Does Abraham Lincoln deserve the accolade “the great Emancipator”
DOES ABRAHAM LINCOLN DESERVE THE ACCOLADE “THE GREAT EMANCIPATOR”?
[Name of the Writer]
Does Abraham Lincoln Deserve The Accolade “The Great Emancipator”?
One of the major events in the history of the United States is the Emancipation Proclamation. It was the event that has debunked slavery from the very fabric of American society. For Lincoln great contribution, he is quite often called, “The Great Emancipator”.
As part of his Protest on the grounds of Illinois Legislature on Slavery, he has clearly declared his endless efforts by not remembering what he did for opposing the slavery at large. Surely, the very same initiative was also degraded by the abolitionist movement by providing a rather, violent channel for expressing their concerns. The first and foremost step that can be considered remarkable achievement is criticizing the Illinois legislation that has censured different abolitionist societies and has pronounced the Constitution protecting slavery as valid. Some of the critics argue that the person cannot be both as the Union’s Savior and the great Emancipator at the same time. However, Lincoln has proved himself as the better politician by forwarding a really courageous act in the history of the United States. The very roots of abolition would serve to enhance the evil of slavery rather than limiting it. The very limited difference in opinions of eradicating slavery in Illinois has led him to go into the protest. Hence, Lincoln was among the first few politicians to raise his voice against the bad policy through proper channel rather than engaging in violence and inflicting damage to the nation.
Based on his political outlook, Abraham Lincoln letter to Horace Greeley on August 12th, 1862, reflects the concern for both the political structure of the country as well as annihilation of slavery from the country. For him “attaching the slavery” was not the option because of the nature of his position. His inclination of saving the Union surely has some meaningful thought process behind it. The main reason that is considered under this domain includes a concern of severe backlash of riots on the Northern states. The reaction of Whites would indulge the nation in the irreversible chain of events that can only deteriorate the very fabrics of American nation. Surely, the war was about to preserve the Union while not abolishing slavery because of the very reason because Lincoln has to persuade a number of stakeholders including governors of different states; more specifically, of the North. Barging towards the end of slavery would provide a short-term and fleeting success for the emancipation proclamation; however, for the long-term gain and success, Lincoln has taken the route for dedicating his efforts for reconstruction of America. For Lincoln, it has never been an option to “destroy and conquer, but to subdue and reclaim”.
Based on these core arguments and the very reasoning, it can be concluded that Abraham Lincoln has done nothing to jeopardize the security of state and of nation; rather, he has used his political views for securing the very constitution as well as complete annihilation of slavery at the most appropriate time. This has allowed them worthy of the accolade “the great emancipator”.
Masur, Louis P. Lincoln’s hundred days: the Emancipation Proclamation and the war for the union. Harvard University Press, 2012.
Sandage, Scott A. “A marble house divided: The Lincoln Memorial, the civil rights movement, and the politics of memory, 1939-1963.” The Journal of American History (1993): 135-167.
Finkelman, Paul. “Civil Liberties and Civil War: The Great Emancipator as Civil Libertarian.” Michigan Law Review (1993): 1353-1381.
Lincoln, Abraham, and William E Gienapp. 2002. This Fiery Trial. New York: Oxford University Press. p. 8-9, 134-135.