slaves who made their way to New Orleans, which under the terms of the Act should have been a safe haven. Yet, rather than being declared free and allowed to pursue gainful employment, they were set upon “maimed, captured, and killed”. This at the hands of Union troops.

                Even though he is an abolitionist, Greeley's letter does not spend much effort in trying to convince Lincoln to take stronger steps toward abolishing slavery. He is simply admonishing Lincoln to do his job: enforce the duly and properly enacted laws of the land. He is not urging him to do more, and, apart from the example from New Orleans, does not lament the state of negroes held in bondage. His letter has a point, and for the most part, stays focused on that point. The point of his letter is not the freeing of the slaves, as one  may be led to wrongfully conclude from Lincoln's reply.

Lincoln's reply, like Greeley's letter, is to the point. Curiously, it is not a point that bears any relation to the letter to which it replies. Nonetheless, in late August of 1862, Lincoln stated unequivocally that freeing the slaves was not a war aim. In fact, if he could achieve his goal of restoring the Union without freeing any slaves, he would have done so. “ If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it . . .” That brings up an interesting question: How much longer would slavery have lasted if the Confederates had lost Bull Run and the war ended in 1861? Personally, Lincoln abhorred slavery, but he felt he did not have the constitutional  authority to outlaw it. So, as of 1861, had the war ended then, the most recent piece of slavery legislation was the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. Would the Northern man on the street really care enough about slaves if the war had ended then and the collective way of life not been disrupted? Imagine if all the boys came home a few months after it all started and the war was over with fewer than 1000 casualties. It is doubtful that Reconstruction would have been as it truly was, so the South would have remained largely intact. The Emancipation Proclamation could not have been enacted as a war measure, it would have had to go through a ratification process, being championed by a president who felt he had no authority to do it. It would have had to pass ratification against an intact South, rather than a reconstructed South being overseen by carpetbaggers. A dismal scenario for the abolitionists.

                But, that is all pure speculation. The fact of this reply to Greeley's letter remains: freeing the slaves was not Lincoln's objective for the war. It was not even one of his objectives.

A Quick Thought

I was watching Gods and Generals the other day. The scene came up where the character of Union Col. Chamberlain was explaining to his brother that an army is power, that its sole purpose is to force an opponent to submit to its will through coercion. He went on to say something about how could the Confederacy be claiming to fight for its freedom while they were willing to continue the institution of slavery. He felt that holding slaves invalidated the South's claim to be fighting for freedom.

Yet, in order to free the slaves, he was more than happy to deny the South the right to be free of the Federal government. He was fighting to deny the Confederate states the right to self-determination regarding secession through the use of the coercive army, all the while claiming the South had no right to be free because it was denying a group their freedom. That smacks of hypocrisy.

Objectives and Agendas

Until now my format has been to introduce you to a historical document and some days later post my opinion and analysis. This post, however, is strictly my thoughts. I am not abandoning the other format, just doing something a little different.

I was ruminating the other day about conflicts the United States has been in, our reasons for being in them, and the ultimate outcome. Consider:

•                     We entered WWI in 1917, with the goal of stopping Germany and its allies. Once we had accomplished that, removed the kaiser from power, and secured the Treaty of Versailles, we came home.

•                     In 1941, we went to war with Germany, again. Once again, we stopped the Germans, along with their new allies, and removed the German leader. Those goals secured, we came home.

•                     In 1990, Saddam Hussein ordered his Iraqi army into Kuwait. We led an overwhelming coalition against him, liberated Kuwait, and restored order in the region (relatively speaking). Then, we packed up our tanks, planes, and guns, and came home.

In each case, the United States achieved its military objectives (which in each case was essentially to liberate a group of people from some sort of tyrannical situation), and left. We left each of these places, the first two we saw to it that they democratically elected new leadership, and in the case of Kuwait, we restored their former leadership. In each case we left them to determine their own future, to chart their own course, as they each saw fit. We did not annex, occupy, or colonize.

If, IF, we are to believe that the War of Northern Aggression truly was fought to free the slaves, why did the United States military continue to occupy the South, even to this very day? Now, before somebody wants to point out that I am comparing 20^th century policy to 19^th century policy, I understand that I am indeed doing that very thing. The point is that once the Confederacy came to the peace table, the slaves were free. Mission accomplished. Occupation was not required. Unless, of course, freeing the slaves was not the objective.

