Lincoln and the Thirteenth Amendment

[Christian]

Hi everyone,

First off, I'm a new member and it's great to see a group dedicated to discussing Lincoln's life and legacy. I'm looking forward to getting involved in future discussions (and, thanks to Roger, I learned something within the first day or two of joining this board: the reason Lincoln left his dog in Illinois when he went to D.C., something that always perplexed me).

I wanted to tell you about my new book, Lincoln and the Thirteenth Amendment (Southern Illinois University Press, 2015). Below is some information put together by my press to tell you a little more about it and I thought it would be of interest to the members of this group. If any of you happen to read it, I hope you enjoy it as much as I enjoyed spending time with Lincoln during the course of writing it.

Long before the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln recognized the challenge American slavery posed to the ideals of the Declaration of Independence. A constitutional amendment would be the ideal solution to ending slavery, yet the idea of such an amendment conflicted with several of Lincoln’s long-held positions. In this study, Christian G. Samito examines how Lincoln’s opposition to amending the United States Constitution shaped his political views before he became president, and how constitutional arguments overcame Lincoln’s objections, turning him into a supporter of the Thirteenth Amendment by 1864. For most of his political career, Samito shows, Lincoln opposed changing the Constitution, even to overturn Supreme Court rulings with which he disagreed. Well into his presidency, he argued that emancipation should take place only on the state level because the federal government had no jurisdiction to control slavery in the states. Between January 1863 and mid-1864, however, Lincoln came to support a constitutional amendment to abolish slavery because it worked within the constitutional structure and preserved key components of American constitutionalism in the face of Radical Republican schemes. Samito relates how Lincoln made the amendment an issue in his 1864 reelection campaign, chronicles lobbying efforts and the final vote in the House on the amendment resolution, and interrogates various charges of corruption and back-room deals. He also considers the Thirteenth Amendment in the context of the Hampton Roads conference, Lincoln’s own thoughts on the meaning of the amendment, and the impact of Lincoln’s assassination on the reading of the amendment. Samito provides the authoritative historical treatment of a story so compelling it was recently dramatized in the movie Lincoln. Closing with a lively discussion that applies the Thirteenth Amendment to current events, this concise yet comprehensive volume demonstrates how the constitutional change Lincoln helped bring about continues to be relevant today.

“Samito gives us the fullest account we have of Lincoln’s gradual embrace of a constitutional amendment abolishing slavery. The author understands, as few others have, Lincoln’s longstanding commitment to state-by-state abolition and how it evolved into a more radical push for the constitutional destruction of slavery everywhere in the United States. It’s hard to believe that no such book has been published before!”—James Oakes, author of Freedom National: The Destruction of Slavery in the United States

“The Thirteenth Amendment is the ‘liberty amendment’ of the Constitution we most take for granted. In this book, Christian Samito tells the fascinating and largely forgotten story of how Abraham Lincoln’s thinking about slavery and the Constitution gradually evolved to converge with the views of more radical Republicans. In this way, Lincoln’s evolution tracked that of the nation he led. Those who were intrigued by Spielberg’s film Lincoln will want to read what really happened.”—Randy E. Barnett, Director of the Georgetown Center for the Constitution

“Steven Spielberg’s Lincoln opened everyone’s eyes to the great significance of the Thirteenth Amendment. Now, in Lincoln and the Thirteenth Amendment, Christian G. Samito provides the backstory and analysis of Lincoln’s real role in the adoption of the amendment. In this brief, highly readable volume, Samito deftly weaves two central strands of Civil War history: Lincoln’s presidential leadership and the Constitution’s transformation. Readers looking for an overview of the path of emancipation during the Civil War will be well served by this superb book.”—Michael Vorenberg, author of Final Freedom: The Civil War, the Abolition of Slavery, and the Thirteenth Amendment

“Christian G. Samito sheds new light on how Lincoln came to support the Thirteenth Amendment and on the intricate maneuvers necessary to obtain its approval by Congress and ratification by the states. This is an essential account of Lincoln’s developing views and his political strategy as he moved from opposing the spread of slavery to securing its complete abolition.”—George Rutherglen, John Barbee Minor Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of Virginia.

