Download Dividing and Unifying: The Response to the Emancipation Proclamation, by Aaron Raschke

University of Wisconsin Oshkosh
Oshkosh Scholar Submission – Volume VII – 2012
Congratulations to author Aaron Raschke and his faculty adviser, Dr. Michelle Kuhl. The author
went through a rigorous review and revision process and is to be commended for his excellent
work.
Dividing and Unifying: The Response to the Emancipation Proclamation
Aaron Raschke, author
Dr. Michelle Kuhl, History, faculty adviser
Aaron Raschke graduated from UW Oshkosh in fall 2011 with a history degree and will be
continuing his education at UW-Milwaukee. There he will study library science with the hopes of
one day becoming a research librarian. Aaron would also like to thank his wonderful mom and
great dad for helping him every step of the way.
Dr. Michelle Kuhl received her Ph.D. from Binghamton University in 2004 in U.S. history.
She teaches nineteenth-century U.S. history (specializing in race and gender) at UW Oshkosh.
Abstract
The Civil War as a whole was a well-documented event in United States history; however,
this paper delves deeper into one specific aspect of the war. This study focuses entirely on the
response of the North, the South, and the border states to the Emancipation Proclamation in
newspapers. This response not only helped to shape the rest of the war, but also foreshadowed
attitudes toward African Americans in the years to come. The Emancipation Proclamation and the
response to it further divided the North and South with the border states caught in the middle,
because each believed it was designed for a different purpose. The North believed that the
Emancipation Proclamation was introduced for military purposes while the South thought it was
an attack on slavery. This difference of opinion resulted in newspapers providing a unifying effect
within the North and South that fueled the war effort while also further dividing the border states.
The Emancipation Proclamation and reaction to it ultimately ended any illusion that the war would
come to a peaceful end.
Introduction
The final end to slavery in the United States began with the Emancipation Proclamation.
As the precursor to the Thirteenth Amendment, which legally ended all slavery, the Emancipation
Proclamation gave hope to African Americans throughout the United States that one day they
would be free. The Emancipation Proclamation “declared that slaves in states still in rebellion on
January 1, 1863 shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free.” The announcement on September
22, 1862, was more of a preliminary proclamation of what would occur on January 1, 1863.
Abraham Lincoln, the designer of the Emancipation Proclamation, wanted the border states to
begin emancipating their own slaves but was met with resistance. The border states included
Delaware, Maryland, West Virginia, Kentucky, and Missouri. In these five states slavery was still
legal at the start of the Civil War yet they did not secede from the Union. During the Civil War
Republicans were the majority in the North and Democrats were the majority in the South, but the
border states had more of an even mix of the two political parties. Consequently, Lincoln left the
border states and the other slave areas under Union control out of the Emancipation Proclamation
so they did not abandon the Union and side with the Confederacy. The Emancipation Proclamation
was a conservative document that was intended to ease the North into the idea of all the slaves
being free without actually freeing many slaves. Lincoln believed emancipation of the slaves was
important to winning the war and in the Emancipation Proclamation he relayed that message to the
general public of the Union.1 The response to this revolutionary document was recorded in history
in a number of mediums, from diaries and letters to pamphlets and newspapers.
The most popular news medium for the average person during the war was newspapers. It
was the main media of the nineteenth century, and with the introduction of the telegraph and
steam-powered rotary press it became easier for the average person to obtain. News was not instant
in the nineteenth century like it has become in the twenty-first century, but it could travel across
the nation within a day. Newspapers that were mass produced could travel by train, meaning a
New York paper could be printed one day and transported to Washington, D.C., and read by the
president the next day. The new technologies of the day allowed news to travel faster and to a
wider audience. In doing so, newspapers became a primary way in which history was recorded
during the Civil War. One historian, Brayton Harris, describes newspapers as “the single most
important element in creating the public record of the war.”2
Some historians have alluded to the reaction of the press regarding the Emancipation
Proclamation while writing about broader topics. William Klingman, writing about the
Emancipation Proclamation as a whole, discussed the reaction of the press. Klingman wrote that it
was celebrated in many ways by abolitionists while “many northerners outside of abolitionist
circles welcomed Lincoln’s proclamation as a practical wartime measure.” However, among
Northern Democratic papers in the border states the message was not received as well. Some
former allies of Lincoln in the border states began to resist him and his policies after the
Emancipation Proclamation. Klingman shows that for the North the Emancipation Proclamation
was viewed as a military measure and that it divided the border states.3 While Klingman looked
directly at the response of the press, other historians used sources like letters, diaries, and
pamphlets and had different interpretations of the response to the Emancipation Proclamation,
especially in the North.