Which, indeed, it was not. The objective was preservation of the Union. There was also a more sinister goal, one not talked about. With the re-absorbtion of the Confederate states, the United States went from being a Union of free, autonomous states, to being a nation of subject states subservient to a strong central government. That was the beginning of a movement that ultimately culminated in a virtually all-powerful United States president unilaterally declaring war against a country that had never attacked us and posed no appreciable threat to us. It was the opening volley against our system of checks and balances and the departmentalization of our government. It all started in April of 1865 with the death of states' rights. The hidden agenda, the secret objective, of the War of Northern Aggression. 

The Prayer of Twenty Millions - Introduction

       On August 19, 1862, Horace Greeley, the editor of the New York Tribune, published an open letter, entitled The Prayer of Twenty Millions, urging  Lincoln to free the slaves. Mr. Greeley held the opinion, as did many, that given the Confederacy's dependence on slave labor, emancipation of the slaves would strike a telling blow to the Southern economy.  In response to the editorial, Lincoln stated that his main purpose was to preserve the Union, and, to achieve that goal, he was prepared to free none, some, or all of the slaves, as the ultimate goal demanded.  Lincoln's cabinet had already been in discussion concerning the Emancipation Proclamation, since July.  Lincoln had decided to await a Union victory on the battlefield before issuing his proclamation. He believed it was necessary to issue the Proclamation from a position of strength, such as following a great victory. Linked at left is Greeley's original article as published and directly following that is Lincoln's reply. As always, my analysis and commentary will follow later this week.

Disclaimer for June

I have said before, and plainly, that slavery is an abomination and should never be tolerated, no matter where it be found. I would never desire nor propose, neither directly nor obtusely, a return of that vile institution. My goal here has always been to educate, to dispel misconceptions fostered and nurtured since the time of the Reconstruction, to renounce the false teachings we have been burdened with since elementary school, and to present the heritage of my home in a truer light. The belligerence propagated against the South was not initiated to free slaves. Mr. Lincoln made it a war goal, certainly, but not until the war had been underway for a year and a half. I believe it may be easy to become side-tracked into thinking I am arguing for slavery here, and I want to avoid such side-tracking. I am very passionate about this topic, and that passion may lead to misconceptions concerning my intent. I am a son of the South, born and bred. I greatly desire to return to my heritage the pride which is its due. Yet, before I may do that I must demonstrate that the United States did not enter the war for the purpose of freeing slaves, and, by extension, that the Confederacy was not fighting to keep slaves. The war was not about slavery.

Due to the volatility of my topic each month I will make disclaimers such as this, to insure that my purpose and goal are never misconstrued. I will do this each month so that the disclaimer does not get lost in the archive. I ask for your  kind indulgence in this. Thank you.

Second Confiscation Act - Analysis and Commentary

CHAP. CXCV.–An Act to suppress Insurrection, to punish Treason and Rebellion, to seize and confiscate the Property of Rebels, and for other Purposes.

“An Act . . . to punish . . ." I am no attorney, nor am I an authority on Constitutional matters. I have always understood that laws were in place to establish intolerable behavior. Obvously a primary component of a system of law is to set forth the just punishments to be visited upon those who ignore the laws. It strikes me as particularly inflammatory that this Act is itself intended to punish, not to simply establish the behaviors which would result in punishment.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That every person who shall hereafter commit the crime of treason against the United States, and shall be adjudged guilty thereof, shall suffer death, and all his slaves, if any, shall be declared and made free; or, at the discretion of the court, he shall be imprisoned for not less than five years and fined not less than ten thousand dollars, and all his slaves, if any, shall be declared and made free; said fine shall be levied and collected on any or all of the property, real and personal, excluding slaves, of which the said person so convicted was the owner at the time of committing the said crime, any sale or conveyance to the contrary notwithstanding.

