However, I cannot help but wonder why some in America–people who love
and celebrate freedom–can have such a problem and be so angry with my
discussing the Emancipation Proclamation. The issuance of this all
important document was a pivotal moment not just in the history of the
Civil War, but in all of American history as well, and it certainly
needs to be discussed as part of the September 1862 Maryland Campaign,
since the preliminary draft of the Proclamation was signed on Monday
September 22, 1862, just five days after the guns fell silent at
Antietam. I would believe that this is something we as Americans can
celebrate universally since it was the first step in the long road
leading to the freedom of more than 4 million enslaved Americans.
I agree that from a certain perspective and given the starting point from which John proceeds it is strange that there is any issue at all. As John notes such responses are not specific to any one region of the country, nor I suspect generation. The responses are all too typical from the overly simplistic observation that Lincoln held what we would describe today as racist views of black Americans to the claim that the Emancipation Proclamation was a military document that only freed slaves where they could not be reached at the time that it was put into effect. None of these points, as well as others, are really worth spending time debating as there are plenty of recent studies which clearly demonstrate that Lincoln’s views concerning slavery and race were much more complex as well as his intentions surrounding the Proclamation. The point, as John rightly notes, is that the evolution of military affairs, specifically battles such as the one at Antietam, did lead to the eventual end of slavery and that is worth taking seriously and even celebrating as Americans whose patriotism is constructed around freedom and independence. What I find so disturbing is the apparent number of Civil War enthusiasts who are unable to view emancipation from the perspective of the thousands of slaves who helped force the issue on the Union high command and eventually Lincoln himself by running away from their owners and aiding the efforts of the U.S. army in myriad ways. It’s as if emancipation began and ended with Lincoln.
Our narrow views of Lincoln, however, are not sufficient to explain the inability of some visitors to understand the war in terms of race and emancipation. Any explanation must begin with the National Park Service itself. Only in recent years has there been a concerted effort to address these broader themes and even in some parks there is continued resistance to address issues that go beyond strictly military themes. I’ve interviewed a number of Park Service personnel on this issue. For some it is simply enough to assume a perspective that has soldiers on both sides falling from the sky to butcher one another with little or no attention as to why. All that is left to do is explain how they did it. Even a cursory glance at our national memory of the war reveals a continued concentration on values that white Americans initially latched onto at the turn of the twentieth century as part of a movement towards reunion and reconciliation. So, to a certain extent our view today has been shaped by a need to vindicate soldiers on both sides by praising their characters while ignoring the initial reasons for the war as well as its consequences. We also cannot ignore the fact that there are plenty of people who continue to view slavery as benign or who characterize the relationship between master and slave as “friendly” or in strict paternalist terms, while others are convinced that thousands of black southerners fought willingly in Confederate ranks. Add it up and you have a natural aversion to better understanding how the Union war effort eventually led to the end of slavery.
I suspect that part of the reason has to do with a deep-seated awareness that while the end of the war brought an end to slavery it did not lead to equality of any kind. In fact, one could argue that that would take another hundred years to address through the darkest years of Jim Crow. To a certain extent viewing the war as a war that ended slavery falls flat when viewed in the broader context of Jim Crow. Better to maintain a view of the war that more easily fits our whiggish assumptions about the American past. And then there are the heritage folks who will never be able to honestly consider such issues lest it cause them to question there own emotional hold on a rather narrow view of the antebellum and wartime South. I think in John’s case there is an argument to be made for keeping quiet, though it is important to challenge visitors whenever possible and in a way that leads to reflection rather than conflict.
It’s always nice to be reminded that the National Park Service has such thoughtful historians on staff such as John Hoptak.