Cfxtrjtrk

@Peter Diehr's answer is a good one and I've upvoted it - but I'd like to expand on that, remembering that Lincoln was a very good strategist.

First, The Civil War was about slavery, and the South's (correct) understanding was that the North was growing faster than it was and free states would sooner or later substantially outnumber slave states. (Some of the nominally slave states allowed slavery, but were not economically dependent on it as were the Deep South states. Sentiment for abolition was growing in those states, also. Slavery was doomed under the Union.)

If the South did nothing, they lost in maybe twenty years when the North would have the political power to abolish slavery. They had to secede when they did.

Lincoln, on the other hand, had history on his side. If he could hold the Union together, then slavery was doomed. Until the war was beyond settlement, his best bet to abolish slavery was to try to keep the Union together. So in the early days he insisted his only purpose was to hold the Union together.

Secondly, the Union included several border states which allowed slavery, but where it wasn't the bedrock of the economy. To have a decent chance of winning the war militarily, the North had to hold on to those states. So even the Emancipation Proclamation didn't free the slaves in Union states! Key point: For the Emancipation Proclamation to have effect anywhere it needed to not push the slave states still in the Union into rebellion. So it had to exempt them.

And then thirdly, as Peter says, once Lincoln had a strong Union victory he could start pushing explicitly on ending slavery. Once the North (and foreign countries, especially Great Britain) saw that the Union would end slavery and had to power to do it its moral authority was immeasurably strengthened which sped the end of the war.

Lincoln waited until there was a great union victory; the early losses, and the poor showing of the Union generals did not give him a very firm place to stand and make promises.

Antietam was the victory he was waiting for, and a preliminary declaration was issued at that time.

See this History channel article on the Emancipation Proclamation for further details and analysis.

While there were plenty of altruistic abolitionists who hated slavery purely on its in-humanity, much of the political drive ($$$) for the war was driven by the fear of the northern factory owners.

Like almost every war, the United States Civil War was not primarily about ideology, it was about economics. The northern, industrialized states were concerned that after several labor saving devices (i.e. cotton gin, steam engine) that the South's excess labor pool and the increasing industrialization of the south would threaten their near monopoly on manufacture. Imagine just one point, cotton; if the south had the raw materials (cotton) and the ability to use slave labor to manufacture the cotton cloth and even cotton clothing. That would put a big dent in the northern factory owners earning stream.

Lincoln's timing for the emancipation proclamation was purely based on the failure of diplomacy to end the war before major conflict (Antietam). It served largely propaganda purposes.

Because, as Lincoln stated, "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery".

Initially, North expected short victorious war and quick reunification. If this would happened, slavery would be intact. After full year of struggle it became clear that the war is not going to be short, and became questionable if it is going to be victorious.

Lincoln issued Emancipation Proclamation when it became obvious that freeing slaves in rebellion states would help save the Union, and without this action the war could be lost.

Consider following:

1. Before Lincoln's inauguration, Congress passed constitutional amendment that would shield slavery from the constitutional amendment process and from abolition or interference by Congress (Corwin Amendment). This was attempt to end secession peacefully; Lincoln publicly supported this proposed amendment. It was ratified by few states but did not get required three fourths states to make to Constitution.




2. As a president, Lincoln did not have an authority to end slavery (to change the Constitution). However, as a commander in chief, during the war he could order to deprive the rebels from their property of military use. On September 22, 1862 Lincoln
   announced that all slaves in territory that was still in rebellion as of January 1, 1863, would be free. So it was up to southern states to stop fighting and save their slaves, or continue straggle and risk losing slaves if they loose the war.




3. For Lincoln, ending slavery was another "struggle", which he tried to win (unsuccessfully) by persuasion. He offered compensation to slave states still in Union to end the slavery within these states; they rejected his offer. Before the end of the war Congress passed 13th amendment, abolishing slavery, and these states lost all slaves without any compensation.

BTW, on February 1865, couple of month before Confederacy collapsed, Lincoln offered Confederacy compensation for lost slaves if they agree to stop fighting and return to the Union. Jefferson Davis rejected this proposal, causing thousands unnecessary casualties, humiliating military defeat, and much more painful longer reunification.

Given just how much the economy of the United States was dependent upon slave labour it's perhaps not suprising that Lincoln hesitated, he was not sure that he could carry the House with him and as he said, 'a house divided must fall'.

After all, whilst the American mythos suggested that their war of independence was predicated on no 'taxation without representation', one might ask, were they concerned with the forceful strides that the abolitionist movement was making in Great Britain and perhaps with parliamentary representation they may slow, stall or stop it altogether? Given that a great civil war was fought over this question, it's suprising to me that this question has not been properly investigated, or perhaps if it has, it has not been given much of an airing.

Question:
Why did Lincoln wait to issue the Declaration of Emancipation?

(Apologies in advance: not being American, while I've read up somewhat about the military aspects of the Civil War, I am somewhat unclear as to its political dimension.)

Lincoln did not declare the slaves free until 1863, despite his personal beliefs.

Did he wait because he was not sure of the political support in the North for accepting Abolition as a war aim, along with stopping Secession? Or did he wait to preserve the possibility of negotiations with the Confederacy? If it was the second reason, is there any indication of what he was willing to compromise on? If the first, what changed?

Lincolns signature of the Presidential order the Emancipation Proclamation Jan 1, 1863 was a political stunt. It was an act who's audience was not domestic. Lincoln knew the next president could easily repeal it, and the current Supreme Court once the crisis of war was over would have likely declared it unconstitutional. It was entirely about politics. Lincoln could not dictate timing for a constitutional amendment, but he could with a presidential order; and that's what he did.