[Gene C]

Welcome!
What importance, if any, do you feel Lincoln's christian values made in his decision regarding the Thirteenth Amendment, or do you feel for him it was more of a legal decision?

[Christian]

As to the amendment specifically, I think his decisions were primarily political/legal/constitutional. On the broader issue of slavery, however, one can get a glimpse into his thoughts on this issue by looking at the second half of his second inaugural address (and elsewhere).

[STS Lincolnite]

Christian, welcome to the group. When I arrived home from work yesterday, your book was waiting for me in the mail. I am very much looking forward to reading it! I think the thirteenth amendment was one of Lincoln's great legacies but is often overlooked in that regard. It obviously was very important to him personally as evidenced by the fact that, although unnecessary Constitutionally, he felt inclined to sign (and did sign) the joint resolution of House and Senate for the 13th amendment. I look forward to learning more about that detail and others in your book.

[Christian]

Excellent! I hope you enjoy it. I agree with you regarding Lincoln's signing it even though a presidential signature wasn't necessary - and I think his gratification really comes through in his "King’s cure for all the evils" speech (and what he meant by that pun).

[LincolnMan]

This is an important book. Welcome and thank you for sharing with us.

[Eva Elisabeth]

(10-06-2015 02:14 PM)Christian Wrote:  As to the amendment specifically, I think his decisions were primarily political/legal/constitutional. On the broader issue of slavery, however, one can get a glimpse into his thoughts on this issue by looking at the second half of his second inaugural address (and elsewhere).

Welcome again, Christian. I put your book on my wishlist.
Of course you are the expert, and this not to cast doubts on your judgement but trying to understand:

Was it possible to make this decision uninfluenced by Christian values? If not his Christian/moral/ethical values, what would (his [???]) entirely political motives have been?
And I would think from the legal point of view there was no need to ammend the constitution - and do constitutions and laws have to be just/fair from the mere legal point of view? From the Christian/moral/ethical point of view certainly. Was there an absolute need to amend the constitution other than for humanity? (Do you know what I mean? Non-Christian/humanity motives I would think are such as ending the three-fifths rule to count the slave population for representation in the House of Representatives, or economical or other advantages, and I just can't see such motives making Lincoln's decision.)

[STS Lincolnite]

(10-07-2015 06:53 AM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:  

(10-06-2015 02:14 PM)Christian Wrote:  As to the amendment specifically, I think his decisions were primarily political/legal/constitutional. On the broader issue of slavery, however, one can get a glimpse into his thoughts on this issue by looking at the second half of his second inaugural address (and elsewhere).

Welcome again, Christian. I put your book on my wishlist.
Of course you are the expert, and this not to cast doubts on your judgement but trying to understand:

Was it possible to make this decision uninfluenced by Christian values? If not his Christian/moral/ethical values, what would (his [???]) entirely political motives have been?
And I would think from the legal point of view there was no need to ammend the constitution - and do constitutions and laws have to be just/fair from the mere legal point of view? From the Christian/moral/ethical point of view certainly. Was there an absolute need to amend the constitution other than for humanity? (Do you know what I mean? Non-Christian/humanity motives I would think are such as ending the three-fifths rule to count the slave population for representation in the House of Representatives, or economical or other advantages, and I just can't see such motives making Lincoln's decision.)

Eva, I know you were asking this question of Christian, but I hope you don't mind me sharing some of my thoughts here. I agree with Christian that the 13th amendment was political/legal/constiutional in nature (though it was certainly informed or influenced by a moral underpinning).

