Presentation today i have not provided you with adequate evidence to support this claim. The evidence is the book. An added reason for you to buy it. So, in conclusion, there are two things i want for you, two things i hope you will get from reading my book. One, i hope and i rather expect that, after its a continuation of project that began with the previous book, which is the one that we mentioned, on Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass. The book prompted me to think anew about the process which slavery was destroyed during the civil war and ended up producing the book. You mentioned Freedom National last year, and this book is part of the continuing rethinking of that process of slaverys destruction. Revised things in the lincolndouglass book and this book revises some things in the Freedom National book. What they all seem to be doing is et complicating the usual sie narrative of how slavery was destroyed. There are several of them out there. The most familiar one is lincoln freed all the slaves with the stroke of his pen by signing the emancipation proclamation. The more elaborate version of that would say that lincoln understood from the time he was a young man it was his destiny to free the slaves, but knew that he had too wait until the American People came up to his advanced thinking about it. Another one that has become surprisingly popular recently is that slavery was abolished during the civil war inadvent temperaturely. Inned a inadvertently, and the most popular one among historians and most influenced me is what i now call the skinner box theory. Emancipation can be understood as through the prims of behavioral psychology as the simple stimulus response argument, that slaves run to union lines, thats the stimulus. When enough of them run to union lines the stimulus is overwhelming and lincoln is forced to sign the emancipation proclamation. Ive been saying they tend to be ahistorical, and dont appreciate the impact of the Antislavery Movement in formulating an antislavery agenda that was politically viable and constitutionally reasonable to americans who believed, almost all of the americans who believed that the constitution did not allow the federal government to go into the south and abolish slavery in a state where it already existed. That being the case, how can you have a national antislavery politics . Beginning in the 1830s, abolitionists begin to think about this problem and formulate a series of policies they believe will surround the south with what they call a cordon of freedom. They will suppress slavery on the high seas, they will review enforcement of the fugitive slave clause in the north and the northern states will be free states, abolish slavery in washington, dc, ban slavery from the territories. Wont allow new slaves to come into the union. They will not support slaveholders whose slaves rebel on the high seas and the like, and they believed they could surround the slave states with what they call the cordon of freedom, until in the popular metaphor of the day, slavery is like a scorpion surrounded by fire would ultimately sting itself to death. If they would restart the process of state by state abolition, at the time folks thought the process would continue. It had been abolished state by state in the immediate aftermath, and people assumed the next state will be delware and maryland and the like, but it didnt. Its been 5560 years since the state abolished slavery, and the point of to the scorpions sting was to restart the process, and so that is what im trying to do. Im trying to say, you cant understand what goes on during the civil war unless you understand the project that Abraham Lincoln and the republicans came into the war, intending to do. What he meant when he said he wanted to put slavery on a course of ultimate extinction. What we do know is in the first months of the war lincoln is attempting the board of states to emancipate through state action, and even in the midst of war, that doesnt i know you say that five states do that, but kentucky, for instance, does not. Delware does not. Even though you have very few enslaved people in delware, and so how likely this is counterfactual but im going to ask it how likely would it have been that slavery would have been extinguished that way, given that these states that absolutely are not willing to go in that direction. I dont know. Nobody knows because its if thing had been different, things would have been different. But the truth is that i9 dont think any interpretation of slaverys demise works without the war. The war changes everything. The war makes things possible. Right . I dont think the emancipation proclamation is capable without a war because its a war measure. I dont think slavery would have died on its own without a war. I dont believe that interpretation. I dont think the scorpions sting would have worked without a war. On the other hand, wars dont automatically lead to slaverys abolition. They never did in the past and theres no reason to think it would have during the civil war. Had it not been for the fact that republicans began implementing these two very different policies right from the start of the war. The one that were familiar with, military emancipation, slaves run to union lines and the union will emancipate them. Thats what armies have always done during wars. Happened in the american revolution, in the