Abraham Lincoln and his journey to greatness: the 16th president's role in the abolition of slavery

Abraham Lincoln and His Journey to Greatness:
A Study of the 16th President’s Role in the Abolition of Slavery
Justin A Rigi
Sacred Heart University
Department of History
Submitted: December 7, 2011
Thesis Advisor: Prof. Jennifer McLaughlin

2
Thesis Abstract
This thesis examines the role of Abraham Lincoln in the abolition of slavery. Lincoln is
not only an integral part of American history but also an epic one. Even so, there are a
great deal of questions surrounding the abolition of slavery and Lincoln’s level of
involvement in it. This thesis will use secondary sources to set up the historiography of
Lincoln and slavery. It will then examine Lincoln using speeches and letters written
during Lincoln’s most controversial years, 1846- 1865, in the effort to challenge the idea
that Lincoln was forced into abolition.

3
Table of Contents
Introduction: 4-5
Part I: 6-19
Part II: 19- 26
Part III: 26-50
Conclusion: 50- 51
Bibliography: 52- 53

4
Introduction
More books have been written about Abraham Lincoln than possibly any other
American public figure. Secretary of War Edward Stanton could not possibly have
known how prophetic his words would be, when he famously uttered: “Now he belongs
to the ages.” One source claims that over 16,000 works haven been written on nearly
every aspect of Lincoln’s life. 1Needless to say, he is not only an integral part of
American history but also an epic one. When Americans are polled as to who is the
greatest president of all time, the votes are almost always unanimously in Lincoln’s
favor. Some call him the Great Emancipator. Others hail him as the Savior of the Union.
Cities, schools, parks, memorials, cars, military regiments, and warships have been
named in his honor. This popularity though is also the cause of great debate and Father
Abraham, as many know him, is not without his naysayers. The greatest barrier to
studying Lincoln is what famed historian, Robert Johannsen, calls the myth of Abraham
Lincoln. In his work Lincoln, the South, and Slavery he aptly writes: “Anyone who
embarks on a study of Lincoln…must first come to terms with the Lincoln myth. The
effort to penetrate the crust of legend that surrounds Lincoln…is both a formidable and
intimidating task. Lincoln, it seems, requires special considerations that are denied other
political figures.”2
With each generation there is a new take, a new understanding of Abraham
Lincoln. Historian Eric Foner writes that we “think we know him, because in looking at
1 Eric Foner, The Fiery Trial (New York: Norton & Co, 2010), 2.
2 Foner, The Fiery Trial, 2

5
Lincoln we are really looking at ourselves.”3 Indeed, it seems that no matter what era, he
is always relevant. Even today as the United States struggles with such questions as
abortion, states’ rights, presidential powers, and the meaning of American citizenship and
the constitution itself, Lincoln’s presidency is historically relevant.
Unlike many other American historical figures, Lincoln was an in immensely
private man. David Davis, a close friend, described him as being “the most reticent,
secretive man I have ever saw or expect to see.”4 Compared to other presidents, Lincoln
wrote quite infrequently and therefore what is known is often secondhand accounts
recorded years later. Fortunately, what he did write was not only elegant and brilliantly
written but written for a specific reason. In his writings and speeches, a tortured Lincoln
is seen, a man who constantly struggles with the ideals of life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness.
With over 16,000 books written on one man, it is easy to assume that there could
be little to argue over. But this certainly is not the case with Lincoln. Lincoln was an
extraordinarily hard man to understand, and to this day remains as possibly one of the
most enigmatic figures in American history. One highly controversial aspect of Abraham
Lincoln is the question of Lincoln and the abolition of slavery. In recent years historians
have argued about who was responsible for putting a stop to slavery. Was Lincoln a
reluctant abolitionist, one who only acted because of increasing pressure from
abolitionists, runaway slaves, and lack of military success? Or was Lincoln a realist who
waited until the right time to free the slaves, acting on his lifelong contempt of slavery?
3 Ibid. 5
4 Henry Louis Gates, ed., Lincoln on Race and Slavery (Princeton: Princeton Press, 2009), xxiv

6
Part 1- The Debate
Countless historians over time have entered into this debate over who freed the
slaves and one of the perennially favorite works is LaWanda Cox’s Lincoln and Black
Freedom: A Study in Presidential Leadership. Lincoln in this book is shown to have
always been seeking not only emancipation but also black suffrage. Cox points out that
he was a great leader who knew the exact moment when this dream could be realized.
Instead of acting impulsively, Lincoln had to proceed with caution because it was a
troublesome age of racism and inequality and not just for blacks but many others as well.
It is during this period that the Know-Nothings sought to cleanse America from all non-
Anglo citizens including Catholic Irish and Germans. In addition women still do not have
the right to vote. It was therefore within this climate that Lincoln was forced to operate
and Cox was completely aware of this.
In 1864 Abraham Lincoln stated, “I am naturally anti-slavery. If slavery is not
wrong, nothing is wrong. I cannot remember when I did not so think, and feel…And yet I
have never understood that the Presidency conferred upon me an unrestricted right to act
officially upon this judgment and feeling…”5This is according to LaWanda Cox the true
Lincoln and the purpose of her book is to establish that Lincoln was indeed an
abolitionist and a progressive one at times, and that he was exceedingly aware of the
5 LaWanda Cox, Lincoln and Black Freedom: A study in Presidential Leadership (Columbia, S.C.:
University of South Carolina, 1981), 14

7
welfare of the black race. Cox convincingly argues that Lincoln possessed feelings of the
strongest nature against the institution of slavery before he even became president and
therefore those ideas did not evolve much as president because they were always
present.6
One of the many things Lincoln critics point out is his lack of planning for a
future for post civil war freedmen. Cox contends that Lincoln was obviously more
involved in matters of the war because winning was paramount to the welfare of freed
slaves. She further writes that emancipation was not even an established law until the 13th
Amendment of 1865, and so, much of his presidency was concentrated towards winning
the war and freeing the slaves, rather than planning for post bellum. Cox is quick to
defend Lincoln’s deliberateness pointing out that the Constitution did indeed protect the
right to slavery and that the constitution also limited Lincoln’s executive powers. Above
all, though, Lincoln was an adamant constitutionalist and would do nothing to jeopardize
it. But once war broke out and the South was in what Lincoln saw as full rebellion, he
possessed the powers as Commander in Chief to emancipate the slaves from slave
territories.
Lincoln and Black Freedom then delves into the state of affairs in Louisiana to
further illustrate Lincoln’s strong opposition to slavery. Cox points out, “In a letter of
frustration and barely restrained anger, on November 5, 1863, Lincoln demanded the
establishment without further delay of an elected state government in Louisiana. Not any
state government, not even any Unionist government; Lincoln now demanded a loyal
6 Cox, Lincoln and black Freedom, 7

8
government committed to the destruction of slavery by state action.”7 Lincoln made it
known that Louisiana would not be readmitted to the Union without first changing its
pro-slavery constitution.8 She contends that Lincoln should not be judged according to
what was not accomplished in Louisiana, namely black suffrage, but rather on his
accomplishments, the abolition of slavery and ratification of a constitution that allowed
for blacks to participate in the democratic political process. Therefore according to Cox
what was accomplished in Louisiana far surpassed all other shortcomings. Lincoln too
believed a job was well done when he commended the state of Louisiana for making “a
constitution-better for the poor black man that we have in Illinois.”9 Missouri Senator B.
Gratz Brown wrote, “The insertion of the suffrage position in the Louisiana constitution
was prompted by the executive head of our nation himself.”10 This idea is the very
essence of the author’s thesis: Lincoln was not a reluctant abolitionist but highly involved
in every aspect of abolition.
Overall, Lincoln and Black Freedom is convincing in its attempt to portray
Lincoln as a friend to the African- American. Cox uses a multitude of secondary and
primary sources to support her argument: that Lincoln was a lifelong abolitionist. In
addition to defending Lincoln, this study also helps correct the old idea that Republicans
of Reconstruction were racists who used abolition as a political means to an end. Within
the contents of the last chapter, LaWanda Cox enters into a “what if” scenario of history
that James McPherson calls “a bit pointless.”11 Otherwise, Cox convincingly portrays
7Ibid. 47
8 Ibid. 59
9 Ibid. 114
10Ibid. 129
11 James McPherson, review of Lincoln and Black Freedom, by LaWanda Cox, American Historical
Journal, 1990

9
Lincoln as a brilliant leader who was deeply anti- slavery and used the war as a means to
not only save the union but also eliminate slavery. Her work is “one of the best studies of
Lincoln to have appeared in years” and has shaped Lincoln scholastics for decades.12
Richard Striner’s Father Abraham is quite similar in its thesis to Cox’s work
except that Striner covers Lincoln’s entire life and not just his presidency. Striner makes
it his mission to defend the accusations that Lincoln was a racist. At times throughout
history, Lincoln has been labeled a racist because of the fact he attended minstrel shows
and used the word “Nigger.” Striner however, argues that Lincoln was forced into such
actions because of the times he was operating within. He argues that Lincoln needed to be
able to not only appear as a feasible candidate to abolitionists but also to the many white
northerners who, although in opposition of slavery, had no intentions of giving blacks
equality. Basically, Striner contends that Lincoln did not in fact mean what he said for
“duplicity in a good cause can be a virtue.”13 Striner poses the question whether
Lincoln’s abhorrence at the idea of intermarriage was “a statement of principle” or
“expedient concessions.”14
Unfortunately, Striner is not able to give a clear and concise answer to this
question but instead refers to Lincoln as a “Machiavellian prince for a democratic age.”15
In other words, Lincoln was a true politician and a pragmatist and echoing the conclusion
of LaWanda Cox; Striner agrees that Lincoln knew how to make the seemingly
impossible possible through cunning politics. Illustrating this Machiavellian trait Striner
writes, “Lincoln’s motive for colonization…was his fear that racial prejudice would
12 McPherson, Review, Journal
13 Richard Striner, Father Abraham: Lincoln’s Relentless Struggle to End Slavery (New York: Oxford,
2006), 59
14 Striner, Father Abraham, 59
15 Ibid. 61

