History 117: US History To 1877

The Meeting in Savannah

Link to source text

One of the most important efforts of the Civil War was General William T. Sherman’s March to the Sea campaign. Sherman’s army marched through Georgia from Atlanta all the way to the Atlantic Ocean at the end of 1864, destroying Confederate territory and freeing slaves at an unprecedented level. At the end of this campaign, Sherman, along with Secretary of War Edwin Stanton, met with several local African-American leaders in Savannah, Georgia. This meeting was intended to create a dialogue between the federal government and the black population that had recently or would be freed from the shackles of slavery. Through this meeting, Stanton and the federal government gained an understanding of how to best support this new demographic of Southern freedmen, while the African-American community learned how to cooperate with the federal government. As a result of this, Sherman issued Special Field Order 15 a few days later, providing swaths of land on abandoned plantations to Southern black families. On the surface, this meeting and the resulting act seem like a progressive look to the future by the federal government, planning how to best accommodate the formerly enslaved African-American community. However, this series of events was more akin to an effort of damage control by the Union government in the wake of multiple controversies.  

Text

General William T. Sherman. Library of Congress

Sherman and Stanton’s meeting with the black community leaders of Savannah, which included Garrison Frazier, a minister and the de facto leader of the group, and James Porter, who had operated a secret school to educate enslaved people, contains three key points. The first comes from the third question asked by Stanton, on the topic of how the federal government can best help these newly freed peoples become self sufficient. Frazier asserts that “the way we can best take care of ourselves is to have land, and turn it and till it by our own labor […] We want to be placed on land until we are able to buy it and make it our own.”[1] Frazier’s argument is that, if the government temporarily provides land to the freedmen of the South, they will be able to become self-sufficient and purchase the land permanently. This segment clearly became the basis for Field Order 15. The second key point comes from the sixth question, where Stanton asks what the sentiments of the Southern black population is regarding the Union government and the war. Frazier answers by saying that he believes that the vast majority of African-Americans in the South are in support of the North, and that there are not “a dozen men that are opposed to the Government.”[2] His response to this question assured Stanton and the federal government that the freedmen of the South were loyal to the Union, and could be trusted.[3] The last key point can be drawn from the final question, only asked in the absence of General Sherman. When asked what the feeling among African-Americans was regarding Sherman and his actions, Frazier glowingly approved of Sherman, referring to him as “a man in the Providence of God” and that “his conduct and deportment toward us characterized him as a friend and a gentleman.”[4] While on its own, the question and its response merely show the level of support and gratitude that black Georgians had for the man whose campaign freed slaves across the state, it is perhaps the most revealing of all twelve questions with proper context.  

Context

Secretary of War Edwin Stanton. Wikimedia Commons

While the freedmen of the South viewed General Sherman as a figure approaching divinity, he did not have nearly as high an opinion of them. Although he may have freed multitudes of slaves from their bonds, it is hard to say that he did it in any intentional way. Prior to the war and in its early phases, he was a supporter of slavery, opposing the Emancipation Proclamation and believing slavery was an important system to society. As the war progressed, he eventually accepted that the death of slavery was necessary because of the war. Even after this, he operated with an extremely pragmatic approach, only intentionally freeing slaves when he believed they could actively help his army. Despite this, thousands of slaves whose masters’ plantations were in his trail of destruction followed his army anyways, much to his chagrin.[5] He instructed the officers below him to keep black refugees not working with the army away from them, worrying that they make slow down the army or take away supplies. Even among the former slaves he recruited, he wanted them to work for the army as laborers, not as soldiers, saying “I believe that negroes better serve the Army as teamsters, pioneers, and servants…. I confess I would prefer 300 negroes armed with spades and axes than 1,000 as soldiers.”[6] While he was rarely explicitly racist, and usually cordial to individual black men and women he spoke to, Sherman’s opinion on slavery and its morality was ambivalent at best. He simply did not care about freeing slaves, only doing it intentionally when it benefited the military. His approach to the issue was divisive. Some of his staff supported him, while others opposed this approach. Furthermore, the issue was divisive in Washington. Many within the government condemned Sherman’s actions regarding slaves, and the issue hit a boiling point with the Ebenezer Creek incident. Troops under General Jefferson C. Davis, who was himself under Sherman, crossed the creek on pontoon bridges while pursued by Confederate cavalry. After the troops had crossed, the bridges were brought up, with many black refugees who had been following the army left on the other bank. Some drowned attempting to swim across the creek, while others were picked up by the arriving Confederates.[7] This incident became hugely controversial, and was the boiling point for many regarding Sherman’s approach to the refugees following him en masse. The criticism from Washington is what prompted Edwin Stanton to travel down to Savannah, meet with Sherman, and then hold a discussion between him and the region’s black leaders. Furthermore, Sherman’s issuing of Field Order 15 was only due to Stanton’s urging, who came to believe after the meeting that the black Southerner population could support themselves, and pushed Sherman to create an order that would distribute land to freedmen.[8]  

Subtext

Black family with farmhouse. National Museum of African American History & Culture

