what were 3 causes of the emancipation proclamation?

Answer 1

Sorry in advance for how long this will be -- I'm trying to answer your question, but also to do a bit to correct the more significant.errors and misunderstandings several other answers are based on.

First, a minor point -- when you say "causes", I'm not sure how far you want to go. People can argue that MANY events and influences helped "cause" it. Perhaps it is better to focus on the particular REASONS that we can find, esp. those in Lincoln's OWN actions and words surrounding the Proclamation, and then connect those with "causes".

Before explaining these, here is a nice little summary from a Civil War historian of the various reasons/purposes for Lincoln's action (posted on an excellent web site about this whole question)

"We now know that Lincoln issued his proclamation for a combination of reasons: to clarify the status of the fugitive slaves, to solve the Union's manpower woes, to keep Great Britain out of the conflict, to maim and cripple the Confederacy by destroying its labor force, to remove the very thing that had caused the war, and to break the chains of several million oppressed human beings and right America at last with her own ideals." -Stephen Oates
http://www.mrlincolnandfreedom.org/inside.asp?ID=3&subjectID=1

_________________________

Now in more detail... I'll begin with some that the Proclamation ITSELF lists -

(1) "military necessity" -- as an act of war, esp. to undermine the South's ability to wage war.

By the way, this undercuts the argument in at least one answer, that speaks about Lincoln believing he could NOT interfere with slavery. THAT statement came BEFORE the war (at Lincoln's inauguration), and Lincoln CONTINUED to maintain the position that he COULD NOT simply emancipate slaves in the normal course of things.

Lincoln insisted, on the contrary, that the ONLY Constitutional grounds for such an act were as an act of war by the President acting as "Commander-in-Chief". And THAT was the basis on which he acted (using a theory that MANY had espoused before, going back to John Quincy Adams in the 1830s!)

Also note that the point was NOT to foment "slave insurrections", but to deprive the Confederates of the practical support of the slaves. The labor the slaves provided helped SUPPORT the South's war effort. Freeing them would deprive them of that RESOURCE.

(2) to help the Union army by providing a fresh influx of MANPOWER --
The Proclamation includes the explicit instruction that freed slaves were to be welcomed ino the military. This piece proved VERY effective -- some 180,000 blacks served (valiantly!) by war's end, making a major contribution to the war effort.

(3) As an act of JUSTICE -
Lincoln had LONG and clearly maintained that slavery was morally WRONG, and declared his wish that it might come to an end. Though he was not an abolitionist, his view (and that of the Republican Party in general) was that the SPREAD of slavery could and should be prevented (keep it out of the territories!) with the expectation that it would then naturally grow weak, and the Southern states themselves would do as others had done, and legislate its ending. When a circumstance presented itself to END this moral wrong -- in a way he (and others) believed was Constitutional, and would otherwise be effective, he decided to do so.

We might include here the point that Lincoln was seeking to remove the underlying CAUSE of the war, and so to lay the foundation for a final resolution -- returning things to the pre-war situation would simply be a set-up for a later outbreak.

(Note: contrary to what some wish to believe, the Southern secession and then the war was VERY much about slavery -- not that the North entered it to end slavery, but that the key promoters of secession, etc., in the South were acting to PRESERVE slavery. And they said so REPEATEDLY in their threats before the election, in their formal documents of secession and in the statements of emissaries of the first to secede as they lobbied other, border states to join them. Only AFTER the war did Southern leaders start to say that slavery was not their cause.)
_________________________

Take a look at the Proclamation itself -- read it at the link below (it's not too long), noting esp. the following:

"I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, by virtue of the power in me vested as Commander-in-Chief, of the Army and Navy of the United States in time of actual armed rebellion against the authority and government of the United States, and as a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said rebellion. . .

"I do order and declare that all persons held as slaves within said designated States, and parts of States, are, and henceforward shall be free; and that the Executive government of the United States, including the military and naval authorities thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of said persons.

"And I further declare and make known, that such persons of suitable condition, will be received into the armed service of the United States to garrison forts, positions, stations, and other places, and to man vessels of all sorts in said service.

"And upon this act, sincerely believed to be an act of justice, warranted by the Constitution, upon military necessity, I invoke the considerate judgment of mankind, and the gracious favor of Almighty God."

http://www.nps.gov/ncro/anti/emancipation.html
___________________

OTHER causes/reasons, and correcting some other suggestions

- affecting European actions, esp. preventing their recognition of (and then perhaps full military support of) the Confederacy. This was an ongoing effort by the Lincoln administration. The Emancipation Proclamation certainly took that important matter into account

BUT it is NOT true that no European nation would aid a "slave trading nation". (Actually, even "slave trading" is confusing here -- the Confederacy was NOT involved in the international slave trade.) France, for one, was willing the recognize the Confederacy in any case, but would not act until Britain agreed to do so as well... so Britain was the key. At any rate, it's more a matter of there being a strong anti-slavery sentiment in BRITAIN, particularly in the working class (not so much above that). If the war were seen as "about slavery" that would (and did) make if VERY difficult for Britain politically to act to recognize a state fighting "for slavery".