Although newspapers were the popular press and the most thorough public recorder of
history, there are other primary sources that unlock how people reacted to the Emancipation
Proclamation. David Williams, who looked primarily at letters and diaries throughout the Civil
War, viewed the response to the Emancipation Proclamation as joyous among free blacks and
abolitionists; however, his view of the response of Northern whites was different than the
newspaper response seen by Klingman. Williams writes, “reaction to emancipation among many
northern whites could hardly have been less joyous.” Looking at letters and diaries of men at war,
he shows that many now doubted the war, while others wanted no part in the war because of the
Emancipation Proclamation.4 This view is not accurate in respect to the views of the popular
press, which wrote that the Emancipation Proclamation actually had a uniting effect on the North.
Other historians like Darlene Clark Hine, William Hine, and Stanley Harrold also looked at the
“antiblack riots” that flared up in the North in the summer of 1862 as a response to the idea of
emancipation and free blacks in the North.5 These views from other historians show the response
of individuals to the Emancipation Proclamation. However, these may be extreme examples of the
reaction by racists and fanatics. Privately individuals of the North may have been willing to voice
their doubts, but publicly the North stood firmly behind the Emancipation Proclamation. To
understand the response of the Union and Confederacy in general, it is important to look at
newspapers, which showed the popular view of all citizens.
In the present day it is unanimous that the Emancipation Proclamation is one of the greatest
documents in American history; however, this essay will explore how it was perceived in the time
that it was announced. Looking at newspapers of the early 1860s will allow the reader to develop
an understanding of the popular opinion on the Emancipation Proclamation. This study examined
three regionsthe North, the South, and the border states. While other historians use diaries,
letters, and pamphlets, looking at the Emancipation Proclamation through the response of
newspapers will result in a unique view that differs from other historians. Newspapers reveal the
public response of both the North and the South, instead of a hodgepodge of private responses
from different individuals. These newspapers come from many different states and from both large
and small cities. I chose to use newspapers as my primary sources because they will best show the
popular opinion of all people living in the Union and Confederacy. Although newspapers during
the Civil War were not objective news sources and often had their own agenda, their political
affiliations mirrored the majority of people within their regions. In the North the majority of
people and newspapers were pro-Republican while people and newspapers in the South were
pro-Democratic. This means that the newspapers represented the popular opinion in each region
even more strongly than if they had been non-objective newspapers. The people who wrote
newspapers were not only intelligent, but also very informed people. Their reaction to the
Emancipation Proclamation best summarizes the reaction of the masses during the Civil War.
Northern newspapers praised the Emancipation Proclamation for its military value, while Southern
newspapers criticized the Emancipation Proclamation as an attack on slavery. Both regions used
these responses to unify around their respective positions while the border states remained divided.
The North
The Northern newspapers received the Emancipation with glowing support, which helped
to unify the North in the war effort. This unification was seen in a number of different ways
throughout the newspapers. Love for Lincoln, discussion of loyalty to the Union, and a general
lack of dissent among the newspapers are all keys to understanding how the Union was able to
rally behind the Emancipation Proclamation through its newspapers. The unification in the North
was not because people perceived it as a blow against slavery. Instead, people supported the
Emancipation Proclamation mainly because they thought it was a blow against the Confederacy.
In the North the Emancipation Proclamation was not viewed as an abolitionist document but a
document of great military value.
War usually has a uniting effect on a nation. People unite under a chosen leader against a
common enemy. In the North during the Civil War, Lincoln gained great support from Northerners
and was able to lead them into war. He brought together people of different political parties in the
North and they supported a common cause of defeating the South. When Lincoln issued the
Emancipation Proclamation the people in the North could have split over the issue of slavery and
in doing so would not have given their support to Lincoln. It appears just the opposite happened;
instead, people came together, not only to support the Emancipation Proclamation, but also to
support Lincoln. This coalescing of people proved that not only were they united against a
common enemy, the Confederacy, they were also going to support their leader in taking them to
victory by whatever means Lincoln thought necessary.
