States and confederate territory. He argues that emancipation was a process achieved gradually rather than happening just by the emancipation proclamation. Professor taylor we will be focusing on the central question and Civil War History about why this war that starts over the issue of slavery, but becomes the war that ends slavery in the United States. There is nothing inevitable about the outcome, and this image, i want to start with, sums up the transformation of the civil war works in American Life about his elegantly about as eloquently than what i will say today. It this is an africanamerican boy who was enslaved. He ends the war as a drummer board. We will talk about black service on wednesday, but we are going to be thinking about why this war was the most significant social revolution and American Life. Slavery is abolished and 4 million men, women and children go free. Because it is not obvious in 1861 that this war is eventually going to end in slavery destruction. It succession happens, and seven is from the beginning of the war are fighting to preserve the institution of slavery, that does not mean that most northerners go to war to set out to end slavery. May be 10 , 15 of northern soldiers are out and out abolitionist and from the beginning, really believed they are fighting in an abolitionist war. You have to think of the context of the war after the defeat of the revolutions in europe anything 48, and looks like liberal republicanism is on the retreat worldwide, and americans see themselves as representatives of selfgovernment in a world full of monarchies. They see what the stakes are. If this rebellion and allowed to succeed and destroy the United States, that selfgovernment and small republicanism are going to be discredited worldwide. There is an idea about fidelity to the government of the founders and wanting to preserve the government drop fourth of the revolution. Those are the ideas that animate most northerners when they start fighting, but eventually, a mastication becomes a tactic union uses to win the war, and eventually, abolitionist become an end in themselves. Why does this happen . Why during in the civil war for the first time in American History is the federal government take the side of slaves versus slaveholder . That is the question looking at today. First, we need to understand in answering that question is what is radical about the election of Abraham Lincoln . It has become fashionable and that it has become fashionable in scholarly circles to point out the limits of lincolns antislavery and to point at his fundamental moderation and conservatism. There is a lot to be said in that sense can make and does not take office in 1861 dead set on this 1861 dead set on abolishing slavery. Is baseline position is preventing slavery further spread slaverys further spread. You can go too far the other way, right . And in underestimating the radicalism of Abraham Lincoln being in the white house and Republican Party being in power. What is radical about having Abraham Lincoln and the republicans in power . They are talking about killing slavery. They are simply talking about killing favoring gradually killing slavery gradually. Republicans believed that if slavery spread was restricted, slavery was not allowed to move into the territories, it would eventually weather and i if it was kept in the states where it already existed in 1861. This is a premise united most southerners and northern republicans. One of the reason southerners push as hard as they do for slaverys expansion into kansas, and one of the reasons there is so much postslavery support, like going into cuba or the caribbean and annexing land in there, is southerners see slavery needs to expand, or the it will die. They agree with republicans on this idea. Republicans are saying to anyone wholl listen in 1860 and 1861 we want to kill slavery, but not overnight. We are going to put in place a set of policies whose curative effect over a long period of time lincoln when asked how long will it take for slavery to die said probably a century. To have anyone saying that in the white house on power is around the thing in American History. With the possible exception of John Quincy Adams, the first president who, given the right set of circumstances, if things broke right, might take Decisive Action against slavery. I bring up John Quincy Adams because he is a relevant to what lincoln does during the war, and using his president ial war powers to forge a policy of military emancipation. Because the idea that a president in the event of a war over slavery, and a rebellion of the Southern States might have the 42 emancipate slaves as a military measure predates the civil war. It is not a new idea. It is articulated by John Quincy Adams on a number of occasions. He is defeated in 1828 in his bid for reelection by andrew jackson. He returns to the house of representatives and had a long career and the house of representatives. He became something of a continual born in the side of proslavery interests. If you remember, he let the fight against the gag rule, that prevented antislavery petitions in congress. The other think quincy adams did was respond to seven threats about succession in war over issues of slavery by articulating a doctrine that said it would fit it would be within the power of commanderinchief to emancipate slaves. He had a number of historical precedents to point to. You could point to the british during the american revolution. And you could point to the United States 1830s where officials offered freedom to the slaves of seminole indians that would come within u. S. Lines. You can look to president s in the greek and roman world. The point is, the idea that the president might have the power to emancipate in wartime is not new in 1861, and it rests on this idea that wartime and internal rebellion presents a novel situation in which the president , by virtue