Lincoln on Inequality
“I think it cannot be shown that when I have once taken a position, I have ever retreated from it.”
This quote spoken by Abraham Lincoln to Frederick Douglass in 1863 is telling of his character in multiple regards. It has been cited within the context of his humble personality when he admitted he was not as quick and willing to support black soldiers as Douglass wished. However, it is also reflective of his strength of conviction in the beliefs he held throughout his life. While most historians agree that Lincoln was thoroughly consistent in his declaration that he was antislavery, it is less accepted as to the motivation of why he was antislavery. To address the motivations behind his antislavery beliefs and goal of the end of slavery requires that his beliefs about the role and status of African Americans be established.
Opinion amongst historians is diverse and wide-ranging in regards to how Abraham Lincoln approached issues of race and equality. Don Fehrenbacher criticized Lincoln’s failure to move beyond the immediate horror and damage of slavery towards confronting, “that systematic racial discrimination might be, like slavery, a stain on the national honor and a crime against mankind.”[1] David Lightner found that Lincoln employed a politician’s touch in determining when to support black equality in America and how much equality white Americans were willing to tolerate. “I believe that if Lincoln’s words and actions are understood within their specific historical context, it becomes evident that when Lincoln said or did things that were inconsistent with egalitarianism, he did so with the deliberate intent of misleading his countrymen with regard to his personal beliefs and ultimate aims.”[2] Lerone Bennet took the provocative stance that Lincoln did not care about black Americans at all, “Insofar as it can be said that Lincoln had a policy it was to rid America of both slaves and blacks.”[3] Others employ historical empathy in categorizing Lincoln’s views and attitudes on racial equality within the context of the generational attitudes of the mid-nineteenth century, “. . .whether Lincoln changed his mind, the weight of evidence and logic seems to support the hypothesis that Lincoln died with the same basic views on black-white relations that he had held tenaciously throughout his public life.”[4]
From a limited summary of the historical research on Lincoln’s personal beliefs about the role and status of black Americans in society, it is clear that his views were complex. At the most they were in flux and evolving and, at the least, they were stunted and inconsistent. Considering that his life was cut short before he could more specifically develop what post-emancipation America would look like, it is valuable for historians to consider how his beliefs on racial equality could have influenced the role and status of black Americans after the Civil War. By analyzing and evaluating a selection of primary documents and statements, both public and private, made by Lincoln throughout his life, one will not find an absolute answer to what his beliefs were about racial equality. But one can gain a clearer picture of the fault lines that Abraham Lincoln stood on and what distinctions he was willing to make about the role of African Americans in society. Throughout the selection of documents taken from three pivotal periods in Lincoln’s life consider the following question: How did Abraham Lincoln differ between his beliefs regarding racial equality and slavery?
Speech at Peoria, Illinois--October 16, 1854
In the first half of 1854, the Kansas-Nebraska Act was passed through both houses of Congress and signed by President Pierce which reignited the agitation over slavery. Both national political parties resolved to the end of debate over the future of slavery and its expansion with the results of the Compromise of 1850 and committed to not campaign on the issue in the 1852 presidential campaign. However, the Act allowed for the remaining unsettled portion of the Louisiana Territory—the Nebraska Territory—to be divided into the Nebraska and Kansas Territories, both of which would allow slavery based on the principle of popular sovereignty. Senator Stephen Douglas was the major sponsor and proponent of this bill. While there are multiple accounts as to the motivation of this bill, it was predominantly based on opening up the northern portions of the Louisiana Territory to a northern transcontinental railroad. Though Douglas initially did not support the use of popular sovereignty in opening up land previously deemed closed to slavery by the Missouri Compromise of 1820, as the bill moved through Congress Douglas became more stalwart in defending the principle of popular sovereignty as the nation’s answer to the slavery debate. Across the nation, citizens were divided over this unofficial repeal of the Missouri Compromise and the debate over slavery’s expansion. As thousands of settlers poured into the Kansas Territory, both abolitionists and pro-slavery “border ruffians” confronted each other in a series of attacks over the fate of Kansas’ future status in what amounted to an unofficial civil war.[1]
Abraham Lincoln Stephen A. Douglas
The Kansas-Nebraska Act reignited Abraham Lincoln’s interest in politics and he based his reemergence into politics on his opposition to the repeal of the Missouri Compromise. He along with other like-minded anti-slavery advocates like Joshua Giddings and Salmon Chase capitalized off of the split in the Democratic Party over the Act and sought to unite northern Democrats with former Whigs and members of the American Party—this coalition evolved into the Republican Party.[2] More personally, Lincoln was offended by the callous nature with which the Act destroyed the work of multiple generations in maintaining a delicate balance between the republican principles of America with the checked power of slavery. Lincoln’s natural rivalry with Stephen Douglas, as both ambitious men were from Illinois, offered a personal aspect to Lincoln’s targeting of this act. He presented his beliefs and views on multiple areas of the slavery debate in a speech he delivered in Peoria, Illinois on October 16, 1854. He was occupied with his law practice and several cases during the debate over the Kansas-Nebraska Act in Congress throughout the year. Lincoln acknowledged that most arguments against the Kansas-Nebraska Act had already been made by other political leaders throughout the year, but the Peoria Speech served as Lincoln’s clearest and most prolific statement on almost all issues related to slavery at this point in his life.[3] While this speech marked a second phase in his political career, it is also marked a new qualification and reflection on Lincoln’s part on the issues of emancipation and racial equality.