Following the declaration of the Emancipation Proclamation the North erupted in
celebration. Love for Lincoln came from all over the Northrural areas and big cities alike. The
support shown for Lincoln and his Emancipation Proclamation took the form of public events and
was written about in many newspapers. The New York-Herald Tribune discussed a twenty-one gun
salute in honor of the president and the Emancipation Proclamation that took place in Maine. The
newspaper also invited readers to come to a bonfire that same evening to celebrate Lincoln.6 The
Philadelphia Inquirer sent out an open invitation for citizens of the city to attend a serenade of the
president that evening.7 These soirees show love and support for both Lincoln and the
Emancipation Proclamation. With festivities to celebrate the Emancipation Proclamation in these
two large Northern cities it is safe to assume that celebrations were also happening in hotbed
abolitionist areas like Boston and many smaller cities and towns throughout the North. One city,
Lowell, Massachusetts, made no mention of a public event, but did have flattering words for
Lincoln. The Lowell Daily Citizen wrote that Lincoln is “striving in this hour of peril with all his
strength to save the country.”8 This praise shows how much love Northern citizens had for
Lincoln. The support of the large Northern cities was one thing, but the reaction of the political
stronghold of Washington, D.C., may have been even more important to setting up a unified front
in support of Lincoln and the Emancipation Proclamation.
Washington, D.C., held the largest celebration of them all in the form of a serenade. A
correspondent of the New York Herald-Tribune gave a full description of the event. The headline
of this article immediately tells the reader that the serenade in Washington, D.C., was a “Large and
Enthusiastic Gathering,” and goes on to say that it was possibly the largest crowd ever to be
assembled in Washington. The correspondent also praises Lincoln by saying, on the subject of the
Emancipation Proclamation, “nobody was disappointed with the brevity of his few remarks, which
were recognized as very much to the point.”9 The correspondent claims that everyone was pleased
with Lincoln’s short speech on the Emancipation Proclamation. Approval for President Lincoln
was seen throughout Northern newspapers and in public events, but newspapers were not always
sure the general public would privately have the same response.
Before the war and through its early stages, there was some concern among people in the
North that the Civil War would turn into a war about slavery instead of simply trying to bring the
rebelling states back into the Union. It was not known, however, to what extent this concern would
turn into opposition if the war did become about slavery. After the Emancipation Proclamation,
some newspapers seemed worried that people would not continue to support the Union. The
Lowell Daily Citizen asked the people to “pledge to him (Abraham Lincoln) their most generous
confidence and support, and not turn from him in coldness or palsy his efforts with a feeble and
half confidence,” and hoped that people would “be inspired with renewed confidence in the
President.”10 The Philadelphia Inquirer discussed the military’s loyalty after the Emancipation
Proclamation. It provided news that no high-ranking military men or government officials had
resigned, but instead remained loyal to the cause.11 This rally by Northern newspapers to the
President’s cause showed a will to support him; however, sometimes the most powerful message
of support in media is what is not said.
A split of support for Lincoln and the Civil War was definitely possible with the issuance
of the Emancipation Proclamation. However, it is easy to look back at history and know that no
split took place. Instead, support of the Emancipation Proclamation filled Northern newspapers.
What did not fill Northern newspapers was an outcry against Lincoln and the Emancipation
Proclamation. The fact that there was little backlash in Northern newspapers shows they supported
Lincoln and the Emancipation Proclamation. The South and some border states found fault with
the Emancipation Proclamation, but in the North the critics were isolated.
Newspapers in the North discussed celebrations and praised Lincoln and the Emancipation
Proclamation. However, the Philadelphia Inquirer thought in regards to the Emancipation
Proclamation that “it is astonishing how little faultfinding there has been about it.”12 This
statement is confirmed through a scan of the majority of newspapers in the North that found little
fault with the Emancipation Proclamation. However, there were some rumblings which, although
few, are still worth mentioning. Some newspapers were not fully on board with the Emancipation
Proclamation because they thought it might be “void of practical effect.”13 A Cleveland, Ohio,
paper, the Plain Dealer, was one such paper as it compared the Emancipation Proclamation to a
“Pope’s bull against the comet.” This essentially declared that it had little real effect because it
could not be enforced.14 This was true to an extent because roughly a quarter of slaves on January
1, 1863, residing in Northern border states were not set free. In addition, the Union had no real
power in the South to enforce the Emancipation Proclamation, except where Northern armies
resided.15 The Emancipation Proclamation was more of a unifying and rallying point for the North
as was seen in the support and revelry discussed in other newspapers. The Philadelphia Inquirer
claimed, “Perhaps the greatest objection I have heard urged against [the Emancipation
Proclamation is] the length of time which is to elapse before taking full effect.”16 These two issues
that some newspapers found with the Emancipation Proclamation are not views of a newspaper
that was against it, but instead did not believe it was enough. The time that the Emancipation
Proclamation took to be developed and put into effect was often discussed in newspapers both in
support of and against it.