Knowing now the issues that compelled Edwin Stanton to organize this meeting, several things become clear. First is that the main purpose of the meeting was not to look forward to the future of the freedmen, but to improve sentiments in Washington regarding Sherman’s treatment of black refugees. It was this issue that compelled Stanton to travel to Savannah, and Stanton who organized the meeting, and it certainly makes sense that he, as a representative of the federal government, would want to improve the sentiment regarding one of the Union’s top generals. By  specifically asked those gathered their opinions on General Sherman, he created a story that could be easily spread, one displaying how Sherman was beloved by the black Southerner, and thus put the uproar around Ebenezer Creek down. Furthermore, Sherman’s own participation in the meeting is rather dubious. He only attends at Stanton’s urging, does not ask any questions, and then only implements the order that the freedmen had specifically stated would be the easiest way for them to attain autonomy after Stanton pushes him to. Once again, this continues to display Sherman’s racism and ambivalence towards the issue of slavery. However, there is something positive that arises out of this subtext, and that is how beloved Sherman was by the people he had helped free. He himself had found it curious how, despite his success in cutting through Georgia and escorting tens of thousands of slaves to safety (even if unwillingly), he was criticized in Washington for not offering the full support of the army to each slave he came across.[9] To the people he had helped free, it was the fact that he had freed them that was important. The slaves of Georgia understood that Sherman’s presence effectively freed them, and they helped his army in any way possible by any means necessary, including stealing the property of their masters or divulging military information such as the defenses of Savannah.[10] In this manner, the twelfth question of the meeting is perhaps the most important, as it both serves to reinforce Stanton’s meaning for hosting the meeting in the first place, and allowed the freedmen gather to display how grateful all the former slaves of Georgia were for Sherman’s role in freeing them.  

Viewing the Meeting in Savannah as damage control by the United States government regarding General Sherman’s treatment of black refugees and the Ebenezer Creek incident is, perhaps, reductive. The meeting did indeed create change, as Field Order 15 allocated abandoned plantation land for freedmen, and even though it was eventually pushed out and white Southerners were allowed to reclaim their plantation land, it represented positive progress towards black land ownership and autonomy. However, it is still clear that the primary purpose of the meeting was an effort to improve Sherman’s image in Washington. Keeping the general with the most recent success out of controversy was crucial given the turnover of Union generals during the Civil War, and the bonus of confirming popular support for the Union among black Southerners. Sherman and Stanton’s meeting with freedmen in Savannah may have not been as progressive as it outwardly seems, but it still did provide progress and achieved its goal.

[1] “Meeting between Black Religious Leaders and Union Military Authorities, January 12, 1865,” January 12, 1865, Link.

[2] Freedmen’s Meeting in Savannah

[3] Kristopher A. Teters, “William T. Sherman and His Officers: The Reluctant Emancipators,” in Practical Liberators, Union Officers in the Western Theater during the Civil War (University of North Carolina Press, 2018), Link, pp. 146-147.

[4] Freedmen’s Meeting in Savannah

[5] Teters 133-4

[6] William T. Sherman, quoted in Teters 136

[7] Howard C. Westwood, “Sherman Marched: And Proclaimed ‘Land for the Landless,’” The South Carolina Historical Magazine 85, no. 1 (1984): 38.

[8] Teters 146-7

[9] Josef C. James, “Sherman at Savannah,” The Journal of Negro History 39, no. 2 (1954): 133, Link.

[10] Teters 142-3

Bibliography

A Contested Standard: Morris’ Funeral Oration for Washington

Gouverneur Morris signs the Constitution, painting by John Henry Hintermeister

On the mournful New Year’s Day of 1800, Gouverneur Morris stood to eulogize the recently deceased George Washington. Morris, the “Penman of the Constitution,” praised the former President and credited him with words that defended a Federalist concern about popular passions that were of particular importance to Morris. In doing so, he was an early example of an American tradition that endures centuries later: claiming Washington’s legacy in support of factional interests.

Text Summary

Morris and Washington had been friends and allies since the Revolutionary War–there were few better positioned to speak to the former President’s service. Morris began by praising Washington as a man of tremendous personal virtue and cultivated self control, “so great the empire he there acquired, that calmness of manner and of conduct distinguished him through his life.” [1]. Morris seemed to believe that Washington’s greatness in public life was predicated on personal moderation. At times, his description bordered on the hagiographic: “Was he the slave of avarice ? No. Wealth was an object too mean for his regard … Was he ambitious ? No. His spirit soared beyond ambition’s reach.” [2] From there, Morris turned to the tensions of the early Republic, stating that “the different states had been held together, in no small degree, by the external pressure of war. That pressure removed, they might fall asunder.” [3] What might now bind the states together? In Morris’ telling, it was Washington’s wisdom. In response to delegates at the Constitutional Convention overly concerned with popularity and ignoring prudent governance in favor of acquiescence to popular passion, Morris recalls Washington spoke extemporaneously: “It is too probable that no plan we propose will be adopted. Perhaps another dreadful conflict is to be sustained. If, to please the people, we offer what we ourselves disapprove, how can we afterwards defend our work? Let us raise a standard to which the wise and honest can repair. The event is in the hand of God.” [4] The rest of the oration followed a familiar pattern: as general or President, Washington’s good character and inflexible disposition enabled him to stand athwart the tides of popular passion. This account of Washington’s words have become among his most widely-quoted, etched into monuments and federal buildings centuries later.

