ACCREDITING THOSE WHO FREED THE AMERICAN SLAVES
Final Paper for The Civil War and Reconstruction
***
The enduring response to who dismantled American Slavery and freed its victims is credited to “The Great Emancipator” President Abraham Lincoln. In steep contrast, many argue slaves emancipated themselves after spontaneously feeling fed up from hundreds of years of oppression and destruction. However, recent critiques to this question argue that similar to all events in history, the answer is more complex and cannot be simplified to the agency of one person or group of persons. The institution of slavery was deeply ingrained into all of American society from the moment the first slaves landed, and thus governed nearly every aspect of society. Therefore, the battle between preserving and ending this institution stemming from the pro-slavery, the enslaved and from abolitionists has always been present. The nineteenth century’s election of Abraham Lincoln and the following Civil War only heightened this tension by opening avenues for both sides of the conflict to act upon. It is widely contended that either Abraham Lincoln or the slaves themselves ended slavery; However, monolithic conclusions obsures the reality that slavery ended as a result of the efforts of a culmination of actors.
The American colonies were founded as an attempt for social, political, and economic freedom. The America’s surplus of crops led settlers to turn to African slaves as a source of cheaper and more plentiful labor than indentured servants. Fast forward to the nineteenth century, slavery was at its peak numbering slaves at about four million to about five million free persons within the entire country. What made American slavery unique was its overwhelming reliance and capitalistic extortion off their vast land, crops, and people. Coupled with an inherent consumption of white superiority and racism, those benefiting off slavery constructed an institution where generations of African Americans were bounded to unpaid labor, violence, and rightlessness. Fundamentally, slavery is defined by its property relationship between the slaveholder and his “chattel.” Since slaves were essentially synonymic with their owners’ clothes, dog, and chair, he was allowed to do what he pleased, when he pleased, and how he pleased.
It can be concluded slavery was an important aspect to all of American society; Specifically to the South where large slaveholders and poor whites benefitted off its economy and or racial inequality. Slavery served as a source of social, political, and economic strength. Leading planters owned an average of over 250 slaves providing large influxes of money and positioning them with social and political strength within southern society. In contrast, poor whites, although not favored with tens or hundreds of slaves, retained a pro-slavery position due to a belief in a possible route to upward mobility. As a result of this desire to preserve slavery stemming from both rich and poor, were a variety of acts and laws emerging from increasing unrest within slaves and abolitionists. For example, the new Fugitive Slave Act of the Compromise of 1850 allowed for the capture and return of fugitive slaves to their owners.[1] Slaveholder’s slave loss increased over recent years and was exacerbated by the North’s reluctance to return runaways. The new act thus stated that “any person obstructing the arrest of a fugitive, or attempting his or her rescue... shall be subject to a fine of…one thousand dollars.”[2] In other words, the new act included a potential for harsher punishment and fines to anyone who interfered in the capture of a runaway slave and incentivized those who captured runaways. As a result, this divide between the pro-slavery and the increasing politicization of abolitionists boiled over as the causation of the Civil War.
An underlying objection to slavery has existed for as long as the institution. Like pro-slavery, abolitionists and their beliefs existed along a spectrum where some advocated for immediate emancipation, some for gradual emancipation, and from some sought to restrict slavery and prevent its spread. In general, the abolitionist movement was a push for the emancipation of all slaves and to end racial discrimination and segregation. The movement became increasingly prominent in Northern institutions and politics beginning in the 1830s, which boiled over to the Civil War’s well-known regional divide between North and South. The reasoning for this widespread position within the North is due to their lack of plantations in comparison to the South and therefore, had less need and connection to slavery. In the years leading up to the war, abolitionism became increasingly politicized due to crisis’ over slavery prompted by events such as the Fugitive Slave Act, the Dred Scott decision, and John Brown‘s raid on Harpers Ferry. Therefore, the Republican Party platform adopted much of the abolitionist principles such as no slavery in the territories, no expansion of slavery, and no additional slave states. Further, the Union recognized and promoted slave decisions by employing and emancipating, incentivizing, and protecting slave agency.
