Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation and the Roots of Racism

Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation was not the cause of Racism; it had been growing for a long time. However, the War began over Secession, not slavery, and Lincoln repeatedly stated that at the beginning of the war.

As for Secessionist proclamations declaring they were leaving the Union to protect slavery, bear in mind these were public political documents, designed as propaganda to gain as much support for secession as possible; by portraying it as defending the ECONOMIC institution of slavery, they were basically lying to their state’s populace in order to garner public support for TREASON. Lincoln did not campaign on abolishing slavery, merely on preventing its spread to any new states that would be created in the future. Slavery was NOT in danger in 1860 by any stretch of the imagination and Southern Secessionists were fully aware of that fact. Only a few modern journalists, with no training in history and with an agenda really believe that.

This old saw about Slavery as the causus belli has been trotted out lately by Mainstream Media pundits who are pushing Identity Politics to further divide a very divided electorate. In fact, in many Southern states there was widespread opposition to Secession, even in the deep South–the COTTON SOUTH–there were strong Unionist pockets even after war began.

It is the job of historians to go beyond just regurgitating documents and public statements and try to understand the underlying forces which drove events, without a priori political or racial biases.

Lincoln, who was a Gradualist, NOT an Abolitionist (at least to start with), knew full well in 1860 that Slavery was both legal and Constitutional; while Abolitionists within the Party were pressuring him to declare Emancipation and recruit Blacks (Fremont was fired over it and others reprimanded), Lincoln was reluctant to go down that path, since he knew it was very dubious on Constitutional grounds, as well as having the potential to alienate Unionists on both sides of the Mason-Dixon Line.

Lincoln was nothing if not a skilled politician, and while he couched it in noble terms, fundamentally the Emancipation Proclamation–which did not “free” anybody–was an instrument of ECONOMIC WARFARE, pure and simple; it also served the secondary purpose of undermining foreign support for the Confederacy: both Britain and France, while morally opposed to slavery, were itching for an excuse to intervene on the side of the South because of COTTON. The Industrial Revolution–Capitalism–was driven by the textile manufacturing and at that time was wholly dependent on Cotton for its profits. Cut off the supply of Cotton and the British Empire’s economic mainstay was fundamentally weakened. By enshrining the destruction of slavery as a war goal (not THE war goal) Lincoln put the North on the moral high ground, so to speak. The Emancipation Proclamation did inflame sentiment against the Union cause in the North and border states, as Lincoln had feared, but he judged its benefits outweighed the political risk.

As for Grant and Sherman and slavery, well, they were both politically loyal, but that’s about the best that can be said for them. Grant, through his wife, continued to own slaves ALL THROUGH THE WAR. Grant’s attitude towards Jews was even worse than his attitude towards Blacks, but that’s another story. Sherman, in his Memoirs, does not disguise his sympathy for slavery and slave-holders. Where he parted ways with them was over Secession.

As commander in the Western Theater, Sherman did command Black troops, reluctantly, but he shunted them to either rear echelon duty or to isolated outposts guarding the lines of communication, not to front line combat. It was only when he went on his rampage of pillaging and destruction through Georgia (again ECONOMIC WARFARE, for it served little military purpose) and left General Thomas (you know that SOUTHERNER who was in command of the Union Army of the Cumberland) to deal with the main Confederate army in the West, that African American troops were employed as frontline troops–and performed admirably.

I can easily understand Americans of African descent looking at the whole Civil War period as being about them and their historic oppression, and from their perspective that may well seem to be true. But the Civil War was more than about enslaving one race by another; racism had been growing progressively worse ever since the invention of the Cotton Gin, and the legal standing of Blacks had declined as well. Consider, if you will, the Constitution itself; yes it recognized slavery as legal, but it also fully recognized slaves as human beings liable to be counted in the Census; at that time, Southern states wanted Blacks counted on a one to one basis; it was the Northern states that wanted to exclude them: hence the “Three Fifths Compromise.” Contrast that with the Dred Scott decision, which turned Black slaves into “chattel” without any rights. What was the difference? The importance of the growth, and economic dominance of, Cotton agriculture, both for exports but also for the industrialization in the North.

Racism is bad; slavery was and IS bad; but until we start looking beyond symptoms of the disease and analyze the pathogen itself; before we begin to try to truly understand the underlying forces that have driven these evils, we will never get to the root of them. As Deep Throat said in the Seventies: “Follow the Money.”