Washington Arch Inscription (Village Preservation)

Context

Naturally, the context surrounding this oration requires untangling. Gouverneur Morris was born the last son into a prominent and wealthy family in New York in 1752 [5] As a talented lawyer and politician during the Revolutionary War, he came to know Washington well. The two first became acquainted during the hard period at Valley Forge in 1778, when Morris visited as a New York delegate to the Continental Congress and remained a steadfast supporter and friend of Washington thereafter. [6]. Following the war, Morris served as an indispensable delegate to the Constitutional Convention of 1787 in Philadelphia and served on two committees that shaped the Constitution and composed the document’s preamble. [7] In the words of James Madison, “The finish given to the style and arrangement of the Constitution, fairly belongs to the pen of Mr. Morris.” [8]. 

Morris was among the most talented rhetoricians of the Founding Fathers and Alexander Hamilton even approached him to write the essays that would become The Federalist Papers. [9] Morris declined. But more than a skilled writer, he was a man of firm and well-considered political attitudes. Morris was for religious liberty, against slavery, supportive of a strong executive and stronger property rights, and perhaps above all else, skeptical of the popular passions that he saw firsthand had the potential to create a nation or destroy it. [10]

After traveling to France for financial dealings, Morris became a fixture of the American presence in Paris alongside Thomas Jefferson and an eyewitness to the unfolding and increasingly violent French Revolution. He noted how it differed from the American Revolution: “our Contest has given a confused Notion of Liberty to this Country [France]” [11]. Washington appointed him Ambassador to France in 1791, and Morris, an opponent of popular excitability, became increasingly concerned by the direction of the revolution. He assisted Louis XVI with his affairs and even designed unfulfilled plans for the King to escape to safety. [12] During the Reign of Terror [1793-1794], Morris’ diary recorded his firsthand accounts of the violence and barbarism that swept the country. [13]

The fiery and bloody upheaval that he witnessed back in France weighed on him as he returned to America in 1798 and saw the division that gripped the United States.

Washington had retired and left John Adams in his stead, who would soon be in a vicious election against his Vice President, the Democratic Republican Thomas Jefferson. Additionally the Federalist Party itself was split between supporters of Adams and Hamilton. [14] At the same time, tensions rose with France, a threat that had even compelled Washington to leave his retirement and align with the Federalists by returning to command as a Lieutenant General and spend long days at Mount Vernon drawing war plans.

It was this political environment that Morris inhabited on New Year’s Day 1800, with one difference: On a cold winter night in 1799, attended by doctors and family, Washington died from a sudden illness. As the news spread from Mount Vernon to the nation’s capital in Philadelphia four days later and New York two days after that, Congress declared a nation-wide period of remembrance and a state funeral. The country came together in acts of mourning across more than 400 funerals and 300 eulogies. [15] But Washington was gone, and along with him the immediate stabilizing and unifying effect that he provided the country. At the same time, his legacy immediately became contested among the Americans who sought to lay claim to it, a tradition that continues to this day. 

Subtext

The subtext of Morris’ speech is as complex as the political maelstrom that surrounded it. In a textual reading, Morris recalled a time at the Constitutional Convention where delegates wavered and nearly chose expediency over principles if not for Washington. In this reading, invoking Washington’s words was a call for unity around the founding principles and the Constitution that they birthed. At the same time, Washington’s words were in response to a very particular concern: popular passions. Morris described Washington as eloquently speaking against those who would imprudently offer few protections against direct democracy. In private, Morris was less polite: in 1774 he described a passionate political meeting in New York: “The mob being to think and reason. Poor reptiles!” [16] Popular will and the protection of individual rights had long been central to Morris’ political philosophy but their importance was underscored in his mind by what he had so recently witnessed in revolutionary France: “In the sincere Desire to promote [the public good], just men may be proscribed, unjustice be declared, property be invaded and violence patronized.” [17]. In Morris’ telling, Washington was a passionate defender of those same interests.

There is also the question of whether Washington ever truly said these words. Writing more than a century later, the great Senator Henry Cabot Lodge noted that Madison never recorded such a speech at the Convention; nevertheless, while the “language is no doubt that of Morris…” Lodge wrote, “… the noble and courageous sentiment which they express is thoroughly characteristic of the man to whom they were attributed.” [18]

Morris laid claim to Washington’s legacy and attached the deceased to a factional view, but he was not the only one to do so. At another funeral for Washington in Augusta, Maine, Federalist Benjamin Whitwell began by “forgetting domestic feuds and party dissensions,” and ended by endorsing Adams as Washington’s political heir. [19] Similarly, the Reverend Richard Allen, a prominent black Methodist, eulogized Washington as an advocate for the oppressed and a “sympathizing friend and tender father [who] has watched over us and viewed our degraded and afflicted fate with compassion and pity.” [20]

While Washington is widely regarded as among the greatest American Presidents, he became far more of a unifying figure in death than in life. As a man, he weighed into the debates of his time with reticence. As a symbol, countless mourners and future generations could connect their concerns to his character and deeds.

