The Fiery Trial_ Abraham Lincoln and American Slavery - Eric Foner [148]
Like the postponed order of July, the Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation Lincoln presented to the cabinet gave the Confederate states until January 1 to cease the rebellion or see their slaves freed. It again offered the alternative of gradual emancipation and endorsed the colonization of freed slaves, although at Seward’s insistence, Lincoln revised the language to make clear that this would proceed only with the consent of the colonists and of Central American governments. Unlike its predecessor, however, the new edict quoted the Article of War of March and the Second Confiscation Act of July and directed military personnel to enforce their provisions regarding fugitive slaves and emancipation (as Greeley had demanded). The draft Lincoln presented to the cabinet stated that the freedom of the slaves would be sustained during the term of “the present incumbent,” an odd formulation for someone normally so precise in the use of language. What would be the status of these persons after Lincoln left office? Seward and Chase objected to this phrase, and Lincoln dropped it. The final version promised that those to whom it applied would be “forever free.”59
With the exception of Montgomery Blair, the cabinet endorsed Lincoln’s decision. “It is a despotic act in the cause of the Union,” Welles wrote, “and I may add of freedom.” The proclamation, a correspondent of New York Democratic leader Samuel L. M. Barlow reported from Washington, portended a “Northern Revolution.” “No one here,” he added, “talks conservatism any longer, or speaks of the old Constitution.” Overall, however, the announcement on September 22, 1862, of the preliminary proclamation launched a two-pronged approach to ending slavery. It envisioned general emancipation in the rebel states, but adhered to the program of gradual, compensated emancipation for the border. To be sure, abolition in the Confederacy would fatally undermine slavery everywhere. Once slavery died in the Deep South, Harper’s Weekly pointed out, it was “utterly impossible that Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri can continue to maintain the institution.” Thus, wrote the Springfield Republican, the proclamation offered a glimpse of a “stirring” future, whose exact contours remained to be determined: “[A] great social, political, and financial revolution is to be effected in every rebellious state.”60
The Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, one newspaper noted, had been “somewhat anticipated, from recent rumors and unofficial reports.” Nonetheless, public reaction was intense. The announcement, the New York Tribune predicted, would “separate the sheep from the goats.” Certainly this seemed to be the case in the border states and occupied South, where it drove a wedge into the Unionist coalition. Thomas A. R. Nelson, a former Whig congressman and one of Tennessee’s most prominent Unionists, accused Lincoln of setting out to “destroy the last vestige of freedom among us,” and switched his allegiance to the Confederacy. Although the proclamation did not apply to the border states, the reaction there was mostly hostile. “The measure is wholly unwarrantable and wholly pernicious,” wrote the Louisville Journal. “Kentucky cannot and will not acquiesce in this measure. Never!” On the other hand, Missouri Radicals, who had been calling for emancipation as part of a battle with the Blairs for control of state politics, hailed the announcement. It was “the noblest act of the age on this continent,