Lincoln's First 100 Days

[NYCGirl]

Good article from The New Yorker.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2009/04/jill-lepore-lincoln-one-hundred-days-emancipation-proclamation.html

Weary of the one-hundred-day-a-palooza? Not every span of one hundred days is as arbitrary as this one. On September 22, 1862, Lincoln signed a document called the Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, declaring that he would free every slave held in every Confederate state in exactly one hundred days, on New Year’s, 1863. That’s a long time to wait. And not everyone was sure the President would stand by his pledge. “The first of January is to be the most memorable day in American Annals,” answered Frederick Douglass. “But will that deed be done? Oh! That is the question.”

As soon as word got out, though, a crowd came to the White House and spontaneously serenaded the President. (The District of Columbia’s thirty-one thousand slaves had already been emancipated, by an act of Congress, in April.) Elsewhere, the response was mixed. The New York Times deemed the Preliminary Proclamation as important as the Constitution. The Richmond Examiner called it “the inauguration of a reign of hell upon earth!” Within days, the news made its way to slaves in the South. Isaac Lane took a newspaper from his master’s mailbox and read it aloud to every slave he could find. One hundred days? Not everyone was willing to wait that long. In October, slaves caught planning a rebellion in Culpeper, Virginia, were found to have in their possession newspapers in which the Proclamation had been printed; seventeen of those men were executed.

The Proclamation has not always been highly regarded; many historians, like many abolitionists, think Lincoln did too little, too late; some see granting freedom to the slaves in Confederate states a purely military—and, finally, a cynical—maneuver. Whatever it was, it wasn’t unimportant. As the historian John Hope Franklin once observed (in a chapter called “The Hundred Days”), the Preliminary Proclamation “transformed the war into a crusade against slavery.” And that’s what gave Lincoln so much trouble: not all of his supporters were interested in fighting a crusade against slavery. As autumn faded to winter, pressure mounted on the President to abandon his pledge. Maybe he wavered. Maybe he didn’t. “Fellow citizens, we cannot escape history,” Lincoln told Congress in December. “We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last, best, hope of earth.”

On Christmas Eve, day ninety-two, a worried Charles Sumner visited the White House. Was the President still planning on declaring an end to slavery, as promised? Lincoln reassured him: “He would not stop the Proclamation if he could, and he could not if he would.” On December 29th, Lincoln read a draft of the Proclamation to his Cabinet and he discussed it with them again, two days later. Cabinet members suggested an amendment, urging “those emancipated, to forbear from tumult.” This Lincoln did not add. But Salmon Chase, Secretary of the Treasury, suggested a new ending, which Lincoln did adopt: “I invoke the considerate judgment of mankind and the gracious favor of almighty God.”

MORE AT LINK

[Two Americas]

1. very fast

I do not see how Lincoln could have possibly achieved what he did any faster than he did. Nor is there any cause to think that Lincoln ever wavered. This was debated and resolved at the time. Lincoln consistently expressed opposition to slavery, consistently stated his understanding of what he could and could not do Constitutionally, consistently said that public opinion needed to shift, and consistently worked to shift public opinion. Now, all of that could have been seen as excuses, could have been seen as waffling - and there were those at the time who did see it that way. However, events proved Lincoln right, and there need be no more speculation about it in my opinion. Again and again and again throughout hos administration he made the decisions that led to Emancipation. That is not to say that "Lincoln freed the slaves" - rather, he did not block it from happening.


...

[cwcwmack]

2. President Lincoln

"steered INTO the skid"...

meaning once he'd started the Civil War, there was no going back.

He is well respected of course but controversial...

However... I can't help but think that he REALLY DIDN'T know what he was getting himself into. Remember this was the 1860's... no CNN or MSNBC and no TV's or radio. He thought that he'd send 10,000 soldiers into the South and round up some militia in the woods in 1861. It didn't exactly work that way.

[Two Americas]

6. now that is an excellent question

Did Lincoln know what he was getting himself into? I don't know that we are any better off with CNN or MSNBC, TV's or radio, though. Misinformation is as widely and quickly available as good information is, and much of our current crisis can be traced to misinformation, not the amount of information. Also, they did have relatively instantaneous communications with teletype then.

There were certainly many who thought it would be a matter of sending 10,000 soldiers into the South and round up some militia in the woods, and being done with the whole thing is 30 days or so. One Congressman predicted that he would be able to mop up all of the blood spilled in the coming conflict with his pocket handkerchief.

Tecumseh Sherman was an exception. He told people in the South, where he was teaching when the crisis arose, that they were dramatically under-estimating the prowess and resolve of the North. He told the people in the North that 500,000 troops and 4 years would be required to suppress the Confederacy (I think I am remembering those numbers accurately.)

