ASSAULT ON JULY 4th

Erasing celebrating the 4^th of July and replacing it with Juneteenth is the Left’s Holy Grail.

Denigrating the American Flag, removing our National Anthem, and ending the 4^th of July are the Left’s trinity for destroying America’s civic culture.

Changing calendar references eradicates the old order to establish a new radical one. The Bolsheviks replaced Christian holidays with May Day (May 1) and their October Revolution (November 6).  The French Revolution zealots went so far as to rename the months of the year.

Making an obscure moment in the Civil War our new “more inclusive” national holiday is fundamental to shifting the inspiring narrative of America’s founding in 1776 to the darker, anti-American, narrative of the 1619 movement.

Just before the 4^th of July, Senators Ron Johnson (R-WI) and James Lankford (R-OK) called for establishing Juneteenth as “a national holiday to remember the 1865 emancipation of slaves in the United States”.   They eliminate the Columbus Day holiday, because “as a holiday that is lightly celebrated, and least disruptive to Americans' schedules”.  Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) co-sponsored Juneteenth legislation with Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX).

The moment Juneteenth is in and Columbus is out, the Left will move to eliminate the July 4^th holiday as being just two weeks apart and “disruptive” to summer work schedules. 

Nikole Hannah-Jones, the intellectual force behind eliminating the 4^th of July and the 1619 movement, barnstormed cable news to assert, “Independence Day does not mean the same thing to everybody.  We are forcing white people to confront what this holiday has meant to black people”.

On one show, Hannah-Jones’ assault was supported by historian Jon Meacham, who reported that the 4^th was “only about a document not about shaping a nation”, while Juneteenth is a fully inclusive culminating moment in America’s story.  They both recommended that Americans “evolve”, and to end the “divisive” and racist 4^th in favor of the “more inclusive and accurate” Juneteenth:  “For generations we have looked at 1776 as our founding moment, our “nativity”, when it was actually 1619… For too long we have taught this one narrative that glorifies white supremacy, glorifies colonization.”

Attacking July 4^th began on July 1, 2011.  That was when Harvard University released a study revealing that “children who attend July 4 celebrations are more likely to identify themselves as Republicans in life”.  The study observed, “The political right has been more successful in appropriating American patriotism and its symbols during the 20th century. Survey evidence also confirms that Republicans consider themselves more patriotic than Democrats”.

The study continued, “attending one rain-free July 4 celebration before the age of 18 increases the likelihood that children will identify as Republican by two percent, and increases the likelihood that they will vote for a Republican candidate by the time they turn 40 by four percent”.

Overnight, patriotism became partisan. 

During the summer of 2019, the New York Times, armed with the revisionist history of Nikole Hannah-Jones, launched the 1619 history curriculum. 1619’s goal is to completely recast America as the most demonic, racist, destructive nation that has ever existed.  According to the 1619 narrative, America began when a ship with African slaves arrived at Jamestown during the summer of 1619.  Everything since is a steady march of white racism destroying dark skinned people and polluting the world with white supremist and white privilege dogma, as embodied in the Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution.

 

Since the 1960s, colleges and universities have indoctrinated students with anti-Americanism.  K-12 is the next battleground. A recent study found that 66 percent of high school students believe America is exceptional, and 70 percent look favorably on America’s history.  Only 47 percent of College students think America is exceptional, and 44 percent are favorable to our nation’s history.

 

The 1619 curriculum is already being used in over 3,000 schools.  Changing history to eliminate July 4^th, and replacing it with Juneteenth, is a critical part of 1619’s anti-Americanism strategy.

Juneteenth is based on the false narrative that slavery in America ended on June 19, 1865.  That was the day a Union General marched into Galveston, Texas and announced the Civil War was over and the slaves being held in the region were free.

It took ratifying the 13^th Amendment on December 6, 1865 to officially free all of America’s slaves.  Border states were not included in the Emancipation (Kentucky still had 40,000).  Over the next year, Federal officials had to personally enforce the Amendment as some slaveholders withheld news of Emancipation so their slaves could be used for additional harvests.

Elevating Juneteenth as the end of slavery and the Civil War is like celebrating the end of World War II based on Japanese soldiers surrendering on isolated Pacific islands in the 1950s.

