Part of a series on
 Slavery
Contemporary
Child labour
Child soldiers
Conscription
Debt
Forced marriage
Bride buying
Wife selling
Forced prostitution
Human trafficking
Peonage
Penal labour
Contemporary Africa
21st-century Islamism
Sexual slavery
Wage slavery
Historical
Antiquity
Ancient Rome
Ancient Greece
Asia
Babylonia
Medieval Europe
The Muslim World
Byzantine Empire
Ottoman Empire
Topics and practices
Atlantic slave trade
Middle Passage
Arab slave trade
Ghilman
Mamluk
Saqaliba
Harem
Ottoman slave trade
Circassian beauties
Devshirme
Millet system
Imperial Harem
Odalisque
Barbary slave trade
Barbary corsairs
The Barbary Coast
Turkish Abductions
Aztec
Blackbirding
Coolie
Corvée labor
Field slaves in the United States
House slaves
Kholop
Panyarring
Thrall
Serfs
History
Russia
Slave market
Slave raiding
Child soldiers
Naval
Galley slave
Impressment
Pirates
Shanghaiing
Slave ship
By country or region
Sub-Saharan Africa
Contemporary Africa
Slave Coast
Angola
Chad
Ethiopia
Mali
Mauritania
Niger
Somalia
South Africa
Sudan
Seychelles
North and South America
Americas indigenous
U.S. Natives
Brazil
Lei Áurea
Canada
Caribbean
Barbados
Code Noir
Cuba
Haiti
revolt
Restavek
Latin America
(Encomienda)
Puerto Rico
Trinidad
United States
colonial
maps
female
partus
penal labor
Slave codes
interregional
Human trafficking
Virgin Islands
Central, East, and South Asia
Human trafficking in Southeast Asia
Bhutan
China
Booi Aha
Laogai
penal system
India
Debt bondage
Chukri System
Japan
comfort women
South Korea
Yankee princess
North Korea
Vietnam
Australia and Oceania
Blackbirding
Human trafficking in Australia
Slave raiding in Easter Island
Human trafficking in Papua New Guinea
Blackbirding in Polynesia
Europe and North Asia
Sex trafficking in Europe
Britain
Denmark
Dutch Republic
Germany in World War II
Malta
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Spain
colonies
Sweden
North Africa and West Asia
Iran
Libya
Human trafficking in the Middle East
Yemen
Religion
Slavery and religion
Bible
Christianity
Catholicism
Mormonism
Islam
21st century
Mukataba
Ma malakat aymanukum
Judaism
Bahá'í Faith
Opposition and resistance
Abolitionism
U.K.
U.S.
Anti-Slavery International
Blockade of Africa
U.K.
U.S.
Colonization
Liberia
Sierra Leone
Compensated emancipation
Freedman
manumission
Freedom suit
Abolitionists
Slave Power
Underground Railroad
songs
Slave rebellion
Slave Trade Acts
International law
Third Servile War
13th Amendment to the United States Constitution
Timeline of abolition of slavery and serfdom
Related
Common law
Indentured servitude
Unfree labour
Fugitive slaves
laws
Great Dismal Swamp maroons
List of slaves
owners
Slave narrative
films
songs
Slave name
Slave catcher
Slave patrol
Slave Route Project
Treatment in U.S.
breeding
court cases
Washington
Jefferson
Adams
Lincoln
40 acres
Freedmen's Bureau
bit
Emancipation Dayvt

This article is part of
a series aboutAbraham Lincoln
Views on slavery
Views on religion
Electoral history

Early life and career
Political career, 1849–1861
Family
Health

Lincoln–Douglas debates
Cooper Union speech
Farewell Address

President of the United States
Presidency

First term
1st inauguration
Address
American Civil War
The Union
Emancipation Proclamation
Ten percent plan
Gettysburg Address
13th Amendment

Second term
2nd inauguration
Address
Reconstruction

Presidential elections
1860
Convention
1864
Convention

Assassination and legacy
Assassination
Funeral
Historical reputation
Memorials
Depictions
Topical guide
Bibliography

vt
The Emancipation Proclamation, or Proclamation 95, was a presidential proclamation and executive order issued by United States President Abraham Lincoln on January 1, 1863.  It changed the federal legal status of more than 3.5 million enslaved African Americans in the designated areas of the South from slave to free. As soon as a slave escaped the control of the Confederate government, by running away or through advances of federal troops, the former slave became free. Ultimately, the rebel surrender liberated and resulted in the proclamation's application to all of the designated former slaves.  It did not cover slaves in Union areas that were freed by state action (or three years later by the 13th amendment in December 1865). It was issued as a war measure during the American Civil War, directed to all of the areas in rebellion and all segments of the executive branch (including the Army and Navy) of the United States.[2]
The Proclamation ordered the freedom of all slaves in ten states.[3] Because it was issued under the president's authority to suppress rebellion (war powers), it necessarily excluded areas not in rebellion, but still applied to more than 3.5 million of the 4 million slaves. The Proclamation was based on the president's constitutional authority as commander in chief of the armed forces;[4] it was not a law passed by Congress. The Proclamation was issued in January 1863 after U.S government issued a series of warnings in the summer of 1862 under the Second Confiscation Act, allowing Southern Confederate supporters 60 days to surrender, or face confiscation of land and slaves. The Proclamation also ordered that suitable persons among those freed could be enrolled into the paid service of United States' forces, and ordered the Union Army (and all segments of the Executive branch) to "recognize and maintain the freedom of" the ex-slaves. The Proclamation did not compensate the owners, did not outlaw slavery, and did not grant citizenship to the ex-slaves (called freedmen). It made the eradication of slavery an explicit war goal, in addition to the goal of reuniting the Union.[5]
Around 25,000 to 75,000 slaves in regions where the US Army was active were immediately emancipated. It could not be enforced in areas still under rebellion, but, as the Union army took control of Confederate regions, the Proclamation provided the legal framework for freeing more than three and a half million slaves in those regions. Prior to the Proclamation, in accordance with the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, escaped slaves were either returned to their masters or held in camps as contraband for later return. The Proclamation applied only to slaves in Confederate-held lands; it did not apply to those in the four slave states that were not in rebellion (Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware, and Missouri, which were unnamed), nor to Tennessee (unnamed but occupied by Union troops since 1862) and lower Louisiana (also under occupation), and specifically excluded those counties of Virginia soon to form the state of West Virginia. Also specifically excluded (by name) were some regions already controlled by the Union army. Emancipation in those places would come after separate state actions or the December 1865 ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment, which made slavery and indentured servitude, except for those duly convicted of a crime, illegal everywhere subject to United States jurisdiction.[6]
On September 22, 1862, Lincoln issued a preliminary warning that he would order the emancipation of all slaves in any state that did not end its rebellion against the Union by January 1, 1863.[7]  None of the Confederate states restored themselves to the Union, and Lincoln's order was signed and took effect on January 1, 1863. The Emancipation Proclamation outraged white Southerners (and their sympathizers) who envisioned a race war. It angered some Northern Democrats, energized anti-slavery forces, and undermined elements in Europe that wanted to intervene to help the Confederacy.[8] The Proclamation lifted the spirits of African Americans both free and slave. It led many slaves to escape from their masters and get to Union lines to obtain their freedom, and to join the Union Army.
The Emancipation Proclamation broadened the goals of the Civil War. While slavery had been a major issue that led to the war, Lincoln's only mission at the start of the war was to maintain the Union. The Proclamation made freeing the slaves an explicit goal of the Union war effort. Establishing the abolition of slavery as one of the two primary war goals served to deter intervention by Britain and France.[9] The Emancipation Proclamation was never challenged in court. To ensure the abolition of slavery in all of the U.S., Lincoln pushed for passage of the Thirteenth Amendment, and insisted that Reconstruction plans for Southern states require abolition in new state constitutions. Congress passed the 13th Amendment by the necessary two-thirds vote on January 31, 1865, and it was ratified by the states on December 6, 1865, ending legal slavery.[10]
Authority

The United States Constitution of 1787 did not use the word "slavery" but included several provisions about unfree persons. The Three-Fifths Compromise (in Article I, Section 2) allocated Congressional representation based "on the whole Number of free Persons" and "three fifths of all other Persons".[11] Under the Fugitive Slave Clause (Article IV, Section 2), "[n]o person held to service or labour in one state" would be freed by escaping to another. Article I, Section 9 allowed Congress to pass legislation to outlaw the "Importation of Persons", but not until 1808.[12] However, for purposes of the Fifth Amendment—which states that, "No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"—slaves were understood as property.[13] Although abolitionists used the Fifth Amendment to argue against slavery, it became part of the legal basis for treating slaves as property with Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857).[14] Socially, slavery was also supported in law and in practice by a pervasive culture of white supremacy.[15] Nonetheless, between 1777 and 1804, every Northern state provided for the immediate or gradual abolition of slavery, except the border states of Maryland and Delaware. Maryland did not abolish slavery until 1864,[16] and Delaware was one of the last states to hold onto slavery; it was still legal in Delaware when the thirteenth amendment was issued.[17]  No Southern state did so, and the slave population of the South continued to grow, peaking at almost four million people at the beginning of the American Civil War, when most slave states sought to break away from the United States.[18]
Lincoln understood that the Federal government's power to end slavery in peacetime was limited by the Constitution which before 1865, committed the issue to individual states.[19] Against the background of the American Civil War, however, Lincoln issued the Proclamation under his authority as "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy" under Article II, section 2 of the United States Constitution.[20] As such, he claimed to have the martial power to free persons held as slaves in those states that were in rebellion "as a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said rebellion".[21] He did not have Commander-in-Chief authority over the four slave-holding states that were not in rebellion: Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland and Delaware, and so those states were not named in the Proclamation.[23] The fifth border jurisdiction, West Virginia, where slavery remained legal but was in the process of being abolished, was, in January 1863, still part of the legally recognized, "reorganized" state of Virginia, based in Alexandria, which was in the Union (as opposed to the Confederate state of Virginia, based in Richmond).
Coverage
The Proclamation applied in the ten states that were still in rebellion in 1863, and thus did not cover the nearly 500,000 slaves in the slave-holding border states (Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland or Delaware) which were Union states. Those slaves were freed by later separate state and federal actions.
The state of Tennessee had already mostly returned to Union control, under a recognized Union government, so it was not named and was exempted. Virginia was named, but exemptions were specified for the 48 counties then in the process of forming the new state of West Virginia, and seven additional counties and two cities in the Union-controlled Tidewater region.[24] Also specifically exempted were New Orleans and 13 named parishes of Louisiana, which were mostly under federal control at the time of the Proclamation. These exemptions left unemancipated an additional 300,000 slaves.[25]