- it was NOT to "keep the border states happy" by allowing them to keep their slaves. As explained above, Lincoln had NO power to declare emancipation EXCEPT in territories that rebelled (as an act of war). But also, Lincoln had already been working hard, since late 1861 trying to convince these very states to THEMSELVES emancipate their slaves (and trying to get financial support from Congress to help them do so... cheaper than war!). They did not respond well... but Lincoln kept at it, including his lobbying efforts for the 13th Amendment.

- the bit about trying to boost an 'unpopular war' -- not hardly. Lincoln was well aware of the possible political COST of the Proclamation, in LOSING support amongst various Northern groups (and that's what happened at the polls after his September announcemen of the Proclamation). But he judged that in the end the removal of slavery as the underlying CAUSE of the conflict would pay off for the nation...

- related to the last point, the Proclamation was NOT in any way in response draft riots. Someone is confused on their dates here --by a year. The draft was instituted on March 3, 1863, two months AFTER the final Emancipation Proclamation was issued! The NYC draft riots followed in July of 1863 -- a YEAR after Lincoln had announced to his Cabinet his intent to issue the Proclamation

By the way, it's key here to note that he showed his Cabinet the Proclamation on JULY 22, 1862 --but on Seward's advice delayed announcing it till a Union military victor (lest it seem mere desperation). The oft-quoted response to Horace Greeley "If I could save the Union without freeing the slaves, I would do it, etc" can be argued to be fully appropriate and consistent with his argument that he was ONLY justified in freeing slaves IF it were properly done as an act of war --that he had no Constitutional basis to do so otherwise. But the quoters of this text oddly miss that it came on AUGUST 22 -- more than a month AFTER he had already decided to issue the Proclamation!! In THAT light, Lincoln was acting to PREPARE the public for his justification for the act, knowing that a large group would attack him for it.

- the idea that the Proclamation "freed no one" -- neo-Confederates started pushing that very early.... and it's a bunch of baloney! The truth is that the Proclamation includes its OWN authorization of the military to "make it so". And that's exactly what happened! As the Union armies advanced it WAS enforced! Slaves were immediately freed (and those who managed to flee from behind enemy lines were regarded as free, and NOT returned).

Actually the 13th amendment, which Lincoln actively pushed for (disproving the lie that he 'did not care' or did not do anything to assure their freedom) was to permanently secure that freedom-- on a firm legal foundation (which could not be challenged in an unfriendly court, as Lincoln feared the Proclamation might be)-- but functionally it only freed a handful (in Kentucky, the only state which had not yet emancipated its slaves). The rest were ALL freed by the Emancipation Proclamation!!

- finally, on the assertion that the Proclamation was unconstitutional. This ignores two things. Most importantly, the issue repeatedly noted above, that Lincoln did so for MILITARY NECESSITY -- he did NOT believe or claim he could do so otherwise. (How odd --or disingenuous -- that those who raise THIS charge in the same breath criticize Lincoln for not simply freeing Northern slave, which they KNOW he could not Constitutionally do.

Secondly, there WAS a Constitutional theory behind it (and its rather presumptuous to assert that it 'was unconstitutional and would have been declared such' when in fact it was NOT tested in court) There were MANY who had espoused the view and argued for it, and Lincoln himself was very careful in wording the document to attempt to overcome a likely legal challenge. He did NOT "know" that it would be overturned. What he knew was that the same Roger Taney who penned the Dred Scott decision was still presiding over the Supreme Court and would not be friendly to Lincoln.... so it was important not to give him any clear legal basis for tossing the Proclamation out, e.g., by trying to free slaves in NON-rebel territory with NO basis.)

Answer 2

1. The Battle of Antietam: It gave Lincoln the victory he needed to issue the proclamation

2. Keep border states happy: Lincoln wanted to assure the border states (Kentucky, Missourri, Nebraska, Kansas, Maryland) that they could keep their slaves

3. Win European support: Lincoln wanted to win the support of the European nations (particularly Britain), who detested slavery

Answer 3

the slaves wanted to be freed, other people wanted to free the slaves for some reason, and destiny are the 3 causes of the emancipation proclamation

Answer 4

The Contraband of War Declaration set the stage.

The South had lost the war and, temporarily, their right to object.

Lincoln needed to consolidate his support from the anti-slavery factions - the war had been unpopular even in the North.

Answer 5

1. No European nation would aid a slave trading country.
2. To give legitimacy/noble cause to the northern war efforts.
3. To induce slave uprisings in the south which would disrupt confederate supply lines.

Answer 6

1. Lincoln was under pressure by the Northeners to free the slaves
2. Lincoln himself wanted to free the slaves and could do so as he was President
3. Rumors of how runaway slalves were being treated if caught, i.e., beatings, lynchings, seperation from families, had many church groups petitioning Lincoln to free them.
These are REASONS...Not CAUSES. There were no causes

Answer 7

1) To ensure that escaped slaves living free in "free" states would remain free as long as they did not cross back into the former state in which they were considered property thereby must be returned

2) To appease abolitionist by appearing to free enslaved men/women/children

3) Keep the South happy by ensuring that slavery would continue as it had before, it would just be a little harder to get your slave back if he made it to a "free" state

Answer 8

~Lincoln knew he had no constitutional authority to emancipate slaves. (See Article II, section 2 and Article IV, section 2 of the constitution, the Dred Scott case and the Fugitive Slave Law.) He admitted as much throughout his campaign and in his First Inaugural Address when he said, "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."

