(A Research Paper of US History course done by Su in Pomfret.)
Humans have an inclination to overgeneralize and oversimplify. This psychological tendency is the root of many significant problems in the world, such as stereotyping and prejudice.
Oversimplifying history, however, can result in severely misinformed understandings and interpretations of historical events. Nowadays, there is a popular and unchallenged misconception that the Civil War occurred because slavery was practiced in the South, and that the determination to abolish such an immoral practice as slavery left the United States with no option other than a resort to arms.
This is a view which cannot be rectified by many historical facts. The aftermath of the Civil War, specifically the Emancipation Proclamation, proved that slaves - though being an integral force that helped the Union win the Civil War - did not achieve their goal of total freedom and abolition of slavery.
This suggests that the North did not fight to end slavery. In fact, the proclamation and Lincoln’s tactics in the war serve as evidence to reveal how the North used the idea of slavery to gain military support from the slaves, to prevent foreign intervention, and to change the focus of the war.
There is a popular but inaccurate notion that eliminating slavery was the North’s prime motivation to enter and fight the Civil War. Historians such as Allen Guelzo [1] and James Oakes [2] argued that Lincoln and the Union in general viewed slavery as a cruel, inhumane laboring system that needed to be eradicated.
According to them, the North was no longer willing to tolerate slavery as being part of the fabric of US society and that Lincoln was planning to abolish slavery from the first day of his presidency.
This is what we are all taught in school; and the idea is strongly entrenched today. Most of post-1965 texts define the motivation of Northern soldiers in the war to be emancipation and freeing of slaves, rather than the saving of the Union.
According to Henry Bragdon, Samuel McCuthen, and Donald Ritchie (1992) [3], the Northern population could never justify the war by mere restoration of the Union; another text suggests that the Emancipation Proclamation "aroused a renewed spirit in the North" and strengthened the will to win the war (Downey and Metcalf 1997:375, 461-62) [4].
These historical criticisms and textbooks all share the same point of view: that the major goal of the North was not preserving Union but "the movement to free the slaves and an enduring commitment to racial justice" (Boyer, Todd, and Curtis 1995:379-80) [5].
More radical historians insist that “since slavery was the war's moral issue, Emancipation was the cement that only held the North together (Buggey et al. 1987:391) [6]. This understanding and interpretation oversimplifies a complex issue, and even cause some distortions of the truth.
Historical record and evidence – some of them provided by distinguished historians such as Foner, McPherson, and Gallagher – revealed that slavery was only used as an instrument to ensure victory of the Union.Many historians argued that freeing slaves from cruel bondage was the sole purpose of Union soldiers; in reality, few Union soldiers professed to fight for racial equality.
The majority of soldiers was either apathetic about the issue of slavery or oppose emancipation and the freeing of slaves. Even if there was an antislavery sentiment, it was not necessarily an abolitionist position resulting from humanitarian concerns for the slaves. Rather, it stemmed from the mindset that portrays the South as underdeveloped and barbaric compared to the North.
In a letter to his to his wife from Tennesse in 1862, the colonel of the 53rd Indiana unit described his belief and how backwards the South is:
“I am no abolitionist, but the more I see of slavery in all its enormity the more I am satisfied that it is a curse to our country…Outside the towns in the South the people are a century behind the free states.” [7]
As Northern armies invaded the South, they hid fugitives in camps and prevent their masters from reclaiming them back [8]. Some historians identify this as an abolitionist movement. Nevertheless, these soldiers were more pragmatic than altruistic. They understood that every slave laborer who emancipated himself by coming into the Union lines weakened the Confederate war effort and strengthen the Union army.
An indisputable proof for this counterargument was the way Union soldiers treated slaves. One lieutenant could not be more blunt in his letter when he said that “I don’t care a damn for the darkies…I have 11 negroes in my company now. They do every particle of the dirty work. Two women among them do the washing for the company.” [9] The soldiers viewed slaves as property and exploited slave’s labor, identical to what Confederates and slave owners did.
