|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exploring the Myth behind Linclon
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
History is filled with all sorts of myths and legends. Over the years, many historical figures have had myths intertwined with the actual facts of their lives - myths that in many cases portray an image that is very different from reality. Abraham Lincoln is no exception. Ever since his issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation, a legend was born. Immediately, Lincoln became known as the "Great Emancipator." Books written after his assassination portrayed Lincoln as a life long fighter against racial inequality and social injustice. Lincoln has also been characterized as someone who abhorred the institution of slavery and decided to free the slaves as the only humane thing to do. For many minorities, Lincoln has become a symbol of freedom and equality, especially among African-Americans.
|
|
|
|
But is this a fair assessment of Abraham Lincoln? Does Lincoln truly deserve the title of "Great Emancipator?" Is the image that we hold of Lincoln based on facts or an image based on myths? More and more historians are taking a second look at the life of Abraham Lincoln and challenging many of the myths associated with Lincoln. The purpose of this essay is to provide evidence that Lincoln never intended to free the slaves and that the Emancipation Proclamation was more of a military document than a document to free the slaves.
Most people are willing to except what is written about Lincoln and other America heroes at face value. The American history books and many traditional historians have portrayed Lincoln as a life long abolitionist, an honest and admirable man, and a deeply religious and committed man. But most Americans have never actually read one single speech or document written by Abraham Lincoln himself. If they had, they would clearly see that Lincoln strongly believed in white supremacy and that he had no desires of freeing the slaves.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exploring the Myth behind Linclon
|
|
|
|
|
Lincoln has been characterized as a man who devoted his entire life to thwarting injustices, but before Lincoln became president, evidence clearly has shown that Lincoln took a rather hostile attitude toward African-Americans. Many of his closest friends and associates confirmed that Lincoln on a regular basis referred to Blacks as "niggers" and as "inferior beings." Immediately, after being elected president in 1860, Lincoln told friends that "I will be damned if I don't feel almost sorry for being elected when the niggers is the first thing I have to attend to." Imagine Lincoln considering African-Americans to be a nuisance? This does not sound like someone who was eager to fight against racial inequality, and he clearly was not, as additional evidence will show. On September 18, 1858 in southern Illinois, while campaigning against Stephen Douglas for the U.S. senate, Lincoln made this commit at a political rally:
|
|
|
When I was at the hotel today an elderly gentleman called upon me to know whether I was really in favor of producing a perfect equality between the Negroes and white people. [Great laughter from the crowd.] While I had not proposed to myself on this occasion to say much on that subject, yet as the question was asked me I thought I would occupy perhaps five minutes in saying something in regard to it. 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, [applauses]-that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will for ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.
|
|
It has been shown that before Lincoln became president he had little concern for the plight of African-Americans, and his attitude would not change after he became president. On March 4, 1861, Lincoln gave his inaugural address to the nation. In the opening lines of his speech, the newly-elected president did everything to assuage the fears of the Southern States:
Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection....I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.
Within the same speech, Lincoln goes on to say that he will never send federal troops down south to destroy the institution of slavery, and any slave escaping to the north would be promptly returned to his rightful master. Lincoln went on to proclaim that it was his duty to uphold the constitution as it was written by his forefathers, and that his main objective was to preserve the Union at all cost. Clearly, Lincoln was trying to maintain the status quo rather than challenging it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exploring the Myth behind Linclon
|
|
|
|
Within the same speech, Lincoln goes on to say that he will never send federal troops down south to destroy the institution of slavery, and any slave escaping to the north would be promptly returned to his rightful master. Lincoln went on to proclaim that it was his duty to uphold the constitution as it was written by his forefathers, and that his main objective was to preserve the Union at all cost. Clearly, Lincoln was trying to maintain the status quo rather than challenging it.