The aspect that seems most discussed by Northern newspapers, besides the initial approval,
was the timeline. The emancipation of the slaves first came up in cabinet meetings July 21−22,
1862. Lincoln discussed it with his cabinet and although they were almost unanimously in support
of it they convinced him to wait because of its possible negative effect on the fall elections and the
fact that if they had no major military victory it would seem like a desperate act. Lincoln waited
until the Union army won the Battle of Antietam to issue a preliminary Emancipation
Proclamation that gave the Confederacy until January 1, 1863, to return to the Union or the
Emancipation Proclamation would go into effect. The states of the Confederacy did not return and
the Emancipation Proclamation went into effect January 1, 1863.17 The events regarding the
Emancipation Proclamation were discussed and analyzed in newspapers both for and against the
length of time it took to develop and would take for it to go into effect.
This topic, unlike other issues discussed about the Emancipation Proclamation, is one
about which there is some disagreement among Northern newspapers. The Philadelphia Inquirer
discussed the fault that some people saw in the Emancipation Proclamation, which was that it took
too long to go into effect.18 The Farmer’s Cabinet, a newspaper based in Amherst, New
Hampshire, refuted this idea. The Farmer’s Cabinet believed that “three months are given those
interested to consider of their ways, and return to their allegiance.”19 In saying so, it would appear
that this newspaper believed it was a good amount of time for the South to return to the Union.
However, if the South did return to the Union slavery would not end. This shows that the North
viewed the Emancipation Proclamation for military use as opposed to a document intended to
defeat slavery. Northerners who were not abolitionists or members of the antislavery movement
endorsed this view, but were still loyal to the North. The Farmer’s Cabinet also discusses the
timeline of the Emancipation Proclamation in respect to the amount of time that it took to develop
it. Their view is that “It is assuredly no hasty act, and as a well considered and slowly matured
decision of the Government, as a military necessity.”20 Not only does this show support and
approval of the time it took to declare the Emancipation Proclamation from when it was first
conceived by Northern newspapers, it also brings up another interesting response by Northern
newspapers. Many newspapers did not view the Emancipation Proclamation as an antislavery or
abolitionist document, but instead as a military measure.
United Northern support of the Emancipation Proclamation may be a result of people’s
interpretation of the document. Among abolitionists the document could be viewed as the
definitive end of all slavery. For antislavery advocates the Emancipation Proclamation could be
viewed as an end to the spread of slavery pushed by the South. Those who were not concerned with
slavery saw the document as simply a military measure with the goal to reunite the Union. These
different ways of viewing the same document could be a reason that the North accepted it so
widely. No matter which interpretation people accepted it is clear that publicly newspapers were
trying to rally the North around the cause and the military. The main view among Northern
newspapers was that it was a military measure and not an abolitionist document. This view of the
Emancipation Proclamation being a military measure may have been the safest way to secure
loyalty to the cause by those who were only marginally interested in slavery. It is also possible the
general public of the North truly was not interested in the abolitionist movement and freeing the
slaves so they did not discuss it. Whatever reason newspapers had, it is certain that the most
discussed meaning of the Emancipation Proclamation was that of a military measure.
Several Northern newspapers had input on why it was a military measure. Some stated it
nonchalantly while others declared it firmly. The New York Herald was one such paper to declare
it firmly urging its readers to remember, in respect to the Emancipation Proclamation, “that this
edict is a war measure, and that Negro philanthropy has nothing to do with it.”21 Meanwhile The
Farmer’s Cabinet declared it a “military necessity.”22 Another paper, the Lowell Daily Citizen,
declared that since Lincoln was not only the president but also the commander-in-chief, he had
given “character to the act as one of military authority.”23 This view of the Emancipation
Proclamation simply as a military measure may not have been the only view but it was certainly
the most dominant. What is also interesting is again what the newspapers did not say. There is little
mention of African Americans and how their lives would change because of the Emancipation
Proclamation.
Northern newspapers rarely discussed those affected most by the Emancipation
Proclamation. There is little mention of slaves and how their lives would change because of the
Emancipation Proclamation. The document clearly would have an enormous impact on their lives,
as they were now declared free if they were in a rebelling state. Northern newspapers still left out
any mention of slaves, so it was up to African American newspapers to get the word out. African
American newspapers gave black people a chance to tell their side of the story. The newspapers
were important not only to free black people in the North but also, according to historian Stephanie
Camp, as abolitionist propaganda to slaves in the South. These newspapers were often printed as
pictures because, as Camp claims, “the use of illustrations allowed abolitionists to reach a larger
audience.”24 After the Emancipation Proclamation African American newspapers were
instrumental in getting the news out to slaves in the South.