Death, or imprisonment for not less than 5 years. Let me say again: I  am no attorney. This type of range of punishments may well be common. It just strikes me as odd that the allowable punishment could be anything from 5 years of your life, up to your very life itself. I believe that is an opportunity for humanity (see Sec 13). The whole point of this Act is to establish a legal basis under which to free slaves. Up to this point (as we shall see in coming entries) Lincoln did not believe he had the Constitutional right to outlaw slavery. This was a “work-around”, since it is well-established that personal property can be made forfeit as legal punishment.

SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That if any person shall hereafter incite, set on foot, assist, or engage in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States, or the laws thereof, or shall give aid or comfort thereto, or shall engage in, or give aid and comfort to, any such existing rebellion or insurrection, and be convicted thereof, such person shall be punished by imprisonment for a period not exceeding ten years, or by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars, and by the liberation of all his slaves, if any he have; or by both of said punishments, at the discretion of the court.

Another opportunity to free slaves as a punishment under law, rather than as a (dubious, as Lincoln feels) Constitutional amendment.

SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, That every person guilty of either of the offences described in this act shall be forever incapable and disqualified to hold any office under the United States.

I suppose this was intended to be a deterrent to those Southerners with political aspirations, post-war. As I write this, though, another possibility occurs to me. Was this early groundwork for Reconctruction? It precludes any possibility that any Southerners would have any say in the planning, direction, or execution of Reconstruction. That would certainly be desirous, and in a certain perverse way, poetic. One of the South's chief goals for the war was self-determination. By virtue of this section of this Act, a defeated South would be denied any voice in determining its post-war recovery and conduct.

SEC. 4. And be it further enacted, That this act shall not be construed in any way to affect or alter the prosecution, conviction, or punishment of any person or persons guilty of treason against the United States before the passage of this act, unless such person is convicted under this act.

SEC. 5. And be it further enacted, That, to insure the speedy termination of the present rebellion, it shall be the duty of the President of the United States to cause the seizure of all the estate and property, money, stocks, credits, and effects of the persons hereinafter named in this section, and to apply and use the same and the proceeds thereof for the support of the army of the United States, that is to say:

First. Of any person hereafter acting as an officer of the army or navy of the rebels in arms against the government of the United States.

Secondly. Of any person hereafter acting as President, Vice-President, member of Congress, judge of any court, cabinet officer, foreign minister, commissioner or consul of the so-called confederate states of America.

Thirdly. Of any person acting as governor of a state, member of a convention or legislature, or judge of any court of any of the so-called confederate states of America.

Fourthly. Of any person who, having held an office of honor, trust, or profit in the United States, shall hereafter hold an office in the so-called confederate states of America.

Fifthly. Of any person hereafter holding any office or agency under the government of the so-called confederate states of America, or under any of the several states of the said confederacy, or the laws thereof, whether such office or agency be national, state, or municipal in its name or character: Provided, That the persons, thirdly, fourthly, and fifthly above described shall have accepted their appointment or election since the date of the pretended ordinance of secession of the state, or shall have taken an oath of allegiance to, or to support the constitution of the so-called confederate states.

Sixthly. Of any person who, owning property in any loyal State or Territory of the United States, or in the District of Columbia, shall hereafter assist and give aid and comfort to such rebellion; and all sales, transfers, or conveyances of any such property shall be null and void; and it shall be a sufficient bar to any suit brought by such person for the possession or the use of such property, or any of it, to allege and prove that he is one of the persons described in this section.

Unless I am missing something (always a possibility), this entire section establishes who may be held accountable under this Act. The most interesting part of this, by far, is that the Confederacy is specifically referred to by name, “the so-called confederate states of America”. So, however inadvertantly or sarcastically it may have occurred, the federal government in Washington acknowledged that the states in cesession were indeed a nation. It is specifically mentioned that the confederacy has a constitution, “ . . . support the constitution of the so-called confederate states . . .”. So, significantly to me, and for the first time to my (admittedly limited) knowledge, the federal government clearly acknowledges that it is dealing not with a collection of insubordinate states, but with a nation.

