Marshal Murrell
Mr. Robert Ellis
U.S. History II
25 January 2018 Reflection
What social or political consequences would be faced today if Lincoln had not written the Emancipation Proclamation, or if slavery in the late nineteenth century had not been abolished timely and with such moral, even political, motivation? A very well thought out question that is needed to be addressed in an accurate manner. Such mannerism and speculations are what Tom Wicker decisively delineates in his excerpt from “If Lincoln Had Not Freed the Slaves.”
We could say with confidence that racial discrimination is a wonted problem in American society today. Wicker begins with this issue stating, “How could it be otherwise?” (Wicker, 2). He supports this claim with
…show more content…
Also, reasoning for this statistic is not that a black man is imprisoned seven times more than a white, but that the …show more content…
Most people today have been taught the knowledge that Abraham Lincoln was the “Great Emancipator,” a true hero fighting against the deprecating act of slavery. Not to say these thoughts are not true, but, as clarified in the excerpt, were not Lincoln’s chief motives. As stated in his letter to the New York Tribune, “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union and is not either to save or to destroy slavery” (Wicker, 4). Instead, as imposed in the article, Lincoln’s original idea for emancipation was to compensate slave owners while steadily abolishing slavery throughout the country by the year 1900. To my initial reasoning this did seem a logical advancement; however, not to the popular thought of that time: with the deportation of blacks to a foreign land to rule themselves. For to deport them back to Africa, in my thoughts, would have to be the former slaves’ choice. To me the slaves, through generations on American soil, were themselves Americans. The author, conversely, follows the former thought indicating that no one at the time mentioned that whites should emigrate and leave the land of the United States to the blacks. This notion--not to offend the author, for his viewpoints are most definitely well pondered--is to me almost unreasonable. Most of the whites that lived in the United States
This is supported by Document I which stated, “...I am naturally anti-slavery. If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong...” This quote shows Lincoln’s true state of mind and how he is really the Great Emancipator. Yet in Document B he clearly states, “...I am not nor never have been in favor of bringing about in any way, the social and political equality of the white and black races...” This quote counters the fact that Lincoln actually wanted to free the slaves. If he was truly anti-slavery he would have never said such a thing about leaving slavery the way it is. By saying he didn’t want to free the slaves, it tells us that Lincoln isn’t really the Great Emancipator.
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.
In the beginning of the 1860s, there were constitutional developments that arose to a radical extent because it suffices the beliefs of American citizens with the issue over slavery. For instance, Abraham Lincoln taking hold of the presidency was an impacting ...
. .’, 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
What has changed since the collapse of Jim Crow has less to do with the basic structure of our society than with the language we use to justify it. In the era of colorblindness, it is no longer socially permissible to use race, explicitly, as a justification for discrimination, exclusion, and social contempt. So we don’t. Rather than directly rely on race, we use the criminal justi...
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,
concerns racial equality in America. The myth of the “Melting Pot” is a farce within American society, which hinders Americans from facing societal equality issues at hand. Only when America decides to face the truth, that society is not equal, and delve into the reasons why such equality is a dream instead of reality. Will society be able to tackle suc...
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.’
Then, once the Civil War began, he was merely trying to preserve what was left of an unstable union. The true “Emancipators” of slavery lie in the grass roots people of that time, the abolitionists, Frederick Douglas, and the slaves themselves. The slaves earned their freedom. Lincoln was merely a man who let the events of his era determine his policy. “I claim not to have controlled events but confess plainly that events controlled me.”
Racial discrimination is a pertinent issue in the United States. Although race relations may seem to have improved over the decades in actuality, it has evolved into a subtler form and now lurks in institutions. Sixty years ago racial discrimination was more overt, but now it has adapted to be more covert. Some argue that these events are isolated and that racism is a thing of the past (Mullainathan). Racial discrimination is negatively affecting the United States by creating a permanent underclass of citizens through institutional racism in business and politics, and creating a cancerous society by rewriting the racist history of America. Funding research into racial discrimination will help society clearly see the negative effects that racism
...r own unique ways.; however, the authors focus on different aspects of prejudice and racism, resulting in them communicating different ideas and thoughts that range from racial discrimination to stereotypical attitudes. The range of ideas attempt to engage the readers about the reality of their issues. The reality about a world where prejudice and racism still prevail in modern times. But when will prejudice and racism ever cease to exist? And if they were ever to cease from existence, what does that mean about humankind?
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.
Dr. Kenneth B. Clark’s legacy has lived on and will continue to inspire because, even today, in the 21st century, there are many ideas and problems that Clark addresses in the realm of prejudice and racism that are still relevant in social identity, education and the work place in America. Clark was a social psychologist who was a firm believer in equality, though he knew that racial division would be a difficult task to overcome, he still thought it was a concept that was necessary for America to progress. One of the many researchers that have continued Clark’s work is Thomas F. Pettigrew. Pettigrew (2004) suggests that America is not where it needs to in reference to equal opportunity. Pettigrew does acknowledge that there has been many steps forward since the Brown case and Clark’ s doll studies, but believes there has also, been many steps taken backwards in regards to the progress of racial equality and opportunity (Pettigrew, 2004). According to Pettigrew (2004) racial prejudices have come to be much less blatant but still have the same effect on the people exposed to the phenomena. Though racial prejudices are still prevalent, the source of the tension is much more difficulty to identify. As did Clark suggest, Pettigrew (2004) also believes that for change to consistently and proficiently occur, it must h...
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.
The use of statistics and facts are not needed to provide a stronger argument. While not directly stated in the text, it can be inferred that President Lincoln had logical reasoning in “The Emancipation Proclamation”. It can be argued that President Lincoln could infer through logical reasoning that slaves might actively sabotage the Southern war effort after the announcement of “The Emancipation Proclamation”. He could also reason that the end of slavery would weaken the South’s fragile economy by withholding their labor. In fact, thousands of slaves had already escaped to sanctuary in Union territory to places like Fort Monroe in Virginia. These refugees aided the war effort by providing information on Confederate movements and supply lines, but they were not yet eligible for protection under the law (History.com). Instead, they were classified as contraband, enemy property subject to seizure. Emancipation would offer them civil rights. Lincoln also hoped emancipation of Southern slaves would persuade African Americans in the Northern states to enlist in the Union Army. Finally, an abolitionist course might dissuade Britain and France from lending military support to Confederate States (History.com). Both nations had ended slavery in their own countries but retained economic interests in Southern goods and plantation crops. So overall, emancipation seemed not only the