MP

I/G

ett

y Im

ag

es

A War to Free the Slaves?

Few documents in U.S. history share the

hallowed reputation of the Emancipation Proclamation.

Many, perhaps most, of you have heard of it. You

know—at least vaguely—that it pronounced freedom for

enslaved African Americans, and earned President

Abraham Lincoln the title of Great Emancipator. You

may know what it says, but most haven’t read it. Every

U.S. history textbook mentions it, but I’ve never seen a

single textbook that actually includes its full text

(including yours).

Here, you will examine excerpts from Lincoln’s

first inaugural address, the rarely mentioned original

Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution that Lincoln

promised to sign, and the Emancipation Proclamation.

This lesson asks you to think about what these

documents reveal about Lincoln’s war aims. Was it a

war to free the slaves?

A group of African American Union soldiers and their white officer in a portrait sketched in 1862.

Procedure: 1. Question: If you were to ask what caused the Civil War (or why the South seceded?), what would be the

most popular answer? If they were asked why Abe Lincoln fought in the Civil War, what do you think they

would mostly say?

____________________________________________________________

By analyzing some key documents, we will test out these theories, but we also need to look at some data

provide by the Pew Research Center in 2011, the 150th anniversary of the beginning of the Civil War

We’re speaking here of real, underlying reasons for

the war, not why particular individuals fought.

Indeed, the war was ALWAYS about ending

slavery if you were to ask a slave or a free

“black” back in 1862. As we may know, many

“white” individuals did, from day one, fight to free

the slaves; indeed, that was the only reason some

people fought. This activity focuses on Lincoln’s

1861 Inaugural Address, the Emancipation

Proclamation, a secondary source excerpts

from historian Eric Foner (on the subject

of the motivation of Lincoln regarding his

original 13 t h Amendment), the infamous

Cornerstone Speech by Alexander

Stephens (the VP of the Confederacy) and

excerpts from the secessionist documents

drafted by the southern states – i .e. South

Carolina -- when they seceded. I t highlights

official aims, (i.e of Lincoln and the Confederacy).

This excludes the aims of the abolition movement.

Read through the documents. Answer any

questions that are below each document and

document excerpt. After your reading and

questions are complete, you are to answer the

following questions. All of the questions are to be

completed on a separate sheet of paper.

CONCLUSION QUESTONS (TO BE COMPLETED LAST):

1. Why did the South secede and subsequently fight in the Civil War? What role did “states rights”

play in their decision to secede and fight in the war?

2. Why do you think many northern elite [i.e. upper middle to wealthy businessmen, bankers,

merchants, wholesalers, department store owners, dry goods store owners] was, in part,

supportive of the war? (THIS ONE IS NOT FOUND IN ANY OF THE READINGS. TRY AND

USE YOUR HISTORICAL LOGIC).

3. In a paragraph – Why, in the first two years of the Civil War, did Lincoln fight? Was the Civil

War (at least in its first few years) a war to free the slaves? (You are expected to give a complex

and nuanced response that accounts for all those mentioned).

Handout

From Lincoln’s First

Inaugural Address

March 4, 1861

Excerpt #1

Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a

Republican administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There

has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary

has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of

him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare “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.” …

I now reiterate these sentiments; and, in doing so, I only press upon the public attention the most conclusive

evidence of which the case is susceptible, that the property, peace and security of no section are to be in any

wise endangered by the now incoming administration. I add, too, that all the protection which, consistently with

the Constitution and the laws, can be given, will be cheerfully given to all the States when lawfully demanded, for

whatever cause—as cheerfully to one section as to another.

Excerpt #2

I understand a proposed amendment to the constitution—which amendment , h o w e v e r , I have

not seen—has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic

institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have

said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a

provision to now be implied constitutional law; I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.

[from Henry Steele Commager, ed., Documents of American History (Sixth Edition) (New York: Apple- ton-Century-

Crofts, 1958); p. 385 and p. 388.]