Making Juneteenth a national holiday must be opposed at all costs.

HOW ANTIETAM CHANGED EVERYTHING

[Part of Constituting America’s 90 Day Study - Days that Shaped America]

America’s bloodiest day was also the most geopolitically significant battle of the Civil War.

On September 17, 1862, twelve hours of battle along the Antietam Creek, near Sharpsburg, Maryland, resulted in 23,000 Union and Confederate dead or wounded. Its military outcome was General Robert E. Lee, and his Army of Northern Virginia, retreating back into Virginia. Its political outcome reshaped global politics and doomed the Southern cause.

The importance of Antietam begins with President Abraham Lincoln weighing how to characterize the Civil War to both domestic and international audiences. Lincoln choose to make “disunion” the issue instead of slavery. His priority was retaining the border states (Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, and Missouri) within the Union. [1]

The first casualties of the Civil War occurred on April 19, 1861 on the streets of Baltimore. The 6^th Massachusetts Regiment was attacked by pro-South demonstrators while they were changing trains. Sixteen dead soldiers and citizens validated Lincoln’s choice of making the Civil War about reunification. Eastern Maryland was heavily pro-slave. Had Maryland seceded, Washington, DC would have been an island within the Confederacy. This would have spelled disaster for the North.

To affirm the “war between the states” nature of the Civil War, Lincoln’s Secretary of State, William Seward, issued strict instructions to American envoys to avoid referencing slavery when discussing the Civil War. [2]

Explaining to foreign governments that the conflict was simply a “war between the states” had a downside. England and France were dependent on Southern cotton for their textile mills. “Moral equivalency” of the combatants allowed political judgements to be based on economic concerns. [3]

On April 27, 1861, Lincoln and Seward further complicated matters by announcing a blockade of Southern ports.  While this was vital to depriving the South of supplies, it forced European governments to determine whether to comply. There were well established international procedures for handling conflicts between nations and civil wars. Seward ignored these conventions, igniting fierce debate in foreign governments over what to do with America. [4]

England and France opted for neutrality, which officially recognized the blockade, but with no enforcement. Blockade runners gathered in Bermuda, and easily avoided the poorly organized Union naval forces, while conducting commerce with Southern ports. [5]

Matters got worse. On November 8, 1861, a Union naval warship stopped the Trent, a neutral British steamer travelling from Havana to London. Captain Charles Wilkes removed two Confederate Government Commissioners, James Mason and John Slidell, who were on their way for meetings with the British Government. [6]

The “Trent Affair” echoed the British stopping neutral American ships during the Napoleonic Wars. Those acts were the main reason for American initiating the War of 1812 with England.

British Prime Minister, Lord Henry Palmerston, issued an angry ultimatum to Lincoln demanding immediate release of the Commissioners. He also moved 11,000 British troops to Canada to reinforce its border with America. Lincoln backed down, releasing the Commissioners, stating “One war at a time”. [7]

While war with England was forestalled, economic issues were driving a wedge between the Lincoln Administration and Europe.

The 1861 harvest of Southern cotton had shipped just before war broke out. In 1862, the South’s cotton exports were disrupted by the war. Textile owners clamored for British intervention to force a negotiated peace.

In the early summer of 1862, bowing to political and economic pressure, Lord Palmerston drafted legislation to officially recognize the Confederate government and press for peace negotiations. [8]

During the Spring of 1862, Lincoln’s view of the Civil War was shifting. Union forces were attracting escaped slaves wherever they entered Southern territory. Union General’s welcomed the slaves as “contraband”, prizes of war similar to capturing the enemy’s weapons. This gave Lincoln a legal basis for establishing a policy for emancipating slaves in the areas of conflict.

Union victories had solidified the Border States into the North. Therefore, disunion was not as important a justification for military action. In fact, shedding blood solely for reunification seemed to be souring Northern support for the war.