Conclusion

On December 7 1799, Morris wrote to his old friend at Mount Vernon, asking him to return to the presidency and restore unity to the increasingly fractious country. But by the time the letter arrived, Washington had already passed. [21] Americans today may find themselves similarly wishing for the return of a uniting figure. The ceaseless appeals to his legacy that sprung up in the wake of his death have not yet abated, more than 200 years later. Morris’ quote has proved enduring not just as Washington’s description of what the Constitution meant at the time, but what Washington’s legacy, debated over and variously laid claim to, has meant to Americans for more than 200 years. Washington’s legacy is a standard raised to all his heirs. The future of this nation remains in the hand of God.

[1] Gouverneur Morris, An Oration, upon the Death of General Washington (New York: John Furman, 1800), 8.

[2] Gouverneur Morris, An Oration, upon the Death of General Washington, 13.

[3] Gouverneur Morris, An Oration, upon the Death of General Washington, 22.

[4] Gouverneur Morris, An Oration, upon the Death of General Washington, 25.

[5] William Howard Adams, Gouverneur Morris: An Independent Life (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003), 11.

[6] Theresa DeCicco, “Gouverneur Morris: The Forgotten Founding Father,” Fraunces Tavern Museum, accessed May 2, 2026.

[7] Theresa DeCicco, “Gouverneur Morris: The Forgotten Founding Father.” 

[8] Theresa DeCicco, “Gouverneur Morris: The Forgotten Founding Father.” 

[9] Theresa DeCicco, “Gouverneur Morris: The Forgotten Founding Father.” 

[10] Philipp Ziesche, “Exporting American Revolutions: Gouverneur Morris, Thomas Jefferson, and the National Struggle for Universal Rights in Revolutionary France,” Journal of the Early Republic 26, no. 3 (2006): 428.

[11] Philipp Ziesche, “Exporting American Revolutions: Gouverneur Morris, Thomas Jefferson, and the National Struggle for Universal Rights in Revolutionary France,” 430.

[12] Max M. Mintz, “Gouverneur Morris, George Washington’s War Hawk,” Virginia Quarterly Review 79, no. 4 (2003): 569.

[13] Philipp Ziesche, “Exporting American Revolutions: Gouverneur Morris, Thomas Jefferson, and the National Struggle for Universal Rights in Revolutionary France,” 437.

[14] William Howard Adams, Gouverneur Morris: An Independent Life, 269.

[15] Gerald E. Kahler, The Long Farewell: Americans Mourn the Death of George Washington (Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2008), 11-13.

[16] Richard Brookhiser, “The Forgotten Founding Father,” City Journal, April 1, 2002. 

[17] Jennifer Nedelsky, Private Property and the Limits of American Constitutionalism (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990), 69.

[18] Henry Cabot Lodge, George Washington, vol. 2 (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin and Company, 1889), 32.

[19] Gerald E. Kahler, The Long Farewell: Americans Mourn the Death of George Washington, 19.

[20] Gerald E. Kahler, The Long Farewell: Americans Mourn the Death of George Washington, 17.

[21] William Howard Adams, Gouverneur Morris: An Independent Life, 269

http://Cast Down Your Bucket.mov

“There is no escape through law of man or God from the inevitable: The laws of changeless justice bind Oppressor with oppressed; And close as sin and suffering joined We march to fate abreast.”[1]

Booker T. Washington delivers the “Atlanta Compromise” speech to the 1895 Atlanta Cotton States and International Exposition (Library of Congress)

This line was read by Booker T. Washington in his famous 1895 speech, “Cast Down Your Bucket,” recognized today as the “Atlanta Compromise.”[2] The speech earned Washington renown as one of the most prominent (Black) spokesmen of the Black race in the late 19^th and early 20^th centuries. Recognizing his precarious position as a Black orator before a majority-white crowd, Washington used his platform to advocate for economic cooperation between the races, without which neither group could attain its fullest social or political potential. His speech, an embodiment of his situatedness as both a devout (Black) Southerner and civil rights leader, opened up the possibility for racial reconciliation in the South at a time when it had seemed otherwise impossible.

The “Cast Down Your Bucket” speech was delivered on September 18^th, 1895, at the Cotton States and International Exposition in Atlanta, Georgia.