The Emancipation Proclamation has been ridiculed, notably in an influential passage by Richard Hofstadter for "freeing" only the slaves over which the Union had no power.[26] These slaves were freed due to Lincoln's "war powers". This act cleared up the issue of contraband slaves.[27] It automatically clarified the status of over 100,000 now-former slaves. Some 20,000 to 50,000 slaves were freed the day it went into effect[28] in parts of nine of the ten states to which it applied (Texas being the exception).[29] In every Confederate state (except Tennessee and Texas), the Proclamation went into immediate effect in Union-occupied areas and at least 20,000 slaves[28][29] were freed at once on January 1, 1863.
The Proclamation provided the legal framework for the emancipation of nearly all four million slaves as the Union armies advanced, and committed the Union to ending slavery, which was a controversial decision even in the North. Hearing of the Proclamation, more slaves quickly escaped to Union lines as the Army units moved South. As the Union armies advanced through the Confederacy, thousands of slaves were freed each day until nearly all (approximately 3.9 million, according to the 1860 Census)[30] were freed by July 1865.
While the Proclamation had freed most slaves as a war measure, it had not made slavery illegal. Of the states that were exempted from the Proclamation, Maryland,[31] Missouri,[32] Tennessee,[33] and West Virginia[34] prohibited slavery before the war ended. In 1863, President Lincoln proposed a moderate plan for the Reconstruction of the captured Confederate State of Louisiana.[35] Only 10% of the state's electorate had to take the loyalty oath. The state was also required to abolish slavery in its new constitution. Identical Reconstruction plans would be adopted in Arkansas and Tennessee. By December 1864, the Lincoln plan abolishing slavery had been enacted in Louisiana.[36][37] However, in Delaware[38] and Kentucky,[39] slavery continued to be legal until December 18, 1865, when the Thirteenth Amendment went into effect.
Background
Military action prior to emancipation
The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 required individuals to return runaway slaves to their owners. During the war, Union generals such as Benjamin Butler declared that slaves in occupied areas were contraband of war and accordingly refused to return them.[40] This decision was controversial because it implied recognition of the Confederacy as a separate, independent sovereign state under international law, a notion that Lincoln steadfastly denied. As a result, he did not promote the contraband designation. In addition, as contraband, these people were legally designated as "property" when they crossed Union lines and their ultimate status was uncertain.[41]
Governmental action towards emancipation

In December 1861, Lincoln sent his first annual message to Congress (the State of the Union Address, but then typically given in writing and not referred to as such). In it he praised the free labor system, as respecting human rights over property rights; he endorsed legislation to address the status of contraband slaves and slaves in loyal states, possibly through buying their freedom with federal taxes, and also the funding of strictly voluntary colonization efforts.[42] In January 1862, Thaddeus Stevens, the Republican leader in the House, called for total war against the rebellion to include emancipation of slaves, arguing that emancipation, by forcing the loss of enslaved labor, would ruin the rebel economy. On March 13, 1862, Congress approved a "Law Enacting an Additional Article of War", which stated that from that point onward it was forbidden for Union Army officers to return fugitive slaves to their owners.[43] On April 10, 1862, Congress declared that the federal government would compensate slave owners who freed their slaves. Slaves in the District of Columbia were freed on April 16, 1862, and their owners were compensated.
On June 19, 1862, Congress prohibited slavery in all current and future United States territories (though not in the states), and President Lincoln quickly signed the legislation. By this act, they repudiated the 1857 opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States in the Dred Scott Case that Congress was powerless to regulate slavery in U.S. territories.[44][45]
This joint action by Congress and President Lincoln also rejected the notion of popular sovereignty that had been advanced by Stephen A. Douglas as a solution to the slavery controversy, while completing the effort first legislatively proposed by Thomas Jefferson in 1784 to confine slavery within the borders of existing states.[46][47]
In July, Congress passed and Lincoln signed the Confiscation Act of 1862, containing provisions for court proceedings to liberate slaves held by convicted "rebels", or of slaves of rebels that had escaped to Union lines.[48] The Act applied in cases of criminal convictions and to those who were slaves of "disloyal" masters.  However, Lincoln's position continued to be that Congress lacked power to free all slaves within the borders of rebel held states, but Lincoln as commander in chief could do so if he deemed it a proper military measure,[49] and that Lincoln had already drafted plans to do.
Public opinion of emancipation

Abolitionists had long been urging Lincoln to free all slaves. In the summer of 1862, Republican editor Horace Greeley of the highly influential New York Tribune wrote a famous editorial entitled "The Prayer of Twenty Millions" demanding a more aggressive attack on the Confederacy and faster emancipation of the slaves: "On the face of this wide earth, Mr. President, there is not one ... intelligent champion of the Union cause who does not feel ... that the rebellion, if crushed tomorrow, would be renewed if slavery were left in full vigor and that every hour of deference to slavery is an hour of added and deepened peril to the Union."[50] Lincoln responded in his Letter To Horace Greeley from August 22, 1862, in terms of the limits imposed by his duty as president to save the Union:
If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.... I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free.[51]

Lincoln scholar Harold Holzer wrote in this context about Lincoln's letter: "Unknown to Greeley, Lincoln composed this after he had already drafted a preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, which he had determined to issue after the next Union military victory. Therefore, this letter, was in truth, an attempt to position the impending announcement in terms of saving the Union, not freeing slaves as a humanitarian gesture. It was one of Lincoln's most skillful public relations efforts, even if it has cast longstanding doubt on his sincerity as a liberator."[52] Historian Richard Striner argues that "for years" Lincoln's letter has been misread as "Lincoln only wanted to save the Union."[53] However, within the context of Lincoln's entire career and pronouncements on slavery this interpretation is wrong, according to Striner. Rather, Lincoln was softening the strong Northern white supremacist opposition to his imminent emancipation by tying it to the cause of the Union. This opposition would fight for the Union but not to end slavery, so Lincoln gave them the means and motivation to do both, at the same time.[53] In his 2014 book, Lincoln's Gamble, journalist and historian Todd Brewster asserted that Lincoln's desire to reassert the saving of the Union as his sole war goal was in fact crucial to his claim of legal authority for emancipation. Since slavery was protected by the Constitution, the only way that he could free the slaves was as a tactic of war—not as the mission itself.[54] But that carried the risk that when the war ended, so would the justification for freeing the slaves. Late in 1862, Lincoln asked his Attorney General, Edward Bates, for an opinion as to whether slaves freed through a war-related proclamation of emancipation could be re-enslaved once the war was over. Bates had to work through the language of the Dred Scott decision to arrive at an answer, but he finally concluded that they could indeed remain free. Still, a complete end to slavery would require a constitutional amendment.[55]
Conflicting advice, to free all slaves, or not free them at all, was presented to Lincoln in public and private. Thomas Nast, a cartoon artist during the Civil War and the late 1800s considered "Father of the American Cartoon", composed many works including a two-sided spread that showed the transition from slavery into civilization after President Lincoln signed the Proclamation. Nast believed in equal opportunity and equality for all people, including enslaved Africans or free blacks.[56] A mass rally in Chicago on September 7, 1862, demanded an immediate and universal emancipation of slaves. A delegation headed by William W. Patton met the president at the White House on September 13. Lincoln had declared in peacetime that he had no constitutional authority to free the slaves. Even used as a war power, emancipation was a risky political act. Public opinion as a whole was against it.[57] There would be strong opposition among Copperhead Democrats and an uncertain reaction from loyal border states. Delaware and Maryland already had a high percentage of free blacks: 91.2% and 49.7%, respectively, in 1860.[58]
Drafting and issuance of the proclamation

Lincoln first discussed the proclamation with his cabinet in July 1862. He drafted his "preliminary proclamation" and read it to Secretary of State William Seward, and Secretary of Navy Gideon Welles, on July 13. Seward and Welles were at first speechless, then Seward referred to possible anarchy throughout the South and resulting foreign intervention; Welles apparently said nothing. On July 22, Lincoln presented it to his entire cabinet as something he had determined to do and he asked their opinion on wording.[59] Although Secretary of War Edwin Stanton supported it, Seward advised Lincoln to issue the proclamation after a major Union victory, or else it would appear as if the Union was giving "its last shriek of retreat".[60]
In September 1862, the Battle of Antietam gave Lincoln the victory he needed to issue the Emancipation. In the battle, though the Union suffered heavier losses than the Confederates and General McClellan allowed the escape of Robert E. Lee's retreating troops, Union forces turned back a Confederate invasion of Maryland. On September 22, 1862, five days after Antietam occurred, and while living at the Soldier's Home, Lincoln called his cabinet into session and issued the Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation.[61] According to Civil War historian James M. McPherson, Lincoln told Cabinet members that he had made a covenant with God, that if the Union drove the Confederacy out of Maryland, he would issue the Emancipation Proclamation.[62][63] Lincoln had first shown an early draft of the proclamation to Vice President Hannibal Hamlin,[64] an ardent abolitionist, who was more often kept in the dark on presidential decisions. The final proclamation was issued January 1, 1863. Although implicitly granted authority by Congress, Lincoln used his powers as Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy, "as a necessary war measure" as the basis of the proclamation, rather than the equivalent of a statute enacted by Congress or a constitutional amendment. Some days after issuing the final Proclamation, Lincoln wrote to Major General John McClernand: "After the commencement of hostilities I struggled nearly a year and a half to get along without touching the "institution"; and when finally I conditionally determined to touch it, I gave a hundred days fair notice of my purpose, to all the States and people, within which time they could have turned it wholly aside, by simply again becoming good citizens of the United States. They chose to disregard it, and I made the peremptory proclamation on what appeared to me to be a military necessity. And being made, it must stand."[65]