SEC. 6. And be it further enacted, That if any person within any State or Territory of the United States, other than those named as aforesaid, after the passage of this act, being engaged in armed rebellion against the government of the United States, or aiding or abetting such rebellion, shall not, within sixty days after public warning and proclamation duly given and made by the President of the United States, cease to aid, countenance, and abet such rebellion, and return to his allegiance to the United States, all the estate and property, moneys, stocks, and credits of such person shall be liable to seizure as aforesaid, and it shall be the duty of the President to seize and use them as aforesaid or the proceeds thereof. And all sales, transfers, or conveyances, of any such property after the expiration of the said sixty days from the date of such warning and proclamation shall be null and void; and it shall be a sufficient bar to any suit brought by such person for the possession or the use of such property, or any of it, to allege and prove that he is one of the persons described in this section.

This section gives United States citizens found to be aiding the Confederacy 60 days to stop or lose pretty much everything.

SEC. 7. And be it further enacted, That to secure the condemnation and sale of any of such property, after the same shall have been seized, so that it may be made available for the purpose aforesaid, proceedings in rem shall be instituted in the name of the United States in any district court thereof, or in any territorial court, or in the United States district court for the District of Columbia, within which the property above described, or any part thereof, may be found, or into which the same, if movable, may first be brought, which proceedings shall conform as nearly as may be to proceedings in admiralty or revenue cases, and if said property, whether real or personal, shall be found to have belonged to a person engaged in rebellion, or who has given aid or comfort thereto, the same shall be condemned as enemies' property and become the property of the United States, and may be disposed of as the court shall decree and the proceeds thereof paid into the treasury of the United States for the purposes aforesaid.

SEC. 8. And be it further enacted, That the several courts aforesaid shall have power to make such orders, establish such forms of decree and sale, and direct such deeds and conveyances to be executed and delivered by the marshals thereof where real estate shall be the subject of sale, as shall fitly and efficiently effect the purposes of this act, and vest in the purchasers of such property good and valid titles thereto. And the said courts shall have power to allow such fees and charges of their officers as shall be reasonable and proper in the premises.

Sections 7 and 8 seem to my eyes to be simply restating things concerning the seizure, liquidation, and ultimate disbursement of proceeds from the sale of any and all properties seized under this Act.

SEC. 9. And be it further enacted, That all slaves of persons who shall hereafter be engaged in rebellion against the government of the United States, or who shall in any way give aid or comfort thereto, escaping from such persons and taking refuge within the lines of the army; and all slaves captured from such persons or deserted by them and coming under the control of the government of the United States; and all slaves of such person found on [or] being within any place occupied by rebel forces and afterwards occupied by the forces of the United States, shall be deemed captives of war, and shall be forever free of their servitude, and not again held as slaves.

Slaves that come to be under the control of the federal government are declared captives of war, and then declared free. Fairly to the point, but I am confused as to why they would first be deemed captives of war. Does that confer some special status?

SEC. 10. And be it further enacted, That no slave escaping into any State, Territory, or the District of Columbia, from any other State, shall be delivered up, or in any way impeded or hindered of his liberty, except for crime, or some offence against the laws, unless the person claiming said fugitive shall first make oath that the person to whom the labor or service of such fugitive is alleged to be due is his lawful owner, and has not borne arms against the United States in the present rebellion, nor in any way given aid and comfort thereto; and no person engaged in the military or naval service of the United States shall, under any pretence whatever, assume to decide on the validity of the claim of any person to the service or labor of any other person, or surrender up any such person to the claimant, on pain of being dismissed from the service.

I could be wrong here, but this section seems to me to say that escaped slaves may be returned to their owner if that owner is in no way connected to the rebellion. Contextually this makes sense, since the Emancipation Proclimation would use virtually the same language later that same year. This section declared that states not in rebellion are not subject to this Act. Likewise, under this Act, if their slaves escape, they are to be returned. The authority to determine if an escaped slave is to be returned is denied to soldiers, sailors, and officersof the Union forces. Ironically, officers had, up to this point, enjoyed that authority. In March of that year, they had been ordered to disregard the Fugitive Slave Act. I suppose that these escapees would be held as captives of war until a determination be made.

SEC. 11. And be it further enacted, That the President of the United States is authorized to employ as many persons of African descent as he may deem necessary and proper for the suppression of this rebellion, and for this purpose he may organize and use them in such manner as he may judge best for the public welfare.
This section empowers the president to employ as many blacks as he sees fit, and to utilize them as he sees fit.