Pictures allowed slaves, many of whom were illiterate, to understand what the newspaper
meant. One African American newspaper written through pictures described the Emancipation
Proclamation and what it meant. The Harper’s Weekly newspaper from New York City showed an
image of several slaves marching alongside the Union Army. The title of the illustration, “The
Effects of the Proclamation,” shows that despite the Emancipation Proclamation having little real
effect, it was indeed freeing some slaves.25 The view of African American newspapers was that
the main reason for the Emancipation Proclamation was not a military measure, but instead a
document designed to set slaves free. Slaves were not the only people who thought the
Emancipation Proclamation would set them free. Some white men of the border states also saw the
Emancipation Proclamation as a document that gave freedom, but they believed that it freed them
just as it did the slaves.
The Border States
While the North and the South were united in their war efforts the border states during the
Civil War were divided in their loyalties. Kentucky, Delaware, Maryland, and Missouri were the
four border states that were slave-owning states, but did not secede from the Union. Because they
remained in the Union they tipped the war in its favor and Lincoln did not want to alienate them
with the Emancipation Proclamation for fear they would decide to secede. Even though they were
exempt from the Emancipation Proclamation they were still frightened by the prospect of slavery
being eliminated in the Confederacy. However, border states had fewer slaves and a larger white
population than states in the Deep South and therefore many people wanted to see the end of
slavery altogether and viewed the Emancipation Proclamation as the first step toward that goal.26
Newspapers in the border states were split in response to the Emancipation Proclamation. While
some white people saw it as an attack on the slave society they benefited from, others saw it as an
opportunity to finally be free of the slave society that also kept them down.
Border state newspapers supporting the Emancipation Proclamation did so for many
reasons. One reason already touched on is that they believed white men would also be freed from
the institution of slavery in the South. While some white men in the South benefited greatly from
slavery, others felt they were under a tyrannical despotism. In this society they never felt free to
express their opinion against slavery. Once the war began and the Emancipation Proclamation was
delivered they finally believed slavery would be coming to an end. This led the Intelligencer, a
newspaper written “in the large slaveholding county of Dorchester” in the border state of
Maryland, to declare, “The true glory of the war is not that it liberates the black, but the white men
of the South.”27 Because slaveholders represented a fairly small percentage of the overall
population in the South this view among the white men who were not invested in slavery was
probably quite common. However, only in the border states where they were protected from a
Confederate government where “Men have not been permitted to hold, much less express, their
own opinions,” were they able to admit that they were against slavery.28 Newspapers in the border
states were not all in favor of the Emancipation Proclamation though; some believed that it would
make it impossible for the Union to be whole again.
Border states had different views of the Emancipation Proclamation declared by President
Lincoln. Some newspapers thought it would harm the chances of unification between the
Confederacy and the Union. This view came from the idea that the two sides would not be able to
reconcile their differences if slavery was removed from the South. A newspaper in the border state
of Kentucky, the Louisville Democrat, saw the Emancipation Proclamation as “mischievous and
pestilent.” This shows that some border state newspapers were less than happy with the
Emancipation Proclamation. They declared in regard to Lincoln, “Nor will his conduct alter our
determination to fight forever for the union of these states.”29 This view showed they were strong
unionists, but they thought the Emancipation Proclamation was hurting the chances of a
reunification among all states.
Although not a true “border state” because it seceded from the Union, Tennessee did share
a border with the Union. Tennessee was not unanimously in allegiance with the Confederacy and
was one of the last states to secede.30 Therefore, there was some Unionist sentiment in the state. In
addition, the Union army occupied much of Tennessee during the Civil War, increasing the Union
sentiment. However, the reception in Tennessee of the Emancipation Proclamation was a picture
of disgust. The Chattanooga Daily Rebel, based in Tennessee, called it “nothing more nor less an
invitation to a servile (slave) war.”31 A Virginia paper, the Richmond Enquirer, reported on a
judge from Eastern Tennessee: “Hon. T. A. R. Nelson abandons Unionism and denounces
Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation.”32 Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation was received so
poorly there that even former proponents of Unionism switched their views. This response,
although not from a true “border state,” was from a state that did have Unionist sentiment. The
border states had a mixed reception in which some newspapers sided with the North and others
with the South. The Emancipation Proclamation’s greatest impact therefore in the border states
may have been in forcing the issue of whether a newspaper would ultimately side with the South or
the North.
The South
The South, much like the North, presented a unified front during the war. But the South
was against the Emancipation Proclamation and accused Lincoln, abolitionists, and Radical
Republicans of the North of being tyrants who were trying to force an abolitionist document on the
rest of the nation. This propaganda allowed Southerners to remain unified against the
Emancipation Proclamation that they viewed as an attack on slavery. Newspapers indicate that
white Southerners were not interested in the military value of the document; instead they were
concerned about the effects it would have on slavery.
