Abraham Lincoln and African Americans
How Should Lincoln Be Viewed at the 150th Anniversary of the Civil War?
As
the central figure of the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln, his
policies and his decisions have been repeatedly scrutinized. The years
2011 thru 2015 will commemorate the 150th anniversary dates
of various events of the Civil War, and Lincoln is once again the
subject of much reassessment and reevaluation. African American
opinion of Lincoln has gone through an almost Hegelian dialectic of
thesis, antithesis and now, hopefully, a synthesis is being reached.
The thesis was that Lincoln, the 16th U.S. president, saved the Union and was the Great White Father and the Great Emancipator to America's slave population. African Americans gleefully joined Lincoln's new Republican Party, a party that was founded specifically to oppose the further expansion of slavery, and African Americans stayed loyal to "the party of Lincoln" for almost a century.
Lincoln was still held in such high regard that Martin Luther King Jr. had his historic 1963 March on Washington conclude at the Lincoln Memorial. During the famous "I Have A Dream Speech" delivered at the conclusion of the march, King said, "Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand today, signed the Emancipation Proclamation." King was unabashedly declaring Lincoln as a great American and linking his Civil Rights movement to the legacy and moral character and guidance of Lincoln.
Then came the antithesis. Many African American scholars began to trash Lincoln. For example, Ebony magazine historian Lerone Bennett Jr. questioned whether Lincoln should be known as the Great Emancipator, or even known as someone who deserves any respect within the black community. All of Lincoln's shortcomings were pointed out. Lincoln's proclamation applied only to slaves in states joining in the insurrection. It did not apply to the slave states like Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware and Missouri that stayed loyal to the union. In effect, it did not immediately free a single slave. Furthermore, early in his administration Lincoln supported a colonization plan to return African Americans to Africa or to the Caribbean. Also, before he became president, Lincoln said during his debates with Stephen A. Douglas that he did not believe in the political and social equality of whites and blacks. He also said during his presidential campaign and the early part of his administration that he would only oppose the extension of slavery into "the territories" and would not tamper with it where it already existed. This was far short of where most abolitionists were on this issue. Another demerit on Lincoln's record is that he replaced Vice President Hannibal Hamlin, who was a reliable abolitionist, with Andrew Johnson, a Southern Democrat who opposed secession but also supported white supremacy and the oppression if not enslavement of blacks. Fearing he would not be reelected as things stood, Lincoln allowed Johnson to join him on the ticket in an effort at unity as part of the National Union Party. Johnson did a horrendous job of carrying out the Reconstruction and Hamlin, or almost anybody else for that matter, would have done much better.
Hopefully we are now to the synthesis stage of the dialectic. It must be noted that Lincoln won election only three years after the infamous Dred Scott Supreme Court decision in which Chief Justice Roger Taney declared that black Americans were not citizens and had no rights in which "a white man was bound to respect." So Lincoln must be kept in the context of his time. Although most northerners were abolitionists, many if not most of them held deep racial prejudices and did not want black people moving in among them. This was especially true of those in Lincoln's home state of Illinois.
Also to be noted is the fact that Lincoln underwent tremendous social, political and moral growth during his time in office. He completely moved away from his colonization stance and moved toward allowing African Americans to serve in the Union military and toward opposing slavery everywhere, not just in the territories. Lincoln also had legitimate concerns that if he moved too fast toward black emancipation, he could lose border states like Kentucky and this in turn could tip the scales toward the Confederacy.
During his second inaugural address, Lincoln said: "If we shall suppose that American Slavery is one of those offences which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South, this terrible war, as the woe due to those by whom the offence came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a Living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope--fervently do we pray--that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue, until all the wealth piled by the bond-man's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash, shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said 'the judgments of the Lord, are true and righteous altogether.'"