By 1862, America was mired down in a bloody civil war. The South had made it clear that it would never except Lincoln as their president and they would fight to the end. This was Lincoln's golden opportunity to stress the importance of destroying the cancer that plagued America, slavery. After a stunning victory by the Union forces at Antietam, Lincoln decided to issue his emancipation proclamation. Many Blacks and white abolitionists in the North had urged Lincoln to stress the importance of liberating the slaves and believed that the proclamation would be a stepping stone in getting America on the right track to racial equality. But the proclamation issued on September 22, 1862 by President Lincoln was a major disappointment. The proclamation proved to be more of a military document than a document of freedom. In his speech, Lincoln allowed all the loyal slaves states in the Union, Kentucky, Missouri, West Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware, to keep their slaves. As for the loyal and captured territories within the South, Lincoln exempted these areas from having to give up their slaves as well. The proclamation only applied to those areas in the South that were still in rebellion, and these areas were not about to comply with Mr. Lincoln's proclamation. But Lincoln had no desire of ending slavery even within the South, which had seceded from the Union and was still fighting. Instead, Lincoln chose to extend the olive branch to the rebellious South. Within the proclamation, Lincoln added a provision, which stated:
|
|
That on the 1st day of January, A.D. 1863, all 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; and the executive government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom...as Commander-In-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States in time of actual armed rebellion against the authority and government of the United States, and as a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said rebellion, on this 1st day of January, A.D. 1863...
If the South had given up its armed rebellion by January 1, 1863, Lincoln was willing to allow them back into the Union without having to liberate the slaves. It is clearly obvious that the emancipation proclamation was a military document. Not one slave was ever freed by Abraham Lincoln.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exploring the Myth behind Linclon
|
|
|
|
In conclusion, there are mountains of evidence showing that Lincoln was a white supremacist and that his issuance of the emancipation proclamation was not an attempt to free slaves, but an attempt to preserve the Union at all cost. Lincoln saw the proclamation solely as a military necessity. Lincoln at no time thought about the plight of millions of African-Americans languishing in slavery. His proclamation did not end slavery in America, nor was it intended to end slavery. The image of Lincoln that millions of school children are forced to learn is absurdly false. If Lincoln were to come back and read about himself in the history books, he would not have a clue onto whom historians are referring too. Maybe, one day, a historian will have the courage to document the life of the real Abraham Lincoln. And, maybe, one day, Americans will be willing to except the truth about their hero.
Below is a copy of the Emancipation Proclamation in its entirety and excerpts from Lincoln's first inaugural address:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
By the President of the United States of America: A PROCLAMATION
|
|
Whereas on the 22nd day of September, A.D. 1862, a proclamation was issued by the President of the United States, containing, among other things, the following, to wit:
"That on the 1st day of January, A.D. 1863, all 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; and the executive government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom.
"That the executive will on the 1st day of January aforesaid, by proclamation, designate the States and parts of States, if any, in which the people thereof, respectively, shall then be in rebellion against the United States; and the fact that any State or the people thereof shall on that day be in good faith represented in the Congress of the United States by members chosen thereto at elections wherein a majority of the qualified voters of such States shall have participated shall, in the absence of strong countervailing testimony, be deemed conclusive evidence that such State and the people thereof are not then in rebellion against the United States."
Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, by virtue of the power in me vested as Commander-In-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States in time of actual armed rebellion against the authority and government of the United States, and as a fit and necessary war measure for supressing said rebellion, do, on this 1st day of January, A.D. 1863, and in accordance with my purpose so to do, publicly proclaimed for the full period of one hundred days from the first day above mentioned, order and designate as the States and parts of States wherein the people thereof, respectively, are this day in rebellion against the United States the following, to wit:
Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana (except the parishes of St. Bernard, Palquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James, Ascension, Assumption, Terrebone, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including the city of New Orleans), Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia (except the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkeley, Accomac, Morthharnpton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Anne, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth), and which excepted parts are for the present left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued.
And by virtue of the power and for the purpose aforesaid, I do order and declare that all persons held as slaves within said designated States and parts of States are, and henceforward shall be, free; and that the Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authorities thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of said persons.
And I hereby enjoin upon the people so declared to be free to abstain from all violence, unless in necessary self-defence; and I recommend to them that, in all case when allowed, they labor faithfully for reasonable wages.
And I further declare and make known that such persons of suitable condition will be received into the armed service of the United States to garrison forts, positions, stations, and other places, and to man vessels of all sorts in said service.
And upon this act, sincerely believed to be an act of justice, warranted by the Constitution upon military necessity, I invoke the considerate judgment of mankind and the gracious favor of Almighty God.
Lincoln's First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861:
Fellow citizens of the United States: in compliance with a custom as old as the government itself, I appear before you to address you briefly and to take, in your presence, the oath prescribed by the Constitution of the United States, to be taken by the President "before he enters on the execution of his office."
