By LaKeshia N. Myers
Representative LaKeshia Myers
My uncle George used to say, “Down South racism is out in the open; if a redneck tells you they don’t like Negroes, he means it. Up North, racism is more subtle, polite-like; they just don’t hire you, or if you get hired, they’ll give you one hell of a hard time and force you to quit. It’s that ‘nice-nasty’ racism that you have to beware of.”
And Uncle George was one that knew what he was talking about. Born in the 1930s, the second oldest of 12 children, he began working early in life; moving from his native Mississippi to Ohio, where he would find work as a unionized laborer for the Farrell-Cheek Steel Company. It was at the foundry that my uncle became a liaison on behalf of African Americans who experienced poor treatment at the company. It was there that he was able to experience what he called “Northern nice” racism.
What my uncle didn’t realize was that “Northern nice” racism had its roots in Negrophobia, a seminal fear of African Americans. This fear was even present during the time of Abraham Lincoln. In addition to the emancipation argument was what to do with all of the newly freed slaves. Historians have pointed to the fact that Lincoln originally wished emancipated Blacks to be colonized in Liberia or Haiti. He presented this proposal to a delegation of African American leaders in Washington. The colonization argument was one that would temper the mood of those who were anti-emancipation. Very smart, politically on Lincoln’s part—he was also painfully aware of the alternative.
Lincoln told the delegation if Blacks and whites were forced to coexist, Blacks would suffer from living among whites and the white race would suffer from the very presence of Blacks (McPherson, 1981). While this was harsh, it was a testament of what was to come: race-based violence, peonage, Black Codes, Jim Crow and lynching. Colonization, however was a hard-sell for many free Blacks, most of whom lived in the north. Wealthy Black abolitionist Robert Purvis, in an open letter to the president said, “It is in vain you talk to me of ‘two races’ and their ‘mutual antagonism.’ In the matter of rights, there is but one race and that is the human race…sir, this is our country as much as it is yours, and we will not leave it.”
After the Battle of Antietam, Lincoln released the Emancipation Proclamation. Shortly thereafter, he opened up the Union army to African Americans and they came in the thousands; ready to take up arms to fight for their freedom. The Confederates vowed to re-enslave any person that was captured. It was from this threat that Congress sprang into action. According to James Oakes, in his book “Freedom National: The Destruction of Slavery in the United States,” several steps were taken to find a federal method for enforcing the emancipation. According to Oakes, Congressman Lyman Trumbull said, “The only effectual way of ridding the country of slavery, and so that it cannot be resuscitated, is by an amendment to the Constitution, forever prohibiting it within the jurisdiction of the United States” (Oakes, 2013).
Conversely, Eric Foner, in his book “A Short History of Reconstruction” states, “The Emancipation Proclamation permanently transformed not only the character of the Civil War, but the problem of Reconstruction. For it suggested that the rebelling Southern states could not resume their erstwhile position without far-reaching changes in their society and politics.” (Fonner, 2014). The adoption of the 13th Amendment was one of those “far-reaching changes”.
Of extreme interest to me was the epilogue of Oakes’ text, where asked the question, “Was freedom enough?” I can honestly say, no, it wasn’t enough. But it was what could be accomplished during that time. As a politician today, we are faced with the same conundrum; we know which policies are needed to make life better for Americans, but because of opposing viewpoints and depending on which political party is in control, we are limited in what can be done. I think Lincoln knew freedom was not enough, but he did all he could to deliver it. He was also right about the many challenges that have arisen between Blacks and whites in their quest to coexist in the United States. We see the same things happening in our state today—the fact that we do not have light rail or regional transit authorities are due in part to fear that individuals who live in the southeastern part of the state will somehow “invade” more rural communities. What opponents fail to realize, is that the economic health of the state is reliant on where the most populous cities are located. Therefore, if the cities fail, so shall the rest of the state.
I began this article examining Lincoln for the complex character he was, understanding his intentions and hoping to gauge some insight for the future. In learning about Lincoln as an emancipator, I hope you are aware of the intricate details that occurred in the struggle to preserve the Union.
I hope you understand the war from many different perspectives. As an educator, I hope this vantage point is discussed in classrooms, because this time period laid the foundation for where we are today. With newfound appreciation, I understand what Lincoln meant when he said, “Both parties deprecated war; but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive; and the other would accept war rather than let it perish.”