Analysis Of Tom Wicker's 'If Lincoln Had Not Freed The Slaves'

Marshal Murrell

Mr. Robert Ellis

U.S. History II

25 January 2018

Reflection

What social or political consequences would be faced today if Lincoln had not written the Emancipation Proclamation, or if slavery in the late nineteenth century had not been abolished timely and with such moral, even political, motivation? A very well thought out question that is needed to be addressed in an accurate manner. Such mannerism and speculations are what Tom Wicker decisively delineates in his excerpt from “If Lincoln Had Not Freed the Slaves.”

We could say with confidence that racial discrimination is a wonted problem in American society today. Wicker begins with this issue stating, “How could it be otherwise?” (Wicker, 2). He supports this claim with

the fact of how poverty-stricken blacks are stuck in the unemployed facet of life, how middleclass blacks are in continual racial bias in the professional world, and the distinguished fact of how a black male is seven times more likely than a white to be imprisoned. It would have to be said however that even with these representations being socially precise, they would not be, in my opinion, accurate depictions of racial discrimination. What must be supposed though that these “depictions of racial discrimination” may be so because of the memory of being in bondage, but still cannot be thought as true actualities of discrimination. Like the fact that a black man is seven times more likely to be put in prison than a white; this may be true factually but not necessarily as racial bias.

Also, reasoning for this statistic is not that a black man is imprisoned seven times more than a white, but that the

actual crime is averagely committed by a black man seven times more than a white. Likewise, sentences in a court of law, even with a chauvinistic judge, are not particularly done on the partiality of skin color but on the cultural background which, sadly, a significant number of African Americans are born into today. This aspect can be corresponded with the fact of being stuck in poverty, which is in the most part, in my responded view, not brought upon by discriminatory oppression, for even in such circumstances one can be brought out of.
Another concept touched on by the author, one that is done with excellent proficiency, is the theory of how sustained faith African Americans have in this country--when born in the events that actually did happen--could be held when born into legal segregation or slavery. Wicker later outlines the stressed relations between black and white people still being tense after Abraham Lincoln’s proclamation set former slaves free from bondage. He continues with this idea asking questions such as follows: To what degree would hostile discrimination be if slavery was not ended as did happen; or if gradual emancipation had occurred, how hostile would their sentiment towards the movement be? In my perception this was a good thought; more so when it can be connoted through the stereotype put upon some modern African Americans that refers to them as desiring reparations for wrongs inflicted by a group over a century ago.   
    An additional fact that is inferred by Wicker is the idea of how Lincoln did at first have a ready moral founding towards the movement of gradual emancipation.

Most people today have been taught the knowledge that Abraham Lincoln was the “Great Emancipator,” a true hero fighting against the deprecating act of slavery. Not to say these thoughts are not true, but, as clarified in the excerpt, were not Lincoln’s chief motives. As stated in his letter to the New York Tribune, “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union and is not either to save or to destroy slavery” (Wicker, 4). Instead, as imposed in the article, Lincoln’s original idea for emancipation was to compensate slave owners while steadily abolishing slavery throughout the country by the year 1900. To my initial reasoning this did seem a logical advancement; however, not to the popular thought of that time: with the deportation of blacks to a foreign land to rule themselves. For to deport them back to Africa, in my thoughts, would have to be the former slaves’ choice. To me the slaves, through generations on American soil, were themselves Americans. The author, conversely, follows the former thought indicating that no one at the time mentioned that whites should emigrate and leave the land of the United States to the blacks. This notion--not to offend the author, for his viewpoints are most definitely well pondered--is to me almost unreasonable. Most of the whites that lived in the United States

during this period were there because of the emigration and pilgrimage of their forefathers. The blacks’ ancestors in the States, who however were Americans as aforementioned, in the utmost part came against their own will. To say that a majority (who came on their own accord) should leave the land worked towards to a minority (who arrived counter to their will) would not be a logical assessment today or at that time. You could say this notion with validity, however, assessing the situation as: If a group wanted rid of a class, they should presently leave instead of making the collect unwanted depart. Nonetheless, gradual emancipation could not come about. For even though the Constitution did not give either the president or Congress the right to seize property (including those people who were an investment of slave owners hence being a possession), the dramatic pressures of the war called for more dramatic measures to compensate. Examples of the pressures include: desires from aggressive abolitionists to end slavery; the threat of intervention from a foreign entity; consecutive Union battle losses; and the necessity to keep federal loyalty. It could be said that these were a selection of reasons that lead Abraham Lincoln to the bringing of the Emancipation Proclamation. To respond to the burdens of that time, this may have been, by means of conjecture, the best way to win the war and correspondingly end slavery.
           In conclusion, the precepts that did come about from the events that so forth happened may not have been the most wanted repercussions in every person’s view. But, in my thoughts, the events that were brought about to counter the conflicts of the day, to me, were the most proficient ways to end the war and act on the problem that was still ever-present in the United States—slavery.