Why is this here? It would seem the writers of the Act expected opposition to blacks holding jobs within the government. If that is the case, then they were already preparing for freed slaves to receive a less-than-warm welcome. Before the slaves were even freed, a civil rights crisis was being anticipated.

SEC. 12. And be to make provision for the transportation, colonization, and settlement, in some tropical country beyond the limits of the United States, of such persons of the African race, made free by the provisions of this act, as may be willing to emigrate, having first obtained the consent of the government of said country to their protection and settlement within the same, with all the rights and privileges of freemen.

While Lincoln may be remembered as the Great Emancipator, he did not envision a nation with whites and blacks cohabiting as equals. He championed a plan to return freed blacks to Africa, Liberia specifically. This section places responsibility for such relocation squarely with the federal government.

SEC. 13. And be it further enacted, That the President is hereby authorized, at any time hereafter, by proclamation, to extend to persons who may have participated in the existing rebellion in any State or part thereof, pardon and amnesty, with such exceptions and at such time and on such conditions as he may deem expedient for the public welfare.

This section makes it clear that this Act is the precursor to the Emancipation Proclimation. Under this section the president is authorized to commute the sentences passed against anyone found to be connected with the rebellion. Remember: Lincoln did not believe he was Constitutionally empowered to outlaw slavery. The entire purpose of this Act was to use the legal precedent of confiscation as punishment to free slaves. This Act was never truly intended as a vehicle for imprisoning rebellious southerners. So at the end of the day their slaves were set free and the rest of their sentence was pardoned. Not a very elegant solution, but a workable stop-gap.

SEC. 14. And be it further enacted, That the courts of the United States shall have full power to institute proceedings, make orders and decrees, issue process, and do all other things necessary to carry this act into effect.

APPROVED, July 17, 1862.

Conclusion
     So, in 1862 slavery was creeping toward an end, but this Act was a two-steps-forward-one-step-back proposition. This Act essentially negated the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, however in March of 1862 Union officers had already been ordered to disregard the earlier Act. Then in July comes the Second Confiscation Act. Pretty much any slave that comes to be under the authority of the US government will be declared free.  Union officers no longer had the authority to free fugitive slaves that find their way to Union lines. A very curious change in policy, which I am at a loss to understand.
     What did the Emancipation Proclimation do that this Act didn't? Not very much at all. It declared its intent in much grander form. It was enacted as a war measure, deemed necessary to end the rebellion. But at the operational level, there was little enough difference. In both documents the freedom so granted would only occur once slaves were under federal jurisdiction. Both measures also exempted certain, specific slave-holding states and counties, allowing these locales to continue holding slaves, and having captured slaves returned to them.
     The real difference was of perception. The Emancipation Proclimation uses the particular language ". . . shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free . . .” In other words, while freedom was almost a by-product of the Second Act of Confiscation, it was the express purpose of the Emancipation Proclimation. The freedom granted by each was identical, but that granted by the Emancipation Proclimation was more marketable. Let's face it, that is what Lincoln and the federal government needed in 1862. They needed good publicity. They needed a standard the country could rally 'round. They needed a real-world goal, with immediate tangibility, that every man could take to heart and that every woman was willing to spill her son's blood for. Lincoln's abstract concept of Union was not enough. Very few even shared it, and no one was as zealous about it as he.
     In freeing the negroes there was a cause easily understood. It was a small matter to conjure all sorts of horrid images (many of them rooted in fact, I say to my great shame) of the treatment and conditions of slaves. An inflammatory press was nothing new. A political cartoon of a map showing the nation divided was lost, but one of a man being beaten by the leering image of a southern plantation owner resonated. THAT man, that victim, that slave must be freed, not merely granted freedom as a consequence of someone else's misdeeds, or by his own wits and ability to escape. He must be freed, forcefully since there was no other course. Summoning up that enduring image of a just and triumphal federal army shattering the chains of slavery was beyond the scope of this Act, yet it was precisely that image Lincoln needed. So, in the end, it wasn't enough to merely free the slaves, Mr Lincoln needed to look good doing it.

A Brief Word

My apologies for the delay in posting this. Summer break is upon me and Runescape waits for no man, nor does the man's son who is a Runescape fanatic. So, my posting schedule may be somewhat more erratic than I prefer, but have no fear, I have no shortage of ideas or direction.