For most people, the name Abraham Lincoln will conjure images of a tall, principled, and noble top-hatted man. We have dedicated our largest presidential memorial to him. His nicknames range from "Honest Abe" to "The Great Emancipator." Clearly, he has become much more than a man, in the minds of most Americans. Does this make Lincoln a legend or a myth?
Lincoln's most touted accomplishment is the abolition of slavery. For this feat, Lincoln is viewed as the antithesis of tyranny, the champion of liberty and equality, and one of the most courageous men in history. I will attempt to refute this view, proving our 16th President to be mythical.
First, I do not deny that slavery was, and is, an evil institution. Any true libertarian will tell you this. Second, I do not deny that bringing about equality and freedom is, indeed, an accomplishment to be praised. What I will argue is as follows:
1) Lincoln had no desire bring about equality for blacks, and he was not concerned with abolishing slavery before the Civil War began.
2) The Civil War was not fought solely over the issue of slavery.
3) The Emancipation Proclamation did not end slavery; it only diminished the area in which it was legal.
4) Lincoln did not diminish slavery with the goal of bringing about freedom. It was simply a war strategy.
While Point 1 is possibly the easiest statement to prove, it seems to be point that people believe most strongly to be incorrect. Lincoln's aura is largely built on the belief that he was a 19th Century Martin Luther King Jr., of sorts. With words coming straight from the horses mouth, this can easily be refuted. In Lincoln's First Inaugural Address, he states, “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."
Either Lincoln was a liar, or he had no intention to end slavery. In either case, he was clearly not the champion of equality that he is made out to be. Oh, it gets better. The following is a statement from Lincoln, made in Lincoln-Douglas debate:
I will say, then, that 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; that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say, in addition to this, that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And in as much as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.
Since Lincoln was clearly not concerned with slavery or equality, why then, we must ask, was the Civil War fought. First, allow me to refer to the Tariff of 1828, coined "The Tariff of Abominations" in the South. This was the highlight (or lowlight) of a series of tariffs, designed to limit trade between the southern states and Britain and protect manufacturers in the North. Taxing exports and imports was also the main source of income for the federal government, during this time period. At the time, the South produced a large majority of U.S. exports. Well, in response to the Tariff of 1828, South Carolina attempted to simply refuse (through nullification). Andrew Jackson, the president at the time, threatened to collect the taxes from the state by force. Eventually, they reached a compromise, in which South Carolina agreed to a smaller tariff. However, the tensions between the southern states and the federal government were apparent, as was the dividing issue - tariffs, not slavery.
In a strange turn of events, it happens that Lincoln was a major proponent of tariffs. His entire economic platform was based upon "protecting home industry." While this rhetoric may sound appealing, protectionist trade policies are extremely anti-consumer. Tariffs limit competition, allow monopolies to form, and cause prices to rise. Not only this, but as international trade was heavily concentrated in the southern states, tariffs of the time benefited some states at the expense of others.
Fort Sumter, for most, marks the place where the Civil War would begin. However, many are unaware of its true significance. The Fort was located at the tip of Charleston Harbor. Charleston was home to a major trading port - Do you see where this is going? Fort Sumter enabled the federal government to collect tariffs on imports and exports at Charleston. Indeed, Sumter was not chosen at random as a starting place for war.
On to Points 3 and 4. If you're still convinced that Lincoln was concerned with slavery, let's consider the Emancipation Proclamation. It is widely known that the Proclamation did not end slavery in the border states - Kentucky, Missouri, West Virginia, and Maryland. It only applied to the Southern states. As the South did not recognize the United States government at the time, the Emancipation Proclamation did not free a single slave. What it did do was revoke the Fugitive Slave Act, which required runaway slaves to be returned to their owners. This was clearly an attempt to hurt the Confederate agricultural industry, as well as allow runaway slaves to join the Union army.
Again, I do not argue that the Emancipation Proclamation was not a good thing. I am simply looking at the motives of Lincoln, a man commonly viewed as a saint. I find it very un-saint-like to willingly preside over, implying approval of, the ownership of one person by another. Lincoln did exactly that when he chose not to end slavery in the border states. His reasoning? He did not wish to anger any neutral state, which could result in further secession. In the end, the Emancipation Proclamation was simply a war strategy, and clearly not the principled, humanitarian act that it is believed to have been.
In American Bastille: A History of the Illegal Arrests and Imprisonment of American Citizens in the Northern and Border States on Account of Their Political Opinions During the Late Civil War, John A. Marshall compiles over 100 incidents of wrongful seizures, authorized by Lincoln. In total, Lincoln imprisoned over 30,000 Northern citizens without trial for voicing opposition to the war.
The Abraham Lincoln we have been told of since childhood is no more than a myth. In actuality, the man was more of a tyrant than a hero.
References
Lincoln's Inaugural Address quotation:
Lincoln-Douglas debate quotation:
