For a long time, the triumph of emancipation was told from the vantage point of Union politics and Abraham Lincoln's presidential leadership. Lincoln made the crucial decision, Congress enacted legislation that crippled the institution, and northern public opinion endorsed this change in policy. The result was the death of slavery.

More recently, as part of social history's emphasis on showing how ordinary Americans shaped their own lives in meaningful ways, a number of historians have stressed the role slaves themselves played in ending slavery. Lincoln, after all, made it quite clear at the beginning of the war that he was willing to save the Union without ending slavery. It was hundreds of thousands of slaves, by flocking to the Union lines and serving gallantly in the Union army and navy, and thousands more who undermined the institution of slavery behind southern lines, who tipped the scales toward emancipation. Such behavior forced white Americans to confront the issue of slavery head on. It pushed Lincoln, finally, to conclude that freeing the slaves was the best way to save the Union. In that sense, emancipation stemmed directly from the initiative of the slaves, not from congressional legislation or presidential documents.

Critics of this self-emancipation thesis readily admit that the action of African Americans in both the Union and the Confederacy were important in destroying slavery. But were they strong enough, by themselves, to end so deeply entrenched an institution? Before the Civil War, no self-emancipation had occurred on a wide scale during slavery's 200 years of existence. And the spreading tide of freedom could be and was reversed when Union troops left an area and returning Confederates promptly restored slavery. Moreover, these historians argue that escaping to freedom was not the same thing as abolishing slavery. At bottom, slavery could never be eradicated without legal action: in this case, the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment. In that sense, Lincoln's role proved vital. It made a difference, these historians insist, which side won the war, and how they chose to win it.

1			To begin examining the implications of the debate regarding whether to depict Abraham Lincoln as the "Great Emancipator" of slaves, read Frederick Douglass' speech on the occasion of unveiling the Freedman's Monument in Washington, D.C. in 1876. What does Douglass think about the issue? To whom does he accord credit for the process of emancipation? What evidence does he offer to support his argument? Now read two contemporary articles that address the subject, one taken from Ebony magazine and the other from the Southern Poverty Law Center. What ideological agendas are the authors of these articles promoting? Why has this topic become such a politically and emotionally charged issue? How should historians cope with the biases that emerge when investigating such loaded subjects? http://xroads.virginia.edu/~CAP/LINCOLN/douglass.html http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m1077/4_55/59110854/p1/article.jhtml http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?pid=109