Myths of American Slavery

by Walter Kennedy

  Did Lincoln, as president of the United States, push for laws that would aid in advancing the civil rights of African-Americans in the North? First, let us look at how the North "respected" African- Americans during the War. African-Americans were successfully barred from voting in New Jersey in 1807, in Connecticut in 1814, in Rhode Island in 1822, and in Pennsylvania in 1838.5 Add to these the state of Illinois, which, in 1862 (while its sons were pillaging the South) by an overwhelming vote of the people, passed an amendment to the state constitution declaring that "no negro or mulatto shall immigrate or settle in this This was done after Lincoln had suggested that if the people of Illinois were fearful of Negro immigration, they could pass such a law. With the announcement of the Emancipation Proclamation, there was a general fear among Northerners that their states would be flooded with newly freed African-Americans. In response to this fear, Lincoln sent a message to Congress in which he noted: "But why should emancipation South send free people North? And in any event cannot the North decide for itself whether to receive them?"7 Nor was this feeling of white supremacy confined to Lincoln. Ardent Republicans Gideon Wells, Lincoln's secretary of the navy. and William Seward, Lincoln's secretary of state, both espoused this theory. Wells, referring to the taking of Indian lands during the War, was racially motivated in defending the Federal government's action against Native Americans. He stated that the Indians in Minnesota "have good land which white men want and mean to have."" While Lincoln was playing the race card in 1858, Seward at the same time stated, "The white man needs this continent to labor in and must have it."`-' Even Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman gave expression of his feelings about African-Americans when he stated that the reason he was fighting was "to sustain a Government capable of vindicating its just and rightful authority, independent of niggers, cotton, money, or any earthly interest."10 These statements together with a whole host of "exclusion" laws passed by states throughout the North before, during, and after the War are proof positive that there were no feelings of good will and equality being expressed by either Lincoln or the North. Noting the prevalent racist attitude held by Northerners, English abolitionist James S. Buckingham wrote in 1842:

  This is only one among the many proofs I had witnessed of the fact, that the prejudice of color is not nearly so strong in the South as in the North. [In the South] it is not at all uncommon to see the black slaves of both sexes, shake hands with white people when they meet, and interchange friendly personal inquires; but at the North I do not remember to have witnessed this once; and neither in Boston, New York, or Philadelphia would white persons generally like to he seen shaking hands and talking familiarly with blacks in the streets."

  The fact is that Lincoln's opinion of African-Americans was no different from the opinion of the average American, North or South, during the nineteenth century. Lincoln was not the champion of equality that the liberal establishment has portrayed him. St. George Tucker, a Southerner who believed in the right of secession, came closer to being a defender of the civil rights of AfricanAmericans than Lincoln did. Writing in opposition to slavery, Tucker had this to say about laws that were passed by one social class to the disadvantage of another:

  This species of slavery also exists whenever there is an inequality of rights, or privileges, between the subjects or citizens of the same state, except such as necessarily result from the exercise of a public officer; for the pre-eminence of one class of men must be founded and erected upon the depression of another; and the measure of exaltation in the former, is that of the slavery of the latter.12

  As we have noted, Tucker referred to the discrimination of rights between citizens of a nation as a form of "civil" slavery. At this time it should be obvious that Lincoln was no "friend of the Negro"; his view of the Negro was the same as any other American's of the nineteenth century.

  If Lincoln's opinion of African-Americans was no different from that of the average American of the nineteenth century, then certainly, we are assured by the politically correct crowd, his opinion of slavery was different from that of the average nineteenth-century American. Here again, mythology and fact are at odds.

  Without a doubt, Lincoln and his Republican party were opposed to slavery. But being opposed to slavery does not make one a unique creature in nineteenth-century America. After all, Robert E. Lee was opposed to slavery. Lee stated, "In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral and political evil in any country."" At great personal expense, Lee freed his slaves several years before the War. On the floor of the United States Senate, Jefferson Davis had observed that slavery had a natural end. Davis stated, "[F]or its end the preparation of that race for civil liberty and social enjoyment [must be made] ....When the time shall arrive at which emancipation is proper, those interested will be most anxious to effect it.""4 All major biographers of Jefferson Davis agree that Davis's and his brother's slaves were better prepared for freedom than the average slave. For those who attempt to explain away Lincoln's war because of the need to end slavery, Davis stated:

  War was not necessary to the abolition of slavery. Years before the agitation began at the North and the menacing acts to the institution, there was a growing feeling all over the South for its abolition. But the abolitionists of the North, both by publications and speech, cemented the South and crushed the feeling in favor of emancipation. Slavery could have been blotted out without the sacrifice of brave men and without the strain which revolution always makes upon established forms of

  As has been already pointed out, Southerners had been in the forefront of the battle to end slavery. Neither Lincoln nor the Republican party held a monopoly on the idea of emancipation. They did, however, have as members of their party Radical Abolitionists who were demanding full, complete, and immediate emancipation without either compensation for slaveholders or preparation of the slaves for freedom. In this aspect only did the Republicans have a monopoly. So despised were the Radical Abolitionists that no other major political party in America would allow them leadership positions.