1. In your own words, summarize what Lincoln is saying in these two excerpts from his first inaugural address.

What is he promising?

2. Why does Lincoln say that the southern states shouldn’t worry about the Republicans endangering

slavery?

3. What reasons does Lincoln offer for why he will not interfere with slavery?

4. What laws might Lincoln be referring to when he says that he will enforce the laws and offer protection

“as cheerfully to one section as to another …”?

5. Which part or parts of the country do you think Lincoln is mainly speaking to in these excerpts?

Handout

Original Proposed 13th Amendment to the Constitution

February 1861

(the Corwin Amendment)

(and this was after the Crittenden Compromise) (Passed both Houses, was signed by Lincoln, but only ratified by 3 states before the Civil War began)

No amendment shall be made to the

Constitution which will authorize or give to

Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within

any State,

with the domestic institutions thereof, including

that of persons held to labor or service by the laws

of said State.

Questions:

1. Put the original 13th Amendment in your own words.

2. By the time Abraham Lincoln gave this inaugural address in March 1861, seven states had already

seceded from the Union. Why do you think these southern states did not accept his offer and return to

the Union?

3. If Lincoln was against slavery, why would he promise to make the protection of slavery

“irrevocable”—permanent? In what sense was Lincoln against slavery?

Here is en excerpt from Eric Foner’s Pulitzer Prize Winning “Fiery Trial: Abraham Lincoln and American

Slavery.”

p. 158 – “Near the end [of the 1st Inaugural Address] he took note of the proposed constitutional amendment

permanently barring federal interference with slavery, stating that since it simply made explicit what was

already “implied” constitutional law, he had no objection to its passage. Lincoln and other Republicans had

always assumed that slavery would end by state action, which the amendment did nothing to inhibit.

Nonetheless, this was not a minor concession. Republicans had long claimed that the Constitution did not

explicitly recognize property in slaves. Despite its careful avoidance of the word “slavery,” the amendment

violated this principle, and for this reason a large number of Republicans had opposed its passage. It would

“engraft upon the Constitution an express recognition in property of man,’ said one congressman. On March 7,

Lincoln sent the proposed amendment to the states [which means he signed it]. Only three states ratified it –

Ohio in 1861, and Maryland and Illinois in 1862. When a Thirteenth Amendment was finally added to the

Constitution in 1865 [which is portrayed in the film Lincoln] rather than making slavery permanent it

irrevocably abolished it.”

1. Why did Lincoln think passing this original 13th Amendment change nothing?

2. Why were other Republicans against its passage?

3. Is there a symbolic significance to this Amendment?

Handout

Emancipation Proclamation

January 1, 1863

A PROCLAMATION

Whereas on the 22nd day of September, A.D.

1862, a proclamation was issued by the President

of the United States, containing, among other

things, the following, to wit:

“That on the 1st day of January, A.D. 1863,

all persons held as slaves within any State or des-

ignated part of a State the people whereof shall

then be in rebellion against the United States shall

be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and

the executive government of the United States,

including the military and naval authority thereof,

will recognize and maintain the freedom of such

persons and will do no act or acts to repress such

persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may

make for their actual freedom.

“That the executive will on the 1st day of

January aforesaid, by proclamation, designate the

States and parts of States, if any, in which the

people thereof, respectively, shall then be in rebel-

lion against the United States; and the fact that

any State or the people thereof shall on that day

be in good faith represented in the Congress of

the United States by members chosen thereto at

elections wherein a majority of the qualified vot-

ers of such States shall have participated shall, in

the absence of strong countervailing testimony, be

deemed conclusive evidence that such State and

the people thereof are not then in rebellion against

the United States.”

Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President

of the United States, by virtue of the power in me

vested as Commander-In-Chief of the Army and

Navy of the United States in time of actual armed

rebellion against the authority and government of

the United States, and as a fit and necessary war

measure for suppressing said rebellion, do, on this

1st day of January, A.D. 1863, and in accordance

with my purpose so to do, publicly proclaimed

for the full period of one hundred days from the

first day above mentioned, order and designate as

the States and parts of States wherein the people

thereof, respectively, are this day in rebellion

against the United States the following, to wit:

Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana (except the par-

ishes of St. Bernard, Plaquemines, Jefferson, St.