10
undermine the cause of liberation unless, somehow, the racial issue could be gradually
defused.”16
Despite the aura around Lincoln as one of the nation’s great presidents, he is not
without his critics and naysayers. In recent years these critics have become more
prevalent with the reemergence of the debate over presidential and federal powers over
the state. Some scholars view Lincoln as an encroacher of democracy and no friend to the
black race. One such scholar is Thomas J. DiLorenzo, professor of economics at Loyola
College in Maryland and a widely published author in many national publications.
DiLorenzo leaps into the Lincoln debate with his The Real Lincoln: A New Look at
Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War.
Much of Di Lorenzo’s work focuses on Lincoln’s economic policies, as
DiLorenzo is a renowned Austrian economist and libertarian. He explains that from his
first days as a politician, Lincoln was devoted to “protectionism, internal improvements
(government subsidized developments), and a central banking system.”17 He spends a
great deal of time explaining the economics of 19th century America. He portrays how the
North was a manufacturing industry, and therefore instituted high tariffs in order to keep
better quality European products out of America to give advantage to American
manufacturers. On the other side of the spectrum, the South was the main exporting
region of the country and therefore needed to import most of its manufactured goods and
thus these tariffs were unfair towards Southern states. Lincoln, DiLorenzo writes, whole-
heartedly supported these tariffs. 18DiLorenzo continues his book citing evidence that
16 Ibid. 149
17 Thomas J. Dilorenzo, The Real Lincoln:A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda,and an
Unnecessary War (New York: Three Rivers Press,2003), 34
18 Dilorenzo, The Real Lincoln, 23

11
Lincoln was a centralizer and encroacher of state’s rights and although intriguing
material, irrelevant to this thesis.
What is most relevant however are his contentions concerning Lincoln and
slavery. From the beginning, he makes it quite clear that freeing the slaves was merely a
political ploy, one necessary to win the war. His evidence of such is that the
Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in Confederate states rather than
completely freeing slaves in Union states. He also goes on to say that Lincoln was not an
advocate of racial equality at all as Cox and Striner hold but that instead: “Lincoln
mocked the Jeffersonian dictum…that all men are created equal. He admitted that it had
become a “genuine coin…of our generation” but added, “I am sorry to say that I have
never seen two men of whom it is true.”19 According to DiLorenzo this is “in stark
contrast to the seductive words of the Gettysburg Address, eleven years later, in which he
purported to rededicate the nation to the notion that all men are created equal.”20
DiLorenzo’s attempt at the definitive Lincoln took a great amount of courage for
going against the mainstream on Lincoln is a difficult role to play. And the reviews prove
this. Thomas Krannawitter of the Claremont Institute writes, “The book is a compendium
of misquotations, out of context quotes, and wrongly attributed quotes-“Many more
reviews followed suit. DiLorenzo blames Lincoln for destroying the Jeffersonian vision
of America through a completely unnecessary war: “Lincoln decided he had to wage war
on the South because only military might would destroy the constitutional logjam behind
which the Old Whig economic policy had languished.”21In other words, Lincoln’s only
aim was in centralizing the nation, destroying the idea of states rights, and his last resort
19Ibid. 12
20 Ibid. 13
21 Ibid. 237

12
was freeing the slaves. In no way does this mean that DiLorenzo agrees with slavery, in
fact he agrees with Lincoln that it was a “monstrous injustice.” Instead he writes that it
would have slowly died away as Jefferson foresaw and like Europe, Lincoln could have
used gradual, compensated emancipation to free the slaves and keep a generation of
Americans alive.22
Perhaps most famed of all Lincoln naysayers is Lerone Bennett, founder and
editor-in-chief of Ebony magazine. Bennett is famous for his Forced into Glory:
Abraham Lincoln’s White Dream. A product of close to thirty years of research it is what
Lincoln scholar George Frederickson calls “the culmination of a gradual process of
African-American disenchantment with Lincoln.” 23Following the Civil war and into the
early 20th century blacks in America considered Lincoln to be a great hero, Father
Abraham they called him. Booker T. Washington called him “The first
American.”24W.E.B Du Bois, founder of the NAACP was one of the first Lincoln
naysayers. He famously wrote in his paper The Crisis that “Lincoln was big inside” and
had reserves and depths that would be revealed in a crisis, “when he would prove himself
big enough to be inconsistent- cruel, merciful; peace loving, a fighter; despising Negroes
and letting them fight and vote; protecting slavery and freeing slaves.”25 The public
outcry from this article was enough for Du Bois to write a follow up piece stating that
Lincoln “was perhaps the greatest figure of the nineteenth century,” who was to be
admired “not because he was perfect but because he was not and yet he triumphed…Out
22 Ibid. 294
23 George M. Frederickson, Big Enough To Be Inconsistent: Abraham Lincoln Confronts Slavery and Race
(Cambridge, Ma: Harvard Press, 2008), 11
24 Frederickson, Big Enough,17
25 Ibid. 3

13
of his contradictions and inconsistencies he fought his way to the pinnacles of the
earth…”26
Even with the Du Bois articles, black enchantment with Abraham Lincoln
remained largely untouched through the first half of the 20th century. In 1962, in the heat
of the Civil Rights Movement, Benjamin Quarles, wrote his Lincoln and the Negro.
Quarles writes about Lincoln’s personal relationships with blacks. For example he goes
to great length discussing William de Fleur Ville (Billy the Barber), who not only cut
Lincoln’s hair but who was represented by Lincoln on quite a few occasions. Quarles
cites evidence of the affection blacks felt towards Lincoln and why they called him
Father Abraham. His last words beautifully sum up the idea of Lincoln that most had at
the time; of a “man who…had called upon his generation to highly resolve that America
should have a new birth of freedom; and a man who…had exhorted his countrymen to
finish the great work they were in.”27
It was then in 1968 that Lerone Bennett wrote his first article addressing the
Lincoln question, titled “Was Abe Lincoln a White Supremacist?” Bennett’s answer to
this question was a resounding yes. James McPherson wrote “Most Lincoln scholars
considered it a tendentious work of scholarship, marred by selective evidence taken out
of context…heedless of the cultural and political climate that constrained Lincoln’s
options…”28 Such criticisms only spurred Bennett on even more as he devoted the next
thirty years to extensive research, the culmination being his Forced into Glory: Abraham
Lincoln’s White Dream. Bennett works to dispel the Lincoln myth and directly refutes
26 Ibid. 3-4
27 Ibid. 5
28 James McPherson, Lincoln the Devil, review of Forced into Glory, by Lerone Bennett, New York Times,
August 27, 2000. Accessed December 3, 2011.
http://www.nytimes.com/books/00/08/27/reviews/000827.27mcphert.html

14
Cox and Striner’s theses. He examines all the racial comments that Lincoln made
throughout his life and sees them for what they are; racist and immoral rather than
comments made out of political necessity. Bennett strongly contests that Lincoln shared
the racial beliefs prevalent among most whites in the 19th century and by no means
should he be portrayed as a progressive abolitionist.
The book’s title perfectly expresses Bennett’s two theses. The first is that Lincoln
was forced into glory, meaning he was forced to free the slaves and did not pen the
Emancipation Proclamation for moral reasons. Bennett contends that in fact Lincoln was
not all that opposed to slavery but protected it for as long as he could until the plight of
the war forced him otherwise. “Based on his record and the words of his own mouth,”
Bennett writes, “we can say that the ‘great emancipator’ was one of the major supporters
of slavery in the United States for at least fifty-four of his fifty-six years.”29 As proof he
contends that Lincoln stymied Congress’s attempts to free the slaves through the
Confiscation Act of 1862, because of his failure to enforce the Act. Then when Lincoln
finally put forth the Emancipation Act, he only freed the slaves in Confederate areas,
thereby leaving all slaves in Northern states under control of their masters. According to
Bennett emancipating slaves in the Confederacy did less good than if he instead had
enforced the Confiscation Act. Quoting Lincoln’s famous letter to Horace Greely where
he wrote, “My paramount object is to save the union,” Bennett vigorously contends that if
Lincoln could have won the war without freeing a single slave, he would have.
Bennett contends that two factors forced Lincoln into glory. The first was the
mass desertion of slaves from plantations. By making the perilous journey across Union
29 Lerone Bennett Jr., Forced into Glory: Abraham Lincoln’s White Dream (New York: Johnson
Publishing, 2007), 251