of this status as commanderinchief could call on war powers and do things that are extra constitutional that in peace time would be illegal. For because of the emergency of the war and other rebellion, are allowable. How many people bought this idea precivil war . I have no idea. It is impossible to know. It is for sure that leading republicans, charles sumner, william seward, and others this idea was accepted within republican circles. There is really not a whole lot of agreement precivil war of what the rules of warfare are. But the point is, you have some high end republicans that accept this premise going into the civil war. As a matter of fact, right after fort sumter, lincoln is in the white house. And antislavery senator waves around a copy of John Quincy Adams speech and calls to on the spot. Ok. Now lincoln, we know, in various ways during the succession crisis proves willing to compromise on slavery to a point. Hes not willing to compromise on his opposition to the extension of slavery into the territories, but he is willing to make gestures to proslavery sentiment in hopes of avoiding war. One of those gestures is his support for the amendment. It was a perspective a minute that got through congress which would have put it in the constitution that congress, the federal government, like the power to abolish slavery in the states where it already existed. In lincolns bind, it wouldnt have done anything. But lincoln is willing to compromise early in the war if it means avoiding war or ending the war early. One of the measures of radicalism of these four years is the first 13 commitment that goes through the state for ratification would have made slavery perpetual in the states where it are the existed, unless they even the pit of their own volition. So you see a Seismic Shift in those four years. With the word began, there was a Large Coalition of northerners and make it very clear that they see the potential for the war to turn into an eye slavery war, and if it does, they would withdraw their support. In july of 1861, there is a resolution passed in congress saying the war is being caught to preserve the union, not to destroy slavery. Johnson is andrew johnson, the only senator from a slave state to remain in congress after his state succeeded. So, early in the war, northerners affirm their food desire to remain this a war solely about union their desire to remain that this was a were solely about union. Emancipation proclamation had not happened yet. It does not come until the nature, but military emancipation stressing a lot earlier than historians gave it credit for. We talked about an interest in monroe were general Benjamin Butler, prewar democrat, not a particularly skilled general, pointed his position because he was a democrat, and lincoln was to build support against democrats in the war effort, he is faced it is a novel situation. There were three enslaved men come into union lines. A colonel comes the next day seeking their return. Butler announces a policy that brands these three enslaved men that come into union lines as contraband of war. It was well articulated it was wellestablished in the laws of warfare that a nation at war had the ability and could legally seize enemy property in service of the wherever. It is not clear how that law applied to slaves. Recognized in the constitution as both persons and property. What butler does is he plays with this legal claim that slaveowners make to property in the enslaved human beings they own to say this as contraband of war, and were seizing it. We are seizing the contraband of war like any other kind of confederate material they may see. He refuses to return these men. Annexing he does is right back to washington until secretary of war Simon Cameron what he has done and asked for instructions. When the captain met a few days later, there is no record of lincoln making a positive statement on this policy, which lincoln jokingly called butlers fugitive slave law. That is the only thing we have about making commenting on this directly, but he did not resend it. He loves his policy to stand. What happens from may forward is there is a flood of runaway slaves coming into butlers lines in virginia. And this is happening elsewhere. One of the things slaves understand across the south is whatever might be set in the north about the conservative purposes of the war, and this war is only about union, they understand that if these troops in blue marching south are fighting slaveholders, these troops in blue are their allies, and good things could happen in future lines of this army wearing blue. Slaves run away at the first opportunity and continuing make an issue of themselves. They continue to be an issue throughout the summer. Around the same time during the resolution is getting through congress, the First Military action of the war happens, the first battle of bull run. About 4000 casualties. That is the skirmish as compared to what came later, but it is the first real significant bloodshed of the war. In the aftermath of bull run, the debate over union policy towards slavery takes a bit of a shift. With significant bloodshed, you see for the first time, northerners who had been somewhat conservative on the slavery question willing to go a bit further in making the war about slavery than they had been prior to the outbreak of hostilities. In august of 1861, you get this first confiscation act, which legalizes the confiscation of slaves whose masters allow them to work to be used in service to the confederate war effort. That means if they are working on confederate fortifications, digging trenches, if they are serving as cooks, and they come into union lines, they can legally be confiscated. Now, that policy was a radical break with federal policy towards slavery in and of itself. But behind the scenes, Simon Cameron was still engaging in correspondence with Benjamin Butler over this issue