The South’s two main irritations with the North from the start of the war were Radical
Republicans and abolitionists. Therefore when the Emancipation Proclamation was issued white
Southerners immediately responded to firmly stand against the document. In their newspapers the
South did not so much discuss the Emancipation Proclamation itself, but instead the people who
they believed were responsible for it. White Southerners believed the Emancipation Proclamation
was an abolitionist document furnished by Radical Republicansit was what they had feared all
along. They were determined to stand against it, and in doing so hurled insults at the North through
their newspapers. The insults came in many different forms: some referenced recent claims made
by Northerners that had misled people as to the North’s true intentions, while others made
outlandish claims that looked more like propaganda than actual reporting on the subject.
Whichever technique they used it was obvious that the Emancipation Proclamation and the people
behind it were issues the South was wholeheartedly against.
It is unclear from reading Southern newspapers if they simply had a jaded view of the
North or if they were trying to spread propaganda in the South. One instance of a possibly jaded
view comes from the Macon Telegraph, published in Macon, Georgia. With upcoming elections in
the North the Democrats and Republicans were set to square off at the polls for the first time since
the war had begun. The Macon Telegraph believed that “if the Republicans should be defeated in
New York, an opposition will rally too numerous to be bastiled.”33 This view of a Southern paper
in response to the Emancipation Proclamation is that there were many Northerners just waiting for
the Democrats to win the fall elections so they could rise up against the war. It may have been a
jaded view or simply hopeful, but in that same article the Macon Telegraph issues a statement that
is much closer to propaganda. The paper claims, “the bulk of Northern press disapproves of the
proclamation.”34 This statement is not true, as a study of the Northern press shows that the
newspapers supported the Emancipation Proclamation. Southern newspapers do not make these
accusations without justification. They claim that the North is against the Emancipation
Proclamation in secret, due to a supposed tyrannical government.
Southern newspapers believed the majority of the North was secretly against the
Emancipation Proclamation and Lincoln, but Northerners could not say so for fear of being jailed.
These newspapers therefore portrayed Lincoln and the Radical Republicans as tyrants in the
Union. The Macon Telegraph did this by referring to them as “holding the knife to the throat of
every northern man who dares combat or question the purpose,” in which “the purpose” is
referring to the Emancipation Proclamation. The same article from the Macon Telegraph that
earlier claimed the Northern press disapproved of the Emancipation Proclamation also believed
the Northern populous in general distrusted it, “yet neither dare open their mouth in opposition,”
because they feared Lincoln and the Radical Republicans.35 A different Macon Telegraph article
shows that same tyranny extending into the Union army as General McClellan prohibited his
soldiers from discussing the Emancipation Proclamation.36 This description of Lincoln confirmed
that the South no longer saw Lincoln as just a Republican; they now viewed him as a member of
the Radical Republicans.
Party allegiance during the Civil War did not always mean you had the same views as
fellow party members. There were both Northern and Southern Democrats and also moderate
Republicans and Radical Republicans.37 After the Emancipation Proclamation the South was
convinced that Lincoln was not just a Republican, but also a Radical Republican. This view of him
by Southern newspapers shows they thought abolitionists and Radical Republicans were heavily
influencing him. The Macon Telegraph shows this as the newspaper claimed that due to the
issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation “Lincoln has at last thrown himself unreservedly upon
the ultra Republicans for support and guidance.”38 In this quote Radical Republicans are referred
to as “ultra Republicans.” The claims did not stop there though; the Alexandria Gazette claimed
that abolitionists, who often had the same views as Radical Republicans, also influenced Lincoln.
The paper infers that the Chicago Committee, which had urged Lincoln to make a “Proclamation
of Emancipation” just days before the actual Emancipation Proclamation was issued, influenced
him.39 The interesting part of the urging was that Lincoln did not agree with the Chicago
Committee at the time they were urging him to make the proclamation.
Just 10 days before the famous Emancipation Proclamation was delivered, Lincoln was in
Chicago to meet with the abolitionist Chicago Committee. This committee urged Lincoln to make
a “Proclamation of Emancipation” that would free all slaves; however, he refused and gave an
explanation. After Lincoln made the Emancipation Proclamation, Southern newspapers quickly
pointed the finger at Lincoln portraying him as a pushover. The Alexandria Gazette on
back-to-back days after the Emancipation Proclamation was declared printed different responses
to the Chicago Committee, which had taken place 10 days earlier, and how it directly disagreed
with the Emancipation Proclamation.40 This may have been done to portray Lincoln as being
influenced by abolitionists, or as a pushover who did not stick to his guns. Either way, Lincoln was
painted a weak leader in the North. Lastly, Lincoln’s flip-flopping on the Emancipation
Proclamation issue did not seem to surprise the Southern newspapers.
