In memoriam Trayvon Martin
On May 31st and he following day, June 1st, 1921 in Greenwood, a black neighborhood in Tulsa, Oklahoma, deputized whites killed more than 300 African Americans. They looted and burned to the ground 40 square blocks of 1,265 African American homes, including hospitals, schools, and churches, and destroyed 150 businesses. White deputies and members of the National Guard arrested and detained 6,000 black Tulsans who were released only upon being vouched for by a white employer or other white citizen. Nine thousand African Americans were left homeless and lived in tents well into the winter of 1921.
History textbooks downplay the role of ordinary people in shaping events. Ask an American who ended slavery and most will answer that it was Abraham Lincoln, “the Great Emancipator.” The only problem is that Lincoln was not an abolitionist.
In his first inaugural address of March 4, 1861 Lincoln announced: “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.” Lincoln promised to “cheerfully,” as he put it, enforce the Fugitive Slave Act in protection of the nation’s “property, peace, and security.” Finally, Lincoln said that he would not oppose the constitutional amendment that had recently 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.” and sent that pro-slavery 13th Amendment to the states for ratification. Had it gone into effect, this slavery-forever amendment would have been the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
Lincoln agreed to admit New Mexico to the Union as a slave state. He continued with schemes to deport—“colonize” in the jargon of the day—African Americans, proposing they be sent to Guatemala, Chiriqui (Colombia), and Haiti. In just the first three months after the Civil War began, returned more escaped slaves to their supposed owners than had been returned in the entire presidency of his immediate predecessor, James Buchanan.
Abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison, editor of the The Liberator, commented in late 1861, Abraham Lincoln “has evidently not a drop of anti-slavery blood in his veins.”
His aim throughout his presidency was to keep the Union together. As Lincoln himself said in August 1862, “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union.” Lincoln’s stance on slavery as the war progressed was based on military rather than moral considerations.
The Emancipation Proclamation despite its lofty-sounding title, this is no stirring document of liberty and equality; in fact, it does not even criticize slavery. “Emancipation” is presented purely as a measure of military necessity. It even goes county by county listing areas where slavery would remain in force. According to Eric Foner, the proclamation left more than 20 percent of enslaved people still in slavery—800,000 out of 3.9 million
Who we “credit” for the end of slavery has important implications. This top-down, Great Man approach has long characterized history instruction in our country. Things happen—good or bad—because those in power make them happen. What this misses is, through our compliance or resistance, the actions of ordinary people. And when it comes to momentous social changes, like the abolition of slavery, one will always find social movements and the oppressed themselves at the center. As historian Howard Zinn said about the end of slavery: “Blacks won their freedom because for 30 years before the Civil War, they participated in a great movement of resistance.”
As Lonnie Bunch, director of the Smithsonian National Museum of African American History and Culture, points out if it appears that Abraham Lincoln gave blacks their freedom, then “you create an environment where people begin to think, ‘Well, African Americans have always had things handed to them.’ It gets carried into the notions of welfare and the like”—African Americans as receivers of gifts from generous white people.
On May 31st and he following day, June 1st, 1921 in Greenwood, a black neighborhood in Tulsa, Oklahoma, deputized whites killed more than 300 African Americans. They looted and burned to the ground 40 square blocks of 1,265 African American homes, including hospitals, schools, and churches, and destroyed 150 businesses. White deputies and members of the National Guard arrested and detained 6,000 black Tulsans who were released only upon being vouched for by a white employer or other white citizen. Nine thousand African Americans were left homeless and lived in tents well into the winter of 1921.
History textbooks downplay the role of ordinary people in shaping events. Ask an American who ended slavery and most will answer that it was Abraham Lincoln, “the Great Emancipator.” The only problem is that Lincoln was not an abolitionist.
In his first inaugural address of March 4, 1861 Lincoln announced: “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.” Lincoln promised to “cheerfully,” as he put it, enforce the Fugitive Slave Act in protection of the nation’s “property, peace, and security.” Finally, Lincoln said that he would not oppose the constitutional amendment that had recently 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.” and sent that pro-slavery 13th Amendment to the states for ratification. Had it gone into effect, this slavery-forever amendment would have been the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
Lincoln agreed to admit New Mexico to the Union as a slave state. He continued with schemes to deport—“colonize” in the jargon of the day—African Americans, proposing they be sent to Guatemala, Chiriqui (Colombia), and Haiti. In just the first three months after the Civil War began, returned more escaped slaves to their supposed owners than had been returned in the entire presidency of his immediate predecessor, James Buchanan.
Abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison, editor of the The Liberator, commented in late 1861, Abraham Lincoln “has evidently not a drop of anti-slavery blood in his veins.”
His aim throughout his presidency was to keep the Union together. As Lincoln himself said in August 1862, “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union.” Lincoln’s stance on slavery as the war progressed was based on military rather than moral considerations.
The Emancipation Proclamation despite its lofty-sounding title, this is no stirring document of liberty and equality; in fact, it does not even criticize slavery. “Emancipation” is presented purely as a measure of military necessity. It even goes county by county listing areas where slavery would remain in force. According to Eric Foner, the proclamation left more than 20 percent of enslaved people still in slavery—800,000 out of 3.9 million
Who we “credit” for the end of slavery has important implications. This top-down, Great Man approach has long characterized history instruction in our country. Things happen—good or bad—because those in power make them happen. What this misses is, through our compliance or resistance, the actions of ordinary people. And when it comes to momentous social changes, like the abolition of slavery, one will always find social movements and the oppressed themselves at the center. As historian Howard Zinn said about the end of slavery: “Blacks won their freedom because for 30 years before the Civil War, they participated in a great movement of resistance.”
As Lonnie Bunch, director of the Smithsonian National Museum of African American History and Culture, points out if it appears that Abraham Lincoln gave blacks their freedom, then “you create an environment where people begin to think, ‘Well, African Americans have always had things handed to them.’ It gets carried into the notions of welfare and the like”—African Americans as receivers of gifts from generous white people.
AJJ
No comments:
Post a Comment