“Cotton States Exposition, Atlanta, Georgia; looking north from Georgia Building” (Library of Congress)

The typed, seven-page speech aimed to “cement the friendship of the races” by responding to Southern anxieties about the ‘Negro Problem.’[3] Washington introduced his speech by declaring that “[n]o enterprise seeking the material, civil, or moral welfare of this section can disregard [Black Americans] in our population and reach the highest success.”[4] He believed that the cooperation of the races would be mutually beneficial, and even stressed that the continued oppression and condition of the Black population would prevent American society from progressing.[5] Rather than holding whites accountable for their role as the “Oppressor,” Washington graciously thanked his white audience at the Exposition, for “in no way ha[d] the value and manhood of the American Negro been more fittingly and generously recognized than by the managers of this magnificent Exposition.”[6]

Far from accusatory, Booker T. Washington highlighted the sacrifices and responsibilities of Black Americans that were necessary to achieve racial collaboration. He explained to his audience that naïve Black Americans needed to redirect their energies from political equality to racial self-improvement and vocational competency; civic rights would be inevitably awarded to them once they demonstrated that they were qualified to exercise them. Emphasizing the loyalty of Southern Black people, “the most patient, faithful, law-abiding, and unresentful people,” to the white South, Washington urged white audience members to take a chance on Black Americans and invest in their labor.[7] However, he reassured them that he had no desire for social inequality, and that “[i]n all things that are purely social [Black and white people] can be as separate as the fingers, yet one as the hand in all things essential to mutual progress.”[8]

Context

“Booker T. Washington, about the time he attended Hampton Institute” (U.S. National Park Service)

Booker Taliaferro Washington was born into slavery in 1856 in West Virginia. With the help of several white individuals, he provided himself with an education starting at a young age. In the years following the 1863 Emancipation Proclamation, Black universities and educational institutions began to emerge, including the Hampton Institute. In 1872, at the age of sixteen, Washington traveled, mostly by foot, from his home in West Virginia to Virginia to attend the university. Understanding the importance of vocational education for Black Americans, Washington founded the Tuskegee Institute in Alabama in 1881.[9] He lived in Tuskegee, Alabama, until his death in 1915.

The period following the end of the Civil War in 1865 and extending through the early decades of the 20^th century is often referred to as the ‘nadir of American race relations.’ The Black Codes passed in the South, race riots, and the rise of white supremacist groups like the KKK had already established an atmosphere rife with racial violence and fear in the South. While the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868 and the Fifteenth Amendment in 1870 signified a new era of political freedom for Black Americans, it actually exacerbated the violence Black Americans faced, especially for Black Southerners.

Students at the Tuskegee Institute (U.S. National Park Service)

Booker T. Washington made his debut as an orator in 1884 at the National Education Association in Wisconsin. Just like in his 1895 speech, he spoke to a majority-white audience of four thousand about the need for the white and Black races to “develop friendly relations.”[10] Washington’s platform of economic equality, rather than political equality, was a radical break from the activism of Black civil rights contemporaries, most notably, Frederick Douglass. Consequently, white audiences found him charismatic and his platform agreeable, earning him, at the Cotton States and International Exposition, the endearing title of “representative of Negro enterprise and Negro civilization.”[11]

“Robert C. Ogden, U.S. Secretary of War William Howard Taft, Booker T. Washington and Andrew Carnegie, standing on the steps of a building, at the Tuskegee Institute’s 25th anniversary celebration” (Library of Congress)

A renowned businessman and orator, Booker T. Washington was also friends with affluent, multi-millionaire philanthropists like Andrew Carnegie, who helped Washington establish the National Negro Business League in 1900.[12] Although Washington had connections to big names, he, too, was a sought-after ally. Before the Cotton States International Exposition, Washington was called upon by affluent Atlantans to deliver a speech on “the progress African Americans were making since the abolition of enslavement” to members of Congress, to help fundraise for the Exposition.[13]

Subtext

The most memorable parts of Washington’s speech are when he called upon Black and white people alike to “Cast down your bucket where you are.”[14] While his message to both races was the same, the implications were radically different. Speaking to “those of my race who depend on bettering their condition in a foreign land or who underestimate the importance of cultivating friendly relations with the Southern white man,” Washington urged Black Americans to stay in the South.[15]

“Departure of colored emigrants for Liberia” in 1896 (The New York Public Library Digital Collections)

The fear of racial violence and the desire to escape their old lives caused many formerly enslaved African Americans to migrate to the North, and even led some to participate in colonization and settle in Liberia. Nonetheless, Booker T. Washington challenged Black Southerners to stay where they were; in order to develop racial cooperation, Black Americans needed to humble themselves—rid themselves of their prejudices and suspicions—for the better good of cultivating relationships with the “Southern white man.” On the other hand, he encouraged white people, once Black Americans had fulfilled their (humiliating) responsibility of ‘casting down their bucket,’ to graciously receive Black people and purchase their labor (by ‘casting down their buckets’). Consequently, what Washington proposed to the Exposition was a paternalistic relationship between white and Black Southerners; these unequal power dynamics are further exemplified when Washington promises that “we shall stand by you… ready to lay down our lives, if need be, in defense of yours.” [16] To many critics, it seemed that Washington was willing to compromise the dignity of the race and sacrifice the hard work of political activists for a small taste of economic prosperity—granted, of course, that Southern whites actually ‘cast down their buckets’ too.