  What was Lincoln's attitude toward slavery as it existed in the United States? Just because Radical Abolitionists found the Republican party more to their liking than any other party at the time does not mean that Lincoln was seeking the betterment of the slaves. James F. Rhodes, in his History of the United States, states, "Lincoln was not, however, in any sense of the word, an According to Rhodes, General Wadsworth said of Lincoln: "He never heard him speak of anti-slavery men otherwise than as `radicals,' `abolitionists'; and of the `nigger question' he [Lincoln] frequently spoke."17 Even more telling, Henry C. Whitney, a nineteenth-century biographer of Lincoln, in his book On Circuit with Lincoln, states, "He [Lincoln] had no intention of making voters of the negroes-in fact their welfare did not enter his policy at all."18 Not only was Lincoln not an advocate of equality for African-Americans, but his views on slavery have also been overstated.

  On October 13, 1858, during a debate between Lincoln and Stephen A. Douglas in Quincy, Illinois, Lincoln stated his views on several slavery-related issues. Lincoln acknowledged the difficulty of ending slavery, thus requiring a gradual system of emancipation; he acknowledged that slavery within any state was legal and could not be eliminated without the consent of that state; and, he assured his audience that he would respect the "rights of property" of the slaveholders. Lincoln stated:

  We deal with it [slavers'] as with any other wrong, insofar as we can prevent its growing any larger, and so deal with it that in the run of time there may be some promise of an end to it [emphasis added]. We have a due regard to the actual presence of it amongst us, and the difficulties of getting rid of it in any satisfactory way, and all the constitutional obligations thrown about it. I suppose that in reference both to its actual existence in the nation, and to our constitutional obligations, we have no right at all to disturb it in the States where it exists, and we profess that we have no more inclination to disturb it than we have the r
ight to do so.... We insist on the policy that shall restrict it to its present limits. [Then Lincoln went on to a discussion of how his party would deal with the Dred Scott case before the U.S. Supreme Court.] We do not propose that when Dred Scott has been decided to be a slave by the court, we, as a nob, will decide him to he free. We do not propose that, when any other one, or one thousand, shall be decided by that court to be slaves, we will in any violent way disturb the rights of property thus settled)`'

  Here we see Lincoln making some of the same arguments about slavery that had been made by Senators John C. Calhoun and Jefferson Davis: (1) Slavery is difficult to eliminate. (2) It has constitutional protections "thrown around it." (3) The Federal government has no right to interfere with slavery within any state. (4) The right of the property of the slaveholder must be recognized. On the issue of slavery, the major difference between Lincoln and Davis is in the limitation of the "growth" of slavery into new states. Lincoln's policy would have limited slavery to, and protected slavery within, the states where it existed. Davis and Calhoun maintained that all citizens (with their property) had a constitutional right to move into the commonly held territory of the United States. Slavery could he eliminated only when that territory became a state. Again, the leaders of the South saw the people of the state as the only agent of sovereignty and not the Federal government. This being the case, only the people of a sovereign state, not the people of a territory nor the Federal government, could abolish slavery.

  Even more telling is Lincoln's views of slavery and the South. Today, it is so common to hear the South demonized because of its "refusal" to end slavery. Everything Southern is subject to defamation because of the supposed refusal of the South to free its slaves. There are constant and incessant calls for the removal of any Southern symbol by those who have chosen to be offended by these symbols. Yet, when we look at Lincoln's view of the issue of slavery, we find him defending the Southern position. In August of 1858 Lincoln made the following statement:

  Before proceeding, let me say I think I have no prejudice against the Southern people. They are just what we would he in their situation. If slavery did not now exist among then, they would not introduce it. If it did now exist among us, we should not instantly give it up. This I believe of the masses North and South. Doubtless there are individuals on both sides who would gladly introduce slavery anew, if it were out of existence. We know that some Southern men do free their slaves, go North, and become tip-top Abolitionists; while some Northern ones go South, and become most cruel slave-masters.

  When Southern people tell its they are no more responsible for the origin of slavery than we, I acknowledge the fact. When it is said that the institution exists, and that it is very difficult to get rid of it in any satisfactory way, I can understand and appreciate the saying. I surely will not blame them for not doing what I should not know how to do myself. If all earthly power were given me, I should not know what to do as to the existing institution. My first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia-to their own native land. But a moment's reflection would convince me that whatever of high hope (as I think there is) there may be in this in the long run, its sudden execution is impossible. If they were all landed there in a day, they would all perish in the next ten days; and there are not surplus shipping and surplus money enough in the world to carry them there in many times ten days. What then? Free them all, and keep them among us as underlings? Is it quite certain that this betters their condition? I think I would not hold one in slavery at any rate; yet the point is not clear enough to me to denounce people upon. What next? Free them, and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this; and if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of white people will not. Whether this feeling accords with justice and sound judgement is not the sole question, if, indeed, it is any part of it. A universal feeling, whether well or ill-founded, cannot be safely disregarded. We cannot make them equals. It does seem to me that systems of gradual emancipation might be adopted; but for their tardiness in this, I will not undertake to judge our brethren of the South.