Map of the Kansas-Nebraska Act Lincoln Delivering the Peoria Speech (Artist Unknown)
“This declared indifference, but as I must think, covert real zeal for the spread of slavery, I can not but hate. I hate it because of the monstrous injustice of slavery itself. I hate it because it deprives our republican example of its just influence in the world---enables the enemies of free institutions, with plausibility, to taunt us as hypocrites---causes the real friends of freedom to doubt our sincerity, and especially because it forces so many really good men amongst ourselves into an open war with the very fundamental principles of civil liberty---criticising the Declaration of Independence, and insisting that there is no right principle of action but self-interest.”[4]
Lincoln demonstrated his consistency in his anti-slavery beliefs and put more assertive reason behind those sentiments in this period of his career. Lincoln throughout the 1850s reacted to aggressive expansion of slavery as an institution across geographic space as well as political realms. This expansion pushed Lincoln to define his beliefs with more clarity and vigor. Lincoln used the words, principles, and memory of the Declaration of Independence more than he had in his early career and set the foundation of his beliefs and views on the bedrock principles of the Declaration. This was partially because of Lincoln’s personal devotion and esteem of the Founding Father generation, but it was also part of the diminishing of the Declaration throughout the conflicts and debates over slavery.[5] Forced slavery and the natural rights of all men principle of the Declaration are diametrically opposed realities in Antebellum America. Pro-slavery advocates and slaveholders relied on the Constitution for their protection while diminishing the legality and significance of the Declaration of Independence. Lincoln took this trend on throughout the 1850s and based much of his antislavery rhetoric and arguments on the philosophic principles established in America’s first founding document.
“If all earthly power 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 of high hope, (as I think there is) there may be in this, in the long run, its sudden execution is impossible. If they were all landed there in a day, they would all perish in the next ten days; and there are not surplus shipping and surplus money enough in the world to carry them there in many times ten days. What then? Free them all, and keep them among us as underlings? Is it quite certain that this betters their condition? I think I would not hold one in slavery, at any rate; yet the point is not clear enough for me to denounce people upon. What next? Free them, and make them politically and socially, our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this; and if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of white people will not. Whether this feeling accords with justice and sound judgment, is not the sole question, if indeed, it is any part of it. A universal feeling, whether well or ill-founded, can not be safely disregarded. We can not, then, make them equals.”[6]
While Lincoln continually came back to the idea of colonization as a solution to the many problems of emancipation and equality in one fell swoop, he openly recognized the reality of colonization’s impracticalities. He then shuffled to two other possible options if immediate emancipation and immediate colonization were unworkable—emancipating all slaves as free blacks without the protections of the Declaration or the Constitution; and emancipating all slaves and make them equal to white American citizens. Lincoln hesitated to truly comment on the former option. It was clear he understood that life for free blacks is not one of equality with white citizens, but whether that freedom without equality was a better life than slavery was a point that Lincoln remained stunted on. While he stated that he did not support free blacks as his political and social equals, he clarified that stance within the context of most white people not allowing such a belief to exist. Lincoln further clarified the context of his stance by assessing the consensus of inequality amongst “the great mass of white people” as based on possible unjust and “ill-founded” feelings.[7] This demonstrated a quality about Lincoln’s views on racial equality—they are fenced in by the democratic consensus of contemporary American opinion. He established that his beliefs agree with others, but then he called into question the wisdom of those same beliefs. This is a departure from his attitudes on racial equality in his early career which were not developed and rarely addressed.