Lincoln and Seward realized emancipating slaves could rekindle Northern support for the war, critical for winning the Congressional elections in November 1862. Emancipation would also place the conflict on firm moral grounds, ending European support for recognition and intervention. England had abolished slavery throughout its empire in 1833. It would not side with a slave nation, if the goal of war became emancipation. Lincoln embraced this geopolitical chess board, “Emancipation would weaken the rebels by drawing off their laborers, would help us in Europe, and convince them that we are incited by something more than ambition”. [9]

On July 22, 1862, Lincoln called a Cabinet meeting to announce his intention to issue the Emancipation Proclamation. It was framed as an imperative of war, “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.” [10]

Seward raised concerns over the timing of the Proclamation. He felt recent Union defeats outside of the Confederate Capital of Richmond, Virginia might make its issuance look like an act of desperation, “our last shriek, on the retreat.” [11] It was decided to wait for a Northern victory so that the Emancipation could be issued from a position of strength.

Striving for a game-changing victory became the priority for both sides. The summer of 1862 witnessed a series of brilliant Confederate victories. British Prime Minister Palmerston agreed to finally hold a Cabinet meeting to formally decide on recognition and mediation. [12]

General Lee wished to tip the scales further by engineering a Confederate victory on northern soil. [13] Lee wanted a victory like the 1777 Battle of Saratoga that brought French recognition and aid to America. [14]

The race was on. General Stonewall Jackson annihilated General John Pope’s Army in the Second Battle of Manassas (August 28-30, 1862).  Lee saw his opportunity, consolidated his forces, and invaded Maryland on September 4, 1862.

After entering Frederick, Maryland, Lee divided his forces to eliminate the large Union garrison in Harpers Ferry, which was astride his supply lines. Lee planned to draw General George McClellan and his “Army of the Potomac” deep into western Maryland. Far from Union logistical support, McClellan’s forces could be destroyed, delivering a devastating blow to the North. [15]

A copy of Special Orders No. 191, which outlined Lee’s plans and troop movements, was lost by the Confederates, and found by a Union patrol outside of Frederick. [15] On reading the Order, McClellan, famous for his slow and ponderous actions in the field, sped his pursuit of Lee.

Now there was a deadly race for whether Lee and Jackson could neutralize Harpers Ferry and reunite before McClellan’s army pounced. This turned the siege of Harpers Ferry (September 12-15, 1862), the Battle of South Mountain (September 14, 1862), and Antietam (September 17, 1862) into the Civil War’s most important series of battles.

While Antietam was tactically a draw, heavy losses forced Lee and his army back into Virginia. This was enough for Lincoln to issue his Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, five days after the battle, on September 22, 1862. When news of the Confederate retreat reached England, support for recognition collapsed, extinguishing, “the last prospect of European intervention.” [17] News of the Emancipation Proclamation launched “Emancipation Meetings” throughout England. Support for a Union victory rippled through even pacifist Anti-Slavery groups who asserted abolition, “was possible only in a united America.” [18]

There were many more battles to be fought, but Europe’s alignment against the Confederacy sealed its fate. European nations flocked to embrace Lincoln and his Emancipation crusade. One vivid example was Czar Alexander II, who had emancipated Russia’s serfs, becoming a friend of Lincoln. In the fall of 1863, he sent Russian fleets to New York City and San Francisco to support the Union cause. [19]

Unifying European nations against the Confederacy, and ending slavery in the South, makes America’s bloodiest day one of the world’s major events.

REFERENCES

[1] McPherson, James, Battle Cry of Freedom (Oxford University Press, New York, 1988) pp. 311-312.

[2] Foreman, Amanda, A World on Fire; Britain’s Crucial Role in the American Civil War (Random House, New York, 2010) p.107.

[3] Op. cit., McPherson, p. 384.

[4] Op. cit., Foreman, page 80.

[5] Op. cit., McPherson, pages 380-381.

[6] ibid., pages 389-391.

[7] ibid.

[8] Op. cit., Foreman, page 293.

[9] Op. cit., McPherson, page 510.

[10] Carpenter, Francis, How the Emancipation Proclamation was Drafted; Political Recollections; Anthology - America; Great Crises in Our History Told by its Makers; Vol. VIII (Veterans of Foreign Wars, Chicago, 1925) pages 160-161.

[11] Op. cit., McPherson, page 505.

[12] Op. cit., Foreman, page 295.