15
lines Bennett and other historians argue that slaves did more to “free themselves by
voting against slavery with their feet than Lincoln did by proclaiming
emancipation.”30The second factor was the never-ending work of abolitionists such as
Thaddeus Stevens, Charles Sumner, and Wendell Phillips, who according to Bennett
pressured Lincoln towards emancipation. Bennett calls these men the true heroes of
abolition.
The second thesis of Bennett’s book is Lincoln’s dream for a white America.
Bennett pays special attention to Lincoln’s advocacy of the colonization of the freed
slaves. He seems to ignore the fact that Lincoln wanted colonization to be optional and
instead insists that it would have turned into a form of ethnic cleansing. Most Lincoln
historians assert that colonization was just another one of Lincoln’s many political ploys
and that it played its role in so far as it alleviated white Americans’ fears of the reality of
freeing the slaves. Bennett, however, believes that instead, colonization only served to
further exacerbate racial prejudices in America.
Although most historians criticized Forced into Glory as “tendentious and
polemical” there are few factual errors in it. In fact James McPherson in his severe
review writes, “This book must be taken seriously.”31Bennett does get some things right.
Lincoln absolutely did share in the racial prejudices of the time as well as supporting
colonization for a period of time. He fails, however, to recognize the evolution that
Lincoln underwent throughout his career, especially during the latter years of his
presidency.
30 Frederickson, Big Enough, 21

16
Bennett is also right in concluding that the Emancipation Proclamation freed few
slaves. But he seems to miss the whole purpose of the proclamation. The words
themselves were not meant to free the slaves but rather establish a new purpose for war,
abolition. Much like the Declaration of Independence did not truly free Americans but
instead established the principles with which war was fought and a country was founded.
One of Bennett’s biggest problems with Lincoln is his conservatism when it came
to abolition. He writes as if Lincoln had the power to free the slaves at any time. But he is
wrong again because neither Lincoln nor Congress for that matter had the power to
abolish slavery. Slavery was protected by the Constitution. The only way to truly abolish
it was to amend the Constitution and the 13th Amendment did just that, thanks in large
part to Lincoln’s political will and savvy. Lincoln himself knew very well that the
Emancipation Proclamation was temporary and so he ensured that the amendment was
added to the Republican Party platform so that he could run for his second term in the
name of abolition. Bennett though conveniently leaves this out. In fact Bennett does that
quite often throughout his work. For example, as proof that Lincoln did not truly care
about the slaves he uses Lincoln’s 1862 letter to editor Horace Greeley, where Lincoln
writes, “My paramount object is to save the Union…if I could save the Union without
freeing a slave I would do it.” What he fails to mention is the conclusion of the letter, “I
have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no
modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free.”
That conclusion alone shatters Bennett’s thesis that Lincoln did not want to see slavery
destroyed. He did, but was constrained by the Constitution. Bennett fails to realize this.

17
The most recent and perhaps definitive of Lincoln and slavery books is Eric
Foner’s The Fiery Trial. In Foner’s own words the purpose of the book “is intended to be
both less and more than another biography.”32 Foner does not wish to present yet another
biography on an already exhausted subject. Rather, he seeks to examine Lincoln’s
thinking on slavery at different points of his life, whilst at the same time demonstrating
how ever-changing public opinion and exposure to new types of peoples changed the 16th
president’s thinking.
Foner’s leitmotif is all about growth and evolution. Foner leaps squarely in the
middle of a heated debate. One side vehemently holds that Lincoln entered the White
House determined to destroy that “monstrous injustice” that was slavery. The other side
just as strongly contends that Lincoln lacked any sort of conviction on the matter and
allowed outside forces guide him, whether that was abolishing slavery or not. Foner
desperately tries to stay center aisle whilst proving that the greatness of Lincoln lies in his
potential for growth. He suggests that African Americans played a major role in shaping
the evolving mind of Lincoln.
Foner places Lincoln in the political climate that he operated within, as this is
central to his thesis that Lincoln grew despite what the times were. Foner makes it clear
from the beginning that he contends that Lincoln was always against slavery. As stated
before, Lincoln himself declared: “I am naturally anti-slavery. If slavery is not wrong,
nothing is wrong.” And there is no reason to doubt his words. What Foner wants to
discuss are those apparent inconsistencies, which have puzzled historians for so long. On
the one hand Lincoln was the Great Emancipator. On the other hand he uses the word
32 Foner, The Fiery Trial, xvi

18
“nigger” and “darky” in conversations, and he thought that freed slaves should be
deported since they could not live equally with intellectually superior whites.
Foner does not deny that these inconsistencies are true. Rather he works to reveal
that these apparent contradictions are apart of Lincoln’s world and must be taken with a
grain of salt. Foner drives home the idea that Lincoln was born and raised in three slaves
states, Kentucky, Indiana, and Illinois.33 Slavery and racism permeated throughout 19th
century America. Therefore for Lincoln to be against slavery at all was something
commendable in itself and cannot be easily forgotten.
Foner applauds and respects Lincoln for his ability to steer a middle course when
all around him, radicals from both sides of the aisle surrounded him. Lincoln believed
slavery violated America’s core principles- life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Foner demonstrates this with plenty of primary sources. He also shows Lincoln’s
reluctance to take swift, dramatic action against slavery. To the bitter end, Lincoln
remained a firm believer in the Constitution, and did not wish to abuse it. The
Constitution protected slavery, and to Lincoln that was enough make him wary about
abolition. Foner argues that it was because of Lincoln’s moderateness that he was such an
attractive candidate. He explains that it was this conservatism that helped Lincoln stay
calm during the tumultuous years of civil strive.
Ultimately Foner’s Lincoln showed an ability to grow as circumstances changed.
At first Lincoln was unsure of the abilities of black slaves and how they would be
incorporated into white society. As the war progressed, he came to admire freed blacks as
they so bravely fought for their own freedom. Eventually, Foner’s Lincoln completely
abandons the idea of colonization, rededicates the war effort to the goal of freedom for
33 Foner, Fiery Trial, xviii

19
all, and plans for a future America that contains both white and blacks living amongst
each other.
PART II- The Early Years
In order to better understand Abraham Lincoln and his views on slavery and racial
equality it is necessary to place him in his own time and place. There his opinions on race
and slavery can be viewed in relation to the rest of the public’s opinion on such matters.
Lincoln cannot be examined through a 21st century microscope as Lerone Bennett does.
Once a summary of the time within which Lincoln operated is given, it is easier to
understand how important and monumental the changes Lincoln underwent really were.
This section of the thesis will firmly place Lincoln within that time.
By Lincoln’s birth, in 1809, the divide between slave states and free states had
already become prevalent. The Revolutionary War had only recently been fought under
the famous principle that “All men are created equal.” In theory, this meant African
Americans as well. The founding fathers argued long and hard concerning the status of
slavery after the revolution. They believed that slavery, as an institution, would
eventually run its course. By the mid 1780’s Massachusetts and Pennsylvania had begun
a process of gradual emancipation, among other Northern States. 34 In the Deep South,
however, slavery had extremely firm roots and many of the southern economies relied
heavily upon it. The Fathers main concern was that these states would not join the union

20
if the federal government had the power to abolish slavery. Therefore they relied on the
hope of slavery’s “ultimate extinction.”35
Steps were taken to ensure that slavery did not spread. The Northwest Ordinance
of 1787 prohibited slaves being brought into the Ohio Territory. In addition, African
slave trade was prohibited starting in 1808. Slavery, however, still grew. Some historians
claim that it was white Americans’ fear of coexistence with blacks that continued
slavery.36 Others contend that it was the strong economic foundation of slavery in the
Deep South, coupled with the invention of the cotton gin, “and the spread of short staple
cotton cultivation.”37
In 1820, the first real political crisis over slavery occurred. The Missouri
Compromise of 1820, admitted Missouri to the Union as a slave state, but it did not allow
slavery in the rest of the of the Louisiana Purchase based on a line drawn west from
Missouri’s southernmost border. The Missouri Compromise established that any territory
over the line that wished to become a state would be a free state whilst the opposite was
true of any state below the line. Although this compromise produced quite a ruckus it also
established a precedent of compromise between North and South that would last for
nearly forty years.
Lincoln was born in Kentucky, a state that was comprised of one-fifth
slaves.38When he was seven, his father moved the family to Indiana, where they remained
until their move to Illinois, around Lincoln’s 21st birthday. In a brief autobiography
36 Foner, Fiery Trial, 35

21
written in 1860, Lincoln recalled that his father moved “partly on account of slavery.”39
The historical record, however, accounts for very little of Lincoln’s early encounters with
slavery or even blacks for that matter. According to the census of 1830 in Spencer
County, Indiana, there were no slaves and only fourteen freedmen. When the Lincolns
moved to Sangamon County, Illinois, the census of 1830 reported thirty-eight blacks out
of a population of 12,000. When Lincoln, as a young lawyer, moved to Springfield in
1837, only 5 percent of the town was made up of black men.40 Therefore, Lincoln really
did not have much exposure to slavery or even freed blacks at all.
Lincoln’s first encounters on a more personal basis with slaves would have been
on his two journeys down the Mississippi to New Orleans. Lincoln helped transport farm
goods from his home to Louisiana for a time. On one of his trips a band of black robbers
attacked Lincoln’s barge, as they lay asleep at night. Lincoln and the others managed to
fight the robbers off, but certainly the incident must have left an impression on the young
Lincoln. It was the second trip, however, that left a life-long mark on Lincoln. On his
way to St. Louis, MO, Lincoln saw a group of slaves being transported from Kentucky to
another farm. In 1855 in a letter to his close friend, Joshua Speed, he vividly recalled:
You may remember, as I well do, that…there were, on board, ten or a
dozen slaves, shackled together with irons. That sight was a continual
torment to me; and I see something like it every time I touch the Ohio or
any slave border…You ought…to appreciate how much the great body of
the Northern people do crucify their feelings, in order to maintain their
loyalty to the constitution and the Union.41
Clearly, the sight of men chained together like livestock, revolted the young Lincoln yet
no other mention of slavery is recorded in his early years. But it is safe to say that
40 Ibid. 8
41 Ibid. 11