All along white Southerners claimed to know that the Emancipation Proclamation was
coming. They suspected that the North’s true intention in the war was not just to bring them back
to the Union, but also to destroy slavery in the process. The Chattanooga Daily Rebel when
referring to the Emancipation Proclamation claims, “This is what has been foreseen and predicted
by Southern men for some time.” The newspaper claims that it had “been strenuously denied” by
the North, but they were not fooled.41 This shows that the Southern newspapers believed all along
the North was not fighting a war to bring the South back, but that their ultimate objective through
the Emancipation Proclamation was to destroy slavery. This view directly opposes Northern
newspapers, which claimed the ultimate objective of the Emancipation Proclamation was not
about ending slavery, but instead about bringing the South back into the Union.
Conclusion
There are two opposing views in newspapers during the Civil War regarding the
Emancipation Proclamation. The North viewed it as a military document designed to end the war
quickly, while the South saw it as an abolitionist document designed to end slavery. Stuck in the
middle of this debate were newspapers in the border states, picking either the Northern view or
Southern view. Northern newspapers used the document as a rallying point. It united the North as
newspapers strongly supported the Emancipation Proclamation and Lincoln. Meanwhile, Southern
newspapers used it as propaganda to also try and unite their efforts against the North in the war.
The response of newspapers in both the North and South to the Emancipation Proclamation
foreshadowed the mixed response toward African Americans that would trouble the United States
after the war was over. During the war it is unclear whether the Emancipation Proclamation had a
bigger impact militarily or as an abolitionist document. One thing is clear: the document had a
significant impact on the war as a unifying point for both the North and the South.
Notes
1. James McPherson, Ordeal By Fire: The Civil War and Reconstruction (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1982),
293-94.
2. Brayton Harris, Blue & Gray in Black & White: Newspapers in the Civil War (Washington: Brassey’s, 1999), ix.
3. William K. Klingaman, Abraham Lincoln and the Road to Emancipation: 1861−1865 (New York: Viking
Penguin, 2001), 196−98.
4. David Williams, The Civil War: A People’s History of Struggles for the Meaning of Freedom (New York: The
New Press, 2005), 357−60.
5. Darlene Clark Hine, William C. Hine, and Stanley Harrold, The African-American Odyssey: Combined Volume,
4th ed. (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2008), 273.
6. “The Emancipation Proclamation in Maine,” New York Herald-Tribune, September 25, 1862.
7. “Our Washington Letter. Conversational Topics-Serenade to the President-the Proclamation of Emancipation,”
Philadelphia Inquirer, September 24, 1862.
8. “Emancipation Proclamation,” Lowell Daily Citizen, September 23, 1862.
9. “The President’s Proclamation of Emancipation. Serenade in Honor of the Event,” New York Herald-Tribune,
September 25, 1862.
10. “Emancipation Proclamation,” Lowell Daily Citizen, September 23, 1862.
11. “Our Washington Letter. Conversational Topics-Serenade to the President-the Proclamation of Emancipation,”
Philadelphia Inquirer, September 24, 1862.
12. Ibid.
13. Ibid.
14. “The President’s Opinion of the Emancipation Proclamation - The Bane and the Antidote,” Plain Dealer,
September 27, 1862.
15. “The Emancipation Proclamation - The Last Card of the Abolition Programme,” New York Herald, January 3,
1863.
16. “Our Washington Letter. Conversational Topics-Serenade to the President-the Proclamation of Emancipation,”
Philadelphia Inquirer, September 24, 1862.
17. Hine, 271−72.
18. “Our Washington Letter. Conversational Topics-Serenade to the President-the Proclamation of Emancipation,”
Philadelphia Inquirer, September 24, 1862.
19. “President’s; Proclamation; Slaves; Emancipation; Government,” Farmer’s Cabinet, September 25, 1862.
20. Ibid.
21. “The Emancipation Proclamation - The Last Card of the Abolition Programme,” New York Herald, January 3,
1863.
22. “President’s; Proclamation; Slaves; Emancipation; Government,” Farmer’s Cabinet, September 25, 1862.
23. “Emancipation Proclamation,” Lowell Daily Citizen, September 23, 1862.
