* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Dividing and Unifying: The Response to the Emancipation Proclamation, by Aaron Raschke
Origins of the American Civil War wikipedia , lookup
South Carolina in the American Civil War wikipedia , lookup
Commemoration of the American Civil War on postage stamps wikipedia , lookup
Slavery in the United States wikipedia , lookup
Tennessee in the American Civil War wikipedia , lookup
Freedmen's Colony of Roanoke Island wikipedia , lookup
Mississippi in the American Civil War wikipedia , lookup
Reconstruction era wikipedia , lookup
Military history of African Americans in the American Civil War wikipedia , lookup
United States presidential election, 1860 wikipedia , lookup
Border states (American Civil War) wikipedia , lookup
Union (American Civil War) wikipedia , lookup
Issues of the American Civil War wikipedia , lookup
Hampton Roads Conference wikipedia , lookup
United Kingdom and the American Civil War wikipedia , lookup
Frémont Emancipation wikipedia , lookup
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 regionsthe 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 Northrural 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 Republicansit 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.