22
although it definitely affected him, it was not enough to make him an ardent abolitionist.
Lincoln would go on to marry Mary Todd Stuart, who came from a prominent slave
holding family. On several occasions Lincoln even came into direct contact with slaves,
while visiting his wife’s family, but he never mentions much about it. 42
Meanwhile, slavery during the 1830’s was becoming more and more of a central
issues in national politics. Slave owner’s fears grew drastically with the emergence of a
whole new generation of radical abolitionists.43 Opinions on both sides of the aisle
became more militant during the 1830’s as Lincoln was beginning his career in politics.
These abolitionists, such as William Lloyd Garrison, were advocates of racial equality.
This made them quite unpopular, especially during a time when the prevalent idea was
white supremacy. The movement grew, however, in large part due to the participation of
men like Frederick Douglass, whose eloquence helped convince many of black men’s
intellectual ability.44
But just as the militant abolitionist movement grew, so too, did the militancy of
pro-slavery proponents, led by most notably John C. Calhoun, who often spoke on the
moral good of slavery and how it benefitted not only slaves but also slave-holders. These
militant groups only helped to further divide the nation between slave and non-slave. In
the North, the anti-slavery movement was growing rapidly as the speeches of Garrison,
supported by Douglas, became more fiery, almost preacher-like. In the South, abolition
was not tolerated and many slave states passed laws prohibiting any talk of abolition at
all.45
42 Ibid, 13
45 Ibid.24.

23
As the issue of slavery was making its rise in American politics, so too was
Abraham Lincoln. During the 1830’s Lincoln was still a small town politician and
therefore did not concern himself too much with slavery before the Kansas-Nebraska Act
of 1854, made the status of slavery a major political issue. As Lincoln himself said in
1858: “Although I have always been opposed to slavery, so far I rested in the hope and
belief that it was in course of ultimate extinction. For that reason it has been a minor
question with me.”46
It was not until 1837 that Lincoln made his first public stance on the slavery issue.
Some slavery proponents had sent a resolution to the Illinois Congress affirming the
constitutionality of slavery in states that permitted it whilst condemning abolitionist
sentiments. Lincoln joined a small minority in voting “no” to these resolutions.47 The
minority was still so small because of the rampant racial attitudes that were so prevalent
at the time. Abolitionists were often attacked, such as in November of 1837 when a mob
murdered abolitionist Elijah Lovejoy.
Still Lincoln made no public mention of slavery and only continued to largely all
but ignore it. Lincoln supported the Whig Party’s national agenda for internal
improvements and further economic expansion. Following the economic depression of
1837, for instance, Lincoln worked for the creation of public works to help turn the
economy around and lower unemployment, even if that meant the federal government
running up deficit spending. 48 Lincoln was mostly concerned with economic issues and
matters of internal government. Slavery he hoped would just fade away.

24
Another important reason that Lincoln did not latch on earlier to the abolitionist
cause is that Lincoln did not particular agree with their methods. He believed them to be
too radical and to do more harm than good. This is illustrated in his 1842 speech to the
Springfield Washington Temperance Society, an organization of reformed drinkers
dedicated to promoting temperance. There he made it known that “A drop of honey
catches more flies than a gallon of gall.” Lincoln would much rather appeal to the reason
of a man rather than his emotions. This is exactly why he always condemned slavery and
not slaveholders. Incidentally, the Temperance Speech of 1842 is the first time Lincoln
publicly denounced slavery. He closed the temperance speech by looking forward to the
“happy day” when reason would rule the world: “All appetites controlled, all passions
subdued…when there shall be neither a drunkard nor a slave on the earth.” It was only
then, that the promise of the American Revolution, “the triumph of mankind’s ‘political
and moral freedom’ be fulfilled.”49
Eventually, Lincoln would come to see the abolitionists and him as part of a
common anti-slavery struggle. Many abolitionist ideas would find their way into his
speeches. But having never had a direct connection to the abolitionist movement, he
“lacked exposure to the radical egalitarianism that pervaded the cause.” This definitely
helps explain why, even with his dislike of slavery, it took Lincoln so long to begin to
even see the possibility of an egalitarian America. 50
This lack of exposure changed when Lincoln was elected to the House of
Representatives in 1846, where he served one two- year term. Whilst serving in D.C., the
Mexican war was fought and won. With victory came new territories, including Texas

25
and California. There was much debate within Congress over whether or not these
territories would be slave states or not. While the war still raged, Congressman David
Wilmot of Pennsylvania proposed an amendment banning slavery in any territory to be
acquired from Mexico in the Mexican War or in the future. The Wilmot Proviso passed in
the House but failed in the Senate. Its consequences would be dramatic as it successfully
split parties along distinct lines and “ushered in a new era in which slavery moved to the
center stage of American politics.”51
Lincoln vocally supported the Proviso bragging, “I think I may venture to say, I
voted for it at least forty times.” Needless to say this slight exaggeration shows how
many times the Proviso was brought before Congress. This would impact Lincoln a great
deal as he began to see slavery and its abolition entering into the forefront of American
domestic policy.
As Congress convened in December 1848, it was clear that slavery was still the
hot issue, and demands were made for the abolition of slavery in D.C. The leader of these
demands was Joshua Gibbings, a Pennsylvania Congressman and one of the North’s most
fiery abolitionists. Coincidentally, Lincoln shared a room with Gibbings and his friends
whilst in Washington. Doubtless, Gibbings must have had quite an effect on the moderate
Lincoln, who not long after, proposed his own plan for the abolition of slavery in D.C.,
which called for the compensation of the owners. The bill “provided that all slave
children born in the District after January 1, 1850 would labor as apprentices” until they
reached adulthood, when they would be freed. Gibbings called the plan “as good as a bill
as we can get at this time.” Although the bill was eventually dropped due to lack of
support, it demonstrated that Lincoln was no longer hesitant to stand by abolitionists in
51 Ibid. 52

26
the fight against slavery. After his term as Congressman was up, Lincoln returned to his
Illinois practice where he handled “every kind of business that could come before a
prairie lawyer.” But soon this “prairie lawyer” would surge into national prominence. 52
Part III- Rise to Fame, the War Years, and Emancipation.
Lincoln’s rise to national fame began with a series of speeches he gave in 1854.
By 1860 he emerged as a new leader of the infant Republican Party. This all was started
with his angry reactions to the developments of 1854, namely the Kansas- Nebraska Act.
After months of debate, Congress voted to repeal the Missouri Compromise of
1820. This meant that all the lands that still remained in the Louisiana Territory would be
reopened again to slavery.53This infuriated Lincoln who did not want to see slavery
spread where it was not yet already. The author of the Kansas-Nebraska Act was Illinois
senior senator Stephen A. Douglass. Douglas, a short statured fiery democrat known for
his oratorical skills, had incorporated popular sovereignty into the Act. This provision,
which Lincoln opposed, specified settlers had the right to vote whether to allow slavery
in new U.S. territories, rather than have such a decision made by Congress.
All throughout 1854 the backlash against these events shook the very roots of the
Northern two – party system. One of these parties was the Free Soil Party. Free Soilers
opposed slavery and its expansion arguing that free men on free soil “comprised a
morally and economically superior system to slavery.” The other party was the Whig

27
party. Whilst many of the Whigs opposed slavery, most were more concerned with the
centralization and modernization of the U.S. By mid 1854 these two parties would fuse
into the Republican Party.54
The first truly comprehensive statement of Lincoln’s views on slavery and race
came in the Peoria speech of 1854. Most of the points that Lincoln made for the rest of
the 1850’s can be found in this famous address. The Peoria speech contained Lincoln’s
moral, legal, and economic arguments against slavery. This speech marked Lincoln’s
reentry into politics. In Lincoln’s mind, slavery now had a national sanction that it had
never had before.55
In the Peoria speech, Lincoln iterated Douglas’s “declared indifference” to the
spread of slavery. In perhaps his strongest statement against slavery he said: “I hate it
because of the monstrous injustice of slavery itself. I hate it because it deprives our
republics example of its just influence in the world- enables the enemies of free
institution, with plausibility to taunt us as hypocrites.”56 Earlier in his career and private
writings, Lincoln had described slavery as an injustice, but never had he called it a
“monstrous injustice.” This was the “language of abolitionism.” Yet, ever the politician,
Lincoln made it clear to differentiate himself from other abolitionists who blamed
slaveholders rather than slavery: “I have no prejudice against the Southern people. They
are just what we would be in their situation…is slavery did now exist among us, we
should not instantly give it up”57