This recognition by a political power made the impact of slave agency powerful by affecting both Confederate and Union policies. In many ways, these Union actions acted as a way to undermine the Confederacy, especially during war. For example, in a letter from Union General Benjamin Butler to their Secretary of War, he asks whether they should keep runaway slaves or not. Butler suggests to keep them by reasoning “shall they [Confederacy] be allowed to use this property against the United States and we not be allowed in use in aid of the United States?” [3] This letter displays the direct action on the ground to limit the Confederacy and promote slave resistance occurring before official enacted policies such as the first and second Confiscation Acts. These acts were a series of laws passed by the Union government designed to liberate slaves in the seceded states. The first Confiscation Act of 1861, authorized the Union seizure of “contraband” slaves who made it over union lines.[4] The second Confiscation Act of 1862 was virtually a prelude to the Emancipation Proclamation stating that slaves of the Confederacy within Union occupied states “shall be forever free.”[5]
Before the war, the Republican party platform as previously stated, opposed the spread of slavery and menaced the possibility of granted free African American’s civil equality. Running as a moderate abolitionist and Republican, the election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860 served as a long-term eventual threat to the slavery institution. Incompatible with the Confederate racial ideal of society, Lincoln’s election and the growing anti-slavery debate led to secession within areas with more slave density. As the Civil War gained momentum, former slave labor began to be understood as crucial to the war effort both in terms of labor and as a way to undermine the Confederacy. Therefore, the Emancipation Proclamation was issued at the beginning of 1863, two years into the War, letting freed people enlist into the army within every capacity. Although exalted as “The Great Emancipator” who ended slavery with a stroke of a pen, Lincoln was still challenged by his own internal prejudice. Like other Republicans, he was limited by the anti-slavery position of removing property but no sociopolitical racial equality, only legal and civil.
Still, this does not delimit the breadth of Lincoln’s emancipation because without the recognition of someone with political power, the process to freedom would have stalled. Further, “he wrestled with his often-contradictory feelings and ambivalences and vacillations about slavery, race and colonization.”[6] The fact that he was possibly the first president to acknowledge the possibility of emancipation, black rights, and allow blacks such as Fredrick Douglass to have representation within the politics and the White House. serves as a testament to this development. In Douglass’ eulogy to Lincoln, he recognizes his importance despite being motivated by military necessity by stating, “they [blacks] saw good in the fact that he was plucking out the writing of ages -- prejudice; [by seeing] three millions made free and given the right to defend their freedom with the rifle and cartridge-box.[7]
To a great extent, slaves participated in navigating their own freedom because their actions acted as one the most influential forces in political policy during the Civil War. From the moment they arrived in America, slaves resisted. As the slavery institution reached its peak in the 1800s and as the war drew near, they began to make tangible resistance on the ground. The increasing hostility between the Union and Confederates opened new routes for slaves to act upon. For example, fully understanding the conditions of the war, slaves were the ones who risked their lives to withdraw from their owners, come into Union lines, and work for and with Union soldiers.[8] As a result, the Confederacy passed increasingly stringent laws such as the Fugitive Slave Act and the Union passed the Confiscation Acts in retaliation. However, this agency is commonly linked with men and their violence. As emancipation inched closer to reality, female household slaves commenced the destruction of the plantation by making it increasingly unmanageable and unrecognizable by slowing down their pace of work or playing dumb. Further, they worked as guides and spies for the Union both inside and outside the plantation. Eventually, this growing resistance tipped the balance in favor of freedom, influencing the passage of the Emancipation Proclamation and the following Thirteenth Amendment.
It is widely contended that either Abraham Lincoln or the slaves themselves ended slavery; However, monolithic conclusions obscures the reality that slavery ended as a result of the efforts of a culmination of actors. The actions and beliefs of abolitionists, the pro-slavery, and the slaves themselves existed along a spectrum. With every development before and during the war, each actor propelled the other to act on their beliefs whether that be driving military efforts, preserving slavery, freeing slaves, or destroying or preserving the Union. Therefore, “by challenging the “myth” that Lincoln freed the slaves, proponents of the self-emancipation thesis are in danger of creating another myth – that he has little to do with it.”[9] As a white president equipped with an abolitionist perspective, Lincoln had the power and resources to pass laws and acts driven by slave resistance on the ground. In other words, politics, agency, and the war working in tandem were the factors ending American slavery, not one or the other.
[1] May, Samuel. “The fugitive slave law and its victims.” New York: American Anti-Slavery Society. 1861. 11-17
[2] Ibid 4.
[3] From The War Of The Rebellion: A Compilation Of The Official Records Of The Union And Confederate Armies (1894). Series II, Vol I. Prisoners Of War, Etc.: Military Treatment Of Captured And Fugitive Slaves.
[4] “The First Confiscation Act.” In U.S., Statutes at Large, Treaties, and Proclamations of the United States of America, vol. 12. 1861.
[5] “The Second Confiscation Act.” In U.S., Statutes at Large, Treaties, and Proclamations of the United States of America, vol. 12. 1862.
[6] Henry Louis Gates Jr., “Was Lincoln a Racist?,” Los Angeles Times, April 9, 2000, https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2000-apr-09-bk-17473-story.html, accessed May 24, 2019.
[7] “FRED. DOUGLAS ON PRESIDENT LINCOLN.; Vast Gathering at the Cooper Institute. The Speaker's Views on the Future of His Race. MR. LINCOLN AND COLORED PEOPLE,” New York Times, June 2, 1865.
[8] McPherson, James M. “Who Freed the Slaves?” in proceedings of the APS 139:1 (1995): 1-10. Philadelphia, PA: American Philosophical Society. 2.
[9] Ibid.