Emma ScottMichael VorenbergHIST 1972Final Paper

Eminent Statesman, Antislavery Symbol: The Civil War Image of John Quincy Adams and His 1842 Speech

“Throughout the Civil War, in all of the numerous congressional debates over the constitutionality of military emancipation, one Republican Speech after another invoked

the canonical theorists of the law of nations. But more than Grotius and Vattel, John Quincy Adams was the name that came most often to Republican lips.”1

-James Oakes, Freedom National

One of the central questions for abolitionists at the start of the U.S. Civil War was

how to legally bring about the end of slavery. For many abolitionists, they found this

answer in the expansive presidential war powers that the Union had as a nation in a state

of war against the Confederacy. To emphasize this point, antislavery lawyers and

politicians often invoked a specific speech given by John Quincy Adams in 1842that

declared that the Constitution gave the U.S. government emancipatory power in “war,

whether servile, civil or foreign.”2 This speech was reprinted in newspapers, issued at the

beginning of pamphlets, and even used by prominent abolitionists in their call for

emancipation. While these documents directly connect Adams’ speech to the conflict at

hand, it is highly unlikely that Adams, giving the speech nearly 20 years earlier, was ever

imagining a war like the one that would begin in 1861. Further, emancipation during war is

a practice that has earlier historical precedent than Adams’ speech, both in the history of

1 Oakes, James, Freedom National: The Destruction of Slavery in the United States 1861-1865 (New York: W.W. Norton 2013), 41.2 Adams, John Quincy, “Speech given on House floor April 14 and 15 1842,” quoted in “The abolition of slavery; the right of the government under the war power,”(Boston: E.F. Walcutt 1861), 3.

the United States and the history of the world, so Adams cannot rightly be seen as the

originator of the idea. Still, abolitionists evidently found it necessary to include this

particular speech, at times simply reprinting it with no further explanation, analysis, or

context. His words were seen to have power nearly 20 years after they were spoken, and

the use of this speech was no doubt intentional.

In using the 1842 speech, abolitionists used the cultural and political legacy of John

Quincy Adams, as well as his 1842 speech to legitimize their cause. Adams, as both a

moderate politician and crusader against slave owner interests in congress, became an

increasingly heroic figure in the early days of the Civil War. He was an ideal icon for the

abolitionists. His speech in 1842 was most certainly distorted by abolitionists in 1861, but

the context was not so much important as the overall purpose of the speech. For

abolitionists, the speech was an example of a successful battle against slavery that invoked

both international law and historical precedent for emancipation within the United States.

Although there was backlash from Democratic politicians, the image of Adams carried

enough cultural weight to be used successfully by a wide variety of abolition interests.

As soon as Lincoln is elected, southern states began seceding from the Union. When

the Civil War began, questions started to arise on how much power the president and

United States army had in suppressing the south. Two problems arise. The first is the

question of how to treat the Confederacy as an enemy combatant. Lincoln refused to

recognize the seceded states as a legitimate nation, referring to them as a “belligerent” in a

state of rebellion against the Union. This issue is made increasingly complex at the wars’

beginning, namely because the Union uses the laws of war among nations as justifications

for actions against the Confederacy. For example, the Union launched a blockade against

Confederate ports, usually a tactic reserved for nations at war, but they still refused to

recognize full Confederate sovereignty. The question of Confederacy’s status as nation or

belligerent remains blurred throughout the war.3 A second problem concerns how much

power Lincoln and commanding officers have over the slaves of Confederates, and how

they can be dealt with in a state of war. The question of this power often revolved around

the power to seize property and emancipate slaves as a nation in a state of war.

Prominent abolitionists like William Whiting cited John Quincy Adams’ speech in

their justifications for emancipation under the war power. Whiting, a house representative

from Massachusetts, argued that the US Constitution granted full belligerent rights against

the seceded southern states in his work “The war powers of the President, and the

legislative powers of Congress in relation to rebellion, treason and slavery.”4 Included in

this expansive war power, Whiting argued, is the ability to confiscate property and

emancipate slaves. To justify this claim, he finds historical precedent in Adams’ speech.

Whiting includes Adams as an important figure in a group of “eminent statesmen” who

have validated “the belligerent right of emancipation against loyal an disloyal citizens.”5 Of

the evidence Whiting cites, he only names Adams directly in his quotations By doing so

Whiting made Adams the most important figure in his discussion of eminent statesmen and

their confirmation of the emancipatory war power.