John, St. Charles, St. James, Ascension, Assump-

tion, Terrebone, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin,

and Orleans, including the city of New Orleans),

Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South

Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia (except

the forty-eight counties designated as West Vir-

ginia, and also the counties of Berkeley, Accomac,

Northhampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess

Anne, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk

and Portsmouth), and which excepted parts are

for the present left precisely as if this proclamation

were not issued.

And by virtue of the power and for the pur-

pose aforesaid, I do order and declare that all

persons held as slaves within said designated States

and parts of States are, and henceforward shall be,

free; and that the Executive Government of the

United States, including the military and naval

authorities thereof, will recognize and maintain

the freedom of said persons.

And I hereby enjoin upon the people so

declared to be free to abstain from all violence,

unless in necessary self-defense; and I recommend

to them that, in all case when allowed, they labor

faithfully for reasonable wages.

And I further declare and make known that

such persons of suitable condition will be received

into the armed service of the United States to gar-

rison forts, positions, stations, and other places,

and to man vessels of all sorts in said service.

And upon this act, sincerely believed to be

an act of justice, warranted by the Constitution

upon military necessity, I invoke the considerate

judgment of mankind and the gracious favor of

Almighty God.

In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my

hand and caused the seal of the United States to

be affixed.

Done at the City of Washington, this first day

of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand

eight hundred and sixty-three, and of the Inde-

pendence of the United States of America the

eighty-seventh.

By the President: ABRAHAM LINCOLN

WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State.

1. Define the document’s title word by word.

2. T h e Emancipation Proclamation was issued over three months (September 22, 1862) from

the date it was to take effect (January 1, 1863). What was the significance of the proclamation

not taking effect immediately? In other words, what “last chance” did it give to the seceding

southern states?

3. Why doesn’t the Emancipation Proclamation simply declare immediate freedom for all

people held as slaves anywhere in the United States?

4. Why does Lincoln say he is issuing this proclamation?

5. What advice does Lincoln offer to the people who may eventually be freed by the

proclamation?

Alexander H. Stephens (1812-1883):

Cornerstone Address, March 21, 1861

Alexander H. Stephens (1812-1883), although originally opposed to secession, was elected vice-president of

the Confederacy. After the war he returned to political service in Georgia and in the House of

Representatives. He was elected governor of Georgia in 1882 and died in office. I have severely excerpted his

speech for the purposes of this assignment.

We are in the midst of one of the greatest epochs in our history. The last ninety days will mark one of the

most memorable eras in the history of modern civilization...Allow me briefly to allude to some of these

improvements [made by this Confederate Constitution]…the new Constitution has put at rest forever all the

agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions-African slavery as it exists among us-the proper

status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present

revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split."

He was right … Our new Government … its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal

to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition.

[Applause.] This, our new Government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical,

philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths

in the various departments of science. It is so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect

well that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still

clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North who still cling to these errors with a zeal above

knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics … They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he

is entitled to equal privileges and rights, with the white man.... I recollect once of having heard a gentleman

from one of the Northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with

imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery; …

That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle-a principle founded in

nature, the principle of the equality of man … I … told him it was he and those acting with him who were

warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal.

Questions about Stephens Cornerstone Speech:

1. What does Stephens clearly is the cause of the current rebellion?

2. What, according to Stephens, was the “cornerstone” of the Confederacy?”

Letter from Robert E. Lee to Mary Randolph Custis Lee (December 27,

1856) During his lifetime, Lee owned a small number of slaves. He considered himself a paternalistic master but

could also impose severe punishments, especially on those who attempted to run away. Lee said almost

nothing in public about the institution. His most extended comment, quoted by all biographers, came in a

letter to his wife in 1856. Here he described slavery as an evil, but one that had more deleterious effects on

whites than blacks. He felt that the ‘painful discipline’ to which they were subjected benefitted blacks by

elevating them from barbarism to civilization and introducing them to Christianity. The end of slavery would

come in God's good time, but this might take quite a while, since to God a thousand years was just a moment.