[13] Op. cit., McPherson, page 555.

[14] McPherson, James, The Saratoga That Wasn’t: The Impact of Antietam Abroad, in This Mighty Scourge: Perspectives on the Civil War (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), pages 65-77.

[15] Sears, Stephen W., Landscape Turned Red (Ticknor & Fields, New York, 1983) pages 66-67.

[16] Ibid., pages 112-113.

[17] Op. cit., Foreman, page 322.

[18] ibid., page 397.

[19] The Russian Navy Visits the United States (Naval Historical Foundation, Annapolis, 1969)

COMMEMORATION CONUMDRUM

This has also appeared in: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/31/scot-faulkner-commemoration-conundrum/   

 

Harpers Ferry National Historical Park is being celebrated with a Quarter featuring the fire house used by John Brown during his history changing October 1859 raid.

 

The image on the coin is an accurate depiction of the current fire house and its location in the lower town of Harpers Ferry.  However, the fire house and its location are very different from the actual building and setting that ignited America’s Civil War.

 

This is the challenge for historians and Park personnel.  In his famous book, “Sacred Ground; Americans and their Battlefields”, Edward Tabor Linenthal, provides examples of how we change our history by the ways we preserve and honor it.

 

Linenthal discusses placing monuments on the Gettysburg Battlefield, and removing the upper decks of the Battleship Arizona to create the iconic memorial at Pearl Harbor.  In these and other cases, our desire to honor the touch stones of America ends their purity.  These changes turn history into icons that become more relatable and impactful to future generations.

 

John Brown’s fire house is the perfect example of turning history into iconography. 

 

The fire house John Brown and his followers retreated to on the Harpers Ferry Armory grounds was a very different building than the one we honor.

 

The belfry, the most iconic aspect of the fire house, did not exist at the time of the raid.  Drawings and lithographs from the period show no belfry or bell.  The cupola was added after the raid.  No bell was ever placed in the tower.  Civil War era photos show the tower, but never the bell.  Without the cupola, the fire house was more a shed for fire engines. It was referred to as the “engine house” prior to the raid.

 

The bell was promoted as the “second most famous bell in America” by Union veterans and early 20^th Century historians as they assumed John Brown was going to ring the bell to summon rebelling slaves to his cause. Therefore, the Fire House Bell was tied to ushering in Lincoln’s “new birth of freedom” linking it to the Liberty Bell in Philadelphia.

 

The bell only rang for work shifts in a tower at the Hall Rifle Works, along the Shenandoah River near the current Route 340 Bridge.  Markings on the bell reference 1841. This was the bell the 13^th Massachusetts Regiment removed and hid near Williamsport, Maryland after the Battle of Antietam in September 1862.  In 1892, these veterans recovered the bell from its hiding place while attending an encampment of the Grand Army of the Republic (GAR).  They brought it to their GAR Club House in Marlborough, Massachusetts.  Eventually, the bell ended its travels by being installed in its own bell tower in Marlborough’s town park.  The town reveres the bell to this day.

 

The fire house itself witnessed extensive travels and changes.  The Federal Armory was destroyed during the Civil War.  The Fire House, nicked named “John Brown’s Fort”, became just another derelict building on the Armory grounds.

 

In 1891 the “Fort” was sold for display at the World’s Columbian Exposition in Chicago.  It was taken apart and transported to the World’s Fair.  In the process, many bricks were removed as mementos.  The result was shrinking the building’s size by a third.  The Fort was then rebuilt backwards. The office was originally on the right side.  It is now on the left.

 

After the Fair, the Fort remained in Chicago because there was no home for it. The B&O Railroad had built a new set of tracks across the Armory grounds.  The Fort’s original site was now under a twenty-foot high embankment. 

 

Eventually, the Murphy Family arranged for the Fort to be relocated on their farm in Harpers Ferry.  The farm was known as the Chambers Farm, which was the site of A.P. Hill’s nighttime flank march that forced the surrender of the Union garrison on September 15, 1862. 

 

The Fort sat on the Murphy/Chambers field.  Commemorative plaques were installed on the walls inside the fire engine garage. 