The speech was further lambasted for its purposefully ambiguous and passive references to the racial oppression and violence faced by Black Americans. The address went so far as to criticize Black individuals for exhibiting resentment towards whites: Washington argued that another barrier to racial collaboration was the fact that Black people “permit our grievances to overshadow our opportunities.”[17] He declined to clarify what these grievances and opportunities were. In the same evasive manner, Washington concluded his speech by praying that some higher power would arrive and remove “sectional differences and racial animosities and suspicions [to] bring into our beloved South a new heaven and a new earth.”[18]

Booker T. Washington’s speech antagonized, and to this day, still antagonizes, Black Americans and civil rights advocates who recognize that political equality is a democratic and human right. After all, Washington “encouraged African Americans to work hard and not complain[,] said blacks were ‘unresentful’ without mentioning anything they should resent[,] [and] prayed for willing obedience to the mandates of the law at a time when Jim Crow was expanding, and state legislatures were rewriting laws to the disadvantage of the African American.”[19] However, it is critical to acknowledge that he was writing to a Southern white audience: his goal was not to antagonize the audience, but to persuade them to consider his proposition of racial allyship. Also, since he helped fundraise for the Exposition, Washington had a personal investment in the success of the Exposition; it was in his best interest to not upset the crowd, the event’s organizers, Congress, or any white reader who would later read his speech in the paper.[20]

In addition, his vulnerable position, as a Black man surrounded by white men, was a safety concern. Washington’s audience at the Exposition was described by his daughter, Portia, as a “white mob of red-necks [that was] waiting to set upon my Pa if he had said but one word against the South.”[21] Many historians make the unfair comparison between Booker T. Washington and Frederick Douglass, which often results in the (mis)characterization of Washington as anti-political equality and an assimilationist—a traitor of the Black race. Washington, himself, wrote that he “believe[d] in universal, free suffrage,” and that he did not “believe that the Negro should cease voting.”[22] It is often forgotten that, between Douglass and Washington, “one man stayed and fought most of his life in the North, and the other stayed and fought most of his life in the South.”[23] Like Douglass, Washington, too, advocated for Black enfranchisement. However, he  recognized the “peculiar conditions” of the South that precluded him from doing so in public and uncensored ways.”[24]

Conclusion

A loyal Southerner, through and through, Washington knew how to speak to Southerners. His speech was effective at priming the South for the possibility of racial reconciliation because he knew how to strategically leverage assimilationist, racist, and deprecating language to make a case for racial cooperation. To Southern whites, he advocated for Black self-determination, crafting an argument that would appeal to their racial superiority and entrepreneurial desire for profit. Booker T. Washington’s accomplishment is best encapsulated by the statement provided by the editor of the Atlanta Constitution, who complimented the speech as “one of the most notable speeches, both as to character and as to the warmth of its reception, ever delivered to a Southern audience. The address was a revelation. The whole speech is a platform upon which blacks and whites can stand with full justice to each other.”[25]

Footnotes

[1] Booker T. Washington, “Chapter XIV: The Atlanta Exposition Address,” in Up From Slavery: An Autobiography (Project Gutenberg, 2000), [WEB] (accessed May 4, 2026).

[2] Mark Christian, Booker T. Washington: A Life in American History (ABC-CLIO, 2021), 69, [EBSCOhost] (accessed May 4, 2026).

[3] Booker T. Washington, “Atlanta Exposition Speech,” September 18, 1895, speech, from Library of Congress, 1895, [WEB] (accessed May 4, 2026); Washington, Up From Slavery, chap. 14.

[4] Washington, Up From Slavery, chap. 14.

[5] Washington, Up From Slavery, chap. 14.

[6] Washington, Up From Slavery, chap. 14.

[7] Washington, Up From Slavery, chap. 14.

[8] Washington, Up From Slavery, chap. 14.

[9] Russell Brooker, The American Civil Rights Movement 1865-1950: Black Agency and People of Good Will (Lexington Books, 2017), 92, [EBSCOhost].

[10] Christian, Booker T. Washington, 66.

[11] Washington, Up From Slavery, chap. 14.

[12] Brooker, The American Civil Rights Movement 1865-1950, 114.

[13] Christian, Booker T. Washington, 67.

[14] Washington, Up From Slavery, chap. 14.

[15] Washington, Up From Slavery, chap. 14.

[16] Washington, Up From Slavery, chap. 14.

[17] Washington, Up From Slavery, chap. 14.

[18] Washington, Up From Slavery, chap. 14.

[19] Brooker, The American Civil Rights Movement 1865-1950, 96.

[20] Christian, Booker T. Washington, 68.

[21] Christian, Booker T. Washington, 69.

[22] Washington, Up From Slavery, chap. 14.

[23] Christian, Booker T. Washington, 73-74.

[24] Washington, Up From Slavery, chap. 14.