Meanwhile, the greatest danger to the ‘liberty’ of white southerners was the ‘evil course’ pursued by the

abolitionists, who stirred up sectional hatred. In 1860, Lee voted for John C. Breckenridge, the extreme

proslavery candidate (a more moderate southerner, John Bell, carried Virginia that year)."

[Fort Brown, Texas, 27 December 1856]

The views of the Pres: of the systematic & progressive efforts of certain people of the North, to interfere

with & change the domestic institutions of the South, are truthfully & faithfully expressed. The

consequences of their plans & purposes are also clearly Set forth, & they must also be aware, that their object

is both unlawful & entirely foreign to them, their duty; for which they are irresponsible & unaccountable; &

Can only be accomplished by them through the agency of a civil & servile war. In this enlightened age, there

are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution is a moral & political evil in

any Country. It is useless to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it however a greater evil to the white

than to the black race, & while my feelings are strongly interested in behalf of the latter, my sympathies

are more strong for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally,

socially & physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a

race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things. How long their subjugation may be necessary

is Known & ordered by a wise & merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild

& melting influence of Christianity, than the storms & tempests of fiery Controversy…The doctrines &

miracles of our Saviour have required nearly two thousand years to Convert but a small part of the

human race, & even Christian nations, what gross errors still exist! While we see the Course of the final

abolition of human slavery is onward, & we give it the aid of our prayers & all justifiable means in our power

we must leave the progress as well as the result in his hands who Sees the end; who Chooses to work by slow

influences ; & with whom two thousand years are but a single day. Although the abolitionist must Know this;

& must see that he has neither the right or power of operating except by moral means & suasion, & if he

means well to the slave, he must not create angry feelings in the master; that although he may not approve the

mode by which it pleases Providence to accomplish its purposes, the result will nevertheless be the same: that

the reasons he gives for interference in what he has no Concern, holds good for every Kind of interference

with our neighbours when we disapprove their Conduct; Still I fear he will persevere in his evil Course…

…I hope you all had a joyous Xmas at Arlington & that it may be long & often reported! I thought of you all

& wished to be with you… Give much love to all the Children your father & all friends. God bless you all!

Truly yours

R E Lee

1. Lee blames “certain people of the North” for causing this Civil War by their attempts to interfere with

the “domestic institutions of the South.” Put that into your own words.

2. Characterize Lee’s feelings towards slavery including with whom he sympathizes, its necessity or

lack thereof, and how it will eventually end. Please be sure to also provide textual evidence that Lee

was heavily influenced by Anglo-Saxonism (i.e. belief among Anglo Saxons that they are more

civilized than non-Anglos).

3. Lee gives advice to the Abolitionists. Explain.

Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the

Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union

April 26, 1852

Excerpt 1 – Southern Commentary on the Fugitive Slave Act(s):

In the present case, that fact is established with certainty. We assert that fourteen of the States have

deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes

for the proof.

The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to

service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law

or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party

to whom such service or labor may be due."

Excerpt 2: South Carolina’ s Specific Comments Regarding Slavery:

… an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a

disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the

Constitution… In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of

them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. …Thus the constituted

compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence

follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.

We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the

Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those

States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and …they have

denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of

societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other

States…

For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the

power of the common Government. … A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the

States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United

States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery.

Questions about SC Secession excerpts:

1. In excerpt 1, what was South Carolina angry with the North for not enforcing?

2. [Excerpt 1] Was the South rejecting or asserting the doctrine of “States Rights” by complaining

about many regions of the North refusing to enforce the Fugitive Slave law? Briefly explain (a

few sentences).

3. In excerpt 2, according to South Carolina, why are they released from their obligation to stay in

the compact (i.e. the Union)?