“Now, I admit this is perfectly logical, if there is no difference between hogs and negroes. But while you thus require me to deny the humanity of the negro, I wish to ask whether you of the south yourselves, have ever been willing to do as much? It is kindly provided that of all those who come into the world, only a small percentage are natural tyrants. That percentage is no larger in the slave States than in the free. The great majority, south as well as north, have human sympathies, of which they can no more divest themselves than they can of their sensibility to physical pain. These sympathies in the bosoms of the southern people, manifest in many ways, their sense of the wrong of slavery, and their consciousness that, after all, there is humanity in the negro. If they deny this, let me address them a few plain questions. In 1820 you joined the north, almost unanimously, in declaring the African slave trade piracy, and in annexing to it the punishment of death. Why did you do this? If you did not feel that it was wrong, why did you join in providing that men should be hung for it? The practice was no more than bringing wild negroes from Africa, to sell to such as would buy them. But you never thought of hanging men for catching and selling wild horses, wild buffaloes or wild bears. . . In all these cases it is your sense of justice, and human sympathy, continually telling you, that the poor negro has some natural right to himself---that those who deny it, and make mere merchandise of him, deserve kickings, contempt and death.”[8]
Lincoln directly challenged the widespread belief that black slaves were mere chattel and property—this follows naturally when one elevates the significance of the Declaration of Independence that established that “all men are created equal.” In the past and throughout his entire political career he supported the constitutional protections to property which included slaves. However, Lincoln challenged that notion as a far as limiting the full view of a black American’s humanity to that of a hog—this did not necessarily mean to state they were equal to a white American citizen. Lincoln emphasized that southerners considered slavery an evil to some degree as well by bringing up the elimination of the foreign slave trade in America punishable by death. This is a powerful argument as it demonstrated a difference between black slaves as more than animals and entitled to natural rights—as foreign trade of livestock and animals was still legal. This passage also served to protect the image and dignity of southerners from being considered evil or villainous. Lincoln consistently took pains to demonstrate that amongst southerners there existed a plurality of interests involved in the peculiar institution, only a small minority of which were heartless slave traders. It is interesting to note that Lincoln in his early political career was far more condescending and critical of abolitionist agitators than southern slaveholders. While this passage contributed to a greater dialogue on the rights of black men beyond slavery, Lincoln did not comment of the rights and equality of black freedmen in this passage. That distinction is consistent throughout this document and throughout his thoughts in the 1850s.
“The doctrine of self government is right---absolutely and eternally right---but it has no just application, as here attempted. Or perhaps I should rather say that whether it has such just application depends upon whether a negro is not or is a man. If he is not a man, why in that case, he who is a man may, as a matter of self-government, do just as he pleases with him. But 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 that is self-government; but when he governs himself, and also governs another man, that is more than self-government---that is despotism. If the negro is a man, why then my ancient faith teaches me that "all men are created equal;" and that there can be no moral right in connection with one man's making a slave of another.
‘We hold these truths to be self evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, DERIVING THEIR JUST POWERS FROM THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED.’”[9]
Peoria Courthouse
As much as the speech at Peoria was strongly affixed to the subject of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, it also addressed the issue of racial equality and exactly what a slave was. Lincoln in this passage took the essence of Douglas’ stance on popular sovereignty to its logical conclusion which was that to be governed by anyone other than oneself was tyrannical. Again, Lincoln based this line of argument solely within the framework of the Declaration of Independence. However, an important distinction must be made in understanding this passage—Lincoln was speaking about slaves, not free blacks. The equality that Lincoln learned from his “ancient faith” was that black Americans and white Americans had an equal claim to natural rights as stated in the founding document of the nation. This did not extend towards citizenship or social equality beyond the basic natural rights. Lincoln and his contemporaries in Antebellum America held different qualifications of equality. James Oakes distilled a variety of approaches Lincoln used to address the equality of black and white Americans. Through Oakes’ approach to Lincoln’s beliefs, Lincoln was able to view black Americans both equal and unequal simultaneously based on the belief in different types of equality. Black Americans held the equal status as all other humans in their possession of a limited set of “inalienable rights” identified in the Declaration of Independence and guaranteed protection by the Constitution. However, Lincoln did not go further in the view of black Americans holding citizenship rights and social equality, which were defined and protected at the state level.[10] This distinction between a limited set of natural rights protected at the national level and the broader array of citizenship and social rights protected at the state level was a consistent fault line Lincoln’s beliefs on racial equality rested. This is a nuanced and sophisticated point to make, but one that Lincoln was consistent in making throughout the 1850s.
“The master not only governs the slave without his consent; but he governs him by a set of rules altogether different from those which he prescribes for himself. Allow ALL the governed an equal voice in the government, and that, and that only is self government.
