Abraham Lincoln: The Great Emancipator During the Abraham Lincoln’s short time as president, he managed not only to save a nation deeply divided and at war with itself, but to solidify the United States of America as a nation dedicated to the progress of civil rights. Years after his death, he was awarded the title of ‘The Great Emancipator.’ In this paper, I will examine many different aspects of Lincoln’s presidency in order to come to a conclusion: whether this title bestowed unto Lincoln was deserved, or not. In order to fully understand Lincoln, it is necessary to understand the motives that drove this man to action. While some of his intentions may not have been for the welfare of slaves, but for the preservation of the Union, the actions still stand. Abraham Lincoln, though motivated by his devotion to his nation, made the first blows against the institution of slavery and rightfully earned his title of ‘The Great Emancipator.’ In a speech that Lincoln gave prior to his presidency, we can see how ambiguous his stance on slavery truly was. This speech, known as the ‘House Divided’ speech, was given on the 16th of June, 1858, and outlined his beliefs regarding secession, but did not solidify the abolition of slavery as his main goal. Lincoln states that the nation “could not endure, permanently half slave and half free,” and that the slavery will either cease to exist, or will encompass all states lawfully (Lincoln). At this point in his life, Lincoln’s primary concern is clearly with the preservation of the nation. Contrary to a common modern misconception, Lincoln did not believe that Negroes were equal to white men in regards to intellect or morals. In his fourth debate in Charleston, Illinois, he is direct... ... middle of paper ... ...ator.’ Rather than to view Lincoln as a man who sought emancipation as a primary goal, which is misleading, we should remember him as a man who rose above the prevailing prejudices of his time to cast away a morally corrupt institution Works Cited Foner, Eric. The Fiery Trial: Abraham Lincoln and American Slavery. New York: W. W. Norton &, 2010. Print. Lincoln, Abraham. Lincoln's 'House Divided' Speech. The Annals of America. Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1968. N. pag. Print. Lincoln, Abraham, and Terence Ball. Abraham Lincoln: Political Writings and Speeches. NewYork: Cambridge UP, 2013. Print. Lincoln, Abraham, and William H. Seward. "Emancipation Proclamation." National Archives and Records Administration. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Dec. 2013. ml>.
Lincoln was a very smart lawyer and politician. During his “House Divided” speech he asked the question, “Can we, as a nation, continue together permanently, forever, half slave, and half free?" When he first asked this question, America was slowly gaining the knowledge and realizing that as a nation, it could not possibly exist as half-slave and half-free. It was either one way or the other. “Slavery was unconstitutional and immoral, but not simply on a practical level.” (Greenfield, 2009) Slave states and free states had significantly different and incompatible interests. In 1858, when Lincoln made his “House Divided” speech, he made people think about this question with views if what the end result in America must be.
At the time, the South depended on slavery to support their way of life. In fact, “to protect slavery the Confederate States of America would challenge the peaceful, lawful, orderly means of changing governments in the United States, even by resorting to war.” (635) Lincoln believed that slavery was morally wrong and realized that slavery was bitterly dividing the country. Not only was slavery dividing the nation, but slavery was also endangering the Union, hurting both black and white people and threatening the processes of government. At first, Lincoln’s goal was to save the Union in which “he would free none, some, or all the slaves to save that Union.” (634) However, Lincoln realized that “freeing the slaves and saving the Union were linked as one goal, not two optional goals.” (634) Therefore, Lincoln’s primary goal was to save the Union and in order to save the Union, Lincoln had to free the slaves. However, Paludan states that, “slave states understood this; that is why the seceded and why the Union needed saving.” (634) Lincoln’s presidential victory was the final sign to many Southerners that their position in the Union was
If Lincoln was really the Great Emancipator he would have freed the slaves the first chance he got, but he didn’t. An amendment that helps prove this is the Corwin Amendment. This Amendment stated that slavery laws can only be changed by the states (Doc. C). In Document D, Lincoln stated that, “...to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service.” This quote shows how Lincoln agreed with the Corwin Amendment, and by agreeing to this it proves that Lincoln’s main goal was to keep the nation together. If he was really the Great Emancipator he would have disagreed with this amendment and stated his true state of mind. Also according to Emancipation Proclamation it said, “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;” (Doc. H) This sentence from the Emancipation Proclamation talks about freeing the slaves, but if you go into detail you will realize that the only slaves he is freeing are the ones in the South, and since the South is another nation they won’t even listen. This also clearly shows how he wasn’t going to free the slaves in the border states. Also according to the Emancipation Proclamation he gave the South about 4 months to
James Oakes gave a brilliant and unique perspective to a relationship between two well known historical figures of their time. Abraham Lincoln is a well-admired president for the United States because as Americans culture teaches that he was an honest and well-respected man. He heard about a young African American man, who had high aspirations for his life and the blossoming United States. This man’s name was Frederick Douglass. James Oakes demonstrates how both Douglass and Lincoln worked towards the abolishment of slavery and effectively producing better outcomes within antislavery politics.