24. Stephanie M.H. Camp, Closer to Freedom: Enslaved Women & Everyday Resistance in the Plantation South
(Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press, 2004), 101.
25. “The Effects of the Proclamation - Freed Negroes Coming Into Our Lines at Newbern, North Carolina,”
Harper’s Weekly, February 21, 1863.
26. McPherson, 153.
27. “The Emancipation Proclamation,” Liberator, October 24, 1862.
28. Ibid.
29. “Louisville; Democrat; President’s; Emancipation Proclamation; Union; President,” New Hampshire Patriot,
October 8, 1862.
30. McPherson, 150.
31. “Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation,” Chattanooga Daily Rebel, October 2, 1862.
32. “Interesting from Tennessee Hon. T. A. R. Nelson Abandons Unionism and Denounces Lincoln’s Emancipation
Proclamation,” Richmond Enquirer, October 9, 1862.
33. “The Emancipation Proclamation,” Macon Telegraph, October 2, 1862.
34. Ibid.
35. Ibid.
36. “The Emancipation Proclamation - McClellan Prohibits Its Discussion among His Soldiers - Lincoln’s Life
Unsafe in Washington,” Macon Telegraph, October 15, 1862.
37. Hine, 312.
38. “The Emancipation Proclamation,” Macon Telegraph, October 2, 1862.
39. “Chicago; Committee; Emancipation; Opposite; Memorial; Proclamation; Memorial,” Alexandria Gazette,
September 27, 1862.
40. “President Lincoln; Proclamation; Chicago; Instrument; Emancipation; Arguments,” Alexandria Gazette,
September 26, 1862.
41. “Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation,” Chattanooga Daily Rebel, October 2, 1862.
Bibliography
Camp, Stephanie M.H. Closer to Freedom: Enslaved Women & Everyday Resistance in the
Plantation South. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press, 2004.
“Chicago; Committee; Emancipation; Opposite; Memorial; Proclamation; Memorial.”
Alexandria Gazette. September 27, 1862, 4.
“Emancipation Proclamation.” Lowell Daily Citizen. September 23, 1862, 2.
Harris, Brayton. Blue & Gray in Black & White: Newspapers in the Civil War. Washington:
Brassey’s, 1999.
Hine, Darlene Clark, William C. Hine, and Stanley Harrold. The African-American
Odyssey: Combined Volume. 4th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2008.
“Interesting from Tennessee Hon. T. A. R. Nelson Abandons Unionism and Denounces
Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation.” Richmond Enquirer. October 9, 1862, 1.
Klingaman, William K. Abraham Lincoln and the Road to Emancipation: 1861-1865. New York:
Viking Penguin, 2001.
“Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation.” Chattanooga Daily Rebel. October 2, 1862, 2.
“Louisville; Democrat; President’s; Emancipation Proclamation; Union; President.” New
Hampshire Patriot. October 8, 1862, 2.
McPherson, James M. Ordeal By Fire: The Civil War and Reconstruction. New York: Alfred A.
Knopf, 1982.
“Our Washington Letter. Conversational Topics-Serenade to the President-the Proclamation of
Emancipation.” Philadelphia Inquirer. September 24, 1862, 1.
“President Lincoln; Proclamation; Chicago; Instrument; Emancipation; Arguments.”
Alexandria Gazette. September 26, 1862, 1.
“President’s; Proclamation; Slaves; Emancipation; Government.” Farmer’s Cabinet. September
25, 1862, 2.
“The Effects of the Proclamation - Freed Negroes Coming Into Our Lines at Newbern, North
Carolina.” Harper’s Weekly. February 21, 1863, 116.
“The Emancipation Proclamation.” Liberator. October 24, 1862, 171.
“The Emancipation Proclamation.” Macon Telegraph. October 2, 1862, 2.
“The Emancipation Proclamation in Maine.” New York Herald-Tribune. September 25, 1862, 5.
“The Emancipation Proclamation - McClellan Prohibits Its Discussion among His Soldiers Lincoln’s Life Unsafe in Washington.” Macon Telegraph. October 15, 1862, 4.
“The Emancipation Proclamation - The Last Card of the Abolition Programme.” New York
Herald. January 3, 1863, 4.
“The President’s Opinion of the Emancipation Proclamation - The Bane and the Antidote.” Plain
Dealer. September 27, 1862, 2.
“The President’s Proclamation of Emancipation. Serenade in Honor of the Event.” New York
Herald-Tribune. September 25, 1862, 5.
Williams, David. The Civil War: A People’s History of Struggles for the Meaning of
Freedom. New York: The New Press, 2005.