Whiting also cited cases of international conflict in which emancipation had been

justified in times of war to strengthen his claim, and again invoked the power of John

3 Witt, John Fabian, Lincoln’s Code (New York: Free Press 2012), 144-146, 155-56.4 Whiting, William, “The war powers of the President, and the legislative powers of Congress in relation to rebellion, treason and slavery,” (Boston: John L. Shorey 1863). 39-46. Additions were made to the original published 1862. 5 Ibid 82, 74.

Quincy Adams’ speech. The author used the incidence of British emancipation of American

slaves in the War of 1812 as an example of one nation’s assertion of “the belligerent right of

liberating enemy's slaves, even if they were treated as private property.”6 Throughout the

earlier part of the 19th century Americans had largely honored a slaveholder’s right to

property in man during times of war. Historian John Fabian Witt explains that,

The United States stood in a different posture with respect to slavery than European states, for the United States was a slave society in a way that no European state was outside of it’s colonial possessions… American statesmen embraced tight limits on the destructive powers of warring armies; they embraced greater limits on war’s destruction than European jurists had ever thought possible.7

John Quincy Adams himself had defended this protection of property in former

slaveholders, even during times of war. When debating peace terms with Great Britain after

the War of 1812, he demanded that Britain compensate the owners of slaves that had been

freed during conflict, and that “private property is not the subject of lawful capture in war

upon the land.”8 This presented a potential weakness in Whiting’s use of Adams as a symbol

for wartime emancipation, but Whiting utilized this example as an opportunity to

invalidate prior actions by John Quincy Adams that are antithetical to the emancipatory

sentiments in his 1842 speech. He noted that in this case Adams acted “in obedience to

the instructions of the President and cabinet, and against his own opinions on the law of

nations, [as] is shown by his subsequent statement in Congress to that effect.”9 For Whiting,

the 1842 speech was seen to have the power to dispel any prior action that opposed the

emancipatory cause.

6 Ibid 70. 7 Witt, Lincolns Code, 77. 8 Adams, John Quincy, quoted in Lincoln’s Code, 77. 9 Whiting, “The war powers of the President,” 70.

Whiting’s work is one of many examples in which Adams’ speech was used to

achieve specific goals concerning emancipation. Whiting’s justification for emancipation is

motivated by his belief that the South is “an aristocratic government founded upon

Slavery.”10 In Whiting’s view, slave society has created a hierarchy in which people can vote

both for themselves and for property, which is antithetical to the ideals of the American

democratic republic.11 Other abolitionists had different motivations for destroying the slave

society of the south, like religious and moral imperative. Lewis Tappan reflected such

motivations in his two-part pamphlet urging for emancipation. Tappan was a famous

abolitionist who is remembered for his involvement in the Amistad case, in which he

helped illegally enslaved Africans – who rebelled against their captors in order to be free—

obtain attorneys to fight for their freedom. He operated from a strong sense of religious

conviction. In “The War: It’s Cause and It’s Remedy,” Tappan stated that the civil war, “ is a

result of sin,” specifically the sin of slavery, and emancipation is the only solution.12 While

Tappan’s motivations differ from Whiting’s, his justifications for emancipation do not.

Tappan’s validation of wartime emancipation invoked the law of nations through Adams’

1842 speech.

The second part of Tappan’s pamphlet, “Immediate Emancipation: The Only Wise

and Safe Mode,” relied solely on the speech of John Quincy Adams to argue for the legality

of emancipation in a state of war. The multi-page document dedicated just few paragraphs

to the lawfulness of emancipation under the war power, but Tappan argued that the

10 Ibid 3. 11 Whiting “The war powers of the President,” 3-9. 12 Tappan, Lewis, “The War: It’s Cause And its Remedy,” in Union Pamphlets of the Civil War, Vol. I, ed. Frank Freidel (Cambridge: Harvard University Press 1967), 102.

emancipatory power was proved “as clear as noon day” through Adams’ speech.13

Providing no other context than the date that the speech was given, Tappan went on to

quote the central statement of Adams speech that the president specifically had the power

to emancipate in times of war “whether servile, civil or foreign.” Tappan focused on the fact

that Adams invoked the law of nations, and that his speech warranted no refutation by

dissenting house members. In invoking Adams, Tappan was able to invoke international

law without going into a lengthy discussion. The symbol of Adams as a statesman proficient

in international law is enough to justify Tappan’s claims.

