The Great Emancipator?

     As a young African American schoolboy, I held President Abraham Lincoln in great reverence. How could I not? My grade school teachers lionized Lincoln as “The Great Emancipator,” and subsequently canonized him after his assassination.  However, as I advanced through my academic career, and further explored the origins of my race, I became disappointed. I uncovered the veil concealing this historical figure, from the veracity of his character.

     This is not an attempt to cast aspersions on Mr. Lincoln. Nevertheless, it is my duty to analyze him as subjectively as an educated African American can. The exploits of “The Great Emancipator” must be proper contextualized prior to awarding him with any merit.
President Lincoln defeated Stephen A. Douglas to win the 1860 Presidential election. Lincoln faced arguably the most difficult task of any President. The insurmountable task of keeping the nation unified. The issue of slavery had been dividing the nation for decades. However, the acquisition of western territories (from the Louisiana Purchase and the American-Mexican War) intensified the national debate.
     While it is true Lincoln did want to prevent slavery expansion into the western territories. It was not for the betterment of the slaves. Lincoln belonged to a Republican party, who wanted to prevent black migration in order to afford white men economic prosperity. Lincoln emphasized that he and the Republican Party wanted to protect whites in North and West (and those who desired to move to the western territories) from economic competition with free blacks: “Negro equality will be abundant, as every white laborer will have occasion to regret when he is elbowed from his plow or his anvil by slave niggers.”
     To properly contextualize the Emancipation Proclamation, one must contextualize the passing of a few legislations prior to the Emancipation Proclamation. The Civil War began in Fort Sumter, SC in 1861 (ironically South Carolina was the first state to secede from the Union). At this point, Lincoln’s primary focus was to win the war and unify the “nation.”
     The Confederacy defeating the Union at the First Battle of Bull Run (the first major battle of the Civil War) galvanized the North. Rumors surfaced that some slaves of Confederate soldiers were accompanying them during battle. Slaves were not participants in armed combat; however, they were assisting their masters with menial tasks, contributing to a Confederate victory.  These contributions resulted in the Confiscation Act 1861. The Confiscation Act of 1861 emancipated all slaves who contributed to the Confederate war effort. Lincoln did not pass this legislation to cease the sadistic practice of slavery. It was a political ploy to discourage the South’s war efforts.
     One year later, Confiscation Act 1862 passed into legislation. The Confiscation Act in 1862 essentially declared all slaves of the Confederate soldiers free.  Lincoln himself wrote that this bill was “an act to suppress insurrection, to punish treason, and rebellion, to seize and confiscate the property of rebels, and for other purposes.” Lincoln clearly states that this bill’s primary purpose is to punish the disloyalty of the Confederates. Even more telling, he refers to blacks as “property.”
In 1863, the infamous Emancipation Proclamation went into effect. This legislation freed the slaves in the Confederacy. However, slavery still existed in the Border States that remained loyal to the union (MD, DL, MO, and KY). If “The Great Emancipator” was a man of high virtue and a true egalitarian, why not emancipate all slaves immediately? Why were there three separate legislations, incrementally and conditionally manumitting slaves prior to the Thirteenth Amendment in 1865? Why would a man who stated that he was “in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race” manumit the poor, colored folk?
     As a pundit in African American history, I am obliged to investigate as deep as the abyss. I cannot allow a man to remain in African American lore as “The Great Emancipator.” He is more Ku Klux Klan than NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People). Yes, I do acknowledge the emancipation legislations passed under his presidential terms; however, I do so with a thorough comprehension of what and who I am acknowledging. I acknowledge a man who by political and de facto regulations “freed” the slaves. I also acknowledge a man whose views on blacks were impeccably aligned with 19^th century white supremacists.