Drag to reposition your photo

T Lee Horne III

Male. Lives in Pensacola, Florida, United States. Is single.

About Me

I retired when I turned 50 years old. I am working again at 72 years old.

I started back to work at A... View More

Liked Pages1

34 Likes

CSA II: The New Confederate States of America

Company, Organization, or Institution

T Lee Horne III

Report this User

Status Update

T Lee Horne III

April 12, 2026 10:47 pm

THE CONSTITUTIONAL PERSPECTIVE OF THE SOUTHERN STATES Chet McAteer · Lincoln’s “Negro War” How Northern Legislatures, Newspapers, and Everyday Soldiers Branded the Emancipation Proclamation a Barbaro... View MoreTHE CONSTITUTIONAL PERSPECTIVE OF THE SOUTHERN STATES Chet McAteer · Lincoln’s “Negro War” How Northern Legislatures, Newspapers, and Everyday Soldiers Branded the Emancipation Proclamation a Barbarous Usurpation and a Betrayal of the Union Cause When Abraham Lincoln issued the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation in September 1862 and the final version on January 1, 1863, he transformed a war to preserve the Union into what many in the North openly called a “Negro war.” Far from uniting the loyal states behind a moral crusade, the edict sparked immediate and visceral outrage across Northern legislatures, Democratic strongholds, major newspapers, and the ranks of ordinary soldiers and citizens who had enlisted to save the country, not to free enslaved people. This was not the isolated ranting of fringe Copperheads; it was the mainstream reaction of Northern Democrats, State assemblies, editors, and fighting men who saw Lincoln’s move as Unconstitutional overreach, a dangerous incitement to racial upheaval, and a cynical betrayal that would prolong the slaughter for an alien cause. The backlash was so intense that it fueled massive Democratic gains in the 1862 midterm elections, handed governorships and legislative majorities to the opposition in key states, and left Union armies seething with disgust and desertion threats. Northern State legislatures, particularly in the Midwest and mid-Atlantic heartland, led the charge with formal resolutions and fiery denunciations that framed the Proclamation as an assault on white supremacy, Constitutional order, and the original war aims. In Lincoln’s own home State of Illinois, Democratic legislators unleashed scathing attacks. One declared in open session that “Our country is becoming almost a nation of widows and orphans who, if the President’s Emancipation Proclamation be carried into effect, will become prey to the lusts of freed negroes who will overrun our country.” The broader Democratic caucus condemned the decree as “Unconstitutional, contrary to the rules and usages of civilized warfare, calculated to bring shame, disgrace and eternal infamy upon the hitherto unsullied flag of the Republic,” vowing that “Illinois… will protest against any war which has for its object the execution or enforcement of said Proclamation.” These were not backroom grumblings but official legislative protests that reflected the will of voters who had just handed Democrats control of the statehouse. Pennsylvania’s Democratic convention echoed the racial panic, resolving that “This is a government of White men, and was established exclusively for the White race” and that any policy to “turn loose the slaves of the Southern States to overrun the North, and to enter into competition with the White laboring masses, thus degrading their manhood by placing them on an equality with negroes, is insulting to our race, and meets our most emphatic and unqualified condemnation.” In New York, newly inaugurated Democratic Governor Horatio Seymour branded the Proclamation a “bloody, barbarous, revolutionary, and Unconstitutional scheme” in his inaugural address, while New Jersey’s Democratic Governor Joel Parker warned it would trigger mass slave uprisings and “mass slaughters by Southern Whites.” Even Unionist voices in border-adjacent Northern circles, like Kentucky’s legislature (heavily influenced by Northern sentiment), signaled strong opposition, with one ally fretting that “the Legislature will take strong action against the Proclamation, and even against the Administration.” These State-level revolts were so threatening that Illinois Governor Richard Yates eventually prorogued the legislature to block further anti-war measures, and Indiana’s Oliver Morton resorted to emergency funding to bypass Democratic majorities, clear evidence that the Proclamation had ignited a political firestorm in the North’s own capitals. Northern newspapers, the daily voice of everyday citizens, amplified the legislative fury with editorials that mocked the Proclamation as both tyrannical and toothless. The New York Herald, under James Gordon Bennett, thundered that “While the Proclamation leaves slavery untouched where his decree can be enforced, he emancipates slaves where his decree cannot be enforced… As a war measure it is unnecessary, unwise, ill-timed, impracticable, outside the Constitution and full of mischief.” The New York World ridiculed Lincoln’s drafting: “The President has purposely made the Proclamation inoperative