This is a huge leap forward, a valuing and recognition of the contribution slaves had made to the wealth and the economy of the nation. During his final days, as the war started to wind down and victory for the Union forces seemed inevitable, Lincoln started revealing things he wanted done after the war. He gave a speech in which he said he felt qualified black men, such as those who served as Union soldiers or had demonstrated academic and intellectual achievement, should be given the franchise. One person who heard Lincoln utter these words was John Wilkes Booth. He was offended by such progressive notions of black equality, and this may have been the final straw that broke the proverbial camel's back in terms of what Booth was planning to carry out. It might be argued, then, that Abraham Lincoln was one of the first persons martyred on behalf of the cause of African Americans becoming full citizens.
There are so many reasons for African Americans to acknowledge the enormous legacy Lincoln left to America and the sheer importance of the man. But the simplest explanation is that before he came into office African Americans were slaves with no rights, and just as he was tragically leaving office and in the immediate years thereafter, African Americans were freed and Lincoln's allies had passed the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments, giving African Americans the pathway to full citizenship. African Americans benefited greatly from the leadership and presidency of Lincoln.
Sources:
"I Have A Dream Speech" by Martin Luther King Jr.
Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address, taken from the Norton's Anthology of American Literature
He also notes that while Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation is a significant act in African American history, it was not the ultimate gift of freedom, nor was its primary purpose to free slaves.
Hancock's thoughts come days before the 150th anniversary of the issuance of the Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, which happened on September 22, 1862.
Hancock says, “Most historians now acknowledge that slavery caused the Civil War and that protecting slavery was the South’s top priority. Likewise, there is consensus that saving the Union was the North’s primary goal. The Union did eventually make emancipation a vital secondary objective, but never wavered from its purpose of national preservation.
“The Emancipation Proclamation fit within that purpose. Though typically perceived as the most important legal act for African Americans, it was for white Americans because it helped secure national preservation.
“While Lincoln’s Proclamations [both the Preliminary Proclamation and the final 1863 Proclamation] were ingenious, even artistic, legal articulations that revolutionized the nation, neither document actually emancipated anybody.
“Too often emancipation is perceived as something that was done for African Americans, which connotes a gift or a grant. We often say Lincoln…or the Emancipation Proclamation…or the Union freed the slaves. That phrasing shapes political thinking. On the radio, in homes, and in classrooms, critics of social programs directed at African Americans argue that the nation has done enough for African Americans, starting with freeing them. Whatever one’s position in those debates, any argument presuming that Lincoln’s Proclamation or the sacrifices of Union troops were undertaken for African Americans relies on bad revisionist history. Lincoln’s Proclamation and the sacrifice of our nation’s citizenry did serve a crucial, nation-changing purpose, just not one initiated for African Americans.
“Lincoln has been called the most significant friend African Americans have ever had. Perhaps he was the best ally. An ally may not like, respect, or care about you, but they can work effectively toward the same ends though motives may differ. Lincoln and his Proclamation are arguably the most significant allies Black people have had during our long experience on this continent. But Lincoln was no friend. And his Proclamation was no gift.
“Lincoln’s Proclamation pushed the nation to the hard work of making its founding ideals a reality. Today, we best continue that work by being better allies: allies who genuinely respect one another. One hundred and fifty years later, we accomplish that in part by getting our history right.”
Scott Hancock is an associate professor of history and Africana studies at Gettysburg College. His scholarly interests focus on the African American experience from the mid-seventeenth century to just before the Civil War. His work often involves considering African Americans’ engagement with the law in the north, and incorporates other disciplinary perspectives such as law & society and geography. He is particularly interested in how black interaction with the law, from small disputes in lower courts to escaping via the underground railroad, shaped constitutional law, legal ideologies, black identity and U.S. society. Some of his recent work has appeared in the anthologies Paths to Freedom, We Shall Independent Be, and Slavery, Resistance, Freedom.
Founded in 1832, Gettysburg College is a highly selective four-year residential college of liberal arts and sciences with a strong academic tradition that includes Rhodes Scholars, a Nobel laureate and other distinguished scholars among its alumni. The college enrolls 2,600 undergraduate students and is located on a 200-acre campus adjacent to the Gettysburg National Military Park in Pennsylvania.
