Civil War Expert Scholars
In Oakes' recent book, Freedom National, he argues that Lincoln's commitment to ending slavery was longstanding. The containment of slavery was part of the Republican platform and Oakes argues that Lincoln's emancipation efforts during the Civil War was not solely because of military necessity.
In Oakes' op-ed, linked above, he discusses the issues with thinking about the war in terms of a shift from protecting Union to emancipation - focusing instead on the continuity of Lincoln's emancipation policies. |
|
In Battle Cry for Freedom, McPherson argues that the war for union became the war for freedom. McPherson describes how the South seceded to govern themselves and the North fought to maintain the Union but that eventually the North had to deal with slavery, the underlying reason for the war.
In McPherson's interview, linked above, he describes the evolution of the Civil War from one about saving the Union to one about freeing the slaves. |
Historiography
The question is often asked in high school history classrooms, Why did the North and South fight the Civil War? The most common answers are to protect states rights, protect slavery, or to maintain the union. This question becomes more complicated based on when you ask it – is the goal of the Civil War the same in April 1861 as it is by September 1863? Four leading Civil War historians – James Oakes, Eric Foner, Gary Gallagher, and James McPherson – all characterize the evolving Union war aims differently, despite the fact that they are all examining the same evidence. History is never definitive, in that we cannot recreate what happened, we don’t have all of the facts, and some sources are misleading while others are missing or incomplete. In the absence of a Lincoln diary in which he explained the reasons for his actions, historians are left to do their best to draw conclusions based on the available evidence.
James Oakes argues that the Civil War was a war for freedom that also saved the union – that it was always a war for both aims. In Freedom National, Oakes focuses on the Republican platform for the containment of slavery in the decades before the Civil War and efforts for emancipation during the war before the Emancipation Proclamation through confiscation and labelling slaves as contraband. Even in documents where Lincoln clearly stated his goal was the preservation of the union, such as in the First Inaugural Address and his 1864 Letter to A.G. Hodges, Oakes would focus on the fact that Lincoln had already repeatedly expressed his anti-slavery beliefs publicly and therefore, these ideas would in the back of his mind as Lincoln made decisions during the war.
Eric Foner also argues that Lincoln’s goal in the Civil War was to end slavery. In drawing this conclusion, Foner analyzes Lincoln’s lifelong focus on slavery in The Fiery Trial. Lincoln, according to Foner, “emancipated” himself in signing the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863; not only did he ensure that Union victory would lead to the destruction of slavery but he also freed himself to consider the post-emancipation lives of African Americans and their equality and citizenship. Foner focuses on documents like the Second Inaugural Address to point out that Lincoln identified slavery as the central cause of the war.
Gary Gallagher disagrees with Oakes and Foner and argues that the Civil War was a war for union that also extended freedom – the opposite order of events. Gallagher opens his recent book, The Union War, with the line, “The loyal American citizenry fought a war for Union that also killed slavery.” He believes firmly that we cannot apply presentism to our analysis of the Civil War. What Gallagher means by this is that we cannot interpret history in light of our modern values. He believes that historians like Oakes are looking back at the evidence to find discussion on race and slavery in places where it did not exist – but because of this, evidence is found to support the claims. Gallagher would look at documents such as the First Inaugural Address and the Gettysburg Address as evidence that Lincoln was not as focused on ending slavery but only did so in order to achieve his first priority – saving the union.
James McPherson differs slightly from Gallagher in his conclusion that the Civil War was a war for union that became a war for freedom – a shifting of Union war aims. McPherson argues that towards the beginning of the war, Lincoln is repeatedly stating that the war is about preserving the Union and not about ending slavery; he points to the fact that Lincoln tried to convince Southern slave states to return. However, by the second year of the Civil War, Lincoln recognized that the South was fighting to protect slavery (and their states’ rights to ensure slavery) and was aided by slave labor and, therefore, slavery would need to end in order to achieve victory.
Despite contradictory conclusions, these four historians are renowned in the Civil War field and all base their claims on specific evidence. As more Lincoln documents become available, it is possible that the historiography will shift once more. For now, there is no definitive history – only our best analysis on how to characterize evolving Union war aims.
The question is often asked in high school history classrooms, Why did the North and South fight the Civil War? The most common answers are to protect states rights, protect slavery, or to maintain the union. This question becomes more complicated based on when you ask it – is the goal of the Civil War the same in April 1861 as it is by September 1863? Four leading Civil War historians – James Oakes, Eric Foner, Gary Gallagher, and James McPherson – all characterize the evolving Union war aims differently, despite the fact that they are all examining the same evidence. History is never definitive, in that we cannot recreate what happened, we don’t have all of the facts, and some sources are misleading while others are missing or incomplete. In the absence of a Lincoln diary in which he explained the reasons for his actions, historians are left to do their best to draw conclusions based on the available evidence.
James Oakes argues that the Civil War was a war for freedom that also saved the union – that it was always a war for both aims. In Freedom National, Oakes focuses on the Republican platform for the containment of slavery in the decades before the Civil War and efforts for emancipation during the war before the Emancipation Proclamation through confiscation and labelling slaves as contraband. Even in documents where Lincoln clearly stated his goal was the preservation of the union, such as in the First Inaugural Address and his 1864 Letter to A.G. Hodges, Oakes would focus on the fact that Lincoln had already repeatedly expressed his anti-slavery beliefs publicly and therefore, these ideas would in the back of his mind as Lincoln made decisions during the war.
Eric Foner also argues that Lincoln’s goal in the Civil War was to end slavery. In drawing this conclusion, Foner analyzes Lincoln’s lifelong focus on slavery in The Fiery Trial. Lincoln, according to Foner, “emancipated” himself in signing the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863; not only did he ensure that Union victory would lead to the destruction of slavery but he also freed himself to consider the post-emancipation lives of African Americans and their equality and citizenship. Foner focuses on documents like the Second Inaugural Address to point out that Lincoln identified slavery as the central cause of the war.
Gary Gallagher disagrees with Oakes and Foner and argues that the Civil War was a war for union that also extended freedom – the opposite order of events. Gallagher opens his recent book, The Union War, with the line, “The loyal American citizenry fought a war for Union that also killed slavery.” He believes firmly that we cannot apply presentism to our analysis of the Civil War. What Gallagher means by this is that we cannot interpret history in light of our modern values. He believes that historians like Oakes are looking back at the evidence to find discussion on race and slavery in places where it did not exist – but because of this, evidence is found to support the claims. Gallagher would look at documents such as the First Inaugural Address and the Gettysburg Address as evidence that Lincoln was not as focused on ending slavery but only did so in order to achieve his first priority – saving the union.
James McPherson differs slightly from Gallagher in his conclusion that the Civil War was a war for union that became a war for freedom – a shifting of Union war aims. McPherson argues that towards the beginning of the war, Lincoln is repeatedly stating that the war is about preserving the Union and not about ending slavery; he points to the fact that Lincoln tried to convince Southern slave states to return. However, by the second year of the Civil War, Lincoln recognized that the South was fighting to protect slavery (and their states’ rights to ensure slavery) and was aided by slave labor and, therefore, slavery would need to end in order to achieve victory.
Despite contradictory conclusions, these four historians are renowned in the Civil War field and all base their claims on specific evidence. As more Lincoln documents become available, it is possible that the historiography will shift once more. For now, there is no definitive history – only our best analysis on how to characterize evolving Union war aims.