 

On August 17, 1906, the Fort was the site of another historic moment.  It was visited as a pilgrimage by Delegates from the Second Niagara Movement, the early version of the NAACP, to honor its role in Emancipation.  Additional plaques were added to its walls.

 

Three years later, Storer College , the first African American school for higher learning, bought the Fort and moved it to their campus on Camp Hill.  There it remained a campus focal point until the College’s closure and acquisition by the National Park Service.  In 1968, the Fort was moved to its present location just a hundred feet from its original foundation, marked by a small obelisk atop the B&O railroad embankment.

 WikiMiniAtlas

 

Buy the coin. Visit the Fort.  Honor its role in America’s industrial revolution, abolitionist movement, Civil War, and African American history.  Also, ponder the building’s journey from fact to legend, function to icon.

 

[Scot Faulkner is President of Friends of Harpers Ferry National Historical Park]

 

The Emancipation Proclamation

Published as part of Constituting America's "constitution reader" series

"90 in 90: History Holds the Key to the Future”

 in cooperation with Hillsdale College

http://www.constitutingamerica.org/blog/blog/2013/05/23/wednesday-may-23-2013-essay-69-the-emancipation-proclamation-scot-faulkner-former-chief-administrative-officer-of-the-u-s-house-of-representatives-and-currently-president-of-friends/

Essay #69 - The Emancipation Proclamation - Scot Faulkner

On January 1, 1863, President Abraham Lincoln’s right hand was trembling. He had spent the morning shaking hundreds of hands as part of the traditional New Year’s Day greetings at the White House. He remarked to Secretary of State, William Seward, that, “if my signature wavers they will say I was afraid to sign it.” He then took up his pen and wrote his name firmly on the Emancipation Proclamation. As Seward co-signed the document, Lincoln mused, “Seward, if I am to be remembered in history at all, it will probably be in connection with this piece of paper”. [1]

The Emancipation Proclamation was a masterful document in that it accomplished so much while preserving strict constitutional principles. Lincoln was first and foremost an attorney. He understood the need for government to act based upon the Constitution, which he had sworn to uphold, “I have never understood that the Presidency conferred upon me an unrestricted right to act officially upon this judgment and feeling [that slavery is wrong]…I understood…that in ordinary course of civil administration this oath even forbade me to practically indulge my primary abstract judgment on the moral question of slavery.” [2]

The reason the Emancipation Proclamation intentionally has, “all the moral grandeur of a bill of lading” is that it is a, “narrowly justified executive action taken by the commander-in-chief of the armed services of the United States under the power granted him only in wartime, doing something he absolutely could not have done in peacetime, or merely on the basis of his own opinion.” [3]

Lincoln’s act was bold and reflected his keen understanding of the Emancipation Proclamation as a pivotal moment in the evolution of public policy regarding slavery and its abolition.

In the mid-1850s, the Republican Party brought together diverse factions from the splintering Democratic Party and the imploding Whig Party. While the “radicals” wanted immediate and universal abolition of slavery everywhere, the centrist position focused on controlling or preventing the expansion of slavery into new territories. Gerrit Smith, one of the financial backers of John Brown’s paramilitary activities on behalf of abolition in both Kansas and at Harpers Ferry[4], derisively declared, “The Republican party refuses to oppose slavery where it is, and opposes it only where it is not.” [5]

The Republican platforms of 1856 and 1860 assertively opposed expansion of slavery into the territories, but remained silent on outright abolition within existing states. At his 1861 Inauguration, Lincoln confronted seven southern states that had already seceded and the possible secession of eight more, which included the four key Border States. Nearly a third of his Inaugural Address was spent assuring these states that he swore an oath to defend the Constitution and the Constitution allowed slavery in existing states, “I add, too, that all the protection which, consistently with the Constitution and the laws, can be given will be cheerfully given to all the States when lawfully demanded, for whatever cause—as cheerfully to one section as to another.” He went onto to provide assurances that, “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.” [6]

Lincoln’s assurances were designed to “buy time” for his administration to form. They also reflected the political reality that few in the North wanted a war based solely on emancipating slaves. [7]