war of 1812, during the seminole war, and the unions started doing that early during the civil war, by the summer of 1861, its emancipating slaves coming into union lines. But its not universal. Not universal. Emancipation here and there. Thats right. Emancipation military emancipation initially implemented is more like the military emancipation from the revolution, from the war of 1812. Theyre following the practice. But you need to know thats what theyre doing. You cant just assume that the history of emancipation starts in 1861. It doesnt start in 1861. If you dont know the history. If you dont know how military emancipation has worked in the american past and americans were familiar with it. Joshua gidings, published a book on the seminole war in 1867, detailing the process by which the Union American forces in florida emancipated slaves in the late 1830s, during the the seminole war, and explained military emancipation. They have certain expectations slaves will run to union lines and respond similar to previous american wars and used the language and the justifications for military emancipation you hear military officers using during the seminole war, the laws of war allow this, they overrule state laws and such. And its helpful to know that because if you dont know the precedence and what happened prior, dont know the history, you wont even recognize what is going on. So, thats one of the things im trying to do here, is reconstruct the prehistory, the assumptions about emancipation going into the war, and that, as i say, is therefore, you can see, then, why in the spring of 186 2, when the second confiscation radically changes emans paying, and theyre going to adopt universal emancipation, theyve gone where else. Using military emancipation different from the way it had been used in the revolution and war of 1812. But theres criticism of lincoln at that time he is not really enforcing the second act. But he is enforcing it. That is seems to me inen incontro verted. Letters from lincoln to Benjamin Butler in new orleans, as soon as Congress Passes the second act. Get going. Consider them free. Why is the emancipation proclamation necessary if there is a second act. The second act in and of itself applies to slaves only in already occupied union lines, and also authorizes the president to issue a proclamation that will expand military emancipation to cover all areas in rebellion, and thats what he does. Lets turn to the whole issue of the republicans and the scorpion sting. Okay. That plan requires gradual emancipation, or at least the republicans are accepting gradual emancipation. Right. How much is that plan a product of republicans in general or just a small group of republicans . Because we know that there are abolitionists who certainly would never approve of a gradual plan. I would back off from that statement. I think theres a tendency in the literature to confuse immediateism, which is an argument that the process of emancipation must begin immediately with a call for immediate uncompensated emaps emancipation. If you start with that garrison knows thed constitution does nt allow the federal government to do it. So he is either an idiot which he isnt. Didnt want to abide by the constitution at all. But he sees it as a pro slavery document. And, therefore, he has two different ways of getting around it. In the middle of the 1830s, his newspaper proposes a series of constitutional amendments to surround the south with a cordon of freedom. A constitutional amendment to abolish slavery in washington, dc to repeal the fugitive slave clause. The difference between garrison and most abolitionists is most abolitionists believe that can be done by mere congressional statute. The constitution does allow those. But its the same project. It just thinks it has to be done by constitutional amendment. Its odd to think he is proposing a series of constitutional amendments to do this bullet but not a 13th 13th amendment no amendment to absolutely abolish slavery. The way theyre thinking is the states will do this on their own when, once theyre surrounded, it will dawn on them, theyve lost the kind of artificial support that the federal government gives them by constantly allowing them to expand, by protecting slavery and protecting runaway slaves and that sort of thing. The assumption all along is that the thing that is going to have to happen is to get the federal government to position itself so the states will resume the process of abolishing slavery on their own. So i dont think even abolitionists assumed that if that is right, if douglass if garrison is saying, this is the way its going to be done, then not withstanding his rhetorical commitment to immediate uncompensated emancipation, he understands in practice its not going to happen that way. Its going to happen a different way. You know Frederick Douglass very well. Would he also be within that camp . Frederick douglass occupies in a way, the other constitutional extreme of the abolitionist movement. There are two extremes, constitutional extremes. Oner is the garrison stream that says the constitution is a hopelessly pro slavery document and doesnt allow the federal government to do anything at all. At the other extreme theres this very small but Ingenious Group of people who make the argument that the constitution is in fact an antislavery document, that it does in fact empower the federal