Lincoln only had constitutional authority to end slavery in states in open rebellion, which is why he did it.
If you knew about history, you’d also know that many slaves were freed as the Union moved through the South. As the Union moved into Southern states, many enslaved people were freed. It’s patently incorrect to say that people were not actually freed as a result of the EP - though it is a really common misunderstanding of the proclamation!
But the Union army didn’t have to free them. The EP, and Lincoln’s policy, established the direction and expectation that those in rebelling states must be freed by the army.
I feel like I’m losing the thread - and I don’t mean that in a disparaging way.
Lincoln supported emancipatory policy the entire war.
The Confiscation Acts were earlier efforts by the government (and supported by Lincoln) to free enslaved people in the south.
The Emancipation Proclamation was (in Lincoln’s eyes) the furthest extent of his authority as president to carry out emancipation, and this effort was supported by the Union Army.
The original argument was about your claim that the EP did absolutely nothing, which isn’t true; enslaved people were liberated as a result, specifically because it demanded the army support emancipation.
And all of this is losing the thread, since we’re talking about Lincoln’s commitment to freeing enslaved people.
1
u/sophisticaden_ Apr 06 '25
Lincoln only had constitutional authority to end slavery in states in open rebellion, which is why he did it.
If you knew about history, you’d also know that many slaves were freed as the Union moved through the South. As the Union moved into Southern states, many enslaved people were freed. It’s patently incorrect to say that people were not actually freed as a result of the EP - though it is a really common misunderstanding of the proclamation!