I do not consider it necessary, at present, for me to discuss those matters of administration about which there is no special anxiety, or excitement.
Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations, and had never recanted them. And, more than this, they placed in the platform for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:
"Resolved: that the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend, and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter under what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes."
I now reiterate these sentiments; and, in doing so, I only press upon the public attention the most conclusive evidence of which the case is susceptible, that the property, peace, and security of no section are to be in any vise endangered by the now incoming administration. I add, too, that all the protection which, consistently with the Constitution and the laws, can be given, will be cheerfully given to all the States when lawfully demanded, for whatever cause-- as cheerfully to one section as to another.
There is much controversy about the delivering up of fugitives from service or labor. The clause I now read is as plainly written in the Constitution as any other of its provisions:
"No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall in consequence of any law or regulation therein be discharged from such service or labor, but she be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."
It is scarcely questioned that this provision was intended by those who made it for the reclaiming of what we call fugitive slaves; and the intention of the lawgiver is the law. All members of Congress swear their support to the whole Constitution-- to this provision as much as to any other. To the proposition, then, that slaves whose cases come within the terms of this clause "shall be delivered up", their oaths are unanimous. Now, if they would make the effort in good temper, could they not with nearly equal unanimity frame and pass a law by means of which to keep good that unanimous oath?
There is some difference of opinion whether this clause should be enforced by national or by State authority; but surely that difference is not a very material one. If the slave is to be surrendered, it can be of but little consequence to him or to others by which authority it is done. And should any one in any case be content that his oath shall go unkept on a merely unsubstantial controversy as to HOW it shall be kept? Again, in any law upon this subject, ought not all the safeguards of liberty known in civilized and humane jurisprudence to be introduced, so that a free man be not, in any case, surrendered as a slave? And might it not be well at the same time to provide by law for the enforcement of that clause in the Constitution which guarantees that "the citizen of each State shall be entitled to all privileged and immunities of citizens in the several States?"
I take the official oath today with no mental reservations, and with no purpose to construe the Constitution or laws by any hypercritical rules. And while I do not choose now to specify particular acts of Congress as proper to be enforced, I do suggest that it will be much safer for all, both in official and private stations, to conform to and abide by all those acts which stand unrepealed, than to violate any of them, trusting to find impunity in having them held to be unconstitutional.
It is seventy-two years since the first inauguration of a President under our national Constitution. During that period fifteen different and greatly distinguished citizens have, in succession, administered the executive branch of the government. They have conducted it through many perils, and generally with great success. Yet, with all this scope of precedent, I now enter upon the same task for the brief Constitutional term of four years under great and peculiar difficulty. A disruption of the Federal Union, heretofore only menaced, is now formidably attempted.
I hold that, in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution, the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of our National Constitution, and the Union will endure forever--it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself.
Again, if the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it--break it, so to speak; but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it?
Descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that in legal contemplation the Union is perpetual confirmed by the history of the Union itself. The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And, finally, in 1787 one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was "TO FORM A MORE PERFECT UNION."
But if the destruction of the Union by one or by a part only of the States be lawfully possible, the Union is LESS perfect than before the Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity....
racial inequality and social injustice. Lincoln has also been characterized as someone who abhorred the institution of slavery and decided to free the slaves as the only humane thing to do. For many minorities, Lincoln has become a symbol of freedom and equality, especially among African-Americans.
But is this a fair assessment of Abraham Lincoln? Does Lincoln truly deserve the title of "Great Emancipator?" Is the image that we hold of Lincoln based on facts or an image based on myths? More and more historians are taking a second look at the life of Abraham Lincoln and challenging many of the myths associated with Lincoln. The purpose of this essay is to provide evidence that Lincoln never intended to free the slaves and that the Emancipation Proclamation was more of a military document than a document to free the slaves.
Most people are willing to except what is written about Lincoln and other America heroes at face value. The American history books and many traditional historians have portrayed Lincoln as a life long abolitionist, an honest and admirable man, and a deeply religious and committed man. But most Americans have never actually read one single speech or document written by Abraham Lincoln himself. If they had, they would clearly see that Lincoln strongly believed in white supremacy and that he had no desires of freeing the slaves.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
