Civil War Response Paper: Emancipation

Edward Hsieh

Panken 11/16/2014

Very often in popular culture, emancipation is often seen as the ultimate path for freedom

to the slaves, yet paradoxically delivered by Abraham Lincoln, vilified as racist, pro slavery man

who only made the Emancipation Proclamation after running out other options. The writings of

Finkelman, Litwack and McCurry oppose this line of thought. As a person with limited Civil

War knowledge I found all three to be enlightening in showing different perspectives in the issue

of the cause and effect of emancipation, but I do have to question some of the arguments each

author uses, especially since sometimes each author's thesis does not contradict what they're

arguing against.

Finkelman argues that Lincoln was a man who hated slavery and was biding his time. On

page 14 to page 16 Finkelman points out Lincoln had no power to actually stop slavery due to

the unopposed reading that the federal government had no right to take people's property away.

On page 17 Finkelman notes that Abraham Lincoln personally hated slavery for the longest time.

Essentially, Finkelman wanted to explore why Abraham Lincoln only moved forward the

Emancipation Proclamation in 1862. Abraham Lincoln was actually anti slavery, and that the

reason the Emancipation Proclamation was issued so late was due to Lincoln needing solid proof

(in the form of military victory, political support, legality, and possession of the border state).

And thus until he had all of these, Lincoln was content to use his powers as commander in chief

to remove upstart generals like Fremont. My issue with Finkelman, though, is the implications of

necessity, and also the lack of discussion about the Emancipation Proclamation, both of which
make Lincoln seem all for slavery. The reading makes it seem like what Lincoln did was a

necessity in this conflict, which meant that the white executive is needed in order to free the

black slaves. True, he had his personal thoughts, but the fact Lincoln had to think this all out

meant he thought the Proclamation was a must for freedom. This takes away power from the

slaves who actively fled North to be taken in by Union lines, and turns it into a white man's

affair. The lack of content about the Emancipation Proclamation is also troubling since the

proclamation itself could be more slavery orientated. For all of Finkelman's talk about Lincoln

being anti slavery and not needing black soldiers, he chooses not to look at the effect of the

proclamation or Lincoln's definition of slave and freedom; this is especially troublesome since

the proclamation defined slaves as a strong male with family, so if anything freedom is defined

by what the slave could provide in terms of work or soldiery, which makes the proclamation feel

like freedom to be a slave in a certain way. To talk about Lincoln's actions but ignore what he

wrote and issued would be to miss out on part of the argument.

The other two readings in fact talk about the effects of the Emancipation Proclamation,

especially noting how often, instead of freeing the slaves, caused an distorted image. It illustrates

an important point that the term slave was defined by the whims of white men, and too often

freedom does not mean equality. Litwack, for example, points out on page 102 that the

Emancipation Proclamation shapes black men as very good killers, while McCurry argues that in

a way emancipation was forced upon a certain path by the executives, especially in regards to

what emancipation was defined by (mainly, that men were soldiers, while women at best had no

support unless they were married to men). These readings expose the fact that emancipation did

not necessarily free the slaves; the men were often recruited to be soldiers who, despite the

attempts of Frederick Douglass to appeal to Lincoln, end up dead due to harsh conditions,
friendly fire, and even some cases of being shot for insubordination. Often they left behind

women who could only reap the benefits if they were married to the men (and even then without

the men to help, the women are often forced to work in plantation like systems under the Union).

One account from McCurry noted a former slave's sister was turned away from aid when she

entered the camps, which makes sense since she didn't fit under the definition of he, his mother,

his wife, and his children as noted on page 132. So the declaration of slaves being free really

meant freedom under the definitions of white men, who could then use said freed people for their

own efforts as repayment. The images aren't pretty either; black men were primarily portrayed as

labor or even obedient soldiers who can only prove their worth by killing, while women and

children are only the family of black men, and considered a waste of space otherwise. It does

bring up issues of whether life under the Union was any different than the Confederacy,

considering both looked down and stereotype the black people. Of course, this does bring up

questions about how much of this is prejudice and how much necessity. After all, one reason

black people were frowned upon was due to belief they'd make the white people look bad, and

McCurry notes that there was no precedent for seizing black women. To an extent, emancipation

must have turned out this way because of necessity; there was a need for labor and soldiers, and

since there was never a precedent for what to do with the soldiers (and there was a need to keep

the white soldiers happy), the executives such as Lincoln chose to ignore some of these

problems, regardless of what they thought.

Ultimately, these 3 documents helped my perspective of emancipation as being more than

a simple path of freedom, and also paints Lincoln as a cunning politician waiting for his chance.

Of course, the issue then becomes what happens afterwards, as Litwack pointed out many

soldiers were wondering what more they could do for their country after all the fighting they did.