Initially, the Emancipation Proclamation effectively freed only a small percentage of the slaves, those who were behind Union lines in areas not exempted. Most slaves were still behind Confederate lines or in exempted Union-occupied areas. Secretary of State William H. Seward commented, "We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free." Had any slave state ended its secession attempt before January 1, 1863, it could have kept slavery, at least temporarily. The Proclamation only gave the Lincoln Administration the legal basis to free the slaves in the areas of the South that were still in rebellion on January 1, 1863. It effectively destroyed slavery as the Union armies advanced south and conquered the entire Confederacy.
The Emancipation Proclamation also allowed for the enrollment of freed slaves into the United States military. During the war nearly 200,000 blacks, most of them ex-slaves, joined the Union Army.[66] Their contributions gave the North additional manpower that was significant in winning the war. The Confederacy did not allow slaves in their army as soldiers until the last month before its defeat.[67]
Though the counties of Virginia that were soon to form West Virginia were specifically exempted from the Proclamation (Jefferson County being the only exception), a condition of the state's admittance to the Union was that its constitution provide for the gradual abolition of slavery (an immediate emancipation of all slaves was also adopted there in early 1865). Slaves in the border states of Maryland and Missouri were also emancipated by separate state action before the Civil War ended. In Maryland, a new state constitution abolishing slavery in the state went into effect on November 1, 1864. The Union-occupied counties of eastern Virginia and parishes of Louisiana, which had been exempted from the Proclamation, both adopted state constitutions that abolished slavery in April 1864.[68][69] In early 1865, Tennessee adopted an amendment to its constitution prohibiting slavery.[70][71] Slaves in Kentucky and Delaware were not emancipated until the Thirteenth Amendment was ratified.
Implementation

The Proclamation was issued in two parts. The first part, issued on September 22, 1862, was a preliminary announcement outlining the intent of the second part, which officially went into effect 100 days later on January 1, 1863, during the second year of the Civil War. It was Abraham Lincoln's declaration that all slaves would be permanently freed in all areas of the Confederacy that had not already returned to federal control by January 1863. The ten affected states were individually named in the second part (South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Texas, Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina). Not included were the Union slave states of Maryland, Delaware, Missouri and Kentucky. Also not named was the state of Tennessee, in which a Union-controlled military government had already been set up, based in the capital, Nashville. Specific exemptions were stated for areas also under Union control on January 1, 1863, namely 48 counties that would soon become West Virginia, seven other named counties of Virginia including Berkeley and Hampshire counties,  which were soon added to West Virginia, New Orleans and 13 named parishes nearby.
Union-occupied areas of the Confederate states where the proclamation was put into immediate effect by local commanders included Winchester, Virginia,[72] Corinth, Mississippi,[73] the Sea Islands along the coasts of the Carolinas and Georgia,[74] Key West, Florida,[75] and Port Royal, South Carolina.[76]
Immediate impact

It has been inaccurately claimed that the Emancipation Proclamation did not free a single slave;[77] historian Lerone Bennett, Jr. alleged that the proclamation was a hoax deliberately designed not to free any slaves.[78] However, as a result of the Proclamation, many slaves were freed during the course of the war, beginning with the day it took effect; eyewitness accounts at places such as Hilton Head Island, South Carolina,[79] and Port Royal, South Carolina[76] record celebrations on January 1 as thousands of blacks were informed of their new legal status of freedom. Estimates of how many thousands of slaves were freed immediately by the Emancipation Proclamation are varied. One contemporary estimate put the 'contraband' population of Union-occupied North Carolina at 10,000, and the Sea Islands of South Carolina also had a substantial population. Those 20,000 slaves were freed immediately by the Emancipation Proclamation."[28] This Union-occupied zone where freedom began at once included parts of eastern North Carolina, the Mississippi Valley, northern Alabama, the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia, a large part of Arkansas, and the Sea Islands of Georgia and South Carolina.[80] Although some counties of Union-occupied Virginia were exempted from the Proclamation, the lower Shenandoah Valley, and the area around Alexandria were covered.[28] Emancipation was immediately enforced as Union soldiers advanced into the Confederacy. Slaves fled their masters and were often assisted by Union soldiers.[81]
Booker T. Washington, as a boy of 9 in Virginia, remembered the day in early 1865:[82]
As the great day drew nearer, there was more singing in the slave quarters than usual. It was bolder, had more ring, and lasted later into the night. Most of the verses of the plantation songs had some reference to freedom. ... Some man who seemed to be a stranger (a United States officer, I presume) made a little speech and then read a rather long paper—the Emancipation Proclamation, I think. After the reading we were told that we were all free, and could go when and where we pleased. My mother, who was standing by my side, leaned over and kissed her children, while tears of joy ran down her cheeks. She explained to us what it all meant, that this was the day for which she had been so long praying, but fearing that she would never live to see.

Emancipation took place without violence by masters or ex-slaves. The Proclamation represented a shift in the war objectives of the North—reuniting the nation was no longer the only goal. It represented a major step toward the ultimate abolition of slavery in the United States and a "new birth of freedom".

Runaway slaves who had escaped to Union lines had previously been held by the Union Army as "contraband of war" under the Confiscation Acts; when the proclamation took effect, they were told at midnight that they were free to leave. The Sea Islands off the coast of Georgia had been occupied by the Union Navy earlier in the war. The whites had fled to the mainland while the blacks stayed. An early program of Reconstruction was set up for the former slaves, including schools and training. Naval officers read the proclamation and told them they were free.
Slaves had been part of the "engine of war" for the Confederacy. They produced and prepared food; sewed uniforms; repaired railways; worked on farms and in factories, shipping yards, and mines; built fortifications; and served as hospital workers and common laborers. News of the Proclamation spread rapidly by word of mouth, arousing hopes of freedom, creating general confusion, and encouraging thousands to escape to Union lines.[83] George Washington Albright, a teenage slave in Mississippi, recalled that like many of his fellow slaves, his father escaped to join Union forces. According to Albright, plantation owners tried to keep the Proclamation from slaves but news of it came through the "grapevine". The young slave became a "runner" for an informal group they called the 4Ls ("Lincoln's Legal Loyal League") bringing news of the proclamation to secret slave meetings at plantations throughout the region.[84]
Robert E. Lee saw the Emancipation Proclamation as a way for the Union to bolster the number of soldiers it could place on the field, making it imperative for the Confederacy to increase their own numbers.  Writing on the matter after the sack of Fredericksburg, Lee wrote "In view of the vast increase of the forces of the enemy, of the savage and brutal policy he has proclaimed, which leaves us no alternative but success or degradation worse than death, if we would save the honor of our families from pollution, our social system from destruction, let every effort be made, every means be employed, to fill and maintain the ranks of our armies, until God, in his mercy, shall bless us with the establishment of our independence."[85] Lee's request for a drastic increase of troops would go unfulfilled.
Political impact

The Proclamation was immediately denounced by Copperhead Democrats who opposed the war and advocated restoring the union by allowing slavery. Horatio Seymour, while running for the governorship of New York, cast the Emancipation Proclamation as a call for slaves to commit extreme acts of violence on all white southerners, saying it was "a proposal for the butchery of women and children, for scenes of lust and rapine, and of arson and murder, which would invoke the interference of civilized Europe".[90] The Copperheads also saw the Proclamation as an unconstitutional abuse of presidential power. Editor Henry A. Reeves wrote in Greenport's Republican Watchman that "In the name of freedom of Negroes, [the proclamation] imperils the liberty of white men; to test a utopian theory of equality of races which Nature, History and Experience alike condemn as monstrous, it overturns the Constitution and Civil Laws and sets up Military Usurpation in their Stead."[90]
Racism remained pervasive on both sides of the conflict and many in the North supported the war only as an effort to force the South to stay in the Union. The promises of many Republican politicians that the war was to restore the Union and not about black rights or ending slavery, were now declared lies by their opponents citing the Proclamation. Copperhead David Allen spoke to a rally in Columbiana, Ohio, stating, "I have told you that this war is carried on for the Negro. There is the proclamation of the President of the United States. Now fellow Democrats I ask you if you are going to be forced into a war against your Brithren of the Southern States for the Negro. I answer No!"[91] The Copperheads saw the Proclamation as irrefutable proof of their position and the beginning of a political rise for their members; in Connecticut, H. B. Whiting wrote that the truth was now plain even to "those stupid thick-headed persons who persisted in thinking that the President was a conservative man and that the war was for the restoration of the Union under the Constitution".[90]
War Democrats who rejected the Copperhead position within their party, found themselves in a quandary. While throughout the war they had continued to espouse the racist positions of their party and their disdain of the concerns of slaves, they did see the Proclamation as a viable military tool against the South, and worried that opposing it might demoralize troops in the Union army. The question would continue to trouble them and eventually lead to a split within their party as the war progressed.[90]
Lincoln further alienated many in the Union two days after issuing the preliminary copy of the Emancipation Proclamation by suspending habeas corpus. His opponents linked these two actions in their claims that he was becoming a despot. In light of this and a lack of military success for the Union armies, many War Democrat voters who had previously supported Lincoln turned against him and joined the Copperheads in the off-year elections held in October and November.[90]
In the 1862 elections, the Democrats gained 28 seats in the House as well as the governorship of New York. Lincoln's friend Orville Hickman Browning told the president that the Proclamation and the suspension of habeas corpus had been "disastrous" for his party by handing the Democrats so many weapons. Lincoln made no response. Copperhead William Javis of Connecticut pronounced the election the "beginning of the end of the utter downfall of Abolitionism in the United States".[90]
Historians James M. McPherson and Allan Nevins state that though the results looked very troubling, they could be seen favorably by Lincoln; his opponents did well only in their historic strongholds and "at the national level their gains in the House were the smallest of any minority party's in an off-year election in nearly a generation. Michigan, California, and Iowa all went Republican.... Moreover, the Republicans picked up five seats in the Senate."[90] McPherson states "If the election was in any sense a referendum on emancipation and on Lincoln's conduct of the war, a majority of Northern voters endorsed these policies."[90]
Confederate response
The initial Confederate response was one of expected outrage. The Proclamation was seen as vindication for the rebellion, and proof that Lincoln would have abolished slavery even if the states had remained in the Union.[92] In an August 1863 letter to President Lincoln, U.S. Army general Ulysses S. Grant observed that the Proclamation, combined with the usage of black soldiers by the U.S. Army, profoundly angered the Confederacy, saying that "the emancipation of the Negro, is the heaviest blow yet given the Confederacy. The South rave a great deal about it and profess to be very angry."[93] A few months after the Proclamation took effect, the Confederacy passed a law in May 1863 demanding "full and ample retaliation" against the U.S. for such measures. The Confederacy stated that the black U.S. soldiers captured while fighting against the Confederacy would be tried as slave insurrectionists in civil courts—a capital offense with automatic sentence of death. Less than a year after the law's passage, the Confederates massacred black U.S. soldiers at Fort Pillow.[94]
However, some Confederates welcomed the Proclamation, as they believed it would strengthen pro-slavery sentiment in the Confederacy and, thus, lead to greater enlistment of white men into the Confederate army. According to one Confederate man from Kentucky, "The Proclamation is worth three hundred thousand soldiers to our Government at least... It shows exactly what this war was brought about for and the intention of its damnable authors."[95] Even some Union soldiers concurred with this view and expressed reservations about the Proclamation, not on principle, but rather because they were afraid it would increase the Confederacy's determination to fight on and maintain slavery. One Union soldier from New York stated worryingly after the Proclamation's passage, "I know enough of the Southern spirit that I think they will fight for the institution of slavery even to extermination."[96]
As a result of the Proclamation, the price of slaves in the Confederacy increased in the months after its issuance, with one Confederate from South Carolina opining in 1865 that "now is the time for Uncle to buy some negro women and children."[97]
International impact
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.[98]
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".[99]
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.'"[100] 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.[101]
Gettysburg Address
Lincoln's Gettysburg Address in November 1863 made indirect reference to the Proclamation and the ending of slavery as a war goal with the phrase "new birth of freedom". The Proclamation solidified Lincoln's support among the rapidly growing abolitionist element of the Republican Party and ensured that they would not block his re-nomination in 1864.[102]
Proclamation of Amnesty and Reconstruction (1863)
In December 1863, Lincoln issued his Proclamation of Amnesty and Reconstruction, which dealt with the ways the rebel states could reconcile with the Union.  Key provisions required that the states accept the Emancipation Proclamation and thus the freedom of their slaves, and accept the Confiscation Acts, as well as the Act banning of slavery in United States territories.[103]
Postbellum