government to do what most people in the United States, including most abolitionists, believe it has the power to do. So if you start from the assumption its an antislavery document, which is where Frederick Douglass ended up, then anything short of that is a failure on the part of the government. So he is very critical of the republicans and the Lincoln Administration during the war because he believes that the constitution in fact does allow them to do more than they are doing. But very few people in fact id be surprised if you could find any historian today who believes that the constitution was an antislavery document. The dispute is really, how proslavery was it . Right. So, it does tell you how in the middle of the 19th century the political position you take always depends on a constitutional interpretation. Its what they call constitutionalism. Given this plan of strangulation, are we to assume the Southern States were correct in their assessment, that they were in danger and they were at least they had an argument for cessation. One of the consequences of assuming emancipation starts in 1861 it makes cessation inexplicable, an historical reaction to noon existent threat. But if in fact the republicans are continue with this policy of surrounding the south, the evidence is quite clear thats how republicans were talking and thats how secession yates secessionists are saying theyre going to surrounds us like a scorpion until it kills itself. Theyre not going to come here. Theyre going to surround us. So everyone understand the terms of the debate and leave because they wouldnt accord with the freedom. They believed that their future depended on expansion. And in some ways we talk about the civil war as a war over what kind of a union the United States was going to be in. Was it going to be a union with slavery or withoutm6k slavery, t also a war over what kind of empire the United States would be. Waffles it going to be an was it going to be an empire based on free labor or slave labor . And theyre all assuming operating from more or less imperial assumeses in the sense they assume they need to and can expand, and if youre going stop us from expanding open up the flood gates to fugitive slaves by refusing to return them and youre going to drop an antislavery citadel between sucking up fugitive slaves and refusing to return them, youre threatening us. Well have to pill back from the border states and the border states will lose interest and slavery and theyll go. And despite it is certainly true that kentucky and delware hold out in ways that nobody expected. On the other hand, by the end of the civil war, five states apolish slavery. Maryland abolishes slavery, louisiana, tennessee, missouri, and arkansas, abolish slavery. Now, if one of the problems with the usual interpretations that focus so exclusively on military emancipation than the emancipation proclamation, and ignore this other policy, the one that caused the war to begin with, is thats have no use for the 13th amendment no explanation for why a 13th 13th amendment is necessary. If you believe, as i do i think increasingly historians are coming to realize that emancipation wasnt enough, which is what lincoln was saying all along. What does it take to get a 13th named to get any constitutional amendment ratified . 500,000 slaves are emaps pate bid the civil war, by the time of the war, but the number of slavessed freed isnt help inflame getting a constitutional amendment passed. What you northeast is states you need three fourths of the states to ratify. There youre not even close to having an amendment ratified that will abolish slavery. But over the course of the war, West Virginia secedes from virginia and is admitted only after it is required to abolish slavery as a condition. Two more free states are admitted to the union, and after intense pressure by lincoln, after the emancipation proclamation, beginning especially in july of 1863, using the emancipation proclamation as what he calls a lever on the states and by january of 1865 when congress get the amendment out to the states for ratification, the balance of power between free and slave states has shifted dramatically and there are now 26 free states and 10 slave states. One more state abolishes slavery and youre 27 to 9 and thats youre threequarters. In that sense its the cordon of freedom policy, the policy to get the states to abolish slavery that is absolutely critical to completing the process of slavery destruction. The plan is based on damage done to states economically. Right . You hem them in. Yes. They cant expand. Right. Cant grow economically. Right. Are we doing a disservice to this whole idea by forgetting that slavery is more than an Economic Institution . Delware certainly is not benefiting much from slavery i said in my last book the runs were naive about the economic weakness of slavery. That it was actually much stronger. I dont think the kind of people who make arguments about the weakness of slavery are or a slave power conspiracy, and these arguments are held up as moral less robust, but the truth is that the people who make one of those arguments are most likely to make the other arguments as well. So, slavery is wrong because its economically backward, because it generates a slave power, and because it is brutal and inhuman to slaves so theyre not mutually exclusive arguments. Theyre part of a