4. In excerpt 2, what who are the societies that the South is referring to (which the North has

“allowed” to exist?

5. In excerpt 2, what is their general complaint about Lincoln?

A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union. January 9, 1861 In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course. Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun … There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin. That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove. The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the Constitution… The feeling increased, until, in 1819-20, it deprived the South of more than half the vast territory acquired from France… It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion… It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain. It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst. It has enlisted its press, its pulpit and its schools against us, until the whole popular mind of the North is excited and inflamed with prejudice. It has made combinations and formed associations to carry out its schemes of emancipation in the States and wherever else slavery exists. It seeks not to elevate or to support the slave, but to destroy his present condition without providing a better… It has recently obtained control of the Government, by the prosecution of its unhallowed schemes, and destroyed the last expectation of living together in friendship and brotherhood. Utter subjugation awaits us in the Union, if we should consent longer to remain in it. It is not a matter of choice, but of necessity. We must either submit to degradation, and to the loss of property worth four billions of money, or we must secede from the Union framed by our fathers, to secure this as well as every other species of property. For far less cause than this, our fathers separated from the Crown of England.

Questions about MS Secession excerpts:

1. Mississippi is very clear what their secession was trying to protect. Explain using the second paragraph.

2. Make a list of grievances explaining the long simmering Northern hostility towards slavery that Mississippi has

been long demonstrated by the North.

Henry L. Benning (1814-75), “Address Delivered Before the Virginia State

Convention,” February 18, 1861”

In mid-February, Virginia was not ready to quit the United States. Georgia sent Henry Benning, a justice of

its state supreme court, as a “secession commissioner” to convince Virginia to secede. Other states did

likewise, sending representatives to Texas, Missouri, Kentucky, even Delaware. Their arguments parallel the

“causes of secession” adopted by the states as they left the Union. Always, slavery is their focus. As Benning

emphasizes to Virginia, Georgia has concluded that “separation from the North was the only thing that could

prevent the abolition of her slavery.” He reasons that the Republicans are becoming a permanent majority in

the North, centered on eventually ending slavery. He also worries that slaves are waning as a proportion of

total population in the border states and deems this due, again, to antislavery feeling in the North. As states

like Virginia continue to sell their slaves south, the Cotton States will become two-to-one slave in population.

Then, when Republicans end slavery, blacks will win political power there, whereupon whites will unleash

race war, with lurid consequences: “our men will be exterminated,” and the land will “become a howling

wilderness.”

Mr. President and Gentlemen of the Convention:

… I have no power to make promises, none to receive promises; no power to bind at all in any respect. But

still, sir, it has seemed to me that a proper respect for this Convention requires that I should with some

fullness … exhibit before the Convention the reasons which have induced Georgia to take that important step

of secession, and then to lay before the Convention some facts and considerations in favor of the acceptance

of the invitation by Virginia. With your permission then, sit, I will pursue this course.

What was the reason that induced Georgia to take the step of secession? This reason may be summed up in

one single proposition. It was a conviction, a deep conviction on the part of Georgia, that a separation from

the North-was the only thing that could prevent the abolition of her slavery. This conviction, sir, was the main

cause. It is true, sir, that the effect of this conviction was strengthened by a further conviction that such a

separation would be the best remedy for the fugitive slave evil, and also the best, if not the only remedy, for

the territorial evil. …

Is it true, then, that unless there had been a separation from the North, slavery would be abolished in Georgia?

I address myself to the proofs of that case.

In the first place, I say that the North hates slavery, and, in using that expression I speak wittingly. In saying

that the Black Republican party of the North hates slavery, I speak intentionally. If there is a doubt upon that

question in the mind of any one who listens to me, a few of the multitude of proofs which could fill this room,

would, I think, be sufficient to satisfy him. I beg to refer to a few of the proofs that are so abundant; and the

first that I shall adduce consists in two extracts from a speech of Lincoln's, made in October, 1858. They are

as follows: "I have always hated slavery as much as any abolitionist; I have always been an old line Whig; I

have always hated it and I always believed it in the course of ultimate extinction, and if I were in Congress

and a vote should come up on the question, whether slavery should be excluded from the territory, in spite of

the Dred Scott decision, I would vote that it should."

