1

Debate Analysis
Did Lincoln Free the Slaves?
Traci Pritchett
History 1700
October 13, 2014













2

According to Allen C. Guelzo in his YES argument, putting an end to slavery was Abraham Lincolns goal
from his first day in office. President Lincoln stated that slavery was a monstrous injustice and that he
would not have left office without some form of legislative emancipation policy in place.
Mr. Guelzo describes Abraham Lincoln as a patient and prudent president. He insists that because he
was so, he had to balance the ends (the elimination of slavery) with the means (his oath to uphold
the Constitution and reverence for the rule of law) and do it in a fashion that would be in line with the
Constitution and would also survive challenges in court.
Much is said about what the Proclamation did not accomplish and question if it actually did anything
for the cause of the abolishment of slavery. Mr. Guelzo states that the Proclamation gave freedom to
slaves in all but the loyal slave states but that the president had the authority to grant that freedom.
No slave declared free by the Proclamation was ever returned to slavery once he or she had made it
the safety of Union-held territory. Even when the slaves ran away and tried to free themselves, they
could not have remained free without the protection of the Proclamation.
The Proclamation was not eloquent and was meant to be perceived as a legal document. It was seen
as a gamble because people were hostile to emancipation by presidential decree. It was seen by blacks
as a reason to hope and they signed up in droves to fight for the Union since the freedom the
proclamation promised depended on Union military victory. (U.S. National Archives & Records
Administration-The Emancipation Proclamation)
As to the question of whether the Proclamation was issued to ward off European intervention or
boost Union morale, the author thinks that to be the worst method at the worst time to have done so.
In fact there was a danger that issuing the Proclamation would trigger foreign intervention. The
president was advised that he all members of his party would be defeated in the upcoming election, but
he was not swayed and proceeded.

3

In Vincent Hardings piece, the author contends that the slaves more or less freed themselves and
that Abraham Lincolns Emancipation Proclamation had little to do with their eventual emancipation.
He contends that the Proclamation was nothing more than a double-minded attempt to bargain with
and weaken the South while replying to pressure from the North and that it announced freedom to
the captives over whom he had the least control.
The NO argument declares that the Confiscation Acts passed by Congress did more to promote
freedom for African Americans than did the Proclamation. Escaping to freedom was more appealing
than waiting around for the war and the government to work out the details of their future.
Black leaders knew that the North was not fighting for black rights and they also knew that a massive
black insurrection would unite the North and South and make the black people the enemy. So when
they had to opportunity to escape they began to flood the camps of the Northern armies. They believe
that their deliverance would come to them because it was seized by them not because it was given to
them by others.
The flood of self-liberated fugitives were seen at first as manual laborers until Union commanders
began issuing their own emancipation proclamations to recruit black soldiers. Before the end of 1862
black men were being enlisted to fight for their own freedom in the South. Blacks in the North were
encouraged by the presidents Proclamation and saw him and the Republican Party as agents of
deliverance. The voice of God was joined to that of Abraham Lincoln. Southern blacks were less
hopeful. Many blacks were still enslaved in the states of Missouri, Kentucky, Delaware, Maryland and
the West Virginia Territory as well as other loyal areas had no part in the emancipation offered.
Mr. Harding submits that true to form, Lincolns primary concern was not in giving immediate
freedom to the black population when he addressed Congress in December, 1862. He instead proposed
three amendments for gradual emancipation, financial compensation to the slave owners, and

4

colonization for the freed people- proving that Abraham Lincoln was unable to see beyond the limits of
his own race, class, and time, and dreamed of a Haitian island and of Central American colonies to rid
the country of the constantly accusing, constantly challenging black presence.

My Conclusion
Before reading this debate, I thought I knew which argument I would agree with more. I
discovered that as always, there is more to the story than the simplified version we get in grade
school.
I was disappointed in Allen Guelzos approach to his arguments that Lincoln freed the slaves.
I thought he spent a lot of time discussing whether or not Lincoln believed in God or in
providence, whether he prescribed to Enlightenment ideals, whether he considered himself
prudent or a Secular Determinist. Truth be told..I dont care. Because he spent so much time
arguing his maybe this is why theories and had so little to say as to the prevailing atmosphere
of the day and reasons for the timing or legislation he tried to pass, I felt his argument was
weak and he was stretching a small amount of information into a required 5 page paper.
As for Vincent Hardings case, I found him to be a much better storyteller. He portrayed the
plight of the slave and the social and political climate as someone with a vested interest in the
outcome. I guessed when reading that he himself is a black man. I do not mean to say that
because Mr. Harding is a better writer that his argument is right and Mr. Guelzos is wrong.
However, I did find that I agreed with more of his opinions than of the YES argument.

5

I believe that Abraham Lincoln found slavery to be morally wrong and contrary to the
proposition that all men are created equal. I believe that he wanted to end the practice at
some point in the future. He said himself that his first priority of the war was to save the Union,
and not to save or 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. (Davidson-Experience History pg 419)
With a nation threatening to divide and secede, I think he decided that he felt he had bigger
fish to fry than to delve into the sticky situation of ending an institution that had such financial
and legal ramifications. He viewed slaves as property and not citizens.
I believe that the Confiscation Acts did more to empower the slaves to claim their freedom
than the Proclamation did. If that is the case, Congress played more a role than the president.
The black people should be credited with creating their own freedoms by their brave acts
and willingness to do whatever they needed to do to secure for themselves their own liberty.
Of course, these freedoms had to be guaranteed with laws and protections from the
government.
It is impossible to determine what any persons motives or agendas were at the time of such
a tumultuous time in Americas history. I think President Lincoln was successful in his fight to
keep the nation together and to bring an end to the civil war. However, I think that the
emancipation of the slaves was a by-product and not the main objective.
I found it interesting that in posing the question, Did Lincoln Free the Slaves? so much
emphasis was concentrated on just the Emancipation Proclamation. The thirteenth amendment

6

to the Constitution was the crown jewel in the abolition of slavery, yet it was hardly
mentioned by either author. If you take this into consideration, that the amendment was the
last word on the matter, then yes, Lincoln freed the slaves.

Word count -1375