Why did Lincoln sign it, in order to best preserve the Union. Broadly international politics and secondarily as previous answers have stated waiting for a Union Victory. Now he never really got the Union Victory the Battle of Antietam was tactically and strategically a stalemate and resulted in the top union General McClellan being dismissed from his command. But Lincoln couldn't wait any longer as diplomatically he felt he had to act. Britain and France were making noises about intervention on the side of the South, and the Emancipation Proclamation was a performance for their ears in order to freeze them out. Lincoln didn't want it to look like a desperate act which is why he wanted a victory to be the backdrop for the Executive Order. He didn't get that, but it was close enough.

Lincoln did it to preserve the union. Simple put the American Civil war was fought on many front. Economic, Political, Military, and Diplomatic. It was the diplomatic war which needed Lincoln's action on Jan of 1863. Britain and France were threatening to enter the war on behalf of the Confederate States. Lincoln used the Emancipation Proclamation to reframe the war from one about preserving the Union, into a war to end slavery. That's what the emancipation proclamation did. It announced that ending slavery would be a major goal of the Union in the War. Lincoln knew if the war was framed as one against slavery it would make Britain and France's intervention untenable giving both countries had already abolished slavery Britain(Slavery Abolition Act in 1833) and France (Louis X abolished slavery in 1315, although slavery continued in French Colonies until 1848).

The timing was dictated by politics, and as previous answers said more precisely by a Union victory at Battle of Antietam. Technically Antietam wasn't a victory for the Union it was a stalemate. But after months and months of seeing his armies retreating from the gates of Richmond, seeing Lee retreat from Maryland back into Virginia was represented in the Northern Newspapers as a victory. So Lee used that "victory" to roll out his diplomatic offensive against Britain and French intervention.

Emancipation Proclamation

As Lincoln had hoped, the Proclamation turned foreign popular opinion in favor of the Union by gaining the support of anti-slavery countries and countries that had already abolished slavery (especially the developed countries in Europe such as Great Britain or France). This shift ended the Confederacy's hopes of gaining official recognition.[99]

Since the Emancipation Proclamation made the eradication of slavery an explicit Union war goal, it linked support for the South to support for slavery. Public opinion in Britain would not tolerate direct support for slavery. British companies, however, continued to build and operate blockade runners for the South. As Henry Adams noted, "The Emancipation Proclamation has done more for us than all our former victories and all our diplomacy." In Italy, Giuseppe Garibaldi hailed Lincoln as "the heir of the aspirations of John Brown". On August 6, 1863, Garibaldi wrote to Lincoln: "Posterity will call you the great emancipator, a more enviable title than any crown could be, and greater than any merely mundane treasure".[100]

Mayor Abel Haywood, a representative for workers from Manchester, England, wrote to Lincoln saying, "We joyfully honor you for many decisive steps toward practically exemplifying your belief in the words of your great founders: 'All men are created free and equal.'"[101] The Emancipation Proclamation served to ease tensions with Europe over the North's conduct of the war, and combined with the recent failed Southern offensive at Antietam, to cut off any practical chance for the Confederacy to receive British support in the war.

Sources:

• Thirteenth Amendment


• History of the Thirteenth Amendment


• Emancipation_Proclamation


• Abolitionism


• Battle of Antietam

If President Lincoln had been so concerned about slavery being abolished, then he would have abolished it in the "Union" at the onset of the war--thereby abolishing it in Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, and Missouri 5 years earlier. Moreover, the Emancipation Proclamation as an executive order which was not executed for over 3 months after the famous speech and it explicitly freed slaves only in Confederate states--not Union states! Technically, the executive order was not legal itself, albeit a moral one, because it was not implementing any law (a.k.a., statute, provision, or treaty).1

If the "abolitionist" states had been so against slavery, then the second largest domestic trade city would not have been Baltimore, Maryland for over 50 years.2

The taxation of slavery was the main cause of the secession of the Confederate states, not slavery itself. If the war was just about whether slavery should be abolished, sociologists could not explain how/why millions of men would fight to the death to keep something legal they could never hope to afford. A healthy horse cost more than an average slave and most combatants could not afford a horse. Owning slaves was only worthwhile if they could work them on a farm or other business which would cost much more to purchase or establish.

Lastly, the war was not a civil war because the United States was previously a union of states/countries each with their own constitutions and currencies, not a country itself--imagine the E.U. without the Euro. To this day, the word for "state" in many languages translates to "country" (e.g. Islamic states). Only the modern use of the word "state" in the U.S. and Mexico has connoted a constituent member of a country.

In summary, your confusion is the result of President Lincoln not having much concern at all for freeing slaves, but concern for preserving his legacy. The secession of 7 states happened shortly after his inauguration, he mobilized military forces to coerce them back into the fold, then 4 more states seceded as a result. He knew that if the "Union" were not "preserved", history would hold him accountable. He also did not care how many laws he broke preserving his legacy.[3][4]

Footnote: When I read these question and answers on the Internet, I usually just shake my head, but I had to respond to this one. Countless answerers will tell you that the "Civil War" was only about slavery and its abolishment. There are too many historical facts that are incomplete retrograde to support this. For example, blacks fighting in the Confederate Army (corroborated by Lincoln's war advisors). Regardless of the small number, imagine Northern Irishmen joining the British Army with the express intent of keeping their fellow Northern Irishmen under British rule--the supposition is ludicrous!

[3]: "The Body of John Merryman: Abraham Lincoln and the Suspension of Habeas Corpus", ISBN-13: 9780674063259

[4]: "Lincoln and Chief Justice Taney: Slavery, Secession, and the President's War Powers", ISBN-13: 9780743250320

We learned about this recently in my APUSH class and we said one reason he issued it was to help end the civil war. He knew that by freeing the slaves they would help the fight. Look at the 54th Massachusetts reiment.😀