28
Lincoln now had established the fact that he was against the institution. But did he
have any plans at this time of how exactly to eradicate this “monstrous injustice?” It is in
the Peoria that Lincoln sincerely admits his uncertainty:
If all earthly powers were given me, I should not know what to do,
as to the existing institution. My first impulse would be to free all the
slaves, and send them to Liberia- to their own native land. But a moment’s
reflection would convince me… that whatever there might be in this, in
the long run; its sudden execution is impossible…What then? Free them
all and keep them as underlings? Is it quite certain that this betters their
condition?... Free them and make them politically and socially, our
equals? My own feelings will not admit to this, and if mine would, we all
know that those of the great mass of white people will not. Whether this
feeling accords with justice and sounds judgment, is not the sole question,
if indeed, it is any part of it. A universal feeling, whether well or ill
founded, cannot be disregarded. We cannot then, make them equals. It
does seem to me that systems of gradual emancipation might be adopted;
but for their tardiness in this, I will not undertake to judge our brethren of
the south. 58
What is to be made of these words as applied to civil rights of black slaves? As
Lincoln himself said: “My own feelings, will not admit of this.” What exactly are these
feelings? Most historians agree that Lincoln shared in the bigoted notions that were
prevalent during the 19th century. Certainly the excerpt above illustrates that he did not
believe in racial equality. But did Lincoln truly believe this or was he merely appealing to
his mostly white supremacist audience? White supremacy was certainly rampant at this
time and any politician who ran on the platform of racial equality did not stand a very
good chance at winning. Historian William Miller comments that Illinois was “probably
the most racially prejudiced free state in the Union.” Such was the climate in which
Lincoln was forced to work within.59

29
Although it certainly stands to reason that Lincoln might have shared these racial
prejudices of the time, there are certain inconsistencies that seem to say otherwise. Later
on his Peoria speech argued that blacks were human and that their feelings were of an
importance. He remarked:
If the Negro is a man, is it not to that extent, a total destruction of self-
government, to say that he too shall not govern himself? When the white
man governs himself…and also governs another man…that is despotism.
If the Negro is a man, why then my ancient faith teaches…that all men are
created equal and that there can be no moral right in one man’s making a
slave of another.
Why would Lincoln offer such a bold and dangerous argument, to a white supremacist
audience, when obviously the easier course of action would have been to attack Douglas?
Lincoln could have won the crowd using Free Soil ideas: that slavery was a threat to all
working class white men. Yet, after this beautiful critique of slavery, he immediately
drew back from this idea by assuring the crowd he was not necessarily for equal rights
but instead was only setting up the moral arguments. It seems that Lincoln was merely
appealing to his audience and that his withdrawal was so as not to be seen as too radical.
No matter what his personal feelings, he was an ambitious politician and did not want to
destroy his career.60
In any case, Lincoln’s Peoria speech served more purpose than just stating his
views on slavery. It thrust Lincoln almost immediately into the national spotlight. The
moderateness of the speech and his uncanny ability to appeal to both abolitionists and
moderates made him the logical choice to run for Senate as a Republican against the
Democrat Stephen Douglas.

30
Following his nomination by the Republicans on June 16, 1858, Lincoln gave his
house divided speech, which is perhaps one of his most famous speeches second only to
the Gettysburg Address. The House Divided Speech was the most radical speech Lincoln
had yet to give. Lincoln still might not have had a plan for abolition but he certainly
believed at the time of the speech that “the government cannot endure permanently half
slaver and half free.” Lincoln predicted that the house would ultimately cease to be
divided. The speech created a lasting image of the danger of dissolvent of the union
because of slavery, and it rallied Republicans across the North.
According to Lincoln the country could not continue split between slave and free
states anymore. He gave the speech to differentiate himself from Douglas. Douglas
advocated popular sovereignty, where the settlers would decide their own status as a
slave or free state. Douglas believed that by letting the settlers decide what they wanted
this would reduce conflict and allow North and South to co-exist peacefully. The most
famous passage of the speech reiterates this:
A house divided against itself cannot. I believe this government
cannot endure; permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the
Union to be dissolved- I do not expect the house to fall- but I do expect it
will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or al the other. Either
the opponent of slavery, will arrest the further spread of it, and place it
where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of
ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall
become alike lawful in all states, old as well as new, North as well as
South. Have we no tendency to the latter condition?
The last sentence is crucial to what Lincoln believed. The rest of the speech Lincoln
spelled out these consistencies. He spoke of the conspiracy to spread slavery, which
involved not only Douglas but also President Pierce and Chief Justice Taney of Dred
Scott fame. He believed that these men were trying to legalize slavery throughout the

31
country and to a certain extent that they were succeeding because already, the Supreme
Court had deprived blacks of the protection of the Constitution.
The House Divided speech was certainly radical in so far as it set Lincoln up as an
opponent of slavery. The question is why would Lincoln take the risk of sounding as
extreme as he did and coming off as an abolitionist, in a state like Illinois? The answer is
that Lincoln realized he needed to separate himself as far as possible from Douglas.
Lincoln was setting himself and the Republican Party up for the future, as Free Soil
advocates. 61
Following the nomination were seven great debates between Lincoln and
Douglas, which were the highlights of the senatorial race and served to rocket Lincoln
into national fame. Douglas’s strategy was to paint Lincoln as an abolitionist and
egalitarian to a majority racist Illinois crowd. In his first speech Douglas claimed “Mr.
Lincoln and the Black Republican party are in favor of citizenship for the negro.”
Douglas himself made it clear that he believed “the government was made by white men
for white men.” Lincoln would counter with the fact that the Declaration of Independence
affirmed the equality of blacks but according to Douglas “all men” meant “white men.”62
Lincoln so as not to seem too radical, made it known that he did not foresee racial
equality for blacks. “I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way
the social and political equality of the white and black races.” Lincoln claimed that
believing blacks should be afforded life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness was
completely different from making “voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to
hold office.” Lincoln at this time believed that blacks and whites were not equal

32
intellectually but as he said in the Peoria Speech, “in the right to eat bread, without leave
of anyone else, which his own hands earn, he is my equal…and the equal of every living
man.” It is clear that at this time Lincoln was anti slavery but still unsure of what was to
come later.
Throughout the course of these debates, Lincoln tried to answer this question of
what to do with freed slaves. He came up with three options for dealing with the slaves.
His “first impulse” was to free them all and “send them to Liberia,- to their own native
land.” But according to Lincoln this was not the best of ideas because they “would all die
in the next ten days if they were all landed there in a day.” In addition, he continued, the
U.S. had neither the “surplus shipping” nor the “surplus money” to transport all four
million slaves there. So obviously, option one is out of the picture. Lincoln then asked,
“What’s next?” He related to his audience that option two could be “free them, and make
them politically and socially, our equals?” He then answered this question with his own
personal feelings saying: “My own feelings will not admit of this and even if they did
those of the great mass of white people will not…We can not, then, make them our
equals.” Therefore according to Lincoln the third and final alternative was the most
sensible one of all and that was “gradual emancipation” which Lincoln points out might
take no less than one hundred years. As Lincoln said: “I do not suppose that in the most
peaceful way, ultimate extinction would occur in less than a hundred years at the least;
but that it will occur in the best way for both races in God’s own good, time, I have no
doubt.”63 Although still moderate by the standards of Lerone Bennett, this position of
abolition, whether gradual or not, was not the norm for 19th century America. Lincoln had
already changed drastically from his views in the 1830’s. In twenty years Lincoln went
63 Gates, Lincoln, xxvi

33
from not wanting to touch slavery because it was protected by the constitution to wanting
it eradicated by the most peaceful and financially sensible of ways possible, gradual
emancipation. 64
Douglas chose to keep the debate centered on Lincoln and abolition. He accused
Lincoln at every chance of desiring the destruction of slavery. In the following passage
he quoted Lincoln in an effort to prove Lincoln’s abolitionist feelings: “I should like to
know, if taking this old Declaration of Independence, which declares that all men are
equal upon principle, and making exceptions to it, where will it stop? If one man says it
does not mean Negro, why may not another man say it does not mean another man?”
Lincoln kept responding that the authors did not mean every man was created equal in
every respect, “They did not mean to say that all men were equal in color, size, intellect,
moral development, or social capacity.” But that rather, they were equal “in certain
inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”65
On the rightness and wrongness of slavery, Lincoln and Douglas could have not
been more different. For Douglas, her personally did not care either way about the
institution. As long as the will of the people made the decision, and that the victims were
black. Lincoln, however, had deeper convictions concerning the subject: “The difference
of opinion reduced to its lowest terms, is no other than the difference between the men
who think slavery wrong and those who do not think it wrong. The Republican party
think it wrong- we think it is a moral, a social and a political wrong.” According to
George Frederickson, Lincoln deserves a great deal of credit for keeping his Republican
party focused on the immorality of slavery. “In ways that one could not foresee at the

34
time, the promulgation of this judgment would make it easier for the federal government
to act against slavery when circumstances permitted it to do so” in the war years of 1862
and 1863. 66
What can be taken away from an examination of these debates? Certainly, they
can be examined as they were by Lerone Bennett, and the conclusion could be that
Lincoln was a racist who did not wish to see black equality. This, however, does not give
the massive intellect of Lincoln justice. The Lincoln –Douglas debates portray a changing
Lincoln-albeit- a tortured one. He was tortured in so far as he himself was still working
through his own ideas of abolition. The question to Lincoln was no longer whether to free
the slaves or not but rather what to do with them once they were freed. Perhaps the best
conclusion to an examination of the Lincoln-Douglas debates comes from Lincoln
himself who believed that pro-slavery advocates who denied the words of the
Declaration, threatened the very roots of American democratic government:
So I say in relation to the principle that all men are created equal, let it be
as nearly reached as we can…Let us discard all this quibbling about this
man and the other man-this race and that race and the other race being
inferior, and therefore they must be placed in an inferior position…Let
us…unite as one people throughout this land, until we shall once more
stand up declaring that all men are created equal…I leave you hoping that
the lamp of liberty will burn in your bosoms until there shall no longer be
a doubt that all mean are created free and equal.67
Lincoln, as is well known, lost the senatorial election of 1858. But he emerged as a major
figure in the Republican Party and rose to national fame. On February 27, 1860 New
York party leaders invited Lincoln to give a speech at Cooper Union to a group of
powerful Republicans. Much of his address was devoted to examining the views of the

