Abraham Lincoln opposed slavery as strongly as any abolitionist: he said, "If slavery is not wrong, then nothing is wrong." But did he possess the power to end slavery?
The fundamental point of disagreement that Lincoln had with Stephen Douglas in their debates during the summer of 1858 stemmed from Douglas' refusal to admit that slavery was wrong, while Lincoln contended that slavery was inconsistent with the fundamental principle of the Declaration that "all men are created equal." Accordingly, Douglas believed that the white people of America were free to extend slavery to the territories of the United States, while Lincoln opposed the extension of slavery. In his "House Divided" speech Lincoln said:
Either the opponents of slavery, will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new – North as well as South.
Unlike the abolitionists, however, as a lawyer and a citizen who respected the rule of law Lincoln was forced to acknowledge that the Constitution countenanced slavery. Constitutional provisions such as the three-fifths clause, the fugitive slave clause, and the slave trade clause made it clear that slavery, in and of itself, was not unconstitutional, even though neither the word "slave" nor the word "slavery" appears in the Constitution itself. Lincoln remarked on how ashamed the framers seemed to be of slavery. In the Peoria Address Lincoln likened the framers' refusal to use the word "slavery" to a disease that the victim wishes to deny or conceal, but which he nevertheless longs to be free of:
Thus, the thing is hid away, in the constitution, just as an afflicted man hides away a wen or a cancer, which he dares not cut out at once, lest he bleed to death; with the promise, nevertheless, that the cutting may begin at the end of a given time.
However, Lincoln's election as President did not, in his view, give him the lawful power to end slavery. Moral considerations, even in as clear a case as slavery, are not enough to clothe the President or any other public official with legal power. But the southern states seceded and rebelled, and as a result President Lincoln justified emancipation as a necessary war measure, and he issued the Emancipation Proclamation under the power granted to him by the Constitution as Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States. Here is what the Emancipation Proclamation says:
I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, by virtue of the power in me vested as Commander-in-Chief, of the Army and Navy of the United States in time of actual armed rebellion against authority and government of the United States, and as a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said rebellion, do, on this first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty three, … order and declare that all persons held as slaves within said designated States, and parts of States, are, and henceforward shall be free ….
In one of his public letters to the American people (but addressed to a private individual, James Conkling) Lincoln explained why it had been lawful and constitutional for him to free the slaves in territory controlled by the confederacy:
You dislike the emancipation proclamation; and, perhaps, would have it retracted. You say it is unconstitutional – I think differently. I think the constitution invests its commander-in-chief, with the law of war, in time of war. The most that can be said, if so much, is, that slaves are property. Is there – has there ever been – any question that by the law of war, property, both of enemies and friends, may be taken when needed? And is it not needed whenever taking it, helps us, or hurts the enemy? Armies, the world over, destroy enemies' property when they can not use it; and even destroy their own to keep it from the enemy. Civilized belligerents do all in their power to help themselves, or hurt the enemy, except a few things regarded as barbarous or cruel. Among the exceptions are the massacre of vanquished foes, and non-combatants, male and female.
Note how Lincoln uses the arguments of slaveholders against their own position. They contend that slaves are property, and no more; Lincoln believes that they are people and that they are entitled to all of the fundamental rights which are guarantied by the Declaration of Independence, but he responds to the southerners that the property rights of belligerents in war can be extinguished.
A few months later, as it became clearer that the armed forces of the United States would prevail against the seccessionist armies, the people of the north began to contemplate what their society should be like when the war was over – in particular, how they should proceed with the reconstruction of the south and whether slavery would continue to exist. Lincoln proposed generous terms for the people of the south; for example, he said that a state government could reenter the Union as soon as 10 percent of its citizens took an oath to the United States and the Constitution. However, in his annual message to Congress on December 8, 1863, Lincoln said that he would also require former rebels to swear obedience to the Emancipation Proclamation as well. Lincoln argued:
But if it be proper to require, as a test of admission to the political body, an oath of allegiance to the Constitution of the United States, and to the Union under it, why also to the laws and proclamations in regard to slavery? Those laws and proclamations were enacted and put forth for the purpose of aiding in the suppression of the rebellion. To give them their fullest effect, there had to be a pledge for their maintenance. In my judgment they have aided, and will further aid, the cause for which they were intended. To now abandon them would be not only to relinquish a lever of power, but would also be a cruel and an astounding breach of faith. I may add at this point, that while I remain in my present position I shall not attempt to retract or modify the emancipation proclamation; nor shall I return to slavery any person who is free by the terms of that proclamation, or by any of the acts of Congress. For these and other reasons it is thought best that support of these measures shall be included in the oath; and it is believed the Executive may lawfully claim it in return for pardon and restoration of forfeited rights, which he has clear constitutional power to withhold altogether, or grant upon the terms which he shall deem wisest for the public interest. It should be observed, also, that this part of the oath is subject to the modifying and abrogating power of legislation and supreme judicial decision.
In the last sentence of the foregoing passage Lincoln acknowledged that this part of the oath was "subject to … legislation and supreme judicial decision." Lincoln recognized that the oath to support emancipation and even the Emancipation Proclamation itself could be repealed by Congress or invalidated by the courts. This is why he labored so vigorously for the adoption of the Thirteenth Amendment, which would change the Constitution and outlaw slavery forever. Lincoln made the adoption of this Amendment the centerpiece of the platform of the Republican Party in 1864. In that election he swept to victory and brought 37 new Republican congressmen into office with him. The Thirteenth Amendment was adopted by Congress on January 31, less than three months before the end of the Civil War and Lincoln's death. It provides:
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude … shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
{ 1 comment… read it below or add one }
But where in the Constitution does it say that states cannot secede? I believe that was a fundamental reason why the states other than South Carolina and Georgia joined the Confederacy.