In this week’s reading, the final
chapters of Davis’ text offer insights into the American Civil War and Slave
Emancipation. Davis highlights
some of the pivotal moments in the Civil War and the impact African Americans
made to the success of the Union; in addition, Davis includes a number of
quotes from Abraham Lincoln, who became known as “the liberator,” to further
the dichotic mindsets between the North and the South. Davis interestingly points out Lincoln
thought slavery to be a “great moral and political
evil” even though he accepted the “Fugitive Slave Law and promised that he
would not interfere with slavery in the fifteen existing states where it was
still legal” (308). Lincoln held
true to this promise while he was running for President because he knew the
importance that the border-states would have in the outcome of an impending
war, a topic that Davis stresses. Davis
also includes the many steps and laws Lincoln took to gradually persuade
border-states and later congress to end the institution of slavery. Lincoln was not a devoutly religious
man, but he remarks that if slavery was to be overturned, it would be at God’s
will (316). As we have seen before
many people used religion to justify their actions, was Lincoln doing the same?
In contrast, many whites held the fear of freeing blacks into a white society
while recognizing slavery as a curse, but it is interesting to see that even
Unionist whites saw having “free negroes” as an even greater curse. (310). How could one aid the Union’s efforts in
a war of segregation while maintaining this mindset?
The Epilogue connects the
emancipation of American Slavery to other slave institutions around the
world. Davis notes the “global
pattern of inevitable ‘historical progress’” (324-325) that started in
Europe. How could an anti-slavery
sentiment spread in such a large proportion?
Later, Davis writes of the progress
made towards racially equality, but doesn’t include much information to the
extent of racial segregation that African Americans faced after manumission;
however he does remark that “we have a wealth of evidence to show that humans
are no less eager than in the past to dominate, degrade, humiliate, and control
– often in order to confirm their own sense of pride and superiority”(329). With that said, many slave owners truly
believed that it was “easier” for slaves while in serfdom, to some extent,
couldn’t this be true?
I do not think that Lincoln was trying to justify his actions, but rather he plead to God because he was so disgruntled and upset. Prior to where he said "God's will," Davis states "one can understand why a depressed president directed his plea to God . . . Lincoln was keenly aware of the evil and contradictory claims of divine sanction that had been made through history" (316). Lincoln was upset that England and France were so close to siding with the Confederacy, so his "plea" to God was simply and outlet for him. He clearly recognized that he was not sure what the outcomes of religion could be and even describes God's will as "inscrutable," indicating that it was so difficult to determine or place confidence in. I don't at all think he was attempting to justify his actions.
ReplyDeleteIn response to your second question, I think the reason the Union was able to persist against slavery was because the folks you are referring to were those in the border states primarily, but they were certainly not all of those in the Union. Davis indicates that Lincoln "received a series of negative responses from the border states," but he never directly mentions major opposition from the rest of the Union (310). I think that is why the Union cause was able to continue. Because Lincoln understood that he had enough supporters in the Union and that he would be slowly able to persuade those who were unsure by doing things like giving "precautionary aid to any state that adopted 'gradual abolishment of slavery'" (310). Although there would always be those who he had to persuade, he had enough followers and enough sway that he was able to slowly change the minds of those in favor of slavery.
In regards to the question about the spread of abolitionist sentiment, a lot of the proliferation had to do with the violent and horrific acts that were associated with slavery or caused by slavery. Davis writes that even Lincoln, a man who had historically been against slavery, did not become "truly aroused on the slavery issue until the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854" (306). As Davis then goes on to describe, many former moderates saw this event as a twofold argument against slavery, as it both signified that slavery was dividing the nation and was causing great violence and bloodshed, both things that most wanted to avoid.
ReplyDeleteFor why foreign powers never supported the Confederacy, the situation was much the same as the foreign situation in the Revolutionary War. No foreign power in either situation was willing to support a losing cause, and after Gettysburg and Vicksburg, it was clear that it was only a matter of time before the Confederacy was defeated.
In this week's reading, what really stood out to me was the Lost Cost culture and how interesting historiography is when reading the Civil War and slavery from the South's point of view. They interchanged "slave" with "servant" and they even seemed nostalgic about the past. In Inhuman Bondage he mentions Susan Dabney Smedes who recalled the relationship of master and slave as “close as the tie of blood" (304).
ReplyDeleteI think that Lincoln justified in the sense that he knew that if religion was on his side and abolitionism was made righteous in the sight of God, it would strengthen the cause because of the heavily religious era he lived in. However, Lincoln's justifications differ from ones we've seen in past readings where slave owners found ways to justify to take the blame off of them after committing horrendous and immoral actions. Lincoln uses the religion as a way to strengthen his cause and not to justify inhuman actions or oppression.
I think that the anti-slavery sentiment spread through literature and example. Davis says, “Spain must avoid such social disruption by ensuring a slow transition from slavery to freedom” (325). By social disruption, they point to the anarchy of Reconstruction in the United States. Other countries are influenced by the abolition movements that continue to spread. The world is connected and it can be seen in the abolitionist movements that appear worldwide in during this time period.
In this week’s reading the arguable ultimate climax of American slavery, the Civil War, was discussed. Davis spoke of pivotal moments revolving around the status of African Americans and the struggle of attempting to emancipate slaves in such a volatile environment. In answer to TJ’s first question, I do not think that Lincoln was justifying the emancipation of slaves in the same way people had used such an excuse in the past, partly because said people often used it to perpetuate slavery, not abolish it. Also, because Lincoln might have been implying that the emancipation of slaves was inevitable, as well as the reasons that Harry stated.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of the question about how anti-slavery movements spread, I think it all had to do with public awareness of the issue, whether it was lengthy petitions in England or anti-slavery pamphlets and narratives in America. As more and more people became aware about the extent to which slavery took unfair advantage of people from all over the world, the more civilians wanted to do something about it. The spread of information, I think, was the spark for anti-slavery and abolition.