  When they remind us of their constitutional rights, I acknowledge them, not grudgingly, but fully and fairly; and I would give them any legislation for the reclaiming of their fugitives, which should not, in its stringency, he more likely to carry a free man into slavery, than our ordinary criminal laws are to hang an innocent one.20

  The editor of the Nation Park Service's book on Lincoln, Roy E. Appleton, noted Lincoln's unchanging views on the subject of slavery. According to Appleton, Lincoln sympathized with problems faced by Southerners as they dealt with slavery. Furthermore, Appleton goes as far as stating that no evidence exists that Lincoln "ever changed position on this subject."21 The views espoused by Abraham Lincoln in his famous debate with Senator Douglas make it clear that he was not seeking to bring about social or political equality for AfricanAmericans. But more important, Lincoln answered the often asked question about why the so-called Civil War was being fought. In response to being denounced by leading abolitionists for not freeing the slaves early in the war, Lincoln wrote a letter to Horace Greeley of the New York "Tribune and had it published in several newspapers. As to why he was fighting the War, Lincoln made it clear:

  I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored, the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." 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 he those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. Mv paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery [emphasis added]. If I could save the Union without freeing any slaves, 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 forebear, I forebear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.22

  The words of Lincoln reveal a different type of person from the oft-touted champion of liberty, equality, and brotherhood. What we see is a man who held firm to the nineteenth-century concept of Negro inferiority; a man who believed that the South was correct when it asserted that it was not responsible for the institution of slavery; and a man who was willing to deal with slavery and the "colored race" in any manner to promote his political agenda (i.e., saving the Union). But, what about all those slaves that Lincoln freed? Certainly, being the godfather of freedom for millions of African- Americans would nullify any minor racist statements made by Lincoln.

  The truth is that the so-called Emancipation Proclamation was not designed to free slaves. It had a three-fold purpose: (1) to be used as a propaganda ploy to influence abolitionist England and France not to recognize the Confederacy; (2) to encourage the fear of slave revolts in the South, and thus weaken the Southern armies; and (3) to placate the more radical abolitionist element of the Republican party. Very few Americans (including many teachers of history) have read the Emancipation Proclamation. Upon reading this document one will notice a few interesting points. First, the only slaves to be freed were those slaves living under the control of the Confederate government. Those parts of any Southern state that were under the control of the Federal government were left untouched by the proclamation. The words of the proclamation speak for themselves: "... which excepted parts are for the present left precisely as if this proclamation were never issued."23 For example, in Louisiana, twelve parishes were unequivocally removed from the force of the proclamation. Upon the posting of Lincoln's proclamation, how many people in the Confederate States of American freed their slaves? The question itself is all that is needed to prove that Lincoln's proclamation was a bogus statement of freedom. Second, a reading of the proclamation will revea
l why it was issued. Within the body of the proclamation we read why this document is being announced: "as a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said rebellion."24 If Lincoln's proclamation could not free any slaves in the Confederacy, what about the slaves in the Northern-controlled portions of the country? Not a one of those slaves was freed by Lincoln's vaunted proclamation. Lincoln did not free the slaves. And, to add insult to injury to the myth of the Great Emancipator, according to the proclamation, the only thing a slave state had to do to prevent this proclamation from being enforced was to cease its "rebellion" against the United States. The proclamation clearly stated who would he freed: "[A]II persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free."25

  The story of Henry Simpson, U.S.C.T. (United States Colored Troops), will shed some light on how slaves in "loyal" areas of the South were treated. According to a document signed by Unionist W. C. Sympson, of Kentucky, "The said Henry Sympson [Simpson is spelled with either a "y" or an "i" throughout the document] was born my slave on the _day of 1843, and continued such until entered into military Service of the United States."26 In 1866 Symspon (a slave master) made a claim to the United States for compensation for his slave who had entered the United States military in 1864, some two years after the issuing of the famous Emancipation Proclamation. It should be noted that Symspon stated that he "was and is" a loyal citizen of the United States and therefore had all rights to claim compensation for the loss of his slave property. If Lincoln's proclamation freed the slaves in the United States, how can the slavery of Henry Simpson, U.S.C.T., two years later be explained? So secure was his master in the right of ownership of this slave that he even made an official claim for compensation from the United States for his lost property. Furthermore, this claim was made a year after the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment which outlawed slavery in America.