series of arguments people have against slavery. But theres an incentive to keep people enslaved. Its a social institution as well. And so thats not changing. And so why wouldnt they still hold on to it might not be the pillar of the economy, but it would still i agree. I agree. Without a war i cant imagine slavery having been abolished. I think this to me is the great tragedy of the civil war, not[z that it was pointless but that it was necessary. I cant think of any other way it could have been done there is an argument out there that slavery would have died anyway, and people still say that. They say it on the the daily show, but i dont see it. I dont see it. So, if this is a republican plan, and the south decides to secede because they realize they were in big trouble since the Republican Party is in power. Did it really matter who was elected president as long as that person was a republican . Is it about the Republican Party, or is it still about lincoln . Its about both, i think. I think its about both. Lincoln is a republican. Lincoln is nothing if not a party guy. He is a moderate a moderate republican. There are more conservative republicans and more radical republicans, but one thing that struck me, and republicans divide on a lot of different issues that were familiar with in the civil war that are not related to slavery. They divide on the homestead bill, on the taxation issue and the Financial Issues and divide on the Pacific Railroad act. They and those things get passed through coalitions of northern democrats and republicans. On emancipation issues, on every issue that emans every time emancipation comes up or slavery come ups the votesvirtually unanimous. Republicans are looking for the ground on which all republicans can stand, and its remarkable series of unanimous votes from the first of the war to the end, on washington, dc emancipation, on slavery in the territories, on the slave trade treaty the fumingsive slave law, the first and second act, the revision of the military orders and the like. Every time it comes up theyre unanimous, and its impossible for me to imagine in those circumstances that lincoln is going to step outside of that. No matter how moderate or radical or conservative he is theres a discipline in that party on the issue of slavery because thats their issue. And lincoln is committed to the party. And hell say, you know, if it had been me i would have preferred that the washington, d. C. Emancipation bill maybe would have been more gradual. But this is the way its being done and im going to sign the bill. And radicals will say, had it been up to me there would have been no compensation in this bill but this is what the party wants and this is what were all going to vote for. Theyre going to maintain their unity on that, and they do. So, lincoln is important because he is the very effective war leader and a very effective holding enough democrats in the war coalition, and he does certain things that i dont think we fully appreciate. For example, its lincoln starting in july of 1863 who begins to pressure those states to get slavery abolished. And he starts writing a series of letters to the governors of kentucky and tennessee and last, gift this done, gift this done, get this done. He dont know how to force them because he still doesnt think the congress can say, you must abolish slavery. So, by the end not even to a seceded state . Doesnt even believe he can do that to a seceded state. So what he ends up with by late 1863 is, in his frustration, is i figured it out. Every state that comes back into the union must endorse all the laws and proclamations that have been passed in the years since they left the union, and that would include the act. That policy exists for three weeks. c c is it because he doesc not have to say anything . He is not involved with the passagec of the 13th amendment and until the second time. I know thec answer to that. And tell president s cohabitc in any constitutional role in the amendment process. But he does tu involved and that is unusual it is an involved. c and nobody knew untilc the end of that debate that the democrats would have enough to stop that. Vote in one of the houses and that stopped it in junec june 1864. And after the Republican Party commits itselfc to that in june in itsc convention where he is nominated than says i supportc. Host to talk just a moment how differentc that was from the perspective tiand southerners. Pushing one of the things i would like youc to speak of is the consensus in the south. Thatc everyone is on board from what is happening from the slaveholders. Is thatc the case that they have so much power people are not questioning . That is a tough ques ion. There is a lot of division over secession but that does notc mean you are antislaveryc or you dont accept the argument. The points i tried to make i o if you want an understanding with the conflict over slavery youc need to know what slavery is because you need to know what the debatg. 