[25] Washington, Up From Slavery, chap. 14.

https://www.wevideo.com/embed/#2492269573

by Huy Trinh

African American troops at Lincoln’s second inauguration (Wikipedia)

On March 4, 1865, a crowd the size of thirty-five to forty thousand people assembled in front of the East Portico of the Capitol, anxiously waiting for the beginning of Abraham Lincoln’s second term as the President of the United States. [1] The downpour earlier that morning did not stop the mass gathering in the capital, where for the first time ever a large number of “colored people” congregated at a presidential inauguration, noted a correspondent for the Times of London. [2] The correspondent was referring to the presence of African Americans, most of whom were likely former slaves, at the ceremony. They, among others in the crowd, came to the inauguration with high hopes for the future. The war was technically not over, but the Union was poised for victory as Ulysses S. Grant’s army tightened its grip on the Confederate capital of Richmond [3]. Many expected a grandeur declaration of victory from the president, who had proven himself an extraordinary leader in a turbulent chapter of the nation’s history. Others might have wanted to hear him demonizing the insurgents for perpetuating slavery and triggering the conflict in the first place. By the time the president finished his speech, however, those who came with such expectations must have been sorely disappointed.

Lincoln’s second inaugural address contains only over 700 words, making it one of the shortest inaugural speeches. [4] Yet it is considered by many historians, and even by Lincoln himself in his letter to Thurlow Weed, as his finest work. [5] One could not help but wonder how a seven-minute speech achieved such acclaim, especially when placed next to the more well-known Gettysburg Address, the lengthier First Inaugural Address, or the prophetic House Divided Speech?

Lincoln delivering his second inaugural address (Wikipedia)

For starters, the second inaugural address affirms slavery as the central issue over which the Civil War was fought:

One eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the Southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was, somehow, the cause of the war. [6]

The affirmation reflects a major shift in Lincoln’s view of the conflict throughout his presidency. Standing on the same stage four years earlier, the new president emphasized his duty to preserve the Union, at a time when seven Southern states had already unilaterally parted ways with the federal government. He made a plea for peace and unity by assuring the South that he had no intention nor capacity whatsoever to interfere with the existing slavery institutions of those states. [7] To Lincoln, a more practical and achievable goal was likely to prevent the expansion of slavery into new territories in the West, which explained his decision to return to politics after the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act in 1854.

As the war progressed, the roar for emancipation grew louder from radical abolitionists, and yet it appeared that Lincoln’s attention was affixed to saving the Union. When Horace Greeley lamented the president’s apparent lack of commitment to the emancipation of enslaved blacks, Lincoln offered a swift and assertive response in which he called saving the Union his “paramount object”:

My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to 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. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. [8]

Emancipation Day in South Carolina, January 1, 1863 courtesy of the House Divided Project

It is important to acknowledge that at the time of Lincoln’s exchange with Greeley, the president had already drafted the Emancipation Proclamation and was advised by William Seward to wait for a Union victory for a public announcement. At this point, however, Lincoln still contemplated the issues of race, slavery, and emancipation within the political and social context of the war, and not for the moral implications of the institution. A year earlier, he rescinded a proclamation issued by John C. Frémont – which freed the slaves in Missouri – out of fear that it would upset the neutrality of the border states. [9] When Lincoln officially issued his own proclamation on September 22, 1862, one might have viewed it as a political maneuver aimed to cripple the slave-dependent economy of the South while augmenting the strength of the Union forces by recruiting black soldiers. [10] Here, it seems that Lincoln saw emancipation as a means to achieve the ultimate purpose of preserving the Union, but not as the end of the war itself.

But there were also signs indicating that the Union commander-in-chief had wrestled with slavery as the core issue of the bloody war. Just a week before publishing his reply to Greeley, on August 14, 1862, he met with a group of prominent black men in the White House and suggested that free blacks should leave for another country, hinting that the president believed the departure of blacks from America would cause the fight to cease to exist. [11] And in his second inauguration, Lincoln finally defined the conflict as a war to abolish slavery, ensuring that the triumph of the Union means the collapse of this deplorable institution in the United States. To African Americans, this affirmation is a promise of racial equality and justice that they were denied for two hundred and fifty years on this continent – a promise made by the president and would be fulfilled by the president himself in his second term.

The second significance of the address lies in the inclusive tone of the words. Historian Ronald C. White notes that Lincoln was the first president that wins a second term since Andrew Jackson. Generally, a reelected president tends to open their inaugural remark with a statement of personal appreciation for the citizens who had entrusted the responsibility of leading the nation to them., the way Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, and Andrew Jackson did. [12] By contrast, Lincoln in his 1865 address only used personal pronouns twice throughout the whole address. Instead, he employed extensively what White called “inclusive language”, with words like “both” and “all” appearing repeatedly [13]. Contrary to the hope of many spectators, Lincoln neither vented his anger toward the South nor professed any self-congratulations. The president again continued his inclusive language in the fourth paragraph:

Both read the same Bible, and pray to the same God; and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God’s assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men’s faces; but let us judge not that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered; that of neither has been answered fully. [14]

Lincoln reminded his aroused audience of the common ties between the North and the South, that the soldiers and the people of each side “read the same Bible” and “pray to the same God”. While Lincoln pointed out the irony in the way Southern people appealed to God as they simultaneously oppressed blacks, he immediately asserted in the following sentence: “…but let us judge not that we be not judged.” Here, the president cautioned his listeners against human’s tendency to judge and retribute, and instead encouraged a sense of understanding, empathy, and forgiveness from fellow Northerners [15]. He urged for his people, to recognize “American slavery” as an offence of a whole nation rather than letting the South bear the sole burden of wrongdoings, proclaiming that it was the will of God for the catastrophic war to break out, for it will cleanse the nation of the evils of slavery no matter how long it shall take.