in all places where we have gained a military footing which makes the slaves accessible… The example of the accessible parts of Louisiana, Tennessee, and Virginia renders the proclamation not merely futile, but ridiculous.” Pennsylvania’s pro-Democrat Harrisburg Patriot and Union called it a “cold-blooded invitation to insurrection and butchery” because it promised the federal government would “do no act or acts to repress rebellion” among slaves. Connecticut’s New Haven Register warned voters that supporting Republicans meant mortgaging “every dollar’s worth of property for the Abolitionist Disunionists to carry on this Negro war, and flood the whole North…with lazy, thieving Negroes to be supported by charity and the taxes of our people.” Even the Washington National Intelligencer expressed “suspicion” that the document was a hollow gesture designed to expose Abolitionist folly, predicting it would prove “equally void of practical effect” as earlier failed attempts. These were not fringe sheets but influential dailies shaping public opinion in the Union’s largest cities and industrial centers. The outrage extended far beyond politicians and editors to everyday Northern citizens and the soldiers in the ranks, men who had volunteered to crush rebellion, not to wage an “abolition war.” Michigan troops, representative of Midwestern farm boys and factory workers, poured out their disgust in letters and diaries. Private Benjamin B. Brock of the 26th Michigan Infantry wrote home on February 3, 1863: “i am A stiff dimocrat and i never Will vote a nother RepuBlican in my life a gain… I did not think When i Enlisted that i was a goin to fight for the negro But when i get hear i found out that i Was agoin to fight i jest turned my coat.” Another Michigan soldier, Edward Taylor, railed against “the treachery of fanaticism” and the “snake-haired fury” of Abolition, insisting “let the white men do the fiting” and that “the negro [came] first, our country next.” Charles H. Church of the 3rd Michigan Volunteers lamented, “The principles that we have to fight for now are to black for anyone to come out for…but we poor cuses do not want to stay out here in the field as targets & instruments for the Black Abolition party & that rotten congress any longer than possible.” Rohloff C. Hacker reported that “the Presidents ‘emancipation proclamation’ is unqualifiedly condemned here by the Soldier – allmost all discountenance it & as untimely & useless.” James Sligh of the Michigan Engineers and Mechanics observed soldiers so “disgusted” they felt like “about facing and clearing out the ranks.” A New York soldier, Chauncey B. Welton, captured the common sentiment: “we don’t think mutch of [the Emancipation Proclamation] hear in the army for we did not enlist to fight for the negro and I can tell you that we neer shall or many of us anywhow no never.” Even high-ranking Northern officers reflected the mood; General Fitz-John Porter noted the Proclamation caused “disgust, discontent, and expressions of disloyalty… amounting… to insubordination” among troops tired of fighting for anything but Union restoration, while General George B. McClellan privately called it “inaugurating servile war… changing our free institutions into a despotism.” This groundswell of Northern opposition, articulated in statehouses, newsrooms, and army camps alike, revealed a profound truth: for millions of loyal Unionists, Lincoln’s Proclamation was not a beacon of freedom but a reckless provocation that threatened to turn the conflict into a racial nightmare while undermining the very cause they had bled for. It contributed directly to Republican electoral disasters in 1862 and forced Lincoln to navigate constant political headwinds from his own side of the Mason-Dixon line. The North did not embrace Emancipation; it recoiled from it, exposing the Proclamation as a divisive gamble rather than a unifying triumph. In Liberty and Eternal Vigilance, C.M.McAteer January 19, 2001 Updated 2023 References Domestic Reaction to the Emancipation Proclamation, Mr. Lincoln and Freedom (mrlincolnandfreedom.org). Reactions to the Emancipation Proclamation, Civil War Months (civilwarmonths.com, January 7, 2023). David P. Hopkins, Jr., “The Course Pursued by the President”: Michigan Soldiers Respond to the Emancipation Proclamation (1863), Eras Journal (monash.edu PDF). In Their Own Words: Northern Soldiers on the Emancipation Proclamation (historical letter collections cited in r/CIVILWAR and Gilder Lehrman archives). New York Herald, New York World, Harrisburg Patriot and Union, New Haven Register editorials (September 1862–February 1863). Illinois and Pennsylvania Democratic legislative resolutions and convention proceedings (1862–1863). Additional primary sources from National Archives, Library of Congress Chronicling America newspapers, and soldier diaries in Auburn University and Chicago Public Library Civil War collections. James McPherson and Allen C. Guelzo analyses of Northern political and military reactions (cross-referenced in multiple scholarly summaries).

View Less

Be the first person to like this.

Recent Photos

View More Photos