Other mass-distributed documents from 1861 also published Adams’ speech with

little or no context, speaking to the power that John Quincy Adams could convey as a

symbol in American politics and law. The Chicago Tribune published Adams’ speech twice

in the same year, each time emphasizing Adams’ statement of the presidential power to

emancipate and how emancipation during war is justified through the law of nations.14 The

fact that the speech came from John Quincy Adams was enough to publish the speech by

itself without any background given, but the lack of context also served another purpose.

The Tribune, like other pamphlets at the time, masked the specific context and motivations

behind Adams 1842 speech. Otherwise, they would have highlighted a different view of

emancipation than the one that was set forth by abolitionists in 1861.

13 Tappan, Lewis, “Immediate Emancipation: The Only Wise and Safe Mode,” in Union Pamphlets of the Civil War, Vol. I, ed. Frank Freidel (Cambridge: Harvard University Press 1967), 106. 14 “John Quincy Adams, On Slavery and Emancipation as Affected by War,” Chicago Tribune (Chicago, IL), May 23, 1861. “Opinions of John Quincy Adams: The War Power to Abolish Slavery.” Chicago Tribune (Chicago, IL), September 21, 1861.

Abolitionists took Adams’ speech out of its historical context in order to suit their

own arguments for emancipation. An important element in the 1842 speech lies in Adams

reference to emancipatory war power being lawful in times of “civil” war. Adams’ speech

does confirm the war powers of commanders to emancipate slaves “by the laws of war…

whether servile, civil or foreign,” as I have preciously mentioned. A Boston abolition

pamphlet that published Adams’ speech emphasized this point, distinguishing between

“war, civil or servile, in the Southern States” to emphasize the fact that this power can be

applied to the war against the Confederacy.15 But Adam’s conception of what that phrase

means diverges from that of the abolitionists in 1861. While the abolitionists interpret this

as three distinct types of war (a servile insurrection, a civil war, or a foreign one), it

appears that Adam’s is only referring to two (i.e. the first and the third). Adam’s idea of civil

war does not refer to the divided nation between Union and Confederacy. Rather, it seems

that he simply means a war that occurs within civil boundaries, differentiating it from a

foreign war.

The type of civil war Adams imagined is more closely associated with slave rebellion

in his mind. Adams had previously supported the idea of rebelling against owners as a tool

for securing freedom. Adams had defended the illegally enslaved Africans of the Amistad

when their case reached the Supreme Court in 1841. Historian James Oakes notes that

Adams argued for the concept of “self-emancipation” by invoking both the US Constitution

and the Declaration of Independence: “As persons under the Constitution, and as human

15 “The abolition of slavery; the right of the government under the war power,” (Boston: E.F. Walcutt 1861), 6.

beings under the laws of nature, Adams argued, the Amistad slaves had reclaimed their

inherent right to freedom by rebelling against their captors.”16

Adams also saw this self-emancipation principle within wars occurring in the United

States, which he referenced in his 1842 speech. In 1842, the nation had just witnessed the

Second Seminole war, in which U.S. armies eventually gave black rebels freedom in

exchange for surrender. Black Seminoles, who allied with the Seminoles, fled their

plantations in order to fight in the war. When the U.S. army could not suppress some rebel

forces, they eventually offered emancipation as a peace concession. Adams warns the

southern states that if the North should ever need to aid the South in suppressing a slave

rebellion, much like the one that had just occurred, then the nation would effectively be in a

state of civil war and may need to use emancipation as a military tool.17 It appears that he is

referencing the need for military commanders to use emancipation as method of securing

peace. He is not, however, alluding to the type of widespread (though not universal)

emancipation that Lincoln would grant in 1863.

While Adams’ reference to the Second Seminole War highlights a key difference in

his conception of emancipation under the war power, it also helps to explain why

abolitionists saw this specific speech as an important text in arguing for wartime

emancipation. The speech invoked the law of nations and a clear historical precedent of

American generals emancipating slaves, albeit under different circumstances than in the

16 Oakes, Freedom National, 3517 Adams says of the southern states “but if they come to the free States, and say tothem, you must help us to keep down our slaves, you mustaid us in an insurrection and a civil war, then I say that withthat call comes a full and plenary power to this House andto the Senate over the whole subject (slavery),” “Speech given1842.”

