On March 4, 1861,
President Abraham Lincoln declared the following in his Inaugural Address: “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly,
to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it
exists. I believe I have no lawful right
to do so; and I have no inclination to do so” (McPherson A-7). A little more than a month later, in his
Proclamation Calling Militia and Convening Congress, Lincoln does not refer to
the institution of slavery at all, designating the purpose for convening the
military to “…maintain the honor, the integrity, and the existence of our
National Union, and the perpetuity of popular government; and to redress wrongs
already long enough endured” (McPherson A-15).
Yet less than two years later, on January 1, 1863, this same president
decreed an Emancipation Proclamation, issuing “…all persons held as slaves
within any State or designated part of a State the people whereof shall then be
in rebellion against the United States shall be then, thenceforward, and
forever free” (McPherson A-15). What
caused Lincoln to retract his original statement, promising to leave the
institution of slavery alone? Within two
years, the war between the Union and the Confederacy was no longer about
suppressing the rebels of the South, or about preserving the Union. It had transformed into a war to end
slavery. How did these changes come
aboutt? The willingness of the slaves to
join with Union forces, the sympathy the Union soldiers felt for the slaves,
the military decisions that individual generals and officers made, and the
policies and laws that were passed by Congress in Washington D.C. all
significantly contributed to the Civil War’s transformation from a war to
preserve the Union to a war to exterminate slavery.
Slaves were extremely cognizant of their role in the Civil War. They understood that the outcome of the War
Between the States would be the catalyst for their future, the determinant of
their freedom, and the boost for their equality and political and economic
rights (Berlin 3). Confederate Vice
President Alexander H. Stephens stated in a speech given in 1861 that the
Government of the Confederacy was founded based on the institution of slavery
and the inequality of the Negro (McPherson A-13). To aid in the enemy of such a government,
slaves realized, would be to their utmost benefit. While President Lincoln continued to assure
the states that he only wished to preserve the Union (Berlin 6), the slaves
foresaw the importance of a Union victory in securing their freedom. They escaped from their owners (Berlin 7),
rebelled (Berlin 8), and most importantly, displayed extreme devotion to the
Union. They sometimes traveled hundreds
of miles to join Union forces (Berlin 107), formed their own regiments of
colored soldiers (Berlin 84), and additionally proved themselves to be a very
valuable source to the North. Their
numbers in the army and the navy only increased as the war proceeded, federal laws
and policies bolstering the slaves’ abilities to aid in the Union effort. After the Emancipation Proclamation, the
confidence of the slaves increased and they even returned to their old homes to
rescue family and friends, proclaiming their freedom as they traveled
throughout the south (Berlin 107).
Soldiers of the Union Army also
helped to sway the Civil War from a war to preserve the Union to a war to end
slavery. Many soldiers had never before
directly encountered the institution of slavery, but as troops pushed through
the Border States, they saw for themselves the viciousness and cruelty of
slavery (Berlin 12). Many soldiers may
have sympathized with slaves, accepting them into Union lines out of compassion. Even those soldiers who were explicitly
racist found it hard to return slaves to their owners, as the Fugitive Slave
Law demanded, because of the usefulness of the slaves. With the spread of Northern troops in
Confederate territory, slaves were continuously encouraged to pursue involvement
in the Northern effort, and as the number of slaves seeking military
involvement increased, the soldiers came to realize the value of the
slaves. Not only could they assist in
cooking, laboring, building forts, and cleaning, but the slaves had invaluable
knowledge of the Southern terrain. They
could act as scouts as well as guides, and contribute to the Northern effort
tremendously (Berlin 12-13). For all of
these reasons, soldiers in the Northern troops actively accepted blacks into
the Union lines.
Officers, generals, and men of political and military authority on
the Union side had a tremendous impact on the efforts of the war shifting from
those of preserving the Union to those of terminating slavery. Union officers offered fugitive slaves
protection (Berlin 15), causing further tension between the Union and
slaveholders. This policy might also
have further increased the brutality of the institution of slavery, as slaves
may have been treated worse if returned, and threatened with more beatings so
that they would not run away to the protection of the Union forces. One slave was even whipped to death after
escaping to Union lines and then recaptured (Berlin 11). This treatment of slaves, when witnessed by
northerners, would only increase the desire to mitigate, if not extinguish,
slavery.
Individual Union officers also did
much to prod the institution of slavery.
Benjamin Butler, a Union general, gave food, shelter, and work to all
slaves who escaped from their owners and sought refuge with Northern
troops. To defend these actions, Butler
stated that using the slaves was a way to “deprive the Confederacy of the
benefits of slave labor and satisfy the Union army’s labor requirements without
necessarily disturbing its commitment to respect slave property.” In other words, Butler presented the
protection of fugitive slaves as a political move, claiming the slave labor
essential to the building of fortifications, and claiming that by using the
slave labor for the benefit of the North, he is therefore subtracting the
Confederacy of the same labor (Berlin 8).