Near the end of the war, abolitionists were concerned that the Emancipation Proclamation would be construed solely as a war measure, Lincoln's original intent, and would no longer apply once fighting ended. They were also increasingly anxious to secure the freedom of all slaves, not just those freed by the Emancipation Proclamation. Thus pressed, Lincoln staked a large part of his 1864 presidential campaign on a constitutional amendment to abolish slavery uniformly throughout the United States. Lincoln's campaign was bolstered by separate votes in both Maryland and Missouri to abolish slavery in those states. Maryland's new constitution abolishing slavery took effect in November 1864. Slavery in Missouri was ended by executive proclamation of its governor, Thomas C. Fletcher, on January 11, 1865.
Winning re-election, Lincoln pressed the lame duck 38th Congress to pass the proposed amendment immediately rather than wait for the incoming 39th Congress to convene. In January 1865, Congress sent to the state legislatures for ratification what became the Thirteenth Amendment, banning slavery in all U.S. states and territories. The amendment was ratified by the legislatures of enough states by December 6, 1865, and proclaimed 12 days later. There were about 40,000 slaves in Kentucky and 1,000 in Delaware who were liberated then.[30]
Critiques

As the years went on and American life continued to be deeply unfair towards blacks, cynicism towards Lincoln and the Emancipation Proclamation increased. Perhaps the strongest attack was Lerone Bennett's Forced into Glory: Abraham Lincoln's White Dream (2000), which claimed that Lincoln was a white supremacist who issued the Emancipation Proclamation in lieu of the real racial reforms for which radical abolitionists pushed. In his Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, Allen C. Guelzo noted the professional historians' lack of substantial respect for the document, since it has been the subject of few major scholarly studies. He argued that Lincoln was the US's "last Enlightenment politician"[104] and as such was dedicated to removing slavery strictly within the bounds of law.
Other historians have given more credit to Lincoln for what he accomplished within the tensions of his cabinet and a society at war, for his own growth in political and moral stature, and for the promise he held out to the slaves.[105] More might have been accomplished if he had not been assassinated. As Eric Foner wrote:
Lincoln was not an abolitionist or Radical Republican, a point Bennett reiterates innumerable times. He did not favor immediate abolition before the war, and held racist views typical of his time. But he was also a man of deep convictions when it came to slavery, and during the Civil War displayed a remarkable capacity for moral and political growth.[106]
Kal Ashraf wrote:
Perhaps in rejecting the critical dualism–Lincoln as individual emancipator pitted against collective self-emancipators–there is an opportunity to recognise the greater persuasiveness of the combination. In a sense, yes: a racist, flawed Lincoln did something heroic, and not in lieu of collective participation, but next to, and enabled, by it. To venerate a singular –Great Emancipator' may be as reductive as dismissing the significance of Lincoln's actions. Who he was as a man, no one of us can ever really know. So it is that the version of Lincoln we keep is also the version we make.[107]
Legacy in the civil rights era
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. made many references to the Emancipation Proclamation during the civil rights movement. These include a speech made at an observance of the hundredth anniversary of the issuing of the Proclamation made in New York City on September 12, 1962 where he placed it alongside the Declaration of Independence as an "imperishable" contribution to civilization, and "All tyrants, past, present and future, are powerless to bury the truths in these declarations". He lamented that despite a history where the United States "proudly professed the basic principles inherent in both documents", it "sadly practiced the antithesis of these principles". He concluded "There is but one way to commemorate the Emancipation Proclamation. That is to make its declarations of freedom real; to reach back to the origins of our nation when our message of equality electrified an unfree world, and reaffirm democracy by deeds as bold and daring as the issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation."[108]
King's most famous invocation of the Emancipation Proclamation was in a speech from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial at the 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom (often referred to as the "I Have a Dream" speech). King began the speech saying "Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand, signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Negro slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of captivity. But one hundred years later, we must face the tragic fact that the Negro is still not free. One hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination."[109]
The "Second Emancipation Proclamation"

In the early 1960s, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and his associates developed a strategy to call on President John F. Kennedy to bypass a Southern segregationist opposition in the Congress by issuing an executive order to put an end to segregation. This envisioned document was referred to as the "Second Emancipation Proclamation".
President John F. Kennedy
On June 11, 1963, President Kennedy appeared on national television to address the issue of civil rights. Kennedy, who had been routinely criticized as timid by some of the leaders of the civil rights movement, told Americans that two black students had been peacefully enrolled in the University of Alabama with the aid of the National Guard despite the opposition of Governor George Wallace.
John Kennedy called it a "moral issue"[110] Invoking the centennial of the Emancipation Proclamation he said

“One hundred years of delay have passed since President Lincoln freed the slaves, yet their heirs, their grandsons, are not fully free. They are not yet freed from the bonds of injustice. They are not yet freed from social and economic oppression. And this Nation, for all its hopes and all its boasts, will not be fully free until all its citizens are free. We preach freedom around the world, and we mean it, and we cherish our freedom here at home, but are we to say to the world, and much more importantly, to each other that this is a land of the free except for the Negroes; that we have no second-class citizens except Negroes; that we have no class or caste system, no ghettoes, no master race except with respect to Negroes? Now the time has come for this Nation to fulfill its promise. The events in Birmingham and elsewhere have so increased the cries for equality that no city or State or legislative body can prudently choose to ignore them.[111]”
In the same speech, Kennedy announced he would introduce comprehensive civil rights legislation to the United States Congress which he did a week later (he continued to push for its passage until his assassination in November 1963). Historian Peniel E. Joseph holds Lyndon Johnson's ability to get that bill, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, passed on July 2, 1964 was aided by "the moral forcefulness of the June 11 speech" which turned "the narrative of civil rights from a regional issue into a national story promoting racial equality and democratic renewal".[110]
President Lyndon B. Johnson
During the civil rights movement of the 1960s, Lyndon B. Johnson invoked the Emancipation Proclamation holding it up as a promise yet to be fully implemented.
As Vice President while speaking from Gettysburg on May 30, 1963 (Memorial Day), at the centennial of the Emancipation Proclamation, Johnson connected it directly with the ongoing civil rights struggles of the time saying "One hundred years ago, the slave was freed. One hundred years later, the Negro remains in bondage to the color of his skin.... In this hour, it is not our respective races which are at stake—it is our nation. Let those who care for their country come forward, North and South, white and Negro, to lead the way through this moment of challenge and decision.... Until justice is blind to color, until education is unaware of race, until opportunity is unconcerned with color of men's skins, emancipation will be a proclamation but not a fact. To the extent that the proclamation of emancipation is not fulfilled in fact, to that extent we shall have fallen short of assuring freedom to the free."[112]
As president, Johnson again invoked the proclamation in a speech presenting the Voting Rights Act at a joint session of Congress on Monday, March 15, 1965. This was one week after violence had been inflicted on peaceful civil rights marchers during the Selma to Montgomery marches. Johnson said "... it's not just Negroes, but really it's all of us, who must overcome the crippling legacy of bigotry and injustice. And we shall overcome. As a man whose roots go deeply into Southern soil, I know how agonizing racial feelings are. I know how difficult it is to reshape the attitudes and the structure of our society. But a century has passed—more than 100 years—since the Negro was freed. And he is not fully free tonight. It was more than 100 years ago that Abraham Lincoln—a great President of another party—signed the Emancipation Proclamation. But emancipation is a proclamation and not a fact. A century has passed—more than 100 years—since equality was promised, and yet the Negro is not equal. A century has passed since the day of promise, and the promise is unkept. The time of justice has now come, and I tell you that I believe sincerely that no force can hold it back. It is right in the eyes of man and God that it should come, and when it does, I think that day will brighten the lives of every American."[113]
In popular culture

In episode 86 of The Andy Griffith Show, Andy asks Barney to explain the Emancipation Proclamation to Opie who is struggling with history at school.[115] Barney brags about his history expertise, yet it is apparent he cannot answer Andy's question.  He finally becomes frustrated and explains it is a proclamation for certain people who wanted emancipation.[116]
In South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut, Chef asks the military commander if he has "ever heard of the Emancipation Proclamation?" To which the military commander replies: "I dont listen to hip-hop."