The reason I say this is as follows. I don't think Lincoln intended the 13th amendment as a "morality" document, because he felt the "morality" document had already been issued and existed. That document was the Declartion of Independence. It promised equality and liberty for all - for him that statement already promised the eradication of slavery from a moral perspective. But that promise had not been fulfilled in practice because of the legal and political climate of the time which allowed slavery's continued existence. His thinking was that the 13th amendment (a legal/political/constitutional doucment) was a legal extension of the Declaration (the morality doucment) or, worded in another way, a practical legal/political/constitutional implementation of the "values" espoused in the Declaration and therein promised to the American people. With the passage of the 13th amendment there could be no legal arugument in that regard and now the promise made in the Declaration was fulfilled (al least in regards to peoples of color - for women, we still had a ways to go) and was enforceable.

As far as the necessity of the amendment to the Constituition, I think Lincoln felt it absolutely necessary and I agree. If not for the 13th amendment, the morality question would have been moot. Here it was the legal question that must be addressed so that the moral equality set forth in the Declaration could be enforced. Though many would have seen slavery as morally wrong (as we certainly do now), I have no doubt slavery would have continued in the United States without the 13th amendment. The Union would have been restored as it was (slavery intact), with the question of legality of slavery left to each individual state. The Emancipation Proclamation would no longer be in effect with the end of the war and the "new birth of freedom" Lincoln spoke of in his remarks at Gettysburg would have been dead in practice, a return to the pre-war state of affairs - with the moral imperitve still present in the Declaration of Indpendence, but dormant.

I certainly don't think the moral implications of slavery, freedom, and liberty can be separted from the policy foundation, but the document itself was more legal/political/constitutional in nature.

This thread is getting me even more anxious to read Christian's book!!

[Eva Elisabeth]

Thanks, Scott - of course your input is most welcome!!!

I think the Southern point of view was that "equality and liberty for all" meant citizens only, which the slaves were not, but property (and Jefferson was said to have intended "the pursuit of happiness" meaning "property"). Nor did the amendment make them equal citizens with the right to vote.

Is the decision what "all" means now a legal or a Christian/ethical one? Is it possible to make this decision free from taking any ethical "position"? I don't think it is.

[Christian]

Thanks so much - I hope you like it!

(10-06-2015 07:11 PM)LincolnMan Wrote:  This is an important book. Welcome and thank you for sharing with us.

---

I think Lincoln's values were inextricably linked with his feelings about the wrongness of slavery ("If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong.") so in that sense, yes. But Lincoln also wanted the amendment for other reasons - including, as Scott pointed out, to bring the ideals of the Declaration to fruition. Other reasons include eliminating the one issue divisive enough that it almost destroyed the Union, foreclosing some of the plans proposed by Radical Republicans that would have affected constitutional doctrines such as federalism and separation of powers, and even as part of his overall Reconstruction policy: by including states that had seceded in the ratification process, Lincoln not only remained intellectually consistent with his position that they had never left the Union, he also sought to reincorporate them into politics, and by giving Southern whites a voice in the process he hoped to ease their hostility to abolition.

(10-07-2015 09:24 AM)STS Lincolnite Wrote:  

(10-07-2015 06:53 AM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:  

(10-06-2015 02:14 PM)Christian Wrote:  As to the amendment specifically, I think his decisions were primarily political/legal/constitutional. On the broader issue of slavery, however, one can get a glimpse into his thoughts on this issue by looking at the second half of his second inaugural address (and elsewhere).

Welcome again, Christian. I put your book on my wishlist.
Of course you are the expert, and this not to cast doubts on your judgement but trying to understand:

Was it possible to make this decision uninfluenced by Christian values? If not his Christian/moral/ethical values, what would (his [???]) entirely political motives have been?
And I would think from the legal point of view there was no need to ammend the constitution - and do constitutions and laws have to be just/fair from the mere legal point of view? From the Christian/moral/ethical point of view certainly. Was there an absolute need to amend the constitution other than for humanity? (Do you know what I mean? Non-Christian/humanity motives I would think are such as ending the three-fifths rule to count the slave population for representation in the House of Representatives, or economical or other advantages, and I just can't see such motives making Lincoln's decision.)