In reality, however, Butler’s policies of aiding runaway slaves and
putting them to work was a small yet important step towards the emancipation of
African Americans, as he neglected to return slaves to their owners and
therefore freed the slaves from their owners.
Secretary of War Simon Cameron accepted Butler’s decision, further
asserting that while following federal policy, including that of the fugitive
slave law, was essential, the conquest of the Confederacy and the preservation
of the Union were of primary importance.
Anything that could be done to exacerbate the cause of the Confederacy
would be acceptable. Consequently,
Cameron designated the runaway slaves “contrabands of war” and deemed them
appropriate for seizure by the Union because of their military value to the
Confederacy. The concept of “contrabands
of war” soon became widespread throughout Virginia, and because of Cameron’s
decisions, more and more slaves endeavored to join Union forces. In addition, General Butler’s initial
decision to withhold from returning fugitive slaves and using them for the
benefit of the North inspired Congress to pass the First Confiscation Act. This act deemed all property, including
slaves, belonging to supporters of the rebellion against the Union, appropriate
for confiscation by Union troops. This
federal law further encouraged slaves to run away from their slaveholders,
because owners could no longer claim their slaves (Berlin 10-11).
General David Hunter did more than just agitate the South’s slavery
policies; he sought to exterminate it.
In a brave attempt for partial emancipation, Hunter announced all slaves
in the states of South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida to be free in May of
1862. While President Lincoln
immediately nullified Hunter’s proclamations, the original intent of General
Hunter shows the shift that was taking place in the United States concerning
the ultimate causes for tension and violence between the North and the South. Despite the nullification of his proclamation,
General Hunter continued to display his anti-slavery motives by enlisting
ex-slaves as soldiers without permission from the War Department. Like General Hunter, General John C. Frémont
proclaimed free all of the slaves belonging to owners disloyal to the Union in
Missouri. Again, Lincoln immediately
nullified his proclamation (Berlin 46).
Other Union officers agitated slavery by different means. General Sherman was far from an advocate of
emancipation, but he firmly asserted his belief that slaves which escaped from
masters who were unfaithful to the United States of America were lawfully the
property of the Union; therefore, slaveholders had no right to reclaim their
slaves once confiscated. When a friend
wrote Sherman requesting the return of his slaves, Sherman denied the request,
writing “…The Constitution of the United States is your only legal title to
slavery…But your party have made another
and have another in force…By the new if successful you inherit the Right of
Slavery, but the new is not law till your Revolution is successful” (Berlin
68-70). Generals Phelps and Dow, both
supporters of emancipation, issued free papers to slaves who had been expelled
from their plantations (Berlin 71). Once
again, this only agitated slaveholders, further increasing the tension between
the North and the South insomuch as the slavery issue was concerned.
In Washington D.C., policy makers passed numerous laws that
supported anti-slavery ideology. The
First Confiscation Act, passed in 1861, declared it unnecessary and unlawful to
return all property, including slaves, to any slave-owner disloyal to the Union
(Berlin 11). While on the surface this
act appeared to have been strictly a military move, created to remove property
deemed beneficial to the enemy, it also enforced emancipation as more slaves
were encouraged to run away from plantations, with the security of the Union
soldiers behind them. The Second Confiscation Act, passed in 1862, declared
free all slaves that entered Union lines whose masters were disloyal to the
United States. The Militia Act, passed
in the same year, allowed blacks to be employed in the navy and the army, and
freed the enlisted slaves as well as the families of those slaves, as long as
they had previously belonged to disloyal owners (Berlin 59-60). Again, what may have appeared to be a
military move was actually another step towards the emancipation of African
Americans, as any slave who claimed his master to be disloyal was immediately
proclaimed to be free. In addition, by
allowing African Americans to fight for the Union publicly recognized the
ability of African Americans to perform tasks that white men were able to do. Whether these claims were accurate or not did
not matter, according to the Second Confiscation Act. In 1862, Congress passed an article of war
that not only forbade Union troops from returning fugitive slaves to their
owners, but demanded that the slaves be treated “as persons and not as
chattels” (Berlin 35-36). With these
words, Congress boldly began the slow process of recognizing African Americans
as real people, not just pieces of property.
Between 1861 and 1863, the
basic principle driving the Civil War altered dramatically. Slaves, soldiers, Union officers, and policy
makers all contributed to this change, and Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation
Proclamation confirmed the transformation in 1863. What started out as a repression to the
states in rebellion became a fight to end slavery, a fight that would ultimately
lead to the abolishment of slavery nationwide with the 13th
amendment of the United States Constitution (Berlin xxxiii).
Works
Cited
Berlin, Ira. Free at Last: A Documentary History of Slavery, Freedom,
and the Civil
War. New York:
The New Press, 1997.
McPherson, James M. “Appendix.”
Ordeal by Fire: The Civil War
and Reconstruction.
Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2001, 3rd
edition. pp A-1-20.
No comments:
Post a Comment