These are pregnant statements; they avow a sentiment, a political principle of action, a sentiment of hatred to

slavery as extreme as hatred can exist. The political principle here avowed is, that his action against slavery is

not to be restrained by the Constitution of the United States, as interpreted by the Supreme Court of the

United States. I say, if you can find any degree of hatred greater than that, I should like to see it. This is the

sentiment of the chosen leader of the Black Republican party; and can you doubt that it is not entertained by

every solitary member of that same party? You cannot, I think. He is a representative man; his sentiments are

the sentiments of his party; his principles of political action are the principles of political action of his party. I

say, then; it is true, at least, that the Republican party of the North hates slavery.

My next proposition is, that the Republican party of the North is in a permanent majority. It is true that in a

government organized like the government of the Northern States, and like our own government, a majority,

where it is permanent, is equivalent to the whole. The minority is powerless if the majority be permanent.

Now, is this majority of the Republican party permanent? I say it is. That party is so deeply seated at the

North that you cannot overthrow it. It has the press, it has the pulpit, it has the school-house, it has the

organizations-the Governors, Legislatures, the judiciary, county officers, magistrates, constables, mayors, in

fact all official life. Now, it has the General Government in addition. It has that inexhaustible reserve to fall

back upon and to recruit from, the universal feeling at the North that slavery is a moral, social and political

evil…

…The Republican party is the permanent, dominant party at the North, and it is vain to think that you can put

it down. It is true that the Republican party hates slavery, and that it is to be the permanent, dominant party at

the North; and the majority being equivalent to the whole, as I have already stated, we cannot doubt the result.

What is the feeling of the rest of the Northern people upon this subject? Can you trust them? They all say that

slavery is a moral, social and political evil. Then the result of that feeling must be hatred to the institution…

Is it true that the North hates slavery? My next proposition is that in the past the North has invariably exerted

against slavery, all the power which it had at the time. The question merely was what was the amount of

power it had to exert against it. They abolished slavery in … the North; they abolished slavery in every

Northern State, one after another; they abolished slavery in all the territory above the line of 36 30, which

comprised about one million square miles. They have endeavored to put the Wilmot Proviso upon all the other

territories of the Union, and they succeeded in putting it upon the territories of Oregon and Washington. They

have taken from slavery all the conquests of the Mexican war, and appropriated it all to anti-slavery purposes;

and if one of our fugitives escapes into the territories, they do all they can to make a free man of him; they

maltreat his pursuers, and sometimes murder them. They make raids into your territory with a view to raise

insurrection…

My next proposition is, that we have a right to argue from the past to the future and to say, that if in the past

the North has done this, in the-future, if it shall acquire the power to abolish slavery, it will do it.

My next proposition is that the North is in the course of acquiring this power to abolish slavery. Is that true? I

say, gentlemen, the North is acquiring that power by two processes, one of which is operating with great

rapidity-that is by the admission of new States… The public territory is peculiarly Northern territory, and

every State that comes into the Union will be a free State…If causes now in operation are allowed to continue,

the admission of new States will go on until a sufficient number shall have been secured to give the necessary

preponderance to change the Constitution. There is a process going on by which some of our own slave States

are becoming free States already. It is true, that in some of the slave States the slave population is actually on

the decrease… The census shows that slaves are decreasing in Delaware and Maryland…It is not wonderful

that this should be so. The anti-slavery feeling has got to be so great at the North that the owners of slave

property in these States have a presentiment that it is a doomed institution…The consequence is, that it will

go down lower and. lower, until it all gets to the Cotton States-until it gets to the bottom…and I fear that the

day is not distant when the Cotton States, as they are called, will be the only slave States. When that time

comes, the time will have arrived when the North will have the power to amend the Constitution, and say that

slavery shall be abolished, and if the master refuses to yield to this policy, he shall doubtless be hung for his

disobedience.

