I like how they discuss Fremont's proclamation, they must have been terribly disappointed when Lincoln quashed it.
It was easier for them as civilians to ignore the reality that it would have meant the quick loss of Kentucky, [1] closure of the Ohio River, and probably the loss of the war during a very dark time for the Union.
1] Didn't pass the 13th Amendment until 1976! Probably to remove the embarrassment for the Bicentennial.
Wow, if accurate that's pretty dark. Then again, when one considers that similar events happened out West where in Kentucky and Tennessee the slaves of pro-Union plantation owners were not interfered with this really puts to rest the myth that the Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves, which seems to be so ridiculously enduring.
"Forever free" indeed
The Emancipation Proclamation may be seen as cynical, or a military move only, or as a sword in the heart of slavery. But with the advancement of Union armies after 1/1/1863, so many thousands upon thousands of slaves were freed any idea of returning them to a status of slavery was a complete non-starter. Attempt to return the 180,000 freed former slaves under arms in the Union Army and you are declaring the start of the Second American Civil War.
Yes, "Forever Free" indeed.
Maybe now people can realize these are attitudes and actions that evolved rather than were present and 'obviously apparent' at the start of the conflict.
At best only 1 in 3 of Union troops that enlisted immediately after Fort Sumter did so in the name of the abolition of slavery, and even that minority could be counted, some, for having other reasons as well (fighting for the restoration of the Union, avenging Fort Sumter, or for personal reasons like establishing a home in the army rather than in sweat shops after just getting off the boat).
But the longer the war went on, and the deeper the Union Army got into the Confederacy, where they saw the horrors of slavery for the first time, the more Abolitionist the army became. Especially as by 1863 the "insult to our flag" bunch were long gone.
From the British perspective I think this makes sense. The Empire has been acting against slavery for decades now, and it sees in the US an Anglo nation which still practices that institution while having a vocal abolitionist group which agrees with their views on the subject. Any lack of action (and to be honest his own need to downplay the role of slavery to pacify the border states, which British people can't be blamed for not totally understanding) [2] would look remarkably bad from the British perspective.
2] Exactly. How many Britons actually understood the nature of the circumstances of the Mason-Dixon Line? That it was created decades ago to keep the Slave States in the Union? That slavery had long since been abolished north of the M-D Line? That if not pressed by the pre-war Deep South (future CSA) states, then the Border States of Missouri and Delaware would likely have moved towards abolition? Even Maryland might have at least taken a look at the idea (unlikely though with all the slaves in central Maryland).
So the phrase "The Union has slaves too, so it too is a Slave Power" was often heard in Britain.

And for that matter, in the CSA. There was a difference between being a Slave Power and having slaves.

See the Confederate Constitution.
This would in turn explain how many could see the Emancipation Proclamation as a cynical move not meant to improve the standing of the black population within the Union. The language of the Proclamation doesn't help either.
The millions of slaves in Confederate-controlled territory on the day the proclamation went into effect would like a word with you.
Not that passage of the 13th Amendment making it official didn't hurt.

Also, the results of the 1862 off-year congressional elections meant the number of Democrats elected that year would block passage in the US House until the war news became so good that even borderline Copperheads had to, in some cases, vote for the amendment.
Adding the slaves in the border states (and sad to say, Union-controlled territory in the CSA) would only have led to the fragmentation of the Union war effort. God knows, the revolts and desertions in the Union Army following the announcement of the EP was bad enough, in reaction to the idea that the ACW was becoming a "N-----'s" war.



Those in the Union Army who opposed emancipation certainly thought that slavery was doomed with that announcement.
I think many people have a knee-jerk reaction to the idea of Lincoln's views evolving over time because of the legend built up around him as the Great Emancipator, in their minds he has this legendary aura and he can't have ever held views to the contrary. He's elevated instead of being treated like a human being with flaws, which while understandable, is useless in the study of history. [3]
3] What about for the study of hagiography?