This illustrate that Union soldiers were not genuinely concerned for the human rights and well-being of slaves. Furthermore, many Union soldiers strongly opposed the idea of freeing the slaves. Numerous soldiers said that if Lincoln caved in to “these ‘black Republicans’” and made it “an abolition war… I for one shall be sorry that I ever lent a hand to it.” [10]
Their resistance to any notion of turning a war for Union into a war against slavery has been one reason for Lincoln’s hesitancy to embrace emancipation.
Lincoln addressed this issue of a divided Union in a letter to his friend Joshua Speed in 1855: “But you say that sooner than yield your legal right to the slave -- especially at the bidding of those who are not themselves interested, you would see the Union dissolved.” [11]
Some Union soldiers feel betrayed because of the Emancipation Proclamation. This proves that they were willing to risk their lives for Union, but not for black freedom. Lieutenant colonel of the 3rd New York was enraged, stating that “I did not come out to fight for the nigger or abolition of Slavery…Lincoln ought to be lashed up to 4 big fat niggers & left to wander about with them the balance of his life” [12].
The Emancipation Proclamation intensified a morale crisis in Union armies during the winter of 1862-1863, especially in the Army of the Potomac, resulting in a sharp rise in Desertion rates. The cause of Union united Northern soldiers; the cause of emancipation divided them.
How could the Union have aimed to fight for racial equality when their leader, President Abraham Lincoln, did not believe in equal social and political rights between whites and blacks? The contemporary perception of Lincoln is a flawed and misinformed one, inconsistent with historical evidence.
In a survey carried out by Knowledge Networks between July 13 and July 17,2001, approximately 1,000 American adults were asked the question: "Suppose a nephew or niece about 12 years old had just heard some mention of Abraham Lincoln and asked you to explain what Abraham Lincoln had done. What would you say?”
The results show that 66.3% of those adults mentioned Lincoln as “The Great Emancipator” – who fought to abolish slavery, who freed and gave slaves social and political rights – while only 14.2% of respondents have any mentions of Lincoln as the savior of the Union [13].
Clearly, the image of Lincoln as a man who abhorred slavery and racial discrimination is ingrained in the public’s opinion. Supporters of this view will be disillusioned had they known that eliminating slavery was the last thing on the president’s mind.
On September 18, 1858, in his fourth debate with Stephen Douglas during the Illinois race for U.S. Senate, Lincoln was straightforward about his view: ““I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races,” [14] he began, going on to say that he opposed blacks having the right to vote, to serve on juries, to hold office and to intermarry with whites.
Even as President, his belief did not change. “I have no I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so,” [15] the “Great Emancipator” declared in his Inauguration speech.
Some historians are not convinced by these evidence, saying that Lincoln was compelled to tell the public statements that contradicts his true belief in order to win popular support.
His letter to Horace Greeley in 1862, which reaffirms the President’s real motive behind the war, invalidates this interpretation:
“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.” [16]
Contrary to popular belief, Lincoln was not an abolitionist; he was not concerned about slaves and the cruelty of slavery. Because he was the leader of the Union troops, the person who gives the army a common cause to fight the war, eradicating slavery could not have been the intention for the North to fight the Civil War.
The Emancipation Proclamation is one of the most misunderstood documents in American history; its purpose was not to free slaves, but to weaken the South while enforcing the North with black soldiers, to prohibit foreign intervention and to justify the war.
Historians like Guelzo and Oakes refer to the Emancipation Proclamation as the most convincing evidence that conflict over slavery is at the heart of the Civil War, arguing that it freed a significant number of slaves. This is a confusion between the means and the ends.
The reason that Emancipation Proclamation was issued did not involve slaves. Continuing lack of military success make emancipation necessary, since emancipated slaves might help meet the army’s growing manpower needs.