of fugitives continually coming into butlers lines. Butlers question had evolved. Ok, i got the authority not to return slaves. Now, what is their future condition . They no longer owe service. They are no longer owned by their former masters. Does that mean they are free . Are they of the federal government . What is the policy here . And cameron writes back and tells butler not to make any distinctions about whether or not that slaves were coming into his lines were enslaved to loyal or disloyal masters. He tells butler to keep records of these slaves that come in to his lines so that any loyal slave owners who lose their does slaves through this policy may become the fate of postwar. But he does not save you need to figure out who is playing a loyal master versus a disloyal master because plays because slaves quickly figure out the dynamic of union antislavery policy. And all slave sex and the union lines are saying they are fleeing disloyal masters and all slaves fleeing to the union lines are saying they are fleeing disloyal masters. What cameron is doing is introducing a doctrine of emancipation taking the refugees coming into the lines and are not returning them. You are that allowed to entice slaves to run away. This is not a proclamation of general emancipation. That comes later. This is military emancipation that is happening from august of 1861 forward. Lincoln does hang back from an open embrace. This does not mean the emancipation proclamation just formalized policy already in place. The emancipation proclamation still is a big shift in union wartime policy toward slavery. Here is an open embrace a military emancipation as a means of winning the war. Right . In the interim between august 1861 period in september of 1862, when he announces the emancipation proclamation, he is criticized up and down by leading radical republicans, abolitionists, black leaders like Frederick Douglass, for not doing enough to emancipate and make more on slavery as a means of defeating the confederacy. One thing about this emancipation policy it really hinges on this communication between butler will very soon you generals and federal officials, and it is happening on the front lines. So, if you are not privy to this communication, or if you are on the front lines watching this happen, it is easy to miss how emancipation earlier in the war is part of the union were efforts. Ok . Lincoln does some things from 1861 into 1862 that suggest conservatism on the slavery question. Two of lincolns generals, fremont anything 61 and david hunter on the midatlantic coast of South Carolina and georgia in 1862 for claim emancipation in their does department and we can resend it both orders. That is often taken as lincolns conservatism on the slavery question. Black leaders, abolitionists Oliver Lincoln for doing this. Why is emancipation is happening at union army camps, wise lincoln resending these orders . He did not believe military commanders have the authority to issue an order that had the effect of determining the longterm ownership of property. Longterm, whether or not Property Rights would be voided. Congress might have had authority in the commanderinchief might have that authority, but a general, john see free modern david hunter, did not have that authority john c. Fremont and david hunter, did not have that authority. For one thing, he has to keep his coalition together. In the aftermath of fort sumter, lincoln enjoys broad support from basically all segments of northern society. Democrats are on board and republicans are on board with the war effort. But again, quickly, it becomes clear that there are many particularly democrats are republican to start saying, if this were becomes about antislavery, i will withdraw my support from the war. I no longer stand behind the government. There is a phrase that encapsulates this viewpoint. These were northerners fighting for the union as it was in the constitution as it is. They want to restore the prewar union. They are ok with that aim of federal war policy, but they do not want to see the war used to create a fundamental constitutional revolution in American Life. Lincoln has to worry about these people who are for the unit as it was, and a constitution as is. One of the things that happens in 1862 moving for, as a union comes to embrace method patient has wartime policy, the democratic opposition to the northern war effort becomes much louder. Most grammatically, symbolized by the draft rise in new york of 1863. But there is a widespread opposition to lincoln as emancipation more and more becomes policy. Lincoln also has to worry about the border states. There were four slave states in the United States that remain within United States do not succeed with the confederacy maryland, missouri, kentucky, and delaware. And lincoln has to worry that if he takes too big of an action against slavery directly, one or more of these states might secede and the confederacy. And lincoln kentucky in maryland if they were to go for the confederacy, prove hugely logistically challenging for the union war effort. D. C. Would fall overnight, maryland went into the confederacy in all likelihood. This is a very significant worry for lincoln. Some of his critics said he was so worried about being president of kentucky that he did not have time to be president of the United States because he was so worried about how his policies would play in kentucky for the first several years of the war. The border states are a concern for lincoln as well. Another, i think, another factor that precluded some americans from seeing how quickly the war the union was imris emancipation was the fact that the policy announced by Simon Cameron and his correspondence from Benjamin Butler was coming from d. C. It was brittle over the United States. Cameron does not have it was spread all over the United States. Officials in d. C. Dont have control over people in the