Civil War. Using history instead of theory had its advantages. In American war theory,

finding explicit justification for emancipation was difficult. Oakes discusses this in length:

No one doubted that the Founders had incorporated the law of nations – which included the laws of war—into the Constitution they drafted in Philadelphia. There was not much agreement, though, about what the “laws of war” actually allowed the government to do. The standard treatises… said nothing about slavery and emancipation. Their American interpreters… were likewise silent on the matter. Those claiming that the government could emancipate slaves as military necessity in time of war were unable to cite a reputable authority on the law of nations.18

Those wishing to validate emancipation had to look beyond theory in order to find explicit

justification for their cause. Using Adams was important because he called upon specific

historical precedent that showed prior use of military emancipation on American soil.

Further, Adams invoked the war powers granted to congress and the president in the

Constitution and well as the law of nations. What abolitionists “could not find in theory

they found instead in history,” and Adams became an important figure in using this

history.19 This is present in Whiting’s pamphlet, in which he too cited historical evidence of

military emancipation present in international law. But Whiting ultimately found

justification through Adams, who invokes American law and international law. It is Adams

understanding of the two that made him such a key figure, and for abolitionists this

warranted distortion of his speech in order to invoke Adams as a symbol.

Other elements of Adams’ speech were distorted to fit abolitionist purposes. Adams

also noted in his speech that war powers can be used to emancipate slaves in “wars of

invasion,”20 which falls under the laws of war and nations, but he is only referencing U.S.

relations with foreign powers. Never in his speech does he allude to the possibility of one

18 Oakes, Freedom National, 37.19 Ibid 37. 20 Adams, “Speech given 1842,” 4.

part of the United States invading the other as enemy combatants. If we were to accept that

Adams sees this emancipatory war power as between two legitimate nations at war, then

the treatment of the Confederacy during the Civil War becomes complicated or even

irrelevant under Adams’ model. As mentioned above, Lincoln refused to recognize the

Confederacy as a legitimate nation, and although secession, as one historian puts it,

“weakened if not revoked his obligation to protect slavery,” this wartime power would not

grant the universal emancipation that abolitionists are seeking, given that not all

slaveholding states seceded from the Union. 21 It appears that by “servile, civil or foreign”

war, he really just meant to distinguish between “a war of invasion or a war of

insurrection,” and doesn’t even consider the possibility of states in rebellion. 22 Clearly, the

abolitionists reformed Adams’ argument to fit their own purposes, and they did so by

highlighting other elements of Adams’ speech to their readers.

The elements of the 1842 speech that the abolitionists did choose to highlight

helped abolitionists legitimize their radical aims of presidential emancipation directly

through Adams. Another important phrase in Adams’ speech is that the power to

emancipate is given to the president explicitly, in addition to commanding officers,

allowing abolitionists to argue for Lincoln’s emancipation power directly. One pamphlet

highlighted the phrase that “not only the President of the United States, but the commander

of the army, has the power to order the universal emancipation of the slaves.”23 This was a

key phrase that was circulating among the American public as an important indicator of

Lincoln’s power to emancipate The phrase was emphasized in documents previously

21 Vorenberg, Michael, The Emancipation Proclamation: A Brief History with Documents (New York: Bedford/St. Martins 2010), 11. 22 Adams, “Speech given 1842,” 4.23 Adams, “Speech given 1842,” 5.

discussed like the Chicago Tribune, Tappan And Whiting’s pamphlets, and other pamphlets

published in 1861. In some articles such as the ones in The Chicago Tribune, the phrase is

merely emphasized, but in Tappan’s pamphlet it is the only part of the speech that is

quoted at all. The widespread use and specific emphasis of this particular part of the

speech marks it as an important part of radical abolition rhetoric.

I have already shown above how the “universal emancipation” Adams is describing

is limited due to his understanding of how emancipation should be used in different kinds

of war, but abolitionists are able to give this phrase a new meaning given the context given

the events happening in 1861. They co-opt Adams language to argue for the universal

emancipation they see as necessary for the Union. Further, because Adams’ discussed

emancipatory power of the president as Commander-in-Chief, they are then able to tie this

universal emancipatory power directly to Lincoln. Their use of Adams helps them

legitimize their own claims through a prominent and important figure in the battle against

slavery and its supporters.

While the 1842 speech was taken out of its original context, the speech’s importance

as a direct attack against slave interests was not understated for abolitionists in 1861.