35
Founding Fathers concerning slavery and whether it should be allowed to expand.
Lincoln’s conclusion was that thirty-six out of thirty-nine of those most intimately
involved in the founding of America, believed that the federal government not only had
the power to stop the expansion of slavery but the responsibility. 68 “As those fathers
marked it, let it again be marked as an evil not to be extended, but to be tolerated and
protected only because of and so far as its actual presence among us makes that toleration
and protection a necessity.”69Not long after his address at Cooper Union, Lincoln was
nominated as the Republican candidate for the presidency in 1860. The previous excerpt
from the Cooper Address would serve as his platform on which he would win the
election, precipitating southern secession and a bloody civil war.
So what can be concluded in general about Lincoln’s views on slavery and race
between 1846 and 1860, and how might these views been affected by the times in which
he operated? As Cox, Striner, and Foner agree there is no reason whatsoever to doubt the
sincerity of Lincoln when he stated that he hated slavery. But it must be remembered, as
Lincoln made clear in speeches, his love of the Constitution. The constitution prohibited
the federal government from abolishing slavery in states where it already existed.
Certainly Lincoln was an ambitious politician, “but it would be the height of cynicism”
not to take him on his word on matters of slavery and race. In fact, most of his success as
a politician was because of his ability in convincing others of these anti-slavery ideas and
values, something which could not have been done nearly so well if he had not believed
in them himself.70
70 Ibid. 81

36
Needless to say, Lincoln wanted an end to slavery. Those who say otherwise are
only setting up straw men. Lincoln on countless occasions reiterated his distaste for the
institution of slavery. Where they do have an argument, however, is over Lincoln’s racial
attitudes during his Illinois years. If we do take him for his word, he comes across as a
white supremacist. But the possibility still remains that it was political expediency that
made Lincoln say things that we now consider to be blatantly racist. His strongest
statements of racial inequality only came when he was under direct attack from Stephen
Douglas; therefore it is very likely that those statements were merely because he was
forced on the defense. In addition, Lincoln still had not had too many opportunities to
talk to any black men. It was not until later on during his presidency that he was able to
speak with freed slaves, such as Frederick Douglass, following which his opinions on
equality changed a great deal.
On November 6, 1860, Abraham Lincoln was elected the sixteenth president of
the United States. On December 20, 1860 South Carolina seceded and Florida,
Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas followed suit. If Lincoln really was
pro- slavery and an advocate of white supremacy then there would have not been any real
reason for the South to secede. But they did, and they did so because Lincoln was elected
president and they knew he abhorred slavery.
With the secession of South Carolina everything changed. No longer was
Lincoln’s presidency merely about trying to find a middle ground over slavery and its
expansion west. Lincoln’s new goal needed to be to save the union from dissolvent. That
was Lincoln’s most important aim and he made that quite clear throughout the First
Inaugural Address.

37
In his address he began by asserting that he had no intention of interfering with
slavery where it existed, or of interfering with the rights of the Southern states. He urged
that as the law commanded, all fugitive slaves would be returned to their masters. No
other mention of slavery is made in the first address. Lincoln wished to make it clear to
the Southern states that slavery was not the most important issue at this time, rather
keeping the union was. Lincoln held “that in contemplation of universal law, and of the
Constitution, the Union of these states is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not
expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments.”71Lincoln firmly believed
in the Union and would protect it at all costs. With great wisdom and as temperate as
possible, he asserted the impossibility of any government being liable to dissolution just
because one party wished it. One party to a contract may violate or break it, but it
“requires all to lawfully rescind it.”72
Lincoln did not want to see the United States he loved so dearly broken up over
slavery. He continued the line of thought of his first address into his first year of the
presidency even during the war. He promised that any state that stayed with or returned to
the Union would not be forced to end slavery. Lincoln still believed that slavery was a
doomed institution anyways so he would rather put up with it for a while rather than lose
a nation over it.
At this point, in the earliest stages of the war, Lincoln did not show much concern
for equal rights for blacks. In fact, some historians comment on reports of his private
jokes about blacks and his attending of minstrel shows.73 Whether these reports are true
or not, he certainly did not make any strides to use the military to emancipate the slaves.

38
At many points throughout the first years of his presidential term, Lincoln went so far as
to stamp out any attempts to emancipate the slaves. He did so though, out of political
expediency. Lincoln believed that if he emancipated the slaves too early, those slave
states loyal to the Union would secede, turning the tables in favor of the Confederacy. “I
think to lose Kentucky”, Lincoln wrote. “Is nearly to lose the whole game. Kentucky
gone, we cannot hold Missouri, nor as I think, Maryland.”74Lincoln was a political
genius. He realized that freeing the slaves at the wrong time would only worsen the state
of the country and the plight of the slaves.
Lincoln’s first public plan for emancipation came in 1861 when he and Orville
Browning talked about “paying Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, and Missouri $500 a
piece for all the slaves they had according to the census of 1860, provided they adopted a
system of gradual emancipation which would work the extinction of slavery in twenty
years.” They both agreed that the plan should include colonization outside the United
States.75 Lincoln advocated colonization because he hoped that putting colonization on
the board in the loyal states would help provide a means for allowing the rebellious state
to return to the Union without any loss. In addition, he hoped that it would temper any
racist feelings that the rebellious states might harbor. Colonization seemed to be the
answer for it not only rid the country of the moral wrong that was slavery but it
completely eliminated the whole race problem. His paramount concern was the United
States of America, and those states in his mind, needed to come before his own personal
hatred for slavery. Lincoln continued his call for a gradual, compensated emancipation
into 1862.

39
Lincoln, as stated before, was a moderate. He did despise slavery that is not even
a question. The issues Lincoln had were not only was slavery protected by the
constitution, but also the whole Southern economy ran on it. He knew the catastrophic
effect it would have on the confederacy even if he did possess the power to abolish
slavery. As president, his first duty was to his country, to serve it. Lincoln never
recognized the Confederacy as a separate nation. He always hoped that the states would
return sooner than later and so he did not want to abolish slavery too quickly and
devastate their whole life source. After Lincoln signed the Confiscation Act, Browning
wrote that Lincoln said “that it should have been for gradual emancipation; that families
would at once be deprived of cooks, stable boys, etc., and they of their protectors without
any provisions for them.” Mass emancipation could very well cause chaos, as the
southern families and slaves alike would have no way to survive for a time without each
other. 76
Lincoln tirelessly campaigned and worked for gradual emancipation. Many in the
North did support his call for gradual emancipation but this soon changed when those
Border States in which the plan had been proposed, obdurately refused the terms. When
Northern Congressman realized that the Border States wanted nothing to do with gradual
emancipation, they began calling for more drastic measures to be taken against slavery.
Lincoln’s grand plan for a gradual, peaceful, compensated emancipation was failing. This
coupled with the floundering war effort, helped to change Lincoln’s mind when it came
to gradual emancipation. Not only abolitionists but also Unionists, who believed that
freeing the slaves would be monumental in securing Northern victory, were calling for
emancipation.

40
By July 22, 1862, Lincoln had already formulated an emancipation draft and
presented it to his cabinet. The draft declared that slaves in states, which were in rebellion
against the “constitutional authority of the United States on January 1, 1863, shall then,
thenceforward, and forever be free.” His rationalization for such a document was that it
was a necessary war measure. Still the moderate however, he offered “pecuniary aid” for
states that would “adopt the gradual emancipation of slavery.” Lincoln harbored hopes
that some states would take him up on his offer. Secretary of State Seward managed to
convince Lincoln not to issue the proclamation until a decisive Union victory, lest
emancipation appear to be a last minute “act of desperation.”77
It was during the next year of his presidency that Lincoln received much praise
for his political shrewdness. At this point, Lincoln had already decided to free the slaves.
There was no question of this. He was waiting for a moment in which an action that “was
bound to be controversial could be presented in a way calculated to gain maximum
popular support.”78
In one of his most famous and oft- quoted letters to newspaper editor Horace
Greeley, Lincoln set forth his views on presidential powers and emancipation. He wrote,
“My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union and is not either to save or
destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I
could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing some
and leaving others alone, I would also do that.” He ended the letter by distinguishing
between his own personal feelings and his role as leader of a nation in civil war: “I have
here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no

41
modification of my off-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free.”
Many see this as a Machiavellian statement of political shrewdness and it absolutely can
be viewed as that.79 Lincoln made it clear that he had the authority to free slaves if it was
necessary to save the Union. It is possibly however, to interpret this letter as frank and
honest. Lincoln let Greeley know that his personal wish was to free slaves and he had no
intention of changing that stance. Nevertheless, his paramount object was to save the
union. Webster defines paramount as being “chief in importance or impact, supreme,
preeminent, above others in rank and authority.” Many critics, Bennett included, seem to
misconstrue this letter completely and substitute paramount for only, contending that
Lincoln’s singular aim was to save the union. This is completely false. His chief,
supreme, preeminent object was to save the union. Having a chief objective assumes that
there is another objective. Abolishing slavery was certainly an object of Lincoln, but it
could not come at the expense of losing half the country. How would that help slaves at
all?
Now that Lincoln had an emancipation draft he needed a plan for post
emancipation. As stated earlier, he thought the best move would be to colonize the freed
slaves. He concentrated on Central America as a sight for colonization. At one point, 463
blacks were sent to a Caribbean island to test colonization. The effort failed miserably.
The conditions on the island were unbearable and there was no economic opportunity
whatsoever. Many died from malaria and eventually the survivors were brought back to
America. In addition, colonization cost the federal government a great deal of money and
did not seem economically feasible, especially with a war being fought. Although he did