Lincoln knew that the South was using enslaved people to aid the war effort, that black men and women were forced to build fortifications, work as blacksmiths, nurses, boatmen, and laundresses, and to work in factories, hospitals, and armories.
The president was therefore forced to release the proclamation to stop this military aid and weaken the South. Another similar legislature by Lincoln to punish the South was the First Confiscation Act on August 6, 1861.
According to this act, fugitive slaves were declared to be "contraband of war" if their labor had been used to aid the Confederacy in any way; and if found to be contraband, they were declared free [17].
Indeed, the Emancipation Proclamation and the First Confiscation Act were devastating to the South’s army. A Confederate general stated in 1862 that North Carolina was losing approximately a million dollars every week because of the fleeing slaves [18]. Slaves were merely manipulated as an instrument to ensure the North’s victory.
Emancipation Proclamation helped the North win the war and preserve the Union more than bettering the conditions of slaves. Lincoln’s action made the war no longer merely a contest between North and South; but a contest between human rights and human liberty on one side and eternal bondage on the other.
After Lincoln’s Proclamation “foreign nations will now have to come out flat-footed and take sides; they dare not go with the South for slavery, and consequently they will all be ranged on our side.”[19] Britain, along with other European countries that had abolished slavery, could not become diplomatically hypocritical and aid the South during the war. This morality switch in the purpose of the war also diminished the South soldiers’ fighting willpower. Confederates began to accept a defeat that would rid themselves of the moral burden of slavery.
The Emancipation Proclamation made many white Southerner “even more uneasy about their isolation in a world in which the great powers of Europe, now joined by the US, sought to extirpate slavery.” [20] Unable to bear the weight of world moral disapproval, many Confederates abandoned their commitment to slavery – and with it a major reason to strive for an independent southern nation.
On the other hand, the Emancipation Proclamation also enabled blacks to enlist in Northern armies. By the end of the war more than 186,000 black soldiers had joined the Union army; 93,000 from the Confederate states, 40,000 from the border slave states, and 53,000 from the free states. [21]
The racism and discrimination was evident in the North’s army, however. Black soldiers therefore received $7 per month, plus a $3 clothing allowance, while white soldiers received $13 per month, plus $3.50 for clothes. “Are we soldiers, or are we laborers?” James Henry Gooding, a black soldier, wrote directly to President Lincoln. “We are fully armed and equipped, and have… done a soldier’s duty. Why can’t we have a soldier’s pay?” [22]
Of course, it would be extremely biased to overlook the fact that Emancipation Proclamation freed slaves. Nonetheless, Lincoln did not free slaves with a stroke of his pen. The Proclamation applied almost exclusively to areas under Confederate control. Thus, it had no bearing on the nearly half a million slaves in the border slave states that had never seceded from the Union, or on more than three hundred thousand slaves in areas of the Confederacy occupied by Union soldiers and exempted by Lincoln from its coverage – the entire state of Tennessee and parts of Virginia and Louisiana. [23]
Therefore, putting over-emphasis on the Proclamation’s freeing of slaves rather than the advantages it provided for the Union is an incorrect and distorted interpretation of the abundant historical evidence. Emancipation was an afterthought, a last resort, a means, not an end.
The North did not fight for racial justice nor freedom of slaves; they fought to preserve the Union. Now that the misconception has been dismantled, one cannot help but wonder why the oversimplified and inaccurate representation of the Civil War is so prevalent in public opinion. One possible explanation for this phenomenon is that abolishing slavery was an excuse for Americans, both common people and the authority, to justify this gory war.
Contrary to popular belief, the war was unnecessary and was avoidable. If intense desires to end slavery of the North and to preserve slavery in the South were truly the central conflict of the war, Americans could probably have reconciled the conflict without shedding a drop of blood.
The author of The Right and Wrong in Our Civil War suggests a very plausible theory that a sum of money equal to one fifth of the loss caused by the Civil War would be sufficient to pay their masters more than twice the average market value of every black man, woman and child [24].