Let it not be said I am contending for the establishment of political and social equality between the whites and blacks. I have already said the contrary. I am not now combating the argument of NECESSITY, arising from the fact that the blacks are already amongst us. . .”[11]
Lincoln defined the principle of popular sovereignty as democracy. But Lincoln went further in his statement that to allow white men to vote on the expansion of slavery was not necessarily democracy. Republicanism and democracy must be legitimized as to have the consent of the governed to support it, according to the Declaration of Independence. Lincoln claimed that all those subject to government must offer consent for that Jeffersonian principle to be fully realized. The slaveholder did not allow for a slave’s consent to be expressed or considered. The logic behind this passage blazed a path towards racial equality and full natural rights granted to black Americans. But Lincoln cut that path off when he refuted any endorsement of “political and social equality between the whites and blacks.” The awkward balance in this passage can be found in many of Lincoln’s public statements and private letters throughout the 1850s. But it denotes a politician’s touch of allowing multiple audiences and agendas to be read concurrently within a single statement. Richard Fleischman argued towards the consideration of Lincoln’s as a politician who blurred the lines of his beliefs on many subjects to preserve his viability in the 1850s.[12] Douglas took note of this ambiguity and pressed Lincoln on it consistently throughout the 1858 Lincoln-Douglas Debates.
Map of Washington DC Slave Auction Sites Map of the "Cotton Belt"
The Peoria Speech stands as a milestone in Lincoln’s views on slavery, emancipation, and racial equality. He defined them further and more explicitly than he had at any point before 1854. He crystallized his views on such a contentious issue because the dynamics of slavery in America changed dramatically with the Kansas-Nebraska Act. This marked the beginning of what many in the North and the Republican Party (although Lincoln rarely used the term himself) called the “Slave Power.” An organized and concerted group of elite men who worked to expand slavery throughout America geographically and politically. He had already made clear in his early career, that antislavery advocates’ “paramount goal” to prevent slavery’s spread, which by 1854 had become clear to Lincoln had happened. While Lincoln expanded his commentary on slavery in America by addressing in some context the issue of racial equality and experience of black Americans, he did not pursue or define those beliefs as far as he did his strong beliefs on slavery. He carefully presented his beliefs along the strict limits of natural rights described in the Declaration of Independence. When he did go beyond those limits, he was often vague or inconsistent. This was a speech about limiting slavery and in the long-term emancipating the slaves—if Lincoln commented on racial equality, it was only to acknowledge that it would have to be considered after emancipation, most likely through the “easy-answer” of colonization. However, Lincoln’s use of the Declaration of Independence and his emphasis in viewing black slaves as more than mere property can eventually develop into beliefs of full-fledged racial equality. Throughout the Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858, Stephen Douglas attempted to exploit that nuance.
[1] Donald, David Herbert. Lincoln. New York City: Simon & Schuster, 1995. Print. 167-169
[2] Donald, David Herbert. Lincoln. New York City: Simon & Schuster, 1995. Print. 167-169
[3] Donald, David Herbert. Lincoln. New York City: Simon & Schuster, 1995. Print. 173-174
[4] Abraham Lincoln, Speech at Peoria, Illinois [October 16, 1854], Roy Basler, ed., The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln (8 vols., New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1953), 2: 255-256
[5] Lightner, David. “Abraham Lincoln and the Ideal of Equality.” Journal of the Illinois State Historical Society Vol. 75 No. 4 (1982): 291-293. Web.
[6] Abraham Lincoln, Speech at Peoria, Illinois [October 16, 1854], Roy Basler, ed., The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln (8 vols., New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1953), 2: 255-256
[7] Lightner, David. “Abraham Lincoln and the Ideal of Equality.” Journal of the Illinois State Historical Society Vol. 75 No. 4 (1982): 300. Web.
[8] Abraham Lincoln, Speech at Peoria, Illinois [October 16, 1854], Roy Basler, ed., The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln (8 vols., New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1953), 2: 265
[8] Abraham Lincoln, Speech at Peoria, Illinois [October 16, 1854], Roy Basler, ed., The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln (8 vols., New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1953), 2: 265-266
[10] Oakes, James. “Natural Rights, Citizenship Rights, State Rights, and Black Rights: Another Look at Lincoln and Race.” History Now 18 (Winter 2008): Web. 07-14-14
[11] Abraham Lincoln, Speech at Peoria, Illinois [October 16, 1854], Roy Basler, ed., The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln (8 vols., New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1953), 2: 267
[12] Fleischman, Richard K. “The Devil’s Advocate: A Defense of Lincoln’s Attitude Towards the Negro, 1837-1863.” Lincoln Herald, No. 81 (1979): 172-186. Web.