42
not yet completely discard the idea of colonization, Lincoln was well on his way to it, and
would be by the time the Emancipation Proclamation was issued.
The Battle of Antietam in September of 1863, although a Pyrrhic victory, was
enough to convince Lincoln that it was the proper time to issue emancipation. He
believed he had the authority necessary to issue such a proclamation, based on the
presidential war powers. So, on January 1, 1863 “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.” The proclamation declared
all slaves in Southern rebellious states free. The proclamation exhorted emancipated
slaves to refrain from violence, “except in self- defense,” and urged them to “labor
faithfully for reasonable wages.” Most significantly, it authorized the enlistment of black
soldiers into the armed services of the United States.80
Although the emancipation proclamation is a most significant document, it is
grossly misunderstood. So many Lincoln critics point out that the Proclamation did not
really free any slaves at all.81 This is absolutely true. It did not possess such power. It still
protected slavery in border and union states. But Lincoln did not have the power to free
slaves in states not in rebellion. It was only presidential war powers, which even allowed
him to do it in rebellious states. Emancipation hinged upon Union victories and Lincoln
desperately needed some of those.
Emancipation helped change the tone and focus of the war. Before the war was a
struggle to save the Union. Now, the outcome of the war would determine the fate of
slavery as well. If the North won the war, they would consider slaves in states of

43
rebellion, to be free. The proclamation speaks for itself on this matter for, “the Executive
Government of the United States, including military authority, will recognize and
maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or acts to repress such persons.”
Thus, for the newly freed slaves to remain as such, the North needed victory.
The emancipation did, however, allow freed slaves to enlist in the Northern
Armies, and they did so in drones, eager to fight for their emancipation.82 At first Lincoln
was wary of allowing blacks to fight. He believed they would drop their weapons at the
first sign of danger and retreat.83But the opposite happened. Black soldiers fought with
such bravery and valor that Lincoln had to admit their value. In a letter to General Grant
in support of raising black troops, he described them as a “resource, which if vigorously
applied now, will soon close the contest.” He then paid elegant tribute to what he called
“blacks in blue.” When the war was over and the Union was saved, “there will be some
black men who can remember that, with silent tongue, and clenched teeth, and steady
eye, and well poised bayonet, they have helped mankind to this great consummation…”
Many white Northerners opposed using blacks in war. Lincoln recognized that
these Northerner’s conflict with him was over African Americans and slavery. Lincoln
was invited to speak in Springfield in 1863, to a large crowd of such critics. Although he
could not make the speech, he sent a friend instead to read the following letter: But it is
plain, you are dissatisfied with me about the Negro… I certainly wish that all men could
be free, while I suppose you do not…you dislike the emancipation proclamation… you
say it is unconstitutional- I think differently….”84 Lincoln’s words, “I certainly wish that
all men could be free” are very similar to the words in his letter to Horace Greeley. In
82 Ronald C White, Jr., A. Lincoln (New York: Random House, 2009), 584
84 White, Lincoln,586

44
that letter he made the distinction between his personal wish and his duties as president.
In this letter to his critics he makes no such distinction.
You say you will not fight to free Negroes. Some of them seem willing to
fight for you; but no matter. Fight you, then exclusively to save the Union.
I issued the proclamation on purpose to aid you in saving the Union.
Whenever you shall have conquered all resistance to the Union, if I shall
urge you to continue fighting, it will be an apt time, then, for you to
declare you will not fight to free Negroes.
His affirmation of black soldiers truly shows how far Lincoln had come since his early
political days of the 1830’s when he was unsure of the equality of blacks.85
But the ultimate question still remains. Did Lincoln, as Cox and Striner contend;
go beyond abolition without colonization to become an advocate of racial and political
equality? Although a difficult question, especially with such an enigmatic figure, there is
strong evidence that he did want to see an egalitarian America. That evidence lies in his
work in Louisiana and was addressed at length by LaWanda Cox. In a letter to the new
Union governor of Louisiana, Lincoln wrote: “I… suggest for your private consideration,
whether some of the colored people may not be let in…especially those who have fought
gallantly in our ranks.”86 Although in the end, suffrage for blacks was not granted, at
Lincoln’s pressure, the constitution of Louisiana did allow for black to engage in politics
in the future. Imperfect as it may have been, the “Louisiana constitution was a step
forward and could be improved in the future.”87
On July 3, 1863 the Union forces at Gettysburg achieved a much-needed Northern
victory, in the bloodiest battle in American history. Lincoln used this opportunity to

45
travel to Gettysburg in November of 1863 where he gave what is perhaps the most
famous speech in American history.88
The first line of Lincoln’s speech echoed the Declaration of Independence in the
truth that “all men are created equal.” In the very first line, he affirmed that war was
about liberty and union. “Now we are in a great civil war, testing whether that nation or
any nation so conceived, can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war.
We have come to dedicate a portion of that field… that that nation might live.” He
asserted that the Civil War was a test of whether or not the founding father’s dream of
liberty and equality could “endure.” In the last three sentences of his address Lincoln
shifted the focus of the audience from the past and present to a future.
The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here but I
cannot forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be
dedicated here to the unfinished work, which they who fought here have
thus far so nobly, advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the
great task remaining before us-that from these honored dead we take
increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure
of devotion. - That we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have
died in vain- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of
freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people,
shall not perish from this earth. 89
Lincoln with these words changed the whole reason for war. No longer was this fight a
fight for union alone, but a fight for freedom. The phrase a “new birth of freedom”
signified that he was no longer defending the old union he swore to uphold in his first
inaugural address. Instead he proclaimed a new Union. The old Union sought to contain

46
slavery. The new Union would work to fulfill the promises of the founding fathers, the
promise of liberty and equality for all.90
Following the Emancipation Proclamation and the Gettysburg Address, Lincoln’s
presidency loomed to what he considered a certain end.91 After the emancipation,
Lincoln’s new focus was what to do with the freed slaves. At this time he had complete
distaste for colonization, in part due to its failure in the Caribbean test, but more so
because of the courage of blacks in uniform. Lincoln believed that he could not ask men
to bravely fight for a nation and then tell them they could not be apart of that nation.92
Lincoln all too well knew that the Emancipation Proclamation did not secure freedom for
slaves in many regions. Therefore he took an active role in working for the passage of an
amendment that would guarantee freedom to blacks. He ensured that the amendment was
added to his platform for the upcoming Presidential elections. This amendment would
permanently outlaw slavery from the nation.
Even with his active role in securing a constitutional amendment banning slavery,
Lincoln was sure he would lose the election and all his work would be lost. Many radical
republicans were unhappy with his Reconstruction ideas for the future. Lincoln advocated
a quick, speedy reconstruction. He believed that drawing it out would do more harm to
the already damaged nation. Many radicals wanted to see the south suffer if necessary
for their crimes. Lincoln, ever the moderate, only wanted to see the nation healed. 93
As the elections drew closer, he was even surer of imminent failure. But a great
victory by General Sherman in Georgia rallied the nation around Lincoln and he swept
90 Ibid. 609
92 Striner, Father Abraham, 205.
93 Foner, Fiery Trial, 301- 306

47
both the electoral and popular votes in one of the most decisive victories in American
history. 94Not long after his victory in November of 1864, all of Lincoln’s hard work
came to fruition when the House passed the 13th Amendment on January 31, 1865. The
Thirteenth Amendment completed the abolition of slavery in the United States, which
had begun with the Emancipation Proclamation, penned by Lincoln himself. Finally his
“oft expressed view that all men everywhere could be free” had become a reality, and it
was due to the tireless work, political shrewdness, and patience of Abraham Lincoln.
On March 4, 1865, Lincoln swore the oath of office for the second time. Things
were much different this time. With his first inaugural address there was concern of an
impending war. Now that war was nearly won. In 1861 not a single slave was legally
freed. Now, they were all freed, and according to one estimate, as many as half the
audience were black, including companies of black uniformed soldiers.95 What a stark
contrast between the two Addresses!
Lincoln began his speech by stating that there was no need for an “extended
address” on the “progress of arms.” He did not want to predict when the war would end
either; instead he spent time speaking of why war was fought in the first place. Slavery,
he out rightly spoke, was the reason for war:
One eighth of the whole population were colored slaves…these slaves
constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest
was, somehow, the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend
this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union,
even by war, while the government claimed no right to do more than to
restrict the territorial enlargement of it.