However, the war ended with both the North and South devastated. Historians, textbook writers and educators – while striving to remain neutral and unbiased in their interpretation of the Civil War – made the war seem unavoidable, that it was an all glorious birth of true democracy, and that no one was to blame.
Today, American youth simply boast about how big and brave their ancestors were. Too often, the moral element is ignored and the vital truth is unrecognized. Americans need to build up courage and view the Civil War under an earnest lens in order to see how unnecessary and unjustifiable the war was, and how befogged and gullible their mind were to think otherwise.
[1] Allen C. Guelzo, Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation: The End of Slavery in America (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2004)
[2] James Oakes, The Ruling Race: A History of American Slaveholders (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1982).
[3] Bragdon, Henry W., Samuel Proctor McCutchen, and Donald A. Ritchie. History of a Free Nation. New York: Glencoe/McGraw-Hill, 1998. Print. As appeared in History, Commemoration, and Belief: Abraham Lincoln in American Memory, 1945-2001 Barry Schwartz and Howard Schuman American Sociological Review Vol. 70, No. 2 (Apr., 2005) , pp. 183-203 . Published by: American Sociological Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4145367
[4] Downey, M.T.G. Jr. and E. D. Metcalf. 1997. United States History: In the Course of Human Events. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing.
[5] Boyer, Paul, Lewis P. Todd, and Merle Curti. 1995. TheAmerican Nation. Austin, TX: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
[6] Buggey, Joanne, Gerald A. Danzer, Charles L. Mitsakos, and Fredrick Risinger. 1987. America! America! Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and Company
[7] Walter Q. Gresham to Tillie Gresham, March 24, 1862, Gresham Papers, LC , as appeared in McPherson, James M. For cause & Comrades. Oxford, Newyork: Oxford University Press, 1997.
[8] McPherson, 118
[9] Charles Wills to family, April 16, 1862 in Army Life of an Illinois Soldier: Letters and Diary of the late Charles Wills (Washington,1906), 83,158
[10] Charles S. Wainwright, Diary, entries of Jan. 15 and May 29, 1862, HEH.
[11] Abraham Lincoln to Joshua Speed, August 24, 1855 as appeared in Lincoln, Abraham, and Roy P. Basler. The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers UP, 1953. Print.
[12] Henry P. Hubbell to Walter Hubbell, Jan. 26, Feb.7, 1863, Hubbell Papers, FLPU as appeared in McPherson, 125
[13] Survey of Knowledge Networks and Maryland, as appeared in Schwartz and Schuman, 189
[14] Pruitt, Sarah. "5 Things You May Not Know About Lincoln, Slavery and Emancipation."History.com. A&E Television Networks, 21 Sept. 2012. Web. 01 Mar. 2014.
[15] Abraham Lincoln's First Inaugural Address". Abraham Lincoln's Classroom. Retrieved 2010-04-12.
[16] Abraham Lincoln’s letter to Horace Greely, 1862, as appeared in Lincoln and Basler
[17] "Confiscation Acts." Encyclopaedia Britannica. Encyclopaedia Britannica Online Academic Edition. Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., 2014. Web. 02 Mar. 2014.
[18] Gallagher, Gary W. The Confederate War. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997.
[19] George W. Biedelman to father, Oct. 1, 1862, in The Civil War Letters of George Washington Beidelman, ed. Catherine H. Vanderslice (New York, 1978), 116
[20] Gallagher, 26
[21] Gallagher, 30
[22] Foner, Eric. Forever Free. Illustrated by Joshua Brown. Edited by Christine Doudna. N.p.: Afred A. Knoff - Borzoi Book, 2005, 55
[23] Foner, 57
[24] The Right and the Wrong in Our Civil War AN OLD SOLDIER and H. B. S. The Advocate of Peace (1894-1920)
Vol. 65, No. 9 (SEPTEMBER 1903) , pp. 160-164 Published by: World Affairs Institute Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25752194