I don't recall Lincoln making any statements like either of those. I wonder what he thought? No doubt he must have underestimated the scope of the conflict to come - just about everyone did. On the other hand, he was quick to expand, fund, and equip the army, so he was not denying the potential for a greater and longer conflict.

"Steered into the skid" - that is apt, I think. I like that.

Did Lincoln "start the Civil War?" I seem to remember some hotheads seizing federal installations and even opening fire on one.



...

[cwcwmack]

7. It's so nice...

conversing with someone with a knowledge of history...

Ft. Sumter... well, 127 US soldiers holed up in a fort and ignored the pleas of the SC government to leave for a few months. 3 Confederate officers met with the Sumter Commander Anderson and issued the final request. Anderson said no, the Rebels shelled the fort for 34 hours until the Union force surrendered.

No soldiers were killed in combat on either side.

The next day Lincoln called for 75,000 soldiers to "retake" Federal Property inside the Confederacy... in 90 days.

But it goes back farther than that... Lincoln was rattling his saber during the 1860 campaign. But when Lincoln was inaugurated, he pledged to the nation that he had no intent to end slavery where it existed and no intent to invade the Southern States

IMHO

Lincoln had a hard on for the South... he desired a forceful destruction of the South. He saw the South as these beastly slave owners who were making their living on the backs of living beings... and that was true. But here's where Lincoln royally screwed the pooch.

The original Confederacy was 7 states, South Carolina, Florida, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana and Texas.

These were not military "powerhouse" states... and Georgia and SC the only states with sizable mfg. capabilities.

After Lincoln was elected, the South sent delegates to discuss a peace deal with Lincoln. Lincoln refused to meet them.



After the Battle of Ft. Sumter (where there were ZERO casualties)

Lincoln jumped the shark.

Lincoln ordered states to assemble armies to attack the 7 Confederate States.

Virginia, Tennessee, North Carolina and Arkansas refused to attack their neighbors and seceded joining the Confederacy.

THOSE were the bad-ass states. Virginia and North Carolina were LOADED with seasoned US officers and sizeable populations.



If Lincoln used diplomacy... the groups of secessionist militia would have been rounded up within a few months probably with the help of people like General Robert E. Lee.
And some of you may tak offense to this... but this was Lincoln's "Bring it On", "Mission Accomplished", "With us or against us" clusterfucks all rolled into one.

Many scholars have postulated that Lincoln could have negotiated with the Confederacy, with a staggered emancipation over a 5 year period... allowing a change in infrastructure but maintained the Union.

Lincoln COULD HAVE ALLOWED the secession... and within 10 years all 7 states probably would have been back in the fold with emancipation policies without the whole 600,000 dead body thing.

Just IMHO...

[cwcwmack]

8. Oh, btw...

that 600,000 dead people thing... that's the equivalent of lining bodies up head to toe for 680 miles...

Was it worth it? I'm not sure. It accomplished the RIGHT end... but those were some STUPID means.

[cwcwmack]

9. and btw

that 600,000 deaths is like 140x the US casualties in Iraq

Or 2% of the entire US population in 1861...

[Two Americas]

10. more interesting questions

Yes, Lincoln most definitely tried to maneuver the rebels into firing the first shots, or back down. That was a strategic decision. And yes, the stand Lincoln took was to hold and defend federal property. Hard to see how either of those decisions can be faulted.

I don't see how Lincoln was rattling any sabers during the 1860 campaign. For one thing, there was no such thing as presidential campaigns then and Lincoln did not campaign. Stephen Douglas did, but that was the first time anyone had.

This is simply not true and cannot be supported, in my opinion- "Lincoln had a hard on for the South... he desired a forceful destruction of the South. He saw the South as these beastly slave owners who were making their living on the backs of living beings."

It is misleading to say that "the South sent delegates to discuss a peace deal with Lincoln. Lincoln refused to meet them."

Of course Lincoln could have negotiated with the Confederacy - if he were willing to recognize them. That was always their condition for negotiations. That contradicts your suggestion that "secessionist militia would have been rounded up within a few months" had Lincoln negotiated with the Confederacy.

Lincoln argued for and fought hard for a staggered emancipation and an avoidance of continuing hostilities. Even toward the end of the war, no one from the states in rebellion would consider it.


...

[Thothmes]

4. Without Abraham Lincoln at the head of an

800,000 man Army and 200,000 man Navy, slavery would have lasted a whole hell of a lot longer than it did.

[cwcwmack]

3. and to clarify...

this was NOT President Lincoln's first 100 days... but a specific 100 day period. A 100 day period in which the UNION suffered about 20,000 casualties.

[Two Americas]

5. of course

I am not even thinking about "the first 100 days."