My proposition, then, I insist, is true, that the North is acquiring this power. That being so, the only question

is will she exercise it? Of course she will, for her whole course shows that she will. If things are allowed to go

on as they are, it is certain that slavery is to be … By the time the North shall have attained the power, the

black race will be in a large majority, and then we will have black governors, black legislatures, black juries,

black everything. [Laughter.] … Is it to be supposed that the white race will stand that? …it is probable that

the white race, being superior in every respect, may push the other back. They … will send a standing armv

down upon us, and the volunteers … will come in thousands, and we will be overpowered and our men will

be compelled to wander like vagabonds all over the earth; and as for our women, the horrors of their state we

cannot contemplate in imagination. That is the fate which Abolition will bring upon the white race.

But that is not all of the Abolition war. We will be completely exterminated, and the land will be left in the

possession of the blacks, and then it will go back into a wilderness and become another Africa or St. Domingo 1. According to Benning, why did Georgia secede?

2. Provide a bulleted outline of Benning’s multi-layered argument for secession.

a. Be sure to highlight Lincoln, the North and the Republican Party, slavery in the border states,

slavery in the Cotton States, and the inevitable outcome if slavery is abolished.

Virginia Secession Convention, “Resolutions,” (March 28-April 5, 1861)

Virginia’s secession convention had a Committee on Federal Relations that proposed fourteen resolutions, all

adopted by the convention. Like the statements made by other states Virginia emphasizes slavery. These

resolutions were more moderate than in most other seceding states, however, for Virginia, at the time of this

convention, is still not ready to secede. About the territories, a division along the Missouri Compromise line

would have satisfied Virginia. On April 17, spurred by the conquest of Fort Sumter, Virginia finally seceded,

a decision ratified by referendum on May 23, 1861.

Resolution 2: African slavery is a vital part of the social system of the States wherein it exists, and as that

form of servitude existed when the Union was formed, and the jurisdiction of the several States over it within

their respective limits, was recognized by the Constitution, any interference to its prejudice by the federal

authority, or by the authorities of other States, or by the people thereof, is in derogation from plain right,

contrary to the Constitution, offensive, and dangerous.

Resolution 1 focuses on the “compact theory” arguing that the States have the right to leave the Union

because the national government is given its power through a “compact” or agreement between the States.

Resolution 3 decries the Sectionalism wrought by the North.

Resolution 5 argues that seceding states have the right to occupy Federal buildings in their respective states.

Resolution 6 expresses a desire to reach an agreement whereby slavery may be expanded, westward.

Resolution 7 expresses a grievance that a national law, namely the Fugitive Slave Act, is ignored by the

Northern States, thereby rejecting the notion that a state can nullify a federal law.

Resolution 8 argues that Virginia is compelled to leave the Union because the North has or will violate their

“consent of the governed, and the right of the people of the several States of this Union.”

Resolutions 9-14 implore the seceded states and the federal government to avoid military action. At this

point, Virginia still hopes to negotiate a way out of this crisis. Meanwhile, it plans to meet with

representatives from nonseceded slave states like Kentucky, Maryland, and Missouri. When Confederates

opened fore in Fort Sumter on April 12, a wave of Southern nationalist sentiment in Virginia ended these

initiatives.

Letter from Robert E. Lee to Mary Randolph Custis Lee (December 27, 1856)

According to an article posted by American Civil War Museum on its website, Lee personally owned slaves he

inherited upon the death of his mother, Ann Lee in 1829. Then, in 1857, following the death of his father-in-

law, Lee assumed command of 189 enslaved people working between two estates. Interestingly, Lee’s father-

in-law specified in his will that all the family’s slaves be freed within five years of his death.

