Abraham Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation

1150 Words 5 Pages
When Abraham Lincoln proposed the Emancipation Proclamation, it was more of a noble act of morality than it was a violation of the states rights. Lincoln knew that the best course of action, and the choice with the most moral standing, was freeing the slaves. Or, at least, clearing the way for the emancipation process to begin and gradually abolishing slavery. Even though the reason that Lincoln proposed the proclamation was to get states to return to the Union, he still believed that slavery was wrong. Lincoln knew that it was an evil idea and wanted to make sure that it did not spread any more than it already has. The Proclamation was not a violation of the states rights; slavery was already a violation of morality that all people should …show more content…
Even just the definition alone shows the immorality of this practice. Slavery is not only the result of racism; it also helps fuel racism. It leaves a legacy of discrimination and disadvantage, uses force or threat of force on other human beings, perpetuates the abuse of children, and also increases human unhappiness (¨Ethics and Slavery¨). Slavery is pure evil and no human being should ever have to endure anything like it. Lincoln, although he was a racist and a slave-owner at one point, was well aware of how evil of a concept it is. He thought that he should try and end it from a moral standpoint and also to get on God 's good side. Even though it was something that he was for and used, he knew that abolition was the best option and the one that was right to fight for. Everybody is created equal, so everybody should be treated that way. Lincoln was even quoted with saying, “...All men are created equal, let it be as nearly reachable as we can.” (“Emancipation Proclamation…”). This being said, Abraham Lincoln did not intend for the Proclamation to completely end slavery; he just wanted gradual emancipation. Thus, the document did not actually end slavery. It just changed the basis of the Civil War (“Primary Documents”). It is thought by many that the document was a violation of states rights. This, however, is not accurate. The document was written because, for moral …show more content…
Southerners felt threatened by the Proclamation because it promised to free the slaves in states that did not rejoin the Union. Thus, there have also been paintings that were shown to depict Lincoln as the Devil with the Proclamation at his feet (“The Emancipation Proclamation”). Not all of the responses were negative,though. The Northern abolitionists felt it was a good start to abolitionism. African Americans also had an opinion on it. Frederick Douglass, a black abolitionist, wrote, “To fight against slavery is but a half-hearted business. War for the destruction of liberty must be met with war for the destruction of slavery,” (“Emancipation Proclamation…”). This was saying that in order to have liberty and freedom, one must not have slavery. Those two things are complete opposites and do not go together, at all. The proclamation affected not only the North and SOuth involvement; it affected foreign involvement, also. Britain, along with other nations, considered being on the Confederate side, except they were against slavery. They ended up supporting the Proclamation instead (“The Emancipation Proclamation”). The Emancipation Proclamation was made for the better, despite the varying arguments. Lincoln had good intentions when proposing it and to him, even though it could have lost him the support of the South for the next election, he went through with it anyway.
In spite

Related Documents