11bujjju like candid is crucial you will understand americans are property ghts and human beings so that is what differentiates from other forms of inequalityc like the patriarchal subordination or indenturedc servitude or ppk and to have a particular resonancec and the debate between antislavery northerners and southerners is in those terms. c if there is a constitutional right of property than the federalc government cannot constitutionally abolish slaveryc in washington d. C. Or preventing me to recapture by property or prevent me from moving c moving into the territories. If your the antislavery republican you will sayc it does not refer to slaves as property but persons held in servicec and does so deliberatelyxd because the founders did not want the concept of pro e qe and man in the constitution and coming off from those debates of thatc score is unambiguous and madison says we do not want the concept language we called them which to say in ties they eifo. Because slaves are ntc constitutional property as it is to the house. Host not constitutionally protectedc property but there are some certain rights the slaveholderc as otherwise they go to the north and capture . c if republicans are not united the general positionc is the fugitive slave claus does not have the enforcement provision and it isc up to the states it is a state institutionc the fugitive slave claus should not be used to empower the federal government toc empower the local Property Rights created by state or local lawsc in the south from those that dont recognize. Of the argument against a fugitive slave act is it overnment to do something that is none of its business. Dick cannot abolish slavery in the states on the of theirc hand or expect the federal government to protect your propertyc once it steps beyond the territorial limits because it has no constitutional stad ng. That debate is remarkable how clear headedc everyone is the old antislavery peoplec say note constitutional right to and repeated the to thec 1850s it is said in his arguments with stephen douglas. Thec only way u. K. And say in that case or justify Steven Douglas saysc principal and the right to have slays is to assumec property is the human being. c only a state can do that but the territory can because it is thec creature of the federal government demanded does not recognize Property Rightsc. Host if you are a state in secession how do jnt commit tree guest if you are a northerner. [laughter] ifc you are a southerner you are fighting for your independence. Host legally . In the north or thw south. Have you committed treason . c there is another phrase. Yes. And that is what you want me toc say. Host i have a followup. Guest i dislike the language i a understandc because i fully understand as far as northerners werec concerned they act on the assumption of an act of treason thereforec they try to apply it to the issues that is veryc important. I am not interested in saying . Mec that. Host but we do have laws and is that not treason . Wasc it for the colonists to declare their independence . c but since we are a nationc as the individual act they declare their independencec. Host i will let you slide on that one. [laughter] thec north is the number. So why cant theyc go after them . They do goc after them but they dont need the lot of trees and that will actually inhibit them becausec under the lot of trees in the principal theirc heirs cannot be tainted. c you cannot hold the property beyond the ofc lifetime of the trader. That is why as i said before it is easierc to free a slaving and confiscated a house because everyone recognizesc land is in immovable property once taken needs to be returned. c you can burn it down but if you use it then itc goes back to you the owner and less convicted of treason even then the errors get it. c you cannotc taint the descendants the fact they claim it doesnt apply to slaves because theyre not is irrelevant. That does not apply. It may applyc in the border states. It may apply in states that have notc committed treason. And we have to find us a different way. It isc a more complicated problem. Cl one of thec complications is there is more than one policy. c another is looking at the border states as evidencec to think of the emancipation because the a understand itc is of the to the differing to place. It is not clear. c so it is commonplace. c telling fremont in missouri to conform to the firsec confiscation act does that tell you that he is opposed . Not necessarily because it is ac border state nobody knows what you can do with the of border states he already issued the order to emancipate thec slaves. Host thatd is interesting to the proclamationc, that actors allowing the enslaved men who are still enslaved, toc allow them to invest in to the army. c , that is very much against what the local people want but they are getting away with that. c how was that possible . c it is very controversial. c but that is not quite true. c that it did not technically applied inc practice you can see slaves being freed out all the time butc technically the proclamation openedc to blacks soldiers and very quickly the unionc army is set up recruitment camps in maryland and kentucky causingc all sorts of havoc against the intense oppositionc with the slaveholders and politiciany and the party from those statesc to detonate virtual with in places like kentucky wherec they are fighting with Union Soldiers fromc misery or michigan or misery because the union is explicitly trying toc destroy ian undermine sleepily by actively recruiting to promise em aq 9jez return. Host absolutely. I will ask one last before we open to the audience. Defyingc citizenship. Guest i can. [laughter] all i can tell you is it isc crucial, a crucial part of the debatec and in the sense not an issue until slavery