Political realities were quickly overwhelmed by military ones. The moment Union forces occupied southern territory, slaves flocked to them in the hopes of gaining immediate freedom. The first such action occurred at Fort Monroe in Virginia on May 24, 1861. General Benjamin Butler established the concept of “contraband” whereby escaped slaves would be welcomed into Northern armies and used as workers, “as I would for any other property of a private citizen which the exigencies of the service seemed to require.” As a lawyer, Butler further invoked the concept that property used in a crime (in this case an illegal rebellion) can “be confiscated as “contraband” by legal authorities.” [8]

Butler’s precedent setting action led to a rapid evolution of Northern policy on freeing slaves. On August 6, 1861, Lincoln signed the First Confiscation Act, which authorized the confiscation of any Confederate property by Union forces ("property" included slaves). This meant that all slaves that fought or worked for the Confederate military were freed whenever they were "confiscated" by Union troops.

In October 1861, Secretary of War, Simon Cameron, expanded upon Congressional policy in his annual report, “Those who make war against the Government justly forfeit all rights of property…It is clearly a right of the Government to arm slaves, when it may become necessary, as it is to use gun-powder taken from the enemy.” [9]

Northern politicians were uniting around the concept that slavery was the life blood of the Confederate war effort. On January 14, 1862, Rep. George Julian (R-Indiana) asserted, “When I say that this rebellion has its source and life in slavery, I only repeat a truism. [The four million slaves] cannot be neutral. As laborers, if not soldiers, they will be the allies of the rebels, or of the Union.” [10] This sentiment inspired seven partial emancipation bills and the Second Confiscation Act. [11]

By the summer of 1862, the Second Confiscation Act was passed. It stated that any Confederate official, military or civilian, who did not surrender within sixty days of the act's passage, would have their slaves freed. While this was only applicable to Confederate areas that were already occupied by the Union Army, it did state that all slaves who took refuge in Union areas were "captives of war" and would be set free.

Emboldened by Congressional and Presidential policies, Union field commanders pushed the boundaries of interpretation as they moved deeper into Southern territory. On May 9, 1862, General David Hunter issued, “a sweeping declaration of martial law abolishing slavery in all three states constituting his “Department of the South.” [12] Lincoln quickly reversed this unilateral act, but added that while Hunter’s order might, “become a necessity indispensible to the maintenance of the [Union] government,” it was a decision “I reserve to myself”. [13]

Emancipation was being viewed as a means to victory. Lincoln began to also view it as an end. His efforts to cajole Border State politicians were going no where. Military reality was making his accommodation less and less necessary. On July 13, 1862 the Border State leaders issued a manifesto rejecting Lincoln’s last proposal. On that same day, Lincoln privately told Seward and Gideon Welles, his Secretary of the Navy, that he was ready to issue the Emancipation Proclamation. [14]

Geopolitics was also entering the equation. Lincoln had kept his public pronouncements on slavery to a minimum over concern for Border State loyalty. European nations viewed Lincoln’s tepid pronouncements as a license to trade with the Confederacy under international law. British and French neutrality was skirted by highly creative Confederate agents and European sympathizers. As long as America’s civil war was officially about opposing Southern independence, many British liberal and business interests rallied to the Southern cause. As the war wore on, top European political leaders wished to rebuild their economies, which were being damaged by the conflict. Recognition of the Confederacy, and mediating a peace, were actively debated within the government of British Prime Minister Lord Henry Palmerston. [15]

Lincoln and Seward realized emancipating the slaves would not only alter the dynamic of the war in America, but also end European support for recognition and intervention. England had abolished slavery throughout its empire in 1833 and would not side with a slave nation if the goal of war became emancipation. Lincoln was well aware of this geopolitical chess board, “Emancipation would weaken the rebels by drawing off their laborers and would help us in Europe, and convince them that we are incited by something more than ambition”. [16]

On July 22, 1862, Lincoln called a Cabinet meeting to announce his intention to issue the Emancipation Proclamation. It was framed as an imperative of war, [17] “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.” Lincoln also justified, “upon this act, sincerely believed to be an act of justice, warranted by the Constitution, upon military necessity...” Another significant military aspect of the Emancipation opened the door for a multi-racial army and society, “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.”