In regards to TJ’s first question about Lincoln religious tendencies, I think that Lincoln’s motives in saying that slavery would be overturned at “God’s will” were to an extent in order to justify his actions. In a way, he was trying to buttress his defense of abolition prior to even lurking close to that possibility in order to set a sort of threshold for the injustices of slavery and begin to develop the idea that not only he see it as morally wrong, but that it was universally unjust. Additionally, in this quote Lincoln makes a feeble, yet obvious, attempt to absolve himself of responsibility for the looming abolition. I believe that Harry misinterpreted when Davis says, “Lincoln was keenly aware of the evil and contradictory claims of divine sanction that had been made through history” (316). I do not think that this was spurred from Lincoln’s anger regarding the possible English and French allegiances with the CSA. I think that this specific quote validates the fact that Lincoln was making a feeble, and mildly ironic, attempt at showing a shift from the South using religion as a divine endorsement to a clear moral religious hierarchy that reflects the religious liberalism that was fostered in the North.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to your question regarding the segregated mindset contradicting the deep chords of abolition in the Civil War, I think that there is a fundamental difference between racist tendencies and the support of slavery at this time. The disdain towards “free negroes” can be accredited to the possible worries of a flood of the job market in the North, the inherent worries, seen in the North, of the flood of blacks into the metropolitan areas. Again, as we addressed in discussion last week, or maybe the week before, the racist sentiments are not exclusively seen in the South, but rather throughout the whole country for a large period of time. I think the reason that this mindset could be paired with the abolitionists motives in the Civil War was because the majority of the North had a fundamental problem with the institution of slavery, and wanted that to be gone, even when they may have been racist and rejecting of the ideas of the intermingling of races.
In this week’s reading, I found that some of the most striking details were those that surprised me. Especially in regards to Abraham Lincoln, who is constantly labeled in different ways today, I found that Davis proposed ideas that I found new. In particular, the argument in which Lincoln is either considered an altruistic abolitionist or an evil hypocrite in modern times was fairly well balanced in the reading. Davis discusses how although people tend to think slavery was less of a priority to Lincoln than keeping the Union together, “that was partly because Lincoln believed that slavery would thrive in an independent and expanding Confederacy” (308). This ties in with the point TJ made about how Lincoln thought slavery was an evil yet accepted the Fugitive Slave Law. It seems to me that Lincoln had to do certain things in order to achieve his broader goal of getting rid of slavery, which is often misinterpreted as him being hypocritical.
ReplyDeleteAnother reason Lincoln may have said slavery was God’s will could have been an appeal move for the general population. Since the United States were fairly religious at the time, Lincoln used God’s all-powerful presence to make the abolishment of slavery an even greater and nobler cause than before. This sort of mindset would, as Lincoln may have hoped, create less of an internal conflict for white Unionists if they knew their own God willed them to fight for overturning slavery.
ReplyDeleteOne interesting section of the reading we haven’t touched upon that I found intriguing was on pages 305-306 when Davis describes the 50th anniversary of Gettysburg. When Davis describes how the divide between blacks and whites was still strong, with blacks segregated except when working to clean latrines and set up the commemoration, he brings up the point that the fundamentals of slavery may have not ended even 50 years later. This point he makes displays that while slavery may be over, the supremacist values live on even until today.
This week’s reading was interested because it spoke of the work of Abraham Lincoln, or “the liberator,” who most of us had prior knowledge about from U.S. last year. Although he made many attempts to help settle the long lasting issue of slavery, it was interesting to once again see how the slave emancipation did not really have an effect on the states that were most dependent on it. In regards to TJ’s first question about religion, I do not think that Lincoln was using religion as a way to justify his actions but more as a way to show how difficult it would be to try and change a system that had existed in the U.S. for so long.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to the second question, it is interesting to see the patterns repeat around the world in countries that seem to be so different, but it makes sense that anti-slavery sentiment spread because it spread almost as quickly as slavery spread in the beginning. I think that after the abolition of slavery took place in the US it influenced others to abolish it because the U.S. had become so dependent on slavery as a source of labor so if they could abolish it makes sense that other countries could see that they could function without slavery as the source of labor.
To answer TJ’s first question, I do not believe that Lincoln used religion as the primary means to back up his actions but I do believe that he leveraged it knowing that religion was a primary motivator. Because religion was so prevalent it made sense for Lincoln to make a call to the religious aspect of abolition.
ReplyDeleteTo answer TJ’s second question, I believe that at the beginning of the war many fighting for the Union did not see the war as one that was about segregation but rather as a war that was about keeping the newly formed Union together. Lincoln did not shift the message to be about abolition until later on, and even then he did not make slave owners out to be the enemy because he needed to keep the border-states from seceding. I also agree with Harry in that those who feared the abolition of slaves were mainly those who lived in the border states that had not abolished slavery, while large portions of the North had begun to oppose the violence that the institution created.
Here's Simone's comment:
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, before slaves were emancipated, they were less likely to have a violent death. Slaves were protected by their masters as property and while that was grossly dehumanizing, they weren't in danger of being lynched. Also, with the institution of sharecropping, the emancipated slave class was often cheated out of their money and freedom. Many of these people had nowhere to go, too. However, in the day to day lives of former slaves, they were allowed to move around, marry who they wanted, and associate with who they wanted. Women were no longer property and subject to their masters whims, and children were no longer sold away from their parents. I think there were aspects of emancipation that were more difficult, but, overall, the quality of life for emancipated slaves was much better.