becomes an issue because thec prospect of the emancipation and raises citizenship for manyc americans of what does it mean to be a citizen . The 11tp amendment decemberc 1865, 1866 the first Civil Rights Act to declare the blacks as citizensc that they could have the same privileges. Host but it has to bec supplemented. Guest but it follows the attorney generals order fromc late 1862 that the decision was invalid. c but that may not hold so they turn thatc into in amendment but then as we know the Southern States endc up narrowing that down and the Supreme Court narrows that down. Emancipationc provokes a century of struggle over what it meansc and all i canc say is the struggle over what it meansufx with the prospect ofc the emancipation. Host if you have a question now please go to the microp ne. Make your question brief please. Noc statements and that the professor makes his the answer even briefer. c [laughter] i will try c guest no. I dont think he thought that. He did not talkc much about political economy. He does set the fewc speeches of superiority over slave labor but his partner once pointed out;h is conception of free labor than good to be moral rather than economic. If anything hec believes slavery is so economically powerful it has to be stopped by allc legislative means but he is not like william sewardc and he makes the complete arguments that slavery is doomed oncec it will die of its own accord because it is not economically feasible. c there is some of the indications he believes thatc early on slavery should be allowed to die a natural death. The 100 yourc statement is a passing offhand remark sayingc i suppose is slavery were to diec in the most peaceful or gradual way imaginable it mayc take 100 years the next sentence is but god works in his own way says or indicates it wouldc not have been that way. Leeway he imposes a timetablec is from the delaware proposalc from a gradual emancipation as little as five yearsc the maximum 35 years but that is the closestc. Host 35 years is a long time. Guest yes. c it would be young people born the day after the law passed. c the both of them in that program are freed immwdiately but he prefers but he cannot dictate the terms. c it is up to a state. Guest of moquette the proclamation ofcp reconstructt gradual emancipationc but a system something that is occurring over a periodc of time with the ability of the slaveholderc and the enslaved person to work their way into the apprenticeshipsc. It is ac mistake to say he abandoned the ideac but the statebystate is not the same military emancipation is immediqtet uncompensated always. c and then arkansas does that immediately. Hgc writes notes to people to say you misunderstand me. c i thought that is what would work best but if you want it do that. Butc even beyond abolition to stillc be suggesting. c to get louisiana to abolish slavery does not have thec constitutional power but he suggests one way is to free themc with the apprentice ship system. That is what most white people went throughc because he stays there and you are required byc law. The difference is if you make it legal you arec requiring of master to educate the slaves the apprentice in thaf way. But that is not what happened. Because actually won the warc is over africanamerican soldiers are apprenticed andc they have one heck of a time to get their children back. Guest i agree. c part of the intent because he knows military emancipation will not doc it. In fact, they dont do it that way and he abandonr0the proposal within a few months because he is veryc frustrated because he has not gotten a single state to do it by december in louisiana isc particularly frustrating to him. Way. We have to take him at his word with myc commitment is to just want you to abolish slavery. If you dont it immediately then do it immediately. c i am a volunteer here at the society. The Southern Statesc were standing up for the own states rights but then they come together for the higher orderc called a confederacy. Did they undergo some change in their own understanding of statesc rights and it does that factor into the emancipation with the civilc war . That is a big andc complicated question. Is the famous paradox of thec principle of states rights morse highly centralized than anythingc the 19th century have seen up to that point. c on the other hand, it is important to understand people inc the 19th century believe this states rights. c and they believe the federal government that the government should goc into the northern states that the federal governmentc should pass the federal slave code but states rights vo what . To our benefit and thec federal government to do it . Nobody goesc to war for states rights in the abstract. c it is to make people property and keep them that way. c c i am no historian but i recently read a diary of a young woman namedc josie who lived in rome bowling greenc kentucky your father was a congressman and he was slaveholders but hisc belief and withc the United States of america should be developingrhdc to go to the south american type to be boringc with the situation to be green and. How many people have thatc belief . Is that a big group for a little group . c in the end the rebels burned their property and they were treatedc for the for this belief. c the further north you go in the Southern States more likely you will hear thatc concept. The corsair to ac border