Adams had specific proslavery opponents he was targeting by giving the 1842 speech.

Adams’ motivations influenced how the abolitionists could reconcile past actions by the

statesman that did not fit with their radical ideas of emancipation. As I noted above,

Whiting aimed to reconcile Adams recognition of slaves as property in the War of 1812 by

marking the speech he gives years later in 1842 as his “own opinions on the law of

nations.”24 Witt notes that by the time Adams is in the House he ”would change his mind

24 Whiting, “The war powers of the President,” 70.

about war and slavery… Adams would decide that he had been wrong.”25 Abolitionists

capitalized on this change of heart, using it to turn Adams into a figure whose ideas on

slavery hadn’t developed or changed, but were always aligned with emancipation, made

clear by Adams’ characterization in Whiting’s pamphlet.

In reality, Adams’ shift in position was due in part to his vicious battle against the

gag rule during his later days in the House of Representatives. The gag rule was a measure

enacted by southern legislators to limit antislavery bills from being discussed on the floor.

Adams worked to fight the gag rule, believing that the federal government should have

some power to interfere with slavery. It is within this context that he gave a number of

speeches that detail exactly how the federal government can and should interfere with an

individual’s right to property in man. Many of these speeches allude to the use of military

emancipation, although the most prominent of these is the 1842 speech. It provided a

position that could later be used by those seeking justification for emancipation by

presidential decree in 1861.

Adams role in the fight over slavery and the gag rule in the House helped solidify

him as a powerful cultural symbol in the larger battle against slave interests. Among

abolitionist (and later Republican) circles in the 1840’s and 1850’s, there was a widely held

belief of the existence of the “slave power,” and this idea persisted up to and through the

civil war. The slave power was believed to be an organized group of wealthy and influential

people who held disproportionate political influence over upholding slavery in the United

States. Whether or not a true “slave power” actually existed is uncertain, and its presence

was debated among antislavery groups. The belief of the existence of the slave power

25 Witt, Lincoln’s Code, 78.

ranged in levels of suspicion and distrust. As seen in William Whiting’s writing, his distrust

of slave influence comes from the belief that slavery has created a “privileged class” that is

far more powerful than a republican government should allow.26 It was seen as a warlike

entity, and that justified making war against it. Often this slave power was seen not only as

warlike, but also as bent on using its influence to ensure the existence and spread of slavery

within the United States. While the idea of the slave power in 1861 was dependent on the

beliefs of different antislavery groups, its supposed existence stemmed in part from the

immense influence that slave interests had in the creation of the gag rule.

Thus, Adams fight against the gag rule became emblematic of the political battle

against the slave power. Historian Michael Vorenberg explains that,

Although most antislavery activists at first refrained from formal political action, by the late 1830’s the lack of visible results led a faction to create a new, abolitionist political party, the liberty party… Adams never joined the liberty party, although he shared many of its views.27

In his 8-year campaign against the gag rule, John Quincy Adams became an important actor

in the official legal fight against slavery.28 This effort to repeal the gag rule was important in

that it symbolized a fight against slavery rooted in constitutional and international law, but

also because it was ultimately successful.29 In his book Arguing About Slavery William Lee

Miller details the lengthy battle against the gag rule in Congress. He writes that,

The gag rules were violations of the very principle of republican government, demonstrating the greater violation, human slavery, behind them. Adams himself, a competent if not a disinterested judge of the matter, wrote in a letter that this – the defeat of the gag rule—was the first clear victory over the Slave Power of the United States.30

26 Whiting, “The war powers of the President,” 4. 27 Vorenberg, Emancipation Proclamation, 5.28 Ibid 5. 29 The gag rule was repealed on December 3, 1844 through a motion made by Adams.

In 1861, when abolitionists were witnessing what they thought to be the war that would

bring about the final and decisive strike against slavery and the slave power, they did well

to remember past victories. By invoking John Adams 1842 speech in 1861, they were not

only finding legal justification for emancipation, but also recalling a time in which a great

politician used the principles of the constitution and the law of nations to strike down

slavery.

Adams successfully argued against slavery much like the abolitionists attempted to

do in 1861. However, a key difference was that Adams was largely viewed as a ”the very

essence of New England conservatism,” whereas many abolitionists were viewed as

radicals.31 Emancipation under the war power was being widely discussed as soon as the

war began, but it was seen as a radical measure by many northerners and southerners.