Lincoln above all solely wanted to save the Union. It was his philosophy that he did not want to rid the country of or promote the institution of slavery, but to prevent the introduction of slavery into new territories and the preserving of the Union. Lincoln, very evidently, stood neutral on the issue of slavery, saying he wouldn't agree with both 1) men who wouldn't save the Union unless they could save slavery at the same time and 2) men who wouldn't save the Union unless they could destroy slavery also (276). This most likely proved to be a huge factor in the war because Lincoln was not choosing sides, but he was more being the mediator. Lincoln...
Jayne argues in this book that the values contained within the declaration of independence heavily influenced Lincoln and that Lincoln attempted to make these values available to African Americans. This type of thinking directly coincides with the modern pro-Lincoln school’s assertion that Lincoln was a good influence on racial thinking. Foner’s Give Me Liberty takes a nearly opposite stance on the issue. The description of emancipation in this textbook reflected Lincoln’s hesitance and actual necessity of emancipation rather than its applications to racial equality. All of the major details were included such as the Corwin amendment and issue of black military service but the book stated pressure from military losses as the cause of emancipation rather than political exchanges. Either way, Give Me Liberty fits into the anti-great emancipator school although it does recognize the positive significance of Lincoln’s actions. Richard’s Who Freed the Slaves? takes an almost identical approach to Lincoln and slavery. Although Richards argues that Lincoln did not play the biggest role in the goals of antislavery and definitely did not support racial equality, he does admit that Lincoln did play an important role in America’s development during the civil war. As a result, this book falls into the anti-great emancipator school but withholds the harsher judgements about
Abraham Lincoln's position on slavery was the belief that the expansion of it to Free states and new territories should be ceased and that it eventually be abolished completely throughout the country. He believed simply that slavery was morally wrong, along with socially and politically wrong in the eyes of a Republican. Lincoln felt that this was a very important issue during the time period because there was starting to be much controversy between the Republicans and the Democrats regarding this issue. There was also a separation between the north and the south in the union, the north harboring the Free states and the south harboring the slave states. Lincoln refers many times to the Constitution and its relations to slavery. He was convinced that when our founding fathers wrote the Constitution their intentions were to be quite vague surrounding the topic of slavery and African-Americans, for the reason that he believes was because the fathers intended for slavery to come to an end in the distant future, in which Lincoln refers to the "ultimate extinction" of slavery. He also states that the men who wrote the constitution were wiser men, but obviously did not have the experience or technological advances that the men of his day did, hence the reasons of the measures taken by our founding fathers.
