Why did Abraham Lincoln issue the Emancipation proclamation as a military order?

Answer 1

Because what he was doing wasn't actually legal. He couldn't just declare the slaves to be free - they were, under law, property, and the Constitution forbids the government to deny citizens of their property. For the Confederacy, he had a loophole. The seceding states weren't really part of the United States anymore, so he could deprive them of property as much as he wanted, but if he made a law freeing the slaves in the South, that would be tantamount to admitting the South was still part of the US, which would mean that the law wouldn't be valid anyway. So. He issued it as a military order. It didn't really do much. The Southerners, of course, ignored it. It inspired some slaves to escape to the North, but they were doing that anyway. What it DID do was change the Civil War from a war against secession to a war against slavery. Europe didn't care if the South seceded. But Europe was vehmently anti-slavery, and once the North declared it was fighting, not only for Union, but to free the slaves, it had Europe solidly on its side. Also, it roused the interest of American abolitionists, who started participating in the war effort.

Answer 2

abraham lincoln issue emancipation proclamation military order

Answer 3

Quick answer -- that was the one and only Constitutional basis on which he COULD emancipate any slaves.
____________________

The preceding answer includes some common misunderstandings of the Emancipation Proclamation, along with some important facts. Clarifying those will help to answer the question.

1) Re: Lincoln "making a law..." Of course, Presidents do not "make laws" to begin with. They only SIGN laws; it is the legislature (Congress) that makes/passes the actual laws.

In fact, Lincoln did not have (nor did he claim to have) ANY Constitutional power as President to simply declare slaves free -- at least not in the normal course of things.

2) "Not exactly legal" -- is not exactly the most helpful way to explain it. Again, it was not *Constitutional* (which is a bit more than "not legal", since laws are more easily changed!) But this way of saying it (along with the mention of a "loophole") seems to suggest that the method Lincoln DID use was not legal/Constitutional. But arguably it WAS.. and even the Supreme Court (under Roger Taney), which had slapped down other Lincoln war measures did not overturn this one. (Lincoln wrote the Proclamation VERY carefully to try to make sure it had a chance to stand up against a likely court challenge.)

3) The Constitutional BASIS for Lincoln's act was his ability as "Commander-in-chief" to do what was NECESSARY in war time to defeat the enemy, INCLUDING to put down a civil insurrection.

This was "standard operating procedure" in war -- it is recognized that you can use all sorts of means to disable the enemy's ability to WAGE war. And certainly a slave labor force that could be (and was) used to free Confederate armies to fight (whether by direct participation in military operations, or by keeping plantations running) WAS an important resource for the South.

Note that the argument that, if it ever came to North-South war over slavery, the President WOULD have the "war power" to take such a step, had been suggested by many, at least as far back as John Quincy Adams (when serving in the House of Representatives in the 1830s). Secretary of State Seward and others had presented the argument to Lincoln since early in the war. Finally, in July of 1862, he agreed that it was both Constitutional, and necessary under the circumstances.

Note that Lincoln, despite some critics, was VERY careful to define the territories affected by the Proclamation to ONLY include those in rebellion at the time. When asked why he would not include others, he explained that this undermined the whole Constitutional basis for the act (something he thought would also cause the Proclamation to be nullified by the courts).

4) BIG point -- it is often claimed that the Emancipation Proclamation "didn't free anyone" or "didn't do anything". This is, in fact, QUITE false! First of all, it acted as a GUARANTEE of the freedom of all slaves who had already fled --that they would NOT be returned to slavery, as the South asked and some in the North wished. It also ENCOURAGED any slaves who could to flee, knowing they would NOT be returned, but would, at the President's direction, by ASSISTED in their effort.

More than that, the Proclamation INCLUDED specific provisions for "enforcement". That is, it directed the military to "make it so". And they did -- not instantaneously, of course, since that was impossible . . . but with each advance of the army. By the end of the war the Proclamation, enforced by the military, had freed ALL slaves in the Confederacy, and had contributed to the freeing of most others. (See point #6 on the rest of them.)

5) Also note that there was ANOTHER military basis for the Proclamation -- it authorized the recruitment of any freed slaves who wished into military service. You see, Lincoln was seeking to accomplish several things with the Proclamation including -- to rid the country of the ultimate ROOT of the war, to undermine the Southern military efforts, and to ADD MANPOWER to the Union Army.

Here again, he was VERY SUCCESSFUL. Some 180,000 freed blacks served in the military over the final two years of the war, and made an enormous contribution to victory. (Another benefit -- the valiant fighting of these troops ALSO convinced many in the North that they deserved full rights, including the right to vote.)

6) Note that the Proclamation worked together with Lincoln's OTHER efforts (such as his lobbying for a Constitutional Amendment [the 13th] as a firm legal guarantee) to bring an end to slavery in the WHOLE Union. (By early 1865 all border states but Kentucky had, as Lincoln had asked, emancipated their slaves. The 13th amendment, in fact, ONLY freed a handful of slaves, and all of them in Kentucky.)

7) Finally, Lincoln took the step because he did WANT to free slaves and to right what he regarded as a moral evil... though only in a way that was consistent with the Constitution, and esp. with his own oath of office. He had made his view on slavery as morally wrong for some years, and that was a point he raised again in connection with the Proclamation. In other words, he believed the circumstances ENABLED him to do something here that was

a) Constitutional,
b) practical (for winning the war and restoring the Union) and
c) morally GOOD, in righting a wrong.

Notice how he pulls these three together in the conclusion to the Proclamation itself:

"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

Answer 4

How else would have inforced something that the south so strongly opossed?