Eva, I know you were asking this question of Christian, but I hope you don't mind me sharing some of my thoughts here. I agree with Christian that the 13th amendment was political/legal/constiutional in nature (though it was certainly informed or influenced by a moral underpinning).

The reason I say this is as follows. I don't think Lincoln intended the 13th amendment as a "morality" document, because he felt the "morality" document had already been issued and existed. That document was the Declartion of Independence. It promised equality and liberty for all - for him that statement already promised the eradication of slavery from a moral perspective. But that promise had not been fulfilled in practice because of the legal and political climate of the time which allowed slavery's continued existence. His thinking was that the 13th amendment (a legal/political/constitutional doucment) was a legal extension of the Declaration (the morality doucment) or, worded in another way, a practical legal/political/constitutional implementation of the "values" espoused in the Declaration and therein promised to the American people. With the passage of the 13th amendment there could be no legal arugument in that regard and now the promise made in the Declaration was fulfilled (al least in regards to peoples of color - for women, we still had a ways to go) and was enforceable.

As far as the necessity of the amendment to the Constituition, I think Lincoln felt it absolutely necessary and I agree. If not for the 13th amendment, the morality question would have been moot. Here it was the legal question that must be addressed so that the moral equality set forth in the Declaration could be enforced. Though many would have seen slavery as morally wrong (as we certainly do now), I have no doubt slavery would have continued in the United States without the 13th amendment. The Union would have been restored as it was (slavery intact), with the question of legality of slavery left to each individual state. The Emancipation Proclamation would no longer be in effect with the end of the war and the "new birth of freedom" Lincoln spoke of in his remarks at Gettysburg would have been dead in practice, a return to the pre-war state of affairs - with the moral imperitve still present in the Declaration of Indpendence, but dormant.

I certainly don't think the moral implications of slavery, freedom, and liberty can be separted from the policy foundation, but the document itself was more legal/political/constitutional in nature.

This thread is getting me even more anxious to read Christian's book!!

[Eva Elisabeth]

Thanks again, Christian. I have another question - is there any halfways reliable estimation on the "northern" public opinion on the amendment? How many were in favor of this measure, and for what reasons? Regarding the Emancipation Proclamation AFAIK the majority just supported it as a strategy to win the war, and also Lincoln's reelection AFAIK had more to do with recent victories, war tiredness, and the subsequent hopes this was the best way to end the war soon, and less to do with interest in emancipation. AFAIK many still rather feared it.

[Christian]

It's impossible to give accurate numbers - we're used to being able to make good estimates nowadays thanks to polling but we don't have that sort of data for the 1860s. While the election of 1864 may not have been an explicit referendum on the amendment, it was clear where the two parties stood. Lincoln certainly made the amendment an issue in the election and watched congressional races with particular concern about obtaining enough votes to pass the amendment. He used developments in Maryland to make a number of public pronouncements about abolition of slavery. And, Lincoln and others called the results of the election a mandate to amend the Constitution and used it as such. I have a whole chapter giving a lot more detail on the amendment and the election of 1864.

(10-07-2015 05:31 PM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:  Thanks again, Christian. I have another question - is there any halfways reliable estimation on the "northern" public opinion on the amendment? How many were in favor of this measure, and for what reasons? Regarding the Emancipation Proclamation AFAIK the majority just supported it as a strategy to win the war, and also Lincoln's reelection AFAIK had more to do with recent victories, war tiredness, and the subsequent hopes this was the best way to end the war soon, and less to do with interest in emancipation. AFAIK many still rather feared it.

[Eva Elisabeth]

Thanks for your assessment, Christian!

[Christian]

My pleasure!!

(10-09-2015 07:11 AM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:  Thanks for your assessment, Christian!

[Eva Elisabeth]

I just (re-)read in a Lincoln biography that, despite Lincoln's victory in the 1884 election, it will remain speculation whether the voters were just against McClellan (and not subsequently for emancipation), or if they voted for emancipation. What do you think about this?