. .’, concludes James Oakes’ book with the aftermath of the Civil War and Lincoln’s assassination. Oakes discussed the respect Douglass gathered for Lincoln over the years and the affect his assassination had on both himself and America as a whole. Oakes even brushed over Douglass’ relationship with Andrew Johnson, the president succeeding Lincoln. Analyzing his experience with the new president, it was safe to say that Andrew Johnson had no consideration as to what Douglass and Lincoln previously fought for. Johnson did not have the same political skills as Lincoln did, and he did not retain the same view for America that Lincoln did. It was obvious that Douglass held Lincoln at a higher standard than Andrew Johnson, stating that he was a “progressive man, a humane man, an honorable man, and at heart an anti-slavery man” (p. 269). Oakes even gave his own stance on Andrew Jackson, “It was a legacy that Andrew Johnson could ever match. When all of Lincoln’s attributes were taken into consideration - his ascent from the obscurity to greatness, his congenial temperament, his moral courage - it was easy for Douglass to imagine how much better things would be ‘had Mr. Lincoln been living today’.” (p. 262). It is hard to imagine the pre-war Douglass to have said something like that as opposed to an older, much more reserved Douglass. With the abolishment of slavery, so came much discrimination. Without
Reading Lincoln’s first Inaugural Address, one wouldn’t think he would be the president to end slavery.Speaking on outlawing slavery, he says,“I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.” At the time, Lincoln wasn’t worried about slavery,
Abraham Lincoln is a man held in high regard by most present day Americans. He 's a prominent historical figure, and always seems to be depicted as a gleaming example of a truly wonderful person. I grew up thinking of him as an extremely admirable person for his time, a savior bravely facing down the southern Democrats and Confederates while he single-handedly brought about the end of slavery. What I appreciated so much about Slavery, Race, and Conquest in the Tropics was that it easily disproved previous notions I 've had about the topic of Abraham Lincoln and the Manifest Destiny. My knowledge of these subjects before reading May 's work was vastly different than my knowledge of them now, and this response paper is about comparing and contrasting
The differing ideologies between the North and South about the economy and slavery quickly lead to civil war. It was now the duty of Lincoln to maintain the unity of the nation. Therefore, Lincoln is not the “Great Emancipator” because his primary goals throughout his presidency was always to maintain the unity of the nation and not achieve the emancipation of slaves. First of all, by looking at Lincoln’s road to the white house, one can see that Abraham Lincoln was a man undecided on the issue of slavery.
There is no doubt that Abraham Lincoln is widely regarded as one of the great American presidents. The general public, when asked about Lincoln, will often tell the tale of a great man. Holding their head high, they will embark on the journey of a benevolent leader, praising the man who envisioned a new America: a great country of racial equality, and the pillar of human liberty. There are some, however, who have quite the opposite view.
Abraham Lincoln’s original views on slavery were formed through the way he was raised and the American customs of the period. Throughout Lincoln’s influential years, slavery was a recognized and a legal institution in the United States of America. Even though Lincoln began his career by declaring that he was “anti-slavery,” he was not likely to agree to instant emancipation. However, although Lincoln did not begin as a radical anti-slavery Republican, he eventually issued his Emancipation Proclamation, which freed all slaves and in his last speech, even recommended extending voting to blacks. Although Lincoln’s feeling about blacks and slavery was quite constant over time, the evidence found between his debate with Stephen A. Douglas and his Gettysburg Address, proves that his political position and actions towards slavery have changed profoundly.
Contrary to what today’s society believes about Lincoln, he was not a popular man with the South at this time. The South wanted to expand towards the West, but Lincoln created a geographical containment rule keeping slavery in the states it currently resided in. Despite his trying to rationalize with the South, Lincoln actually believed something different ”Lincoln claimed that he, like the Founding Fathers, saw slavery in the Old South as a regrettable reality whose expansion could and should be arrested, thereby putting it on the long and gradual road ”ultimate extinction” (216). He believed it to be “evil” thus “implying that free southerners were evil for defending it”(275). Lincoln wanted to wipe out slavery for good, and the South could sense his secret motives.
Abraham Lincoln deserves the accolade “The Great Emancipator”. The title “Great Emancipator” has been the subject of many controversies. Some people have argued that the slaves themselves are the central story in the achievement of their own freedom. Others demonstrate that emancipation could result from both a slave’s own extraordinary heroism and the liberating actions of the Union forces. However, my stance is to agree that Abraham Lincoln deserves to be regarded as “The Great Emancipator” for his actions during and following the Civil War.