The Emancipation Proclamation is celebrated around the world including on stamps of nations such as the Republic of Togo.[117] The United States commemorative was issued on August 16, 1963, the opening day of the Century of Negro Progress Exposition in Chicago, Illinois. Designed by Georg Olden, an initial printing of 120 million stamps was authorized.[114]
See also
Abolition of slavery timeline
Act Prohibiting the Return of Slaves – 1862 statute
District of Columbia Compensated Emancipation Act
Emancipation Memorial – a sculpture in Washington, D.C., completed in 1876
Emancipation reform of 1861 - Russia
History of slavery in Kentucky
History of slavery in Missouri
Juneteenth
Slavery Abolition Act 1833 – an act passed by the British parliament abolishing slavery in British colonies with compensation to the owners
Slavery in the colonial United States
Slavery in the United States
Slave Trade Acts
Suez Canal Company
Timeline of the civil rights movement
United States labor law
War Governors' Conference – gave Lincoln the much needed political support to issue the Proclamation
Notes

Primary sources

Further reading

Belz, Herman. Emancipation and Equal Rights: Politics and Constitutionalism in the Civil War Era (1978)
Biddle, Daniel R., and Murray Dubin. "'God Is Settling the Account': African American Reaction to Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation", Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography (Jan. 2013) 137#1 57–78.
Blackiston, Harry S. "Lincoln's Emancipation Plan." Journal of Negro History 7, no. 3 (1922): 257-277.
Crowther, Edward R. "Emancipation Proclamation". in Encyclopedia of the American Civil War. Heidler, David S. and Heidler, Jeanne T. (2000) ISBN0-393-04758-X
Chambers Jr, Henry L. "Lincoln, the Emancipation Proclamation, and Executive Power." Maryland Law Review 73 (2013): 100+
Ewan, Christopher. "The Emancipation Proclamation and British Public Opinion" The Historian, Vol. 67, 2005
Franklin, John Hope. The Emancipation Proclamation (1963)

Guelzo, Allen C. "How Abe Lincoln Lost the Black Vote: Lincoln and Emancipation in the African American Mind", Journal of the Abraham Lincoln Association (2004) 25#1
Harold Holzer, Edna Greene Medford, and Frank J. Williams. The Emancipation Proclamation: Three Views (2006)
Jones, Howard. Abraham Lincoln and a New Birth of Freedom: The Union and Slavery in the Diplomacy of the Civil War (1999)

Kennon, Donald R. and Paul Finkelman, eds. Lincoln, Congress, and Emancipation (Ohio UP, 2016), 270 pp.
Kolchin, Peter, "Reexamining Southern Emancipation in Comparative Perspective," Journal of Southern History, 81#1 (Feb. 2015), 7–40.
Litwack, Leon F. Been in the Storm So Long: The Aftermath of Slavery (1979), social history of the end of slavery in the Confederacy

McPherson, James M. Ordeal by Fire: the Civil War and Reconstruction (2001 [3rd ed.]), esp. pp.316–321.
Masur, Louis P. Lincoln's Hundred Days: The Emancipation Proclamation and the War for the Union (Harvard University Press; 2012)
Nevins, Allan. Ordeal of the Union: vol 6. War Becomes Revolution, 1862–1863 (1960)
Siddali, Silvana R. From Property To Person: Slavery And The Confiscation Acts, 1861–1862 (2005)
Syrett, John. Civil War Confiscation Acts: Failing to Reconstruct the South (2005)
Tsesis, Alexander. We Shall Overcome: A History of Civil Rights and the Law (2008)

Vorenberg, Michael, ed. The Emancipation Proclamation: A Brief History with Documents (2010), primary and secondary sources

First Edition  in 1862 Harper's Weekly

, chronology of Abraham Lincoln and emancipation

 – images and transcript of Lincoln's original manuscript of the preliminary proclamation

 - Sketch of its History by Lincoln's portrait artist

 with Pulitzer Prize-winning author James McPherson and James Cornelius, Curator of the Lincoln Collection in the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum about the 150th anniversary of the Emancipation Proclamation
 public domain audiobook at LibriVox

How many U.S. slaves were freed following emancipation?


[ vt ]PNR Metro CommuterNorth–South Commuter Line

ValenzuelaTullahan RiverValenzuelaMalabonGovernor PascualMalabonCaloocanCaloocanCaloocan Depot10th Avenue5th AvenueCaloocanManilaSunog Apog EstuarySolisTutuban Railyard &Tayuman Locomotive ShedTutuban2Blumentritt1Laong LaanEspaña8Valencia EstuarySanta Mesa2Pasig RiverPandacan EstuaryPandacanPandacan EstuaryPacoSan AndresVito CruzManilaMakatiBuendiaDela RosaPasay RoadTripa de Gallina EstuaryEDSA3Tripa de Gallina EstuaryMakatiTaguigNichols 9FTI9TaguigParañaqueBicutanParañaqueMuntinlupaSucatSucat RiverMangangate RiverAlabang Bayanan CreekPoblacion RiverMuntinlupaMagdaong RiverTunasanMuntinlupaTunasan RiverSan PedroSan Isidro RiverSan PedroSan PedroCarmonaCarmonaPacita MGSan PedroBiñanGolden City 1BiñanBiñan RiverBiñanSanta RosaSilang-Santa Rosa RiverSanta RosaGolden City 2Santa RosaCabuyaoCabuyao River deltaCabuyaoGulodCabuyao River deltaMamatidBanlicCabuyaoCalambaSan Cristobal RiverSan Juan RiverCalamba

Tutuban station commonly as Manila railway Station or Divisoria railway Station is the main train station of the Philippine National Railways (PNR) and the main train station of the city of Manila in the Philippines. It was formerly known as the Manila Railroad Company (MRRCo). The name refers to two stations: the original Tutuban station, which today forms part of the Tutuban Centermall, and the PNR Executive Building, which houses PNR offices and serves as the current terminus of all PNR services.
History

As part of the "Ferrocarril de Manila-Dagupan" or Manila-Dagupan Line, which constitutes much of the North Main Line today. The cornerstone of the main station building at Tutuban was laid on 31 July 1887.[1] The railway was 195 kilometers long at the time of its opening on November 24, 1892, running from Manila to Dagupan City in Pangasinan. The Manila Railroad Company was changed to the corporate name Philippine National Railways due to the enactment of the Republic Act No. 4156.[2]
In 1988, PNR evaluated the possibility of renting 22 hectares of land to Tutuban at Claro M. Recto in response to the challenges of development and help promote the site to be the center of trade. PNR implemented the first part of the master development plan of Tutuban Properties, Inc. in 1991, and later entrusted the management and development of the land.
The Tutuban Center Mall was formally inaugurated to the public led by Fidel V. Ramos on February 21, 1994.
The following years has witnessed the continued efforts among PNR, Tutuban Properties, Inc. and the Philippine Government to advance the methods of travel by reorganizing the overall railroad system, improve the civic and business buildings around the Tutuban, and keep emphasis on history. The development of PNR Plaza is a step to verify the cause of reactivating the overall railroad system as one method of travel and trading.
The Tutuban Station Executive Building was inaugurated on May 30, 1996.
The Tutuban station will be renovated to become more transit-oriented and a newer station will be built for the North-South Commuter Railway or Manila-Clark Railway (or both) while the 1996 station will only serve the Manila-Legazpi long-haul provincial services, if revived.
Gallery

Philippine National Railways Logo
Facade
Vintage 0-6-0 "Dagupan" steam locomotive
Exterior of the original Tutuban station built in 1892, which today is part of the Tutuban Centermall
Facade of the PNR Tutuban station
Platform 2
Interior of Tutuban Center with the existing columns of the Old Tutuban Railroad Station
Historical marker of the Tutuban Center Mall
Iron Corinthian column at Tutuban Center Mall
Restored lobby wall of the former Tutuban Railroad Station
Lobby of the current PNR Tutuban Station
Historical marker at the new PNR Tutuban Station
PNR Depot
Facade of the old Tutuban station. Currently the Tutuban Center Mall
PNR gallery
Tutuban Center Mall. Formerly the Tutuban Railway Station facade

Station layout

L1
PlatformsPlatform APNR Metro Commuter towards Calamba or Depot (→)Island platform, doors will open on either the left or the rightPlatform APNR Metro Commuter towards Alabang or Depot (→)Platform BPNR Metro Commuter towards Alabang or Depot (→)Island platform, doors will open on either the left or the rightPlatform BPNR Metro Commuter towards Alabang or Depot (→)Platform CPNR Metro Commuter towards Alabang or Depot (→)Island platform, doors will open on either the left or the rightPlatform CPNR Malabon Line towards Governor Pascual or Depot (→)L1ConcourseTicket Booths, Station Control, shops, Depot, Main Office, Bicycle, Bus, FX, Jeepney, Taxi and Tricycle Transport Terminal
See also
Paco railway station

What is the largest train station in the Philippines?