The thesis was that Lincoln, the 16th U.S. president, saved the Union and was the Great White Father and the Great Emancipator to America's slave population. African Americans gleefully joined Lincoln's new Republican Party, a party that was founded specifically to oppose the further expansion of slavery, and African Americans stayed loyal to "the party of Lincoln" for almost a century.
Lincoln was still held in such high regard that Martin Luther King Jr. had his historic 1963 March on Washington conclude at the Lincoln Memorial. During the famous "I Have A Dream Speech" delivered at the conclusion of the march, King said, "Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand today, signed the Emancipation Proclamation." King was unabashedly declaring Lincoln as a great American and linking his Civil Rights movement to the legacy and moral character and guidance of Lincoln.
Then came the antithesis. Many African American scholars began to trash Lincoln. For example, Ebony magazine historian Lerone Bennett Jr. questioned whether Lincoln should be known as the Great Emancipator, or even known as someone who deserves any respect within the black community. All of Lincoln's shortcomings were pointed out. Lincoln's proclamation applied only to slaves in states joining in the insurrection. It did not apply to the slave states like Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware and Missouri that stayed loyal to the union. In effect, it did not immediately free a single slave. Furthermore, early in his administration Lincoln supported a colonization plan to return African Americans to Africa or to the Caribbean. Also, before he became president, Lincoln said during his debates with Stephen A. Douglas that he did not believe in the political and social equality of whites and blacks. He also said during his presidential campaign and the early part of his administration that he would only oppose the extension of slavery into "the territories" and would not tamper with it where it already existed. This was far short of where most abolitionists were on this issue. Another demerit on Lincoln's record is that he replaced Vice President Hannibal Hamlin, who was a reliable abolitionist, with Andrew Johnson, a Southern Democrat who opposed secession but also supported white supremacy and the oppression if not enslavement of blacks. Fearing he would not be reelected as things stood, Lincoln allowed Johnson to join him on the ticket in an effort at unity as part of the National Union Party. Johnson did a horrendous job of carrying out the Reconstruction and Hamlin, or almost anybody else for that matter, would have done much better.
Hopefully we are now to the synthesis stage of the dialectic. It must be noted that Lincoln won election only three years after the infamous Dred Scott Supreme Court decision in which Chief Justice Roger Taney declared that black Americans were not citizens and had no rights in which "a white man was bound to respect." So Lincoln must be kept in the context of his time. Although most northerners were abolitionists, many if not most of them held deep racial prejudices and did not want black people moving in among them. This was especially true of those in Lincoln's home state of Illinois.
Also to be noted is the fact that Lincoln underwent tremendous social, political and moral growth during his time in office. He completely moved away from his colonization stance and moved toward allowing African Americans to serve in the Union military and toward opposing slavery everywhere, not just in the territories. Lincoln also had legitimate concerns that if he moved too fast toward black emancipation, he could lose border states like Kentucky and this in turn could tip the scales toward the Confederacy.
During his second inaugural address, Lincoln said: "If we shall suppose that American Slavery is one of those offences which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South, this terrible war, as the woe due to those by whom the offence came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a Living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope--fervently do we pray--that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue, until all the wealth piled by the bond-man's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash, shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said 'the judgments of the Lord, are true and righteous altogether.'"
This is a huge leap forward, a valuing and recognition of the contribution slaves had made to the wealth and the economy of the nation. During his final days, as the war started to wind down and victory for the Union forces seemed inevitable, Lincoln started revealing things he wanted done after the war. He gave a speech in which he said he felt qualified black men, such as those who served as Union soldiers or had demonstrated academic and intellectual achievement, should be given the franchise. One person who heard Lincoln utter these words was John Wilkes Booth. He was offended by such progressive notions of black equality, and this may have been the final straw that broke the proverbial camel's back in terms of what Booth was planning to carry out. It might be argued, then, that Abraham Lincoln was one of the first persons martyred on behalf of the cause of African Americans becoming full citizens.