Seward raised concerns over the timing of the Proclamation; citing recent Confederate victories might make its issuance look like an act of desperation, “our last shriek, on the retreat.” [18] It was decided to wait for a Northern victory so that the Emancipation could be issued from a position of strength.

Striving for a game-changing victory became the priority for both sides. The summer of 1862 witnessed a series of brilliant Confederate victories. British Prime Minister Palmerston agreed to finally hold a Cabinet meeting to formally decide on recognition and mediation. [19] General Lee wished to tip the scales further by engineering a Confederate victory on northern soil. In essence, he wanted a victory similar to the 1777 Battle of Saratoga that brought French recognition and aid to America. [20]

The race was on, turning the siege of Harpers Ferry (September 12-15, 1862), the Battle of South Mountain (September 14, 1862), and Antietam (September 17, 1862) into the only battles of the war that had global impact. The final battle of Antietam forced Lee and his army back into Virginia. This was enough for Lincoln to issue his Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, five days after battle on September 22, 1862. When news of the Confederate retreat reached England, support for recognition collapsed, extinguishing, “the last prospect of European intervention.” [21] News of the Emancipation Proclamation launched “Emancipation Meetings” throughout England. Support for a Union victory rippled through even pacifist Anti-Slavery groups who asserted abolition, “was possible only in a united America.” [22]

Lincoln accomplished an historic Trifecta. He revolutionized the Union war effort by bringing 200,000 blacks into the Union army. He isolated the Confederacy from Europe, making Union victory inevitable. He also strategically shifted public policy within the parameters of constitutional government and laid the ground work for the immediate and universal abolition of slavery everywhere in America by amending the Constitution. For this masterful strategy of removing slavery strictly within the bounds of law Lincoln has been declared America's "last Enlightenment politician". [23]

Scot Faulkner served as the first Chief Administrative Officer of the U.S. House of Representatives and is currently President of Friends of Harpers Ferry National Historical Park. You may read his columns at http://citizenoversight.blogspot.com  

NOTES
[1] Carpenter, Francis, How the Emancipation Proclamation was Drafted; Political Recollections; Anthology - America; Great Crises in Our History Told by its Makers; Vol. VIII (Veterans of Foreign Wars, Chicago, 1925) page 159.

[2] Miller, William Lee, President Lincoln; The Duty of a Statesman (Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 2008) page 265.

[3] Miller, William Lee, Lincoln’s Virtues; An Ethical Biography (Vintage Books, New York, 2003) page 237.

[4] Renehen, Edward J. Jr., The Secret Six; How a Circle of Northern Aristocrats helped light the Fuse of the Civil War (Crown Publishers, New York, 1995) pages 123, 182, and 187.

[5] Foner, Eric, Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men; The Ideology of the Republican Party before the Civil War (Oxford University Press, New York, 1995) page 302.

[6] Lincoln, Abraham, Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861.

[7] McPherson, James, Battle Cry of Freedom (Oxford University Press, New York, 1988) pages 263-264.

[8] Detzer, David, Dissonance; The Turbulent Days Between Fort Sumter and Bull Run (Harcourt, Inc., New York, 2006) Page 334.

[9] Op. Cit., McPherson, page 357.

[10] Op. Cit., McPherson, page 495.

[11] Op. Cit., McPherson, page 496.

[12] Op. Cit., McPherson, page 499.

[13] Op. Cit., McPherson, page 499.

[14] Op. Cit., McPherson, page 504.

[15] Foreman, Amanda, A World on Fire; Britain’s Crucial Role in the American Civil War (Random House, New York, 2010) page 293.

[16] Op. Cit., McPherson, page 510.

[17] Op. Cit., Carpenter, pages 160-161.

[18] Op. Cit., McPherson, page 505.

[19] Op. Cit., Foreman, page 295.

[20] Op. Cit., McPherson, page 555.

[21] Op. Cit., Foreman, page 322.

[22] Op. Cit., Foreman, page 397.

[23] Guelzo, Allen C., The Great Event of the Nineteenth Century: Lincoln Issues the Emancipation Proclamation (The Historical Society of Pennsylvania, Harrisburg, 2006) page 3.