Arachnids (/əˈræknɪdz/) are a class (Arachnida) of joint-legged invertebrate animals (arthropods), in the subphylum Chelicerata. Almost all adult arachnids have eight legs, although the front pair of legs in some species has converted to a sensory function, while in other species, different appendages can grow large enough to take on the appearance of extra pairs of legs. The term is derived from the Greek word ἀράχνη (aráchnē), from the myth of the hubristic human weaver Arachne who was turned into a spider.[1] Spiders are the largest order in the class, which also includes scorpions, ticks, mites, harvestmen, and solifuges.[2]
Almost all extant arachnids are terrestrial, living mainly on land. However, some inhabit freshwater environments and, with the exception of the pelagic zone, marine environments as well. They comprise over 100,000 named species.
Morphology

Almost all adult arachnids have eight legs, and arachnids may be easily distinguished from insects by this fact, since insects have six legs. However, arachnids also have two further pairs of appendages that have become adapted for feeding, defense, and sensory perception. The first pair, the chelicerae, serve in feeding and defense. The next pair of appendages, the pedipalps, have been adapted for feeding, locomotion, and/or reproductive functions. In Solifugae, the palps are quite leg-like, so that these animals appear to have ten legs. The larvae of mites and Ricinulei have only six legs; a fourth pair usually appears when they moult into nymphs. However, mites are variable: as well as eight, there are adult mites with six or even four legs.[3]
Arachnids are further distinguished from insects by the fact they do not have antennae or wings. Their body is organized into two tagmata, called the prosoma, or cephalothorax, and the opisthosoma, or abdomen. The cephalothorax is derived from the fusion of the cephalon (head) and the thorax, and is usually covered by a single, unsegmented carapace. The abdomen is segmented in the more primitive forms, but varying degrees of fusion between the segments occur in many groups. It is typically divided into a preabdomen and postabdomen, although this is only clearly visible in scorpions, and in some orders, such as the Acari, the abdominal sections are completely fused.[4] A telson is present in scorpions, where it has been modified to a stinger, and in the Schizomida, whip scorpions and Palpigradi.[5]
Like all arthropods, arachnids have an exoskeleton, and they also have an internal structure of cartilage-like tissue, called the endosternite, to which certain muscle groups are attached. The endosternite is even calcified in some Opiliones.[6]
Locomotion
Most arachnids lack extensor muscles in the distal joints of their appendages. Spiders and whipscorpions extend their limbs hydraulically using the pressure of their hemolymph.[7] Solifuges and some harvestmen extend their knees by the use of highly elastic thickenings in the joint cuticle.[7] Scorpions, pseudoscorpions and some harvestmen have evolved muscles that extend two leg joints (the femur-patella and patella-tibia joints) at once.[8][9] The equivalent joints of the pedipalps of scorpions though, are extended by elastic recoil.[10]
Physiology

There are characteristics that are particularly important for the terrestrial lifestyle of arachnids, such as internal respiratory surfaces in the form of tracheae, or modification of the book gill into a book lung, an internal series of vascular lamellae used for gas exchange with the air.[11] While the tracheae are often individual systems of tubes, similar to those in insects, ricinuleids, pseudoscorpions, and some spiders possess sieve tracheae, in which several tubes arise in a bundle from a small chamber connected to the spiracle. This type of tracheal system has almost certainly evolved from the book lungs, and indicates that the tracheae of arachnids are not homologous with those of insects.[12]
Further adaptations to terrestrial life are appendages modified for more efficient locomotion on land, internal fertilisation, special sensory organs, and water conservation enhanced by efficient excretory structures as well as a waxy layer covering the cuticle.
The excretory glands of arachnids include up to four pairs of coxal glands along the side of the prosoma, and one or two pairs of Malpighian tubules, emptying into the gut. Many arachnids have only one or the other type of excretory gland, although several do have both. The primary nitrogenous waste product in arachnids is guanine.[12]
Arachnid blood is variable in composition, depending on the mode of respiration. Arachnids with an efficient tracheal system do not need to transport oxygen in the blood, and may have a reduced circulatory system. In scorpions and some spiders, however, the blood contains haemocyanin, a copper-based pigment with a similar function to haemoglobin in vertebrates. The heart is located in the forward part of the abdomen, and may or may not be segmented. Some mites have no heart at all.[12]
Diet and digestive system
Arachnids are mostly carnivorous, feeding on the pre-digested bodies of insects and other small animals. Only in the harvestmen and among mites, such as the house dust mite, is there ingestion of solid food particles, and thus exposure to internal parasites,[13] although it is not unusual for spiders to eat their own silk. Several groups secrete venom from specialized glands to kill prey or enemies. Several mites and ticks are parasites, some of which are carriers of disease.
Arachnids produce digestive juices in their stomachs, and use their pedipalps and chelicerae to pour them over their dead prey. The digestive juices rapidly turn the prey into a broth of nutrients, which the arachnid sucks into a pre-buccal cavity located immediately in front of the mouth. Behind the mouth is a muscular, sclerotised pharynx, which acts as a pump, sucking the food through the mouth and on into the oesophagus and stomach. In some arachnids, the oesophagus also acts as an additional pump.
The stomach is tubular in shape, with multiple diverticula extending throughout the body. The stomach and its diverticula both produce digestive enzymes and absorb nutrients from the food. It extends through most of the body, and connects to a short sclerotised intestine and anus in the hind part of the abdomen.[12]
Senses
Arachnids have two kinds of eyes: the lateral and median ocelli. The lateral ocelli evolved from compound eyes and may have a tapetum, which enhances the ability to collect light. With the exception of scorpions, which can have up to five pairs of lateral ocelli, there are never more than three pairs present. The median ocelli develop from a transverse fold of the ectoderm. The ancestors of modern arachnids probably had both types, but modern ones often lack one type or the other.[13] The cornea of the eye also acts as a lens, and is continuous with the cuticle of the body. Beneath this is a transparent vitreous body, and then the retina and, if present, the tapetum. In most arachnids, the retina probably does not have enough light sensitive cells to allow the eyes to form a proper image.[12]
In addition to the eyes, almost all arachnids have two other types of sensory organs. The most important to most arachnids are the fine sensory hairs that cover the body and give the animal its sense of touch. These can be relatively simple, but many arachnids also possess more complex structures, called trichobothria.
Finally, slit sense organs are slit-like pits covered with a thin membrane. Inside the pit, a small hair touches the underside of the membrane, and detects its motion. Slit sense organs are believed to be involved in proprioception, and possibly also hearing.[12]
Reproduction

Arachnids may have one or two gonads, which are located in the abdomen. The genital opening is usually located on the underside of the second abdominal segment. In most species, the male transfers sperm to the female in a package, or spermatophore. Complex courtship rituals have evolved in many arachnids to ensure the safe delivery of the sperm to the female.[12]
Arachnids usually lay yolky eggs, which hatch into immatures that resemble adults. Scorpions, however, are either ovoviviparous or viviparous, depending on species, and bear live young. In most arachnids only the females provide parental care, with harvestmen being one of the few exceptions.
Taxonomy and evolution
Phylogeny
The phylogenetic relationships among the main subdivisions of arthropods have been the subject of considerable research and dispute for many years. A consensus emerged from about 2010 onwards, based on both morphological and molecular evidence. Extant (living) arthropods are a monophyletic group and are divided into three main clades: chelicerates (including arachnids), pancrustaceans (the paraphyletic crustaceans plus insects and their allies), and myriapods (centipedes, millipedes and allies).[14][15][16][17][18] The three groups are related as shown in the cladogram below.[16] Including fossil taxa does not fundamentally alter this view, although it introduces some additional basal groups.[19]

Arthropoda

Chelicerata (sea spiders, horseshoe crabs and arachnids)Mandibulata

Pancrustacea (crustaceans and insects)
Myriapoda (centipedes, millipedes, and allies)
The extant chelicerates comprise two marine groups: sea spiders and horseshoe crabs, and the terrestrial arachnids. These are related as shown below.[15][18] (Pycnogonida (sea spiders) may be excluded from the chelicerates, which are then identified as the group labelled "Euchelicerata".[20])

Chelicerata

Pycnogonida (sea spiders)Euchelicerata

Xiphosura (horseshoe crabs)
Arachnida
Discovering relationships within the arachnids has proven difficult as of March2016, with successive studies producing different results. A study in 2014, based on the largest set of molecular data to date, concluded that there were systematic conflicts in the phylogenetic information, particularly affecting the orders Acariformes, Parasitiformes and Pseudoscorpiones, which have had much faster evolutionary rates. Analyses of the data using sets of genes with different evolutionary rates produced mutually incompatible phylogenetic trees. The authors favoured relationships shown by more slowly evolving genes, which demonstrated the monophyly of Chelicerata, Euchelicerata and Arachnida, as well as of some clades within the arachnids. The diagram below summarizes their conclusions, based largely on the 200 most slowly evolving genes; dashed lines represent uncertain placements.[18]

Arachnida

Acariformes

Opiliones

Ricinulei
Solifugae
Parasitiformes

Pseudoscorpiones
Scorpiones Tetrapulmonata

Araneae

Amblypygi
Thelyphonida (Uropygi)
Arachnopulmonata

Tetrapulmonata, here consisting of Araneae, Amblypygi and Thelyphonida (Schizomida was not included in the study), received strong support. The addition of Scorpiones to produce a clade called Arachnopulmonata was also well supported. Pseudoscorpiones may also belong here, possibly as the sister of Scorpiones. Somewhat unexpectedly, there was support for a clade comprising Opiliones, Ricinulei and Solifugae, a combination not found in most other studies.[18]
Fossil history

The Uraraneida are an extinct order of spider-like arachnids from the Devonian and Permian.[21]
A fossil arachnid in 100 million year old (mya) amber from Myanmar, Chimerarachne yingi, has spinnerets (to produce silk); it also has a tail, like the Palaeozoic Uraraneida, some 200 million years after other known fossils with tails. The fossil resembles the most primitive living spiders, the mesotheles.[22]
Taxonomy

The subdivisions of the arachnids are usually treated as orders. Historically, mites and ticks were treated as a single order, Acari. However, molecular phylogenetic studies suggest that the two groups do not form a single clade, with morphological similarities being due to convergence. They are now usually treated as two separate taxa – Acariformes, mites, and Parasitiformes, ticks – which may be ranked as orders or superorders. The arachnid subdivisions are listed below alphabetically; numbers of species are approximate.
Acariformes – mites (32,000 species)
Amblypygi – "blunt rump" tail-less whip scorpions with front legs modified into whip-like sensory structures as long as 25cm or more (153 species)
Araneae – spiders (40,000 species)
†Haptopoda – extinct arachnids apparently part of the Tetrapulmonata, the group including spiders and whip scorpions (1 species)
Opilioacariformes – harvestman-like mites (10 genera)
Opiliones – phalangids, harvestmen or daddy-long-legs (6,300 species)
Palpigradi – microwhip scorpions (80 species)
Parasitiformes – ticks (12,000 species)
†Phalangiotarbi – extinct arachnids of uncertain affinity (30 species)
Pseudoscorpionida – pseudoscorpions (3,000 species)
Ricinulei – ricinuleids, hooded tickspiders (60 species)
Schizomida – "split middle" whip scorpions with divided exoskeletons (220 species)
Scorpiones – scorpions (2,000 species)
Solifugae – solpugids, windscorpions, sun spiders or camel spiders (900 species)
Thelyphonida (also called Uropygi) – whip scorpions or vinegaroons, forelegs modified into sensory appendages and a long tail on abdomen tip (100 species)
†Trigonotarbida – extinct (late Silurian early Permian)
†Uraraneida – extinct spider-like arachnids, but with a "tail" and no spinnerets (2 species)
It is estimated that 98,000 arachnid species have been described, and that there may be up to 600,000 in total.[23]
See also

Arachnophobia
Endangered spiders
Glossary of spider terms
List of extinct arachnids

, Natural History Museum, London

What is the second largest order of arachnids?


