WHAT SHALL WE DO WITH THE NEGRO?
Lincoln, White Racism,
and Civil War America
PAUL D. ESCOTT
UNIVESITY OF VIRGINIA PRESS
CHARLOTTESVILLE & LONDON
University of Virginia Press
2009 by the Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia
All rights reserved
Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper
First published 2009
1 3 5 7 9 8 6 4 2
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Escott, Paul D., 1947
What shall we do with the Negro?: Lincoln, white racism,
and Civil War America / Paul D. Escott.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-0-8139-2786-2 (alk. paper)
1. Lincoln, Abraham, 18091865Political and social views.
2. Lincoln, Abraham, 18091865Relations with African
Americans. 3. SlavesEmancipationUnited States.
4. African AmericansCivil rightsHistory19th century.
5. African AmericansLegal status, laws, etc.History
19th century. 6. RacePolitical aspectsUnited States
History19th century. 7. RacismUnited States
History19th century. 8. United StatesRace relations
History19th century. 9. United StatesPolitics and
government18611865. 10. WhitesUnited States
AttitudesHistory19th century. I. Title.
E457.2.E73 2009
973.7092dc22
2008034652
To David Wright EscottWhat shall we do with the negro?
New York Times, 12 December 1862
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
UPON COMPLETION of a large project, one feels satisfaction and gratitude toward those who have helped him reach that point. Throughout my career I have been fortunate to receive enormous help and encouragement from Robert Durden, Raymond Gavins, Jeffrey Crow, and Emory Thomas. In polishing this book I have benefited greatly from the comments and advice of Ray Gavins, Jeff Crow, Bill Freehling, Michele Gillespie, and my editor, Dick Holway. I thank these individuals for their invaluable assistance and friendship. In addition, John David Smith and an anonymous reader for the University of Virginia Press provided extremely useful comments and suggestions. I thank Simone Caron, the chairperson of my department, for her steady support and two students, Katherine Powell and Amy Mueller, for research assistance. Any deficiencies of this text remain solely my responsibility.
INTRODUCTION
IN THE TRAGIC AFTERMATH of the invasion of Iraq, Americans began to reexamine basic assumptions about their nations foreign policy. Several decades ago the diplomat George F. Kennan undertook the same task and reached important conclusions. Kennan identified a persistent, unrealistic strain of thought in American diplomacy. Throughout the United States history as a world power, he wrote, Americans have been attracted to professions of high moral and legal principle as the basis of U.S. diplomatic practice. Kennan noted several ill effects of this attitude, among them a tendency to feel a moral superiority over other nations and the fact that these traits work a certain abuse on public understanding of international realities. The characteristics that Kennan regretted in foreign affairs also distort popular understanding of our nations domestic history. They work an abuse on an informed understanding of our past.
The idealistic and celebratory character of American attitudes toward the history of the United States has deep roots. Puritan settlers dedicated themselves to the task of creating a model communitya city on a hill. Many subsequent groups shared their idealism about the country and the sense, as Woodrow Wilson put it, that Columbuss discovery had given humankind an opportunity to set up a new civilization. The United States, Wilson declared in 1912 as he campaigned for the presidency, was to be a new human experiment... a new start in civilization... life from the old centres of living, surely, but cleansed of defilement. In Wilsons view, the Founding Fathers aspired to bring liberty to mankind, to create on consecrated soil a new government that would be a beacon of encouragement to all the nations of the world.Long ago, exalted patriotic images, rather than a realistic and factual appraisal, reflecting an awareness of societal shortcomings and difficulties, became the standard in popular culture for discussion of U.S. history. In public discourse about their history, Americans tend to emphasize only the nations successes, hiding inevitable human failures or disappointments behind images of greatness.
This pattern has deeply affected popular understanding of the Civil War era. An internecine conflict that claimed 625,000 lives should be undeniable proof that all has not gone well, that U.S. history is not an unbroken record of success. Perhaps the very carnage of that era has impelled many to search for consoling arguments rather than realistic appraisals. In any case, inspiring myths and idealistic themes of progress dominate popular reflections on what was undeniably an era of widespread destruction, tragedy, and unsolved problems. A casual observer could be excused for concluding that the years in which the American political system broke down and citizens slaughtered each other on a huge scale were actually a time of unalloyed progress. For in many comforting and rose-tinted interpretations, Americans discovered a leader of timeless greatness, eliminated the scourge of human slavery, moved toward equality for all, reined in state particularism to forge a stronger nation, and perfected the Constitution for future generations. In crisis, citizens met the challenge and speedily laid the foundation for a brighter destiny.
Professional historians have, of course, produced a far more detailed, accurate, factual, and sometimes sobering account of the Civil War than the one that prevails in popular culture. But scholars, too, often emphasize the positive and minimize the negative. This seems to be especially true in contemporary treatments of Abraham Lincoln and racial issues. Lincoln is a mythical figure in American culture. His eloquent prose has touched hearts and minds more profoundly through later decades than it did while he was alive. Invariably, historians rate him as one of the greatest, if not the greatest, of chief executives. If some of his positions disappoint modern sensibilities, studies typically compensate by emphasizing change and growth in his views. This attitude allows readers to think that, had Lincoln lived, he would have come to hold views of which they could uniformly be proud. Not coincidentally, a positive depiction of Lincoln facilitates positive conclusions about matters of race, the most serious and enduring of all the nations social problems. Scholarly studies generally focus more attention on wartime
This book takes a candid approach to the struggle of Civil War governments, North and South, with the issue of race. My purpose is not to deny that any good came out of the Civil War or to attack the reputation of Abraham Lincoln, but rather to present an undistorted, accurate analysis of Civil War policies and thought that related to the future of race relations and the future status of African Americans. To address this subject, I look at developments in both the Union and the Confederacy. Although this book covers events throughout the war period, my aim is to illuminate attitudes and policies affecting the future status of the freed people rather than to focus on the decision to emancipate. As we shall see, there is less to celebrate on these matters than on the narrowerbut still ambiguous and complicatedsubject of emancipation.