Abolitionists used Adams and his 1842 speech as a way of gaining mainstream legitimacy.

While the intention was to root radical abolition in a more moderate figure, Oakes notes,

“in the end the lines of influence between abolitionism and conservatism ran in both

directions.”32 Because of the widespread use of Adams’ 1842 speech, Democrats began to

criticize the notion of military emancipation (and in doing so criticized Adams) as a

measure too drastic to actually help the war effort. When Democrats expressed dissent

against the Second Confiscation Act, the congressional precursor to the Emancipation

Proclamation, they claimed it was “ the ‘wild, heated and monstrous’ brainchild of John

30 Miller, William Lee, Arguing About Slavery: The Great Battle in The United States Congress (New York: Alfred A. Knopf 1995), 487.31 Oakes, Freedom National, 40. 32 Ibid 41.

Quincy Adams… a spurious rationale for abolitionist radicalism and an outrageous

violation of the Constitution.”33

Despite criticism from Democrats, the powerful image of John Quincy Adams as a

successful statesman who was well practiced in international law made his 1842 speech an

indispensable tool. John Quincy Adams had served as President, Secretary of State, House

Representative, Senator, and Minister to Prussia, Russia, and the Netherlands. His pedigree

speaks to his image as one of the key “eminent statesmen” who could accurately assess the

military necessity of emancipating slaves and its legality under the Constitution. Adams

was an important figure in that he understood both the powers that the Constitution

granted and the laws of war under international law. Although his actions as Secretary of

State may have suggested otherwise, later in life he presented many arguments against

slavery by appealing to the emancipatory war power. The most notable was his speech

given in 1842, where he directly ties the emancipatory war power to the President of the

United States. In invoking this specific speech, abolitionists like Whiting and Tappan were

also invoking international law, and attempted to find sound legal justification for their

abolition goals.

Although Lincoln would not formally declare slaves in the Confederacy emancipated

until 1863, he would ultimately find justification for the Emancipation Proclamation under

the “war power” that John Quincy Adams had spoken of.34 Military emancipation had

historically been used long before the time of Adams, but abolitionists included Adams as

one of, if not the most important figure in justifying wartime emancipation. Despite the fact

that the interpretation of Adams’ speech took him out of context, abolitionist pamphlets

33 Ibid 240.34 Vorenberg, Emancipation Proclamation, 5.

and papers continued to use his arguments throughout 1861. Adams’ importance as a

prominent conservative, crusader against the slave power, and expert in the law of nations

made his cultural image an important tool in abolitionist writing. His 1842 speech justifies

wartime emancipation, but without the powerful figure behind the speech it would not

have been as necessary for abolitionists to invoke him so often.

Bibliography

Adams, John Quincy. “Speech given on House floor April 14 and 15 1842” Quoted in “The

abolition of slavery; the right of the government under the war power.” Boston: E.F.

Walcutt 1861.

“John Quincy Adams, On Slavery and Emancipation as Affected by War.” Chicago Tribune

(Chicago, IL). May 23, 1861.

Miller, William Lee. Arguing About Slavery: The Great Battle in The United States Congress.

New York: Alfred A. Knopf 1995.

Oakes, James. Freedom National: The Destruction of Slavery in the United States 1861 186

5 New York: W.W. Norton 2013.

“Opinions of John Quincy Adams: The War Power to Abolish Slavery.” Chicago Tribune

(Chicago, IL). September 21, 1861.

Tappan, Lewis. “Immediate Emancipation: The Only Wise and Safe Mode.” in Union

Pamphlets of the Civil War. Volume I. Edited by Frank Freidel. Cambridge: Harvard

University Press 1967.

Tappan, Lewis. “The War: It’s Cause And its Remedy.” in Union Pamphlets of the Civil War.

Volume I. Edited by Frank Freidel. Cambridge: Harvard University Press 1967.

“The abolition of slavery; the right of the government under the war power.” Boston: E.F.

Walcutt 1861.

Vorenberg, Michael. The Emancipation Proclamation: A Brief History with Documents. New

York: Bedford/St. Martins 2010.

Witt, John Fabian. Lincoln’s Code. New York: Free Press 2012.

Whiting, William. “The war powers of the President, and the legislative powers of Congress

in relation to rebellion, treason and slavery.” Boston: John L. Shorey 1863.