Metabolic syndrome, sometimes known by other names, is a clustering of at least three of the five following medical conditions: central obesity, high blood pressure, high blood sugar, high serum triglycerides, and low serum high-density lipoprotein (HDL).
Metabolic syndrome is associated with the risk of developing cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes.[1][2] In the US about a quarter of the adult population has metabolic syndrome, and the prevalence increases with age, with racial and ethnic minorities being particularly affected.[3][4]
Insulin resistance, metabolic syndrome, and prediabetes are closely related to one another and have overlapping aspects.
The syndrome is thought to be caused by an underlying disorder of energy utilization and storage.  The cause of the syndrome is an area of ongoing medical research.
Signs and symptoms
The key sign of metabolic syndrome is central obesity, also known as visceral, male-pattern or apple-shaped adiposity. It is characterized by adipose tissue accumulation predominantly around the waist and trunk.[5] Other signs of metabolic syndrome include high blood pressure, decreased fasting serum HDL cholesterol, elevated fasting serum triglyceride level, impaired fasting glucose, insulin resistance, or prediabetes. Associated conditions include hyperuricemia; fatty liver (especially in concurrent obesity) progressing to nonalcoholic fatty liver disease; polycystic ovarian syndrome in women and erectile dysfunction in men; and acanthosis nigricans.
Cause
The exact mechanisms of the complex pathways of metabolic syndrome are under investigation. The pathophysiology is very complex and has been only partially elucidated. Most patients are older, obese, sedentary, and have a degree of insulin resistance. Stress can also be a contributing factor. The most important risk factors are diet (particularly sugar-sweetened beverage consumption),[6] genetics,[7][8][9][10] aging, sedentary behavior[11] or low physical activity,[12][13] disrupted chronobiology/sleep,[14] mood disorders/psychotropic medication use,[15][16] and excessive alcohol use.[17]
There is debate regarding whether obesity or insulin resistance is the cause of the metabolic syndrome or if they are consequences of a more far-reaching metabolic derangement. A number of markers of systemic inflammation, including C-reactive protein, are often increased, as are fibrinogen, interleukin 6, tumor necrosis factor-alpha(TNF-α), and others. Some have pointed to a variety of causes, including increased uric acid levels caused by dietary fructose.[18][19][20]
Research shows that Western diet habits are a factor in development of metabolic syndrome, with high consumption of food that is not biochemically suited to humans.[21] Weight gain is associated with metabolic syndrome. Rather than total adiposity, the core clinical component of the syndrome is visceral and/or ectopic fat (i.e., fat in organs not designed for fat storage) whereas the principal metabolic abnormality is insulin resistance.[22] The continuous provision of energy via dietary carbohydrate, lipid, and protein fuels, unmatched by physical activity/energy demand creates a backlog of the products of mitochondrial oxidation, a process associated with progressive mitochondrial dysfunction and insulin resistance.
Stress
Recent research indicates prolonged chronic stress can contribute to metabolic syndrome by disrupting the hormonal balance of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis (HPA-axis).[23] A dysfunctional HPA-axis causes high cortisol levels to circulate, which results in raising glucose and insulin levels, which in turn cause insulin-mediated effects on adipose tissue, ultimately promoting visceral adiposity, insulin resistance, dyslipidemia and hypertension, with direct effects on the bone, causing "low turnover" osteoporosis.[24] HPA-axis dysfunction may explain the reported risk indication of abdominal obesity to cardiovascular disease (CVD), type 2 diabetes and stroke.[25] Psychosocial stress is also linked to heart disease.[26]
Overweight

Central obesity is a key feature of the syndrome, being both a sign and a cause, in that the increasing adiposity often reflected in high waist circumference may both result from and contribute to insulin resistance.  However, despite the importance of obesity, patients who are of normal weight may also be insulin-resistant and have the syndrome.[27]
Sedentary lifestyle
Physical inactivity is a predictor of CVD events and related mortality. Many components of metabolic syndrome are associated with a sedentary lifestyle, including increased adipose tissue (predominantly central); reduced HDL cholesterol; and a trend toward increased triglycerides, blood pressure, and glucose in the genetically susceptible. Compared with individuals who watched television or videos or used their computers for less than one hour daily, those who carried out these behaviors for greater than four hours daily have a twofold increased risk of metabolic syndrome.[27]
Aging
Metabolic syndrome affects 60% of the US population older than age 50. With respect to that demographic, the percentage of women having the syndrome is higher than that of men. The age dependency of the syndrome's prevalence is seen in most populations around the world.[27]
Diabetes mellitus type 2

The metabolic syndrome quintuples the risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus. Type 2 diabetes is considered a complication of metabolic syndrome. In people with impaired glucose tolerance or impaired fasting glucose, presence of metabolic syndrome doubles the risk of developing type 2 diabetes.[28] It is likely that prediabetes and metabolic syndrome denote the same disorder, defining it by the different sets of biological markers.
The presence of metabolic syndrome is associated with a higher prevalence of CVD than found in patients with type 2 diabetes or IGT without the syndrome.[27] Hypoadiponectinemia has been shown to increase insulin resistance,[29] and is considered to be a risk factor for developing metabolic syndrome.[30]
Coronary heart disease

The approximate prevalence of the metabolic syndrome in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) is 50%, with a prevalence of 37% in patients with premature coronary artery disease (age 45), particularly in women. With appropriate cardiac rehabilitation and changes in lifestyle (e.g., nutrition, physical activity, weight reduction, and, in some cases, drugs), the prevalence of the syndrome can be reduced.[27]
Lipodystrophy

Lipodystrophic disorders in general are associated with metabolic syndrome. Both genetic (e.g., Berardinelli-Seip congenital lipodystrophy, Dunnigan familial partial lipodystrophy) and acquired (e.g., HIV-related lipodystrophy in patients treated with highly active antiretroviral therapy) forms of lipodystrophy may give rise to severe insulin resistance and many of metabolic syndrome's components.[27]
Pathophysiology
It is common for there to be a development of visceral fat, after which the adipocytes (fat cells) of the visceral fat increase plasma levels of TNF-α and alter levels of a number of other substances (e.g., adiponectin, resistin, and PAI-1). TNF-α has been shown not only to cause the production of inflammatory cytokines, but also possibly to trigger cell signaling by interaction with a TNF-α receptor that may lead to insulin resistance.[31] An experiment with rats fed a diet with 33% sucrose has been proposed as a model for the development of metabolic syndrome. The sucrose first elevated blood levels of triglycerides, which induced visceral fat and ultimately resulted in insulin resistance. The progression from visceral fat to increased TNF-α to insulin resistance has some parallels to human development of metabolic syndrome. The increase in adipose tissue also increases the number of immune cells present within, which play a role in inflammation. Chronic inflammation contributes to an increased risk of hypertension, atherosclerosis and diabetes.[32]
The involvement of the endocannabinoid system in the development of metabolic syndrome is indisputable.[33][34][35] Endocannabinoid overproduction may induce reward system dysfunction[34] and cause executive dysfunctions (e.g., impaired delay discounting), in turn perpetuating unhealthy behaviors. The brain is crucial in development of metabolic syndrome, modulating peripheral carbohydrate and lipid metabolism.[33][34]
The metabolic syndrome can be induced by overfeeding with sugar or fructose, particularly concomitantly with high-fat diet.[36] The resulting oversupply of omega-6 fatty acids, particularly arachidonic acid (AA), is an important factor in the pathogenesis of metabolic syndrome. Arachidonic acid (with its precursor – linoleic acid) serve as a substrate to the production of inflammatory mediators known as eicosanoids, whereas the arachidonic acid-containing compound diacylglycerol (DAG) is a precursor to the endocannabinoid 2-arachidonoylglycerol (2-AG) while fatty acid amide hydrolase (FAAH) mediates the metabolism of anandamide into arachidonic acid.[37][35] Anandamide can also be produced from N-acylphosphatidylethanolamine via several pathways.[35] Anandamide and 2-AG can also be hydrolized into arachidonic acid, potentially leading to increased eicosanoid synthesis.[35]
Metabolic syndrome is a risk factor for neurological disorders.[38] Metabolomic studies suggest an excess of organic acids, impaired lipid oxidation byproducts, essential fatty acids and essential amino acids in the blood serum of affected patients. However, it is not entirely clear whether the accumulation of essential fatty acids and amino acids is the result of excessive ingestion or excess production by gut microbiota.
Diagnosis
A joint interim statement of the International Diabetes Federation Task Force on Epidemiology and Prevention; National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; American Heart Association; World Heart Federation; International Atherosclerosis Society; and International Association for the Study of Obesity published a guideline to harmonize the definition of the metabolic syndrome.[39] This definition recognizes that the risk associated with a particular waist measurement will differ in different populations. Whether it is better at this time to set the level at which risk starts to increase or at which there is already substantially increased risk will be up to local decision-making groups. However, for international comparisons and to facilitate the etiology, it is critical that a commonly agreed-upon set of criteria be used worldwide, with agreed-upon cut points for different ethnic groups and sexes. There are many people in the world of mixed ethnicity, and in those cases, pragmatic decisions will have to be made. Therefore, an international criterion of overweight (BMI≥25) may be more appropriate than ethnic specific criteria of abdominal obesity for an anthropometric component of this syndrome which results from an excess lipid storage in adipose tissue, skeletal muscle and liver.
The previous definitions of the metabolic syndrome by the International Diabetes Federation[40] and the revised National Cholesterol Education Program are very similar and they identify individuals with a given set of symptoms as having metabolic syndrome. There are two differences, however: the IDF definition states that if body mass index (BMI) is greater than 30kg/m2, central obesity can be assumed, and waist circumference does not need to be measured.  However, this potentially excludes any subject without increased waist circumference if BMI is less than 30. Conversely, the NCEP definition indicates that metabolic syndrome can be diagnosed based on other criteria. Also, the IDF uses geography-specific cut points for waist circumference, while NCEP uses only one set of cut points for waist circumference regardless of geography. These two definitions are much more similar than the original NCEP and WHO definitions.
IDF
The International Diabetes Federation[40] consensus worldwide definition of the metabolic syndrome (2006) is:
Central obesity (defined as waist circumference# with ethnicity-specific values) AND any two of the following:
Raised triglycerides: > 150mg/dL (1.7mmol/L), or specific treatment for this lipid abnormality
Reduced HDL cholesterol:  < 40mg/dL (1.03mmol/L) in males, < 50mg/dL (1.29mmol/L) in females, or specific treatment for this lipid abnormality
Raised blood pressure (BP): systolic BP > 130 or diastolic BP >85mm Hg, or treatment of previously diagnosed hypertension
Raised fasting plasma glucose (FPG): >100mg/dL (5.6mmol/L), or previously diagnosed type 2 diabetes
If FPG is >5.6mmol/L or 100mg/dL, an oral glucose tolerance test is strongly recommended, but is not necessary to define presence of the syndrome.