In July, 1862, Congress enacted legislation (Second Confiscation Act) which freed all slaves in territories in rebellion. Support for the war in the north was flagging, badly, and there were draft riots in New York City and elsewhere. The Federals were being beaten consistently on the battlefield.

When Thaddeus Stevens, the Republican leader in the House of Representatives, called for total war in 1862, it occurred to someone that emancipation of the slaves could serve as a weapon and be tremendous tool of war. The sudden freedom of millions of angry, now homeless, unemployed newly freed slaves with no job skills would wreak such havoc on the Southern economy and create such civil unrest all across the south that the southern economy would collapse and troops would have to be pulled from the front to put down the riots and looting in the southern cities and countryside that were expected to follow emancipation. Thus was passed the confiscation act. Lincoln's goals were the same with the Emancipation Proclamation.

In addition to the foregoing, Lincoln also hoped the newly freed slaves could be enticed to enlist in the Federal army to beef up its depleted ranks. He also needed support for the "cause" and for continuation of the war. As late as August, 1862, he was still saying that:

"My paramount object, is to save the Union, and not either destroy or save slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing the slaves, I would do it. If I could save the Union by freeing some and leaving others in slavery, I would do it. If I could save it by freeing all, I would do that. What I do about slavery and the colored race, I do because it helps save the Union." [He made no bones about his preference, either publicly or privately - he desired the second option.]

However, by making emancipation an issue, he could create the emotional cause for the war that he so desperately needed and he could find new support for the cause within the ranks of the abolitionists who never really did support him before because they were only too aware that he had never even remotely claimed to be in favor of abolition and he had consistently acknowledged the clear, unequivocal constitutional right of the slaveholders to own their slaves.

Thus, any humanitarian interest in the slaves attributed to Lincoln is pure myth and simply not true. Even the most cursory reading of the Emancipation Proclamation underscores this obvious fact. The Proclamation, which was unnecessary and redundant in any case given the Second Confiscation Act passed months earlier, freed slaves only in those areas defined as being in rebellion. Slavery was sanctioned to continue by the Proclamation in those parts of the South already under Federal control and occupation and in the border states which had not seceded. Lincoln wasn't about to unleash the turmoil in Federal held lands that the emancipation was expected to cause in Confederate territory. The proclamation freed not a single slave. Secretary of State William H. Seward said of the Proclamation "We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free." Lincoln later told Boston abolitionist Wendell Phillips that the Emancipation Proclamation was "the greatest folly of my life".

The proclamation was unconstitutional and, had a case been litigated, would have been declared so by the Supreme Court. As such, it and the Second Confiscation Act would have been unenforceable. The captured slaves who were in Federal custody at the time of the Proclamation were told they were free, but their status a slaves as a matter of constitutional law remained unchanged. The Federals 'released' slaves the same as the did horses and cows and other chattel when they 'liberated' southern territory but they could not alter the ultimate ownership rights. That could be accomplished only by constitutional amendment. Slavery was abolished by Amendment XIII, ratified in December, 1865.

The answer to your question, then:

1. Lincoln needed popular support for an unpopular war and the Proclamation was a political ploy designed for that purpose. A wash: it worked on some fronts and failed on others. The Democrats picked up 28 seats in the '62 elections and many democrats who had previously supported the war to save the union either withdrew their endorsement of it after the proclamation or became far less vocal in their support.

2. Emancipation of the slaves was a weapon by which the Southern economy could be destroyed and by which southern troops could be diverted from the battlefields and away from Federal troops. It failed, since the proclamation had no effect in the target area.

3. Emancipated slaves who had no homes, no wealth, no income, no jobs and no job skills could be induced to enlist and hopefully be trained as soldiers in the Federal Army, where fresh meat was sorely and desperately needed. It worked to an extent, but many white units almost mutinied and there was massive desertion from white units which are attributed directly to the Emancipation Proclamation. White soldiers who had enlisted to save the union refused to fight to free the slaves.

A fourth significant goal (purpose/cause) was that the British, French and Spanish were contemplating joining the fight on the Confederate side. Lincoln hoped that by making, for the first time, slavery an issue in the war that those nations, who had long since abolished slavery, would think twice before doing so. It worked and no such alliances were established.

For Lincoln, the slaves were pawns and abolition was a weapon of war and a political tool. John Wilkes Boothe's bullets created Lincoln's martyrdom and helped land him the title of "The Great Emancipator" but history and simple fact belie that accolade. Lincoln did far too much good to be remembered mainly for a lie.


[Now, when you thumb this down, explain by history and documentation where it is in error.]

Answer 9

Slavery.

Freedom.

The right choice made by Lincoln.

Answer 10

Do your homework on your own. It's called research. Or your textbook.