One could say quite honestly say that Lincoln's
action's reflected battlefield realities as much as his personal desires.
The view of Lincoln as a man who changed in his views and ideas in response to the Civil War, his interaction with African Americans (and Frederick Douglas in particular), and the need to navigate the deadly waters of politics is a far more interesting figure than the prescient demi-god some people would like to paint him as.
Agreed. The story is probably apocryphal, but I recall a tale about Lincoln suggesting "voluntary emigration back to Africa" to Black leaders, with the idea that their people down South had no experience in "caring for themselves". One of them responded that without the need to support their White masters in the lap of luxury, they would do very well for themselves.
That was that for "Back to Africa"
He was without a doubt a great man, but he was constrained by his own needs in running a war, and his own changing views on the subject which culminated in the abolishment of slavery in the United States. That he rose above those constraints to accomplish what he did is remarkable, and to hear some of the things he was saying in the [4] months of his life makes you really wonder how Reconstruction would have been different had he lived.
4] Did you meant to insert "final" here?
As to a different Reconstruction, with Lincoln rather than Andrew Johnson [5] in charge of the first three years of that era, it could hardly be worse.
5] Second only to James Buchanan as our worst president, bunched down at the bottom with Rutherford B. Hayes, Benjamin Harrison, John Quincy Adams, and IMVHO George W. Bush.

As I see it William Henry Harrison rates only a grade of "Incomplete". Unlike a lot of people, I can't condemn a man for dying 40 days into his only term.
It sometimes surprises me how relatively obscure American figures become the darlings of the British abolitionist scene- I remember one editorial confidently averring that the only possible Republican candidate in 1864 was Charles Sumner. Honestly, though, when you consider the close links between Britain and Garrisonian abolitionists, British opposition to physical force and indifference to the continuance of the Union makes a lot more sense.
True. And don't forget that Jerry Lewis is seen as a has-been in the USA and a God in France.
One that actively opposes British attempts to defeat that institution, moreover. Remember the Anglo-American boarding dispute of 1858, and the fact that William Walker brought back slavery in Nicaragua.
Ignore politics pre-ACW for matters IN the ACW. The South pretty much had far too much influence over American politics since its founding, with every POTUS except (IIRC) John Adams being a Southerner, a Southern sympathizer, or had a Southern VP.
I've no doubt that some of those who expected the North to lose the Civil War were hoping to see the emergence of a less aggressive, expansionist power which now has a firm anti-slavery majority and an incentive to stick it to the Confederacy by acting against slavery externally.
Another misunderstanding. Actually, with losing the ACW, it was far more likely the reverse would be true.

In 1868 the Democrats threw Horatio Seymour, the Democratic governor of New York, as a sacrificial goat before the inevitability of the presidency of Ulysses S. Grant. But in a world where the Republicans would be seen as the party of defeat? The novel "Guns of the South" had Seymour winning the 1864 election!
It was D.P. Crook who made the point that the British see Lincoln's election as "a triumphant but essentially responsible reformist movement, not unlike their own Great Reform of 1832 or the Corn Law Repeal of 1846. South Carolina's defection from the Union, and the string of secessions which followed it, was accordingly interpreted as the defiant gesture of a corrupt ancien regime." ('Portents of War: English Opinion on Secession,' Journal of American Studies, vol. 4 p. 2 (Feb. 1971) p.165). What's supposed to happen after that Lincoln announces a scheme of compensated abolition and Fremont leads the Union armies into Richmond as poetic revenge for his defeat in the 1856 presidential election. It's probably right in hindsight that Lincoln decided to play down slavery to hold onto the border states instead, but you can't then blame the British for getting a bit narked when Cassius Clay and Harriet Beecher Stowe write them long querulous letters about how they should be supporting the anti-slavery side. [6]
Very good on-point and informative post.
All the problems with launching abolition on D+1 have been listed here. But you can't expect the starry-eyed to accept the hard realities on the ground.
6] Why narked? The old abolitionists were desperate. People like Thaddeus Stevens must have worried that they wouldn't live to see the end of slavery.
Britain didn't intervene because
1) America had been no friend to Britain since the AWoI.
And vice-versa. Remember the WoET.