But Sean Kane, then the museum’s interpretation and programs specialist, reported that Lee, as executor of

the will, "drove his new-found labor force hard to lift those estates from debt," and concerned it would take

longer than five years, "petitioned state courts to extend his control of enslaved people." That didn’t happen,

as Lee freed them in accordance with the will in 1862 (and three days before the Emancipation Proclamation

went into effect). However, in response to the brutal workload during those last years, many of the slaves

attempted to escape.

One of the most prominent letters that Lee’s defenders point to is one he wrote to his wife on Dec. 27, 1856:

"In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a

moral & political evil in any Country. It is useless to expatiate on its disadvantages."

But he goes on to say that slavery was "a greater evil to the white man than to the black race" and "while my

feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more strong for the former." Lee wrote

that African Americans were "immeasurably better off" in America than in Africa and that the "painful

discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race..."

[Fort Brown, Texas, 27 December 1856]

Nothing has occurred dearest Mary, since my letter of the 20th worthy of relating, except the arrival on the

24th of the Steamer from New Orleans, bringing full files of papers & general intelligence from the "States".

…

…In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution is a

moral & political evil in any Country. It is useless to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it however a

greater evil to the white than to the black race, & while my feelings are strongly interested in behalf of the

latter, my sympathies are more strong for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in

Africa, morally, socially & physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their

instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things. How long their subjugation may be

necessary is Known & ordered by a wise & merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result from

the mild & melting influence of Christianity, than the storms & tempests of fiery Controversy. This influence

though slow is sure. The doctrines & miracles of our Saviour have required nearly two thousand years to

Convert but a small part of the human race, & even Christian nations, what gross errors still exist! While we

see the Course of the final abolition of human slavery is onward, & we give it the aid of our prayers & all

justifiable means in our power we must leave the progress as well as the result in his hands who Sees the end;

who Chooses to work by slow influences ; & with whom two thousand years are but a single day. Although

the abolitionist must Know this; & must see that he has neither the right or power of operating except by

moral means & suasion, & if he means well to the slave, he must not create angry feelings in the master; that

although he may not approve the mode by which it pleases Providence to accomplish its purposes, the result

will nevertheless be the same…

Truly yours

R E Lee

Eric Foner on Robert E. Lee:

"During his lifetime, Lee owned a small number of slaves. He considered himself a paternalistic master but

could also impose severe punishments, especially on those who attempted to run away. Lee said almost

nothing in public about the institution. His most extended comment, quoted by all biographers, came in a

letter to his wife in 1856. Here he described slavery as an evil, but one that had more deleterious effects on

whites than blacks. He felt that the ‘painful discipline’ to which they were subjected benefitted blacks by

elevating them from barbarism to civilization and introducing them to Christianity. The end of slavery would

come in God's good time, but this might take quite a while, since to God a thousand years was just a moment.

Meanwhile, the greatest danger to the ‘liberty’ of white southerners was the ‘evil course’ pursued by the

abolitionists, who stirred up sectional hatred. In 1860, Lee voted for John C. Breckenridge, the extreme

proslavery candidate (a more moderate southerner, John Bell, carried Virginia that year)."

"I would not say that this qualifies Lee as ‘against slavery,’" Foner added.

John Reeves, author of "The Lost Indictment of Robert E. Lee" wrote a post on some of the most popular

myths attributed to the general – the first being Lee’s opposition to slavery.

Reeves explains that after losing the war, Lee attempted to present himself as always being against slavery. In

an interview after his surrender, Reeves says, Lee said that "the best men of the south" were eager to do away

with it, and in a testimony in 1866 he had "always been in favor of emancipation — gradual emancipation."

But, as Foner said, Reeves writes that the historical record doesn’t support these statements, as Lee and his

family owned and managed slaves for decades and benefited "tremendously" from the institution.

1. Describe/characterize Lee’s position on slavery, race relations and abolitionists. Be sure to include a

description of Lee’s views on the proper roles of Anglo-Saxons and those of African descent and be

sure to be able to highlight certain points of the letter.

2. How does Foner and Reeves describe Lee’s views on slavery?