# If BMI is >30kg/m², central obesity can be assumed and waist circumference does not need to be measured
WHO
The World Health Organization 1999 criteria[41]  require the presence of any one of diabetes mellitus, impaired glucose tolerance, impaired fasting glucose or insulin resistance, AND two of the following:
Blood pressure: ≥ 140/90 mmHg
Dyslipidemia: triglycerides (TG): ≥ 1.695mmol/L  and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) ≤ 0.9mmol/L (male), ≤ 1.0mmol/L (female)
Central obesity: waist:hip ratio > 0.90 (male); > 0.85 (female), or body mass index > 30kg/m2
Microalbuminuria: urinary albumin excretion ratio ≥ 20µg/min or albumin:creatinine ratio ≥ 30mg/g
EGIR
The European Group for the Study of Insulin Resistance (1999) requires insulin resistance defined as the top 25% of the fasting insulin values among nondiabetic individuals AND two or more of the following:
Central obesity: waist circumference ≥ 94cm or 37 inches (male), ≥ 80cm or 31.5 inches (female)
Dyslipidemia: TG ≥ 2.0mmol/L and/or HDL-C < 1.0mmol/L or treated for dyslipidemia
Hypertension: blood pressure ≥ 140/90 mmHg or antihypertensive medication
Fasting plasma glucose ≥ 6.1mmol/L
NCEP
The US National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III (2001) requires at least three of the following:[42]
Central obesity: waist circumference ≥ 102cm or 40inches (male), ≥ 88cm or 35inches(female)
Dyslipidemia: TG ≥ 1.7mmol/L (150mg/dl)
Dyslipidemia: HDL-C < 40mg/dL (male), < 50mg/dL (female)
Blood pressure ≥ 130/85 mmHg (or treated for hypertension)
Fasting plasma glucose ≥ 6.1mmol/L (110mg/dl)
American Heart Association
There is confusion as to whether, in 2004, the AHA/NHLBI intended to create another set of guidelines or simply update the NCEP ATP III definition.[43][44]
Elevated waist circumference:
Men – greater than 40inches (102cm)
Women – greater than 35inches (88cm)
Elevated triglycerides: Equal to or greater than 150mg/dL (1.7mmol/L)
Reduced HDL ("good") cholesterol:
Men – Less than 40mg/dL (1.03mmol/L)
Women – Less than 50mg/dL (1.29mmol/L)
Elevated blood pressure: Equal to or greater than 130/85mm Hg or use of medication for hypertension
Elevated fasting glucose: Equal to or greater than 100mg/dL (5.6mmol/L) or use of medication for hyperglycemia
Other
High-sensitivity C-reactive protein has been developed and used as a marker to predict coronary vascular diseases in metabolic syndrome, and it was recently used as a predictor for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (steatohepatitis) in correlation with serum markers that indicated lipid and glucose metabolism.[45] Fatty liver disease and steatohepatitis can be considered as manifestations of metabolic syndrome, indicative of abnormal energy storage as fat in ectopic distribution.
Reproductive disorders (such as polycystic ovary syndrome in women of reproductive age), and erectile dysfunction or decreased total testosterone (low testosterone-binding globulin) in men can be attributed to metabolic syndrome.[46]
Rheumatic diseases
There is research that associates comorbidity with rheumatic diseases. Both psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis have been found to be associated with metabolic syndrome.[47]
Prevention
Various strategies have been proposed to prevent the development of metabolic syndrome. These include increased physical activity (such as walking 30 minutes every day),[48] and a healthy, reduced calorie diet.[49]  Many studies support the value of a healthy lifestyle as above. However, one study stated these potentially beneficial measures are effective in only a minority of people, primarily due to a lack of compliance with lifestyle and diet changes.[12] The International Obesity Taskforce states that interventions on a sociopolitical level are required to reduce development of the metabolic syndrome in populations.[50]
The Caerphilly Heart Disease Study followed 2,375 male subjects over 20 years and suggested the daily intake of a pint (~568 ml) of milk or equivalent dairy products more than halved the risk of metabolic syndrome.[51] Some subsequent studies support the authors' findings, while others dispute them.[52] A systematic review of four randomized controlled trials found that a paleolithic nutritional pattern improved three of five measurable components of the metabolic syndrome in participants with at least one of the components.[53]
Management
Medications
Generally, the individual disorders that compose the metabolic syndrome are treated separately.[54] Diuretics and ACE inhibitors may be used to treat hypertension. Various cholesterol drugs may be used if LDL cholesterol, triglycerides, and/or HDL cholesterol is abnormal.
Diet
Dietary carbohydrate restriction reduces blood glucose levels, contributes to weight loss, and reduces the use of several medications that may be prescribed for metabolic syndrome.[55]
Epidemiology

Approximately 20–25 percent of the world’s adult population has the cluster of risk factors that is metabolic syndrome.[56]  In 2000, approximately 32% of U.S. adults had the metabolic syndrome.[57][58] In more recent years that figure has climbed to 34%.[58][59]
History
In 1921, Joslin first reported the association of diabetes with hypertension and hyperuricemia.[60]
In 1923, Kylin reported additional studies on the above triad.[61]
In 1947, Vague observed that upper body obesity appeared to predispose to diabetes, atherosclerosis, gout and calculi.[62]
In the late 1950's, the term metabolic syndrome was first used
In 1967, Avogadro, Crepaldi and coworkers described six moderately obese patients with diabetes, hypercholesterolemia, and marked hypertriglyceridemia, all of which improved when the patients were put on a hypocaloric, low-carbohydrate diet.[63]
In 1977, Haller used the term "metabolic syndrome" for associations of obesity, diabetes mellitus, hyperlipoproteinemia, hyperuricemia, and hepatic steatosis when describing the additive effects of risk factors on atherosclerosis.[64]
The same year, Singer used the term for associations of obesity, gout, diabetes mellitus, and hypertension with hyperlipoproteinemia.[65]
In 1977 and 1978, Gerald B. Phillips developed the concept that risk factors for myocardial infarction concur to form a "constellation of abnormalities" (i.e., glucose intolerance, hyperinsulinemia, hypercholesterolemia, hypertriglyceridemia, and hypertension) associated not only with heart disease, but also with aging, obesity and other clinical states. He suggested there must be an underlying linking factor, the identification of which could lead to the prevention of cardiovascular disease; he hypothesized that this factor was sex hormones.[66][67]
In 1988, in his Banting lecture, Gerald M. Reaven proposed insulin resistance as the underlying factor and named the constellation of abnormalities syndrome X. Reaven did not include abdominal obesity, which has also been hypothesized as the underlying factor, as part of the condition.[68]
Synonyms
"Insulin resistance syndrome", "American syndrome", and "syndrome X" are synonyms for the term metabolic syndrome. The name "syndrome X" also has other meanings.
Controversy
The clinical value of using "metabolic syndrome" as a diagnosis has previously been debated due to different sets of conflicting and incomplete diagnostic criteria. These concerns have led the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes to issue a joint statement identifying eight major concerns on the clinical utility of the metabolic syndrome diagnosis.[69]
The principal argument has been that when confounding factors such as obesity are accounted for, diagnosis of the metabolic syndrome has a negligible association with the risk of heart disease.[70]

Naturally, since the metabolic syndrome is a disorder of energy distribution and storage, fat accumulation explains for a significant proportion of cardiovascular risk. However,  obesity without metabolic syndrome does not confer a significant cardiovascular risk, whereas metabolic syndrome without obesity is associated with a significant risk of diabetes and cardiovascular disease. This association of metabolic syndrome with diabetes can be illustrated by generalized lipodystrophy (near complete absence of adipose tissue). The animals and humans with generalized lipodystrophy develop signs of metabolic syndrome in the absence of adipose tissue; and the metabolic syndrome progresses to type2 diabetes. Adipose tissue transplantation in transgenic mice with lipodystrophy can cure the type2 diabetes.
It has not been contested that cardiovascular risk factors tend to cluster together; the matter of contention has been the assertion that the metabolic syndrome is anything more than the sum of its constituent parts. Phenotypic heterogeneity (for example, represented by variation in metabolic syndrome factor combinations among individuals with metabolic syndrome) has fueled that debate. However, more recent evidence suggests that common triggers (for example, excessive sugar-intake in the environment of overabundant food) can contribute to the development of multiple metabolic abnormalities at the same time, supporting the commonality of the energy utilization and storage pathways in metabolic syndrome.
See also
Portal-visceral hypothesis

 at the Stanford University Pharmacogenomic Knowledge Base

What percentage of the U.S. adult population is diagnosed with obesity?