There are so many reasons for African Americans to acknowledge the enormous legacy Lincoln left to America and the sheer importance of the man. But the simplest explanation is that before he came into office African Americans were slaves with no rights, and just as he was tragically leaving office and in the immediate years thereafter, African Americans were freed and Lincoln's allies had passed the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments, giving African Americans the pathway to full citizenship. African Americans benefited greatly from the leadership and presidency of Lincoln.
Sources:
"I Have A Dream Speech" by Martin Luther King Jr.
Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address, taken from the Norton's Anthology of American Literature
African Americans Had No Friend in Lincoln
Newswise — Scott Hancock, an associate professor of history and Africana studies at Gettysburg College, says that the accepted notion that President Abraham Lincoln was the greatest friend of African Americans is false.He also notes that while Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation is a significant act in African American history, it was not the ultimate gift of freedom, nor was its primary purpose to free slaves.
Hancock's thoughts come days before the 150th anniversary of the issuance of the Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, which happened on September 22, 1862.
Hancock says, “Most historians now acknowledge that slavery caused the Civil War and that protecting slavery was the South’s top priority. Likewise, there is consensus that saving the Union was the North’s primary goal. The Union did eventually make emancipation a vital secondary objective, but never wavered from its purpose of national preservation.
“The Emancipation Proclamation fit within that purpose. Though typically perceived as the most important legal act for African Americans, it was for white Americans because it helped secure national preservation.
“While Lincoln’s Proclamations [both the Preliminary Proclamation and the final 1863 Proclamation] were ingenious, even artistic, legal articulations that revolutionized the nation, neither document actually emancipated anybody.
“Too often emancipation is perceived as something that was done for African Americans, which connotes a gift or a grant. We often say Lincoln…or the Emancipation Proclamation…or the Union freed the slaves. That phrasing shapes political thinking. On the radio, in homes, and in classrooms, critics of social programs directed at African Americans argue that the nation has done enough for African Americans, starting with freeing them. Whatever one’s position in those debates, any argument presuming that Lincoln’s Proclamation or the sacrifices of Union troops were undertaken for African Americans relies on bad revisionist history. Lincoln’s Proclamation and the sacrifice of our nation’s citizenry did serve a crucial, nation-changing purpose, just not one initiated for African Americans.
“Lincoln has been called the most significant friend African Americans have ever had. Perhaps he was the best ally. An ally may not like, respect, or care about you, but they can work effectively toward the same ends though motives may differ. Lincoln and his Proclamation are arguably the most significant allies Black people have had during our long experience on this continent. But Lincoln was no friend. And his Proclamation was no gift.
“Lincoln’s Proclamation pushed the nation to the hard work of making its founding ideals a reality. Today, we best continue that work by being better allies: allies who genuinely respect one another. One hundred and fifty years later, we accomplish that in part by getting our history right.”
Scott Hancock is an associate professor of history and Africana studies at Gettysburg College. His scholarly interests focus on the African American experience from the mid-seventeenth century to just before the Civil War. His work often involves considering African Americans’ engagement with the law in the north, and incorporates other disciplinary perspectives such as law & society and geography. He is particularly interested in how black interaction with the law, from small disputes in lower courts to escaping via the underground railroad, shaped constitutional law, legal ideologies, black identity and U.S. society. Some of his recent work has appeared in the anthologies Paths to Freedom, We Shall Independent Be, and Slavery, Resistance, Freedom.
Founded in 1832, Gettysburg College is a highly selective four-year residential college of liberal arts and sciences with a strong academic tradition that includes Rhodes Scholars, a Nobel laureate and other distinguished scholars among its alumni. The college enrolls 2,600 undergraduate students and is located on a 200-acre campus adjacent to the Gettysburg National Military Park in Pennsylvania.
No comments:
Post a Comment