48
By saying that the slaves were one eighth of the population Lincoln meant that they were
not a separate entity to themselves, but an equal, part of the nation, deserving of the
protection of the constitution.
Lincoln, however, took very little credit for all the work done, “rejecting self-
congratulation, he offered a remarkably philosophical reflection on the war’s larger
meaning.”96 His address sounded more like a preacher’s homily than a presidential
speech. Within it, he invoked God, a rarity for Lincoln, and spoke of the war as if it was a
punishment for a great sin. What was that sin?
If we shall suppose that American Slavery is one of those offences which,
in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued
through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to
both North and South, this terrible war, as the woe due to those by who the
offence came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine
attributes which the believers in a Living God always ascribe to Him?
Fondly do we hope- fervently do we pray- that this mighty scourge of war
may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue, until all the
wealth piled by the bond man’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited
toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash, shall
be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years
ago, so still it must be said ‘the judgments of the Lord, are righteous
altogether.’97
One more time Lincoln condemned the horrors of slavery, asserting that four years of
bloody war, were reparation for two and a half centuries of cruel, merciless, bloody
bondage. Yet he did not place the blame firmly on the South, like many radical
Republicans, rather, he claimed that it was the sin of American Slavery. The whole nation
was at fault for not stopping it sooner.
Lincoln closed his address with what has become the most famous part. It is an
eloquent invocation to the “better angels of our nature”:
96 Ibid. 324
97 Ibid. 325

49
With malice towards one, with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as
God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in,
to bind up the nation’s wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the
battle, and for his widow, and his orphan- to do all which may achieve and
cherish a just, and a lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations.
In this closing, Lincoln moved from past to future. He urged all to forget the old years of
national sectionalism, of north and south. He exhorted America to enter a new age, for all
Americans to come together in reconciliation and to rebuild the damaged nation.
Lincoln had changed drastically from the man he was in 1830. In 1830 he was
still unsure if blacks and whites could live together in harmony. Now he was urging the
nation to forget and forgive the divisions between them and to come together as one.
Following the speech, Frederick Douglass, moved his way through the crowd, trying to
get into the White House. Throughout the war years, Douglass had visited Lincoln quite a
few times to offer his advice and encouragement. Lincoln had come to respect the man as
well as Douglass had come to respect the president. Douglas for one reason or another
was barred from entering the White House. He asked someone to tell the president of his
hold up. Not long after, Douglass was allowed in and was greeted by a loud voice. “Here
comes my friend Douglass.” The voice was Lincoln’s. He took Douglass’s hand and said,
“I am glad to see you. I saw you in the crowd today…listening to my address; how did
you like it?”
Douglass replied, “Mr. Lincoln, I must not detain you with my poor opinion,
when there are thousands waiting to shake hands with you.”
Lincoln answered, emphatically, “No, no, you must stop a little Douglass; there is
no man in the country whose opinion I value more than yours, I want to know what did
you think of it?”

50
“Mr. Lincoln,” Douglass replied, “That was a sacred effort.”
What other proof could there be of Lincoln’s attitudes concerning race. The episode
speaks for itself; and speaks volumes concerning how much Lincoln the man had
changed.98
Conclusion- An American Legend
The question is often asked, “What would have happened if Lincoln had lived?
Certainly it will never be known, but perhaps if he had lived, Reconstruction would have
worked. Maybe with Lincoln in office for a full term, he would have been able to use his
great political skill to bring the nation together and to give blacks civil rights in the
1860’s. But this “what if” form of history does not do Lincoln justice. Instead what must
be examined is what he accomplished.
This thesis set out to establish whether or not Lincoln was forced into freeing the
slaves because of political necessity or because he felt that it was the moral, right thing to
do, and just waited for the opportune moment. So in the spirit of what he accomplished, a
quick review is fitting. He successfully opposed the racist Douglas and spoke out against
popular sovereignty, which assuredly would have continued slavery. He gave speeches to
an overwhelmingly majority of white supremacists, setting forth the novel idea that
perhaps when the founding fathers formed this nation, they meant liberty for all, white
and black. He must have been quite convincing because these same people chose him as
their leader in the greatest crisis this country has seen. While president, he deftly
navigated the heated waters of 19th century American politics, in efforts to bring a
peaceful end to a bloody war, while still striving to abolish a “monstrous injustice.”

51
When this course of action did not succeed, he unabashedly spurred his generals on to
victory, and at just the right moment, when it was both conducive to the war effort and
the nation itself, he emancipated the slaves. If that was not enough, he pushed and
pressured the Congress to amend the constitution, thus forever banning slavery from
these shores. Lincoln was far from forced into anything. On the contrary, like any great
leader, he willingly accepted the challenges that lay ahead of him.
Doubtless, as this thesis illustrates, there are many differing views on Lincoln and
his relationship with slavery and African- American civil rights. After all, that is the
intrinsic beauty of history, that topics which happened hundreds of years ago, can still be
a source of heated debate. Whether Lincoln was a racist and supremacist as some put
forth, or an egalitarian and emancipator, it must be acknowledged that he was an epic
figure in American history, a fantastic leader, who changed the course of American
history through his presidency. The beauty of Lincoln lies in his ability and willingness to
change for the better of the nation; something he certainly did. The fact remains that
without Lincoln saving the Union it can be certain there would not be an African-
American president this very moment. Whatever can be written on his personal life,
Abraham Lincoln emancipated the slaves, and whether that was under duress or because
of an innate desire to help the slave, should not matter. What matters is, that he did it. He
knew what needed to be done and accomplished it, as a leader should. What he would
have done for civil rights is merely speculation because he did not live long enough to
show America his plan for the future. In any case, one thing can be said for sure, Lincoln
was mistaken when he said at Gettysburg, “The world will little note, nor long remember

52
what we say here.” Rather, as Charles Sumner so aptly spoke in his eulogy to Lincoln,
“The world noted at once what he said, and will never cease to remember it.”

53
Bibliography
Primary Sources
- Gates Jr., Henry Louis, ed. Lincoln on Race and Slavery. Princeton: Princeton
Press, 2009.
The editor picks an assortment of Lincoln speeches and letters that are relevant to
slavery and race and gives rich historical notes. The book charts the growth
Lincoln made in his own study of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
Simpson, Brooks D, ed. Think Anew, Act Anew: Abraham Lincoln on Slavery,
Freedom, and Union. Wheeling, IL: Harlan Davidson, Inc., 1998.
Grafton, John, ed. Great Speeches: Abraham Lincoln. New York: Dover, 1991
Blaisdel, Bob, ed. The Wit and Wisdom of Abraham Lincoln. New York: Dover,
2005.
Secondary Sources
- Cox, LaWanda. Lincoln and Black Freedom: A Study in Presidential Leadership.
Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1981.
This seminal work seeks to resolve the question of whether Lincoln was forced to
emancipate or if he did it because he felt a moral obligation. Cox eloquently
argues the case that Lincoln was a strong leader who wanted slavery destroyed.
Foner, Eric. The Fiery Trial: Abraham Lincoln and American Slavery. New York:
Norton, 2010.
In what is considered the most definitive of Lincoln works in a crowded field of
study, Foner argues that Abraham Lincoln did indeed possess the racial attitudes
of the time but that the beauty of Lincoln lies in his ability to grow, as he did
throughout his life and presidency, into the Great Emancipator. He argues that
Lincoln was not born great but that he became great.
Striner, Richard. Father Abraham: Lincoln’s Relentless Struggle to End Slavery.
New York: Oxford Press, 2006
The title says it all concerning Striner’s work. Striner strives to prove that Lincoln
relentlessly worked to see slavery eradicated and that he fulfilled a life-long
dream when he did. Striner tirelessly and quite convincingly defends Lincoln’s
critics who would like to label him a racist.
Frederickson, George M. Big Enough to Be Inconsistent: Abraham Lincoln
Confronts Slavery and Race. Cambridge, Ma: Harvard Press, 2008.
Frederickson in this short volume on Lincoln and slavery seeks a middle course in
the Lincoln debate. He enters the debate attempting to place himself squarely in
the middle of the historiography, using Striner, Cox, Bennett, and Lind

54
specifically. Although he tries to steer a middle course, Frederickson comes off as
sympathetic to the Lincoln naysayers.
DiLorenzo, Thomas J, The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His
Agenda, and an Unnecessary War. New York: Three Rivers Press: 2002.
DiLorenzo attempts to uncover a side of Lincoln not told by American historians.
He strives to reveal the myths surrounding the sixteenth president, including
Lincoln as the Great Emancipator.
Bennett Jr., Lerone, Forced Into Glory: Abraham Lincoln’s White Dream. New
York: Johnson Publishing, 2007.
Bennett attempts the definite Lincoln debunker. Although elegantly written and
obviously a work of great intellectual ability, Bennett in his attempt to prove
Lincoln a racist by mixing and matching different Lincoln quotes to his liking and
drastically taking them out of context.
White Jr., Ronald C, A. Lincoln. New York: Random House, 2009.
This New York Times Bestseller offers a take of Lincoln, devoid of the
controversy, as a honest man of integrity, whose moral compass guided a nation
in crisis. White paints a vivid portrait of Lincoln’s moral evolution from his
earliest days in Kentucky to his last day on earth.
Wright, John S, Lincoln & the Politics of Slavery. Reno: University of Nevada
Press, 1970.
Leland, Charles G, Abraham Lincoln and the Abolition of Slavery in the United
States. New York: G.P. Putnam, Sons, 1881.
Journals and Book Reviews
McPherson, James. Review of Lincoln and Black Freedom: A Case Study in
Presidential Leadership, by LaWanda Cox. The American Historical Journal,
November 1981.
McPherson, James. Lincoln and the Devil, review of Forced into Glory:
Abraham’s White Dream, by Lerone Bennett Jr. The New York Times Book
Review, August 27, 2000.

Abraham Lincoln and his journey to greatness: the 16th president's role in the abolition of slavery

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (17)

Similar to Abraham Lincoln and his journey to greatness: the 16th president's role in the abolition of slavery

Similar to Abraham Lincoln and his journey to greatness: the 16th president's role in the abolition of slavery (9)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Abraham Lincoln and his journey to greatness: the 16th president's role in the abolition of slavery