Inscription of the Second Inaugural Address at the Lincoln Memorial

In 700 words, there were no self-appraisals, no celebrating the military successes of the North, nor was there any chastisement of the South for tolerating and perpetuating the brutal subjugation of millions of blacks. Now a hardened politician after four tumultuous years in the capital, Lincoln understood that for “a new birth of freedom” to materialize, all hostilities must abate once the dust settles. The war was fought to resolve the hostilities and release the bitterness between two sides, and thus if hostilities and bitterness still persist after armed conflicts cease, “the war would have been in vain”. [16] Toward the end, all Lincoln tried to do was to extend an olive branch, offering the enemy his willingness to forgive and to enter a new era as a united nation of a united people:

With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation’s wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan—to do all which may achieve and cherish a just, and a lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations. [17]

Lincoln meant every word he had said on that day. Months before he took the podium on March 4, 1865, the president had expressed his inclination for a conciliatory reconstruction. Two days after winning the election, he told a group of serenaders at the White House that he “[has] not willingly planted a thorn in any man’s bosom”, indicating his wish for a smooth and amicable restoration of the Confederate states into the Union. [18] Exactly a month after his speech, Lincoln visited the Confederate capital of Richmond, Virginia, where thousands of frightened citizens inhabited after Robert E. Lee’s army fled the city. When asked by General Weitzel for advice on dealing with the locals, the president simply said, “I’d let ‘em up easy.” [19]

April 9, 1865, Lee and his army surrendered to Grant at Appomattox Court House, Virginia. With permission from Lincoln, the Commanding General of the Army extended his former foes a generous peace, allowing Lee’s soldiers to return home [20]. In addition, Grant provided rations for the ravaged Confederate army, and he ordered for all celebrations to come to a full stop, declaring that they were now countrymen again. [21] Grant’s acts were reflective of the president’s desire for reconciliation, and the defeated Lee felt nothing but gratitude for the goodwill he was offered.

Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C. (Wikipedia)

Now inscribed on the wall of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C., the inauguration address of 1865 now holds a special place in American history. For renowned Lincoln scholar Ronald C. White, Lincoln’s words from more than 150 years still resonate today, and even more so in a polarized political climate. [22] The speech exemplifies the best of Abraham Lincoln – compassionate, insightful, and humble – just as how Abraham Lincoln “represents the best values of what it means to be an American” – to have the ability to understand and respect others’ opinions and engage in civilized, meaningful conversations. It is important then, for future American generations, to study Lincoln and understand the legacy he left behind, for there is no men of more consequence than he was.

[1] Ronald C. White, Jr., The Eloquent President: A Portrait of Lincoln Through His Words (New York: Random House Trade Paperbacks, 2006), 326.

[2] Ronald C. White, Jr., A. Lincoln: A Bibliography (Random House Trade Paperbacks, 2009), 801.

[3] Ronald C. White, Jr., A. Lincoln: A Bibliography (Random House Trade Paperbacks, 2009), 799.

[4] Jack E. Levin, Malice Toward None: Abraham Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address (New York: Threshold Editions, 2014), 11.

[5] Ronald C. White, Jr., The Eloquent President: A Portrait of Lincoln Through His Words (New York: Random House Trade Paperbacks, 2006), 352.

[6] “Second Inaugural (1865)”, Knowledge for Freedom Seminar, Accessed December 13, 2021. https://housedivided.dickinson.edu/sites/teagle/texts/second-inaugural-1865/

[7] Louis P. Masur, The Civil War (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 23.

[8] “Letter to Horace Greeley (August 22, 1862)”, Lincoln’s Writings: The Multimedia Edition, Accessed December 13, 2021. https://blogs.dickinson.edu/hist-288pinsker/2015/04/28/lincolns-proclamation-of-thanksgiving-october-3-1863/

[9] Masur, 28.

[10] Masur, 56.

[11] Nikole Hannah-Jones, “The Idea of America” from The 1619 Project (New York, NY: The New York Times Magazine, 2019). [WEB]

[12] Ronald C. White, Jr., The Eloquent President: A Portrait of Lincoln Through His Words (New York: Random House Trade Paperbacks, 2006), 333-335.

[13] Lincoln’s Greatest Speech: The Second Inaugural Address. Films On Demand. 2015. Accessed December 12, 2021. https://fod.infobase.com/PortalPlaylists.aspx?wID=104013&xtid=168685.

[14] “Second Inaugural (1865)”, Knowledge for Freedom Seminar, Accessed December 13, 2021. https://housedivided.dickinson.edu/sites/teagle/texts/second-inaugural-1865/

[15] Lincoln’s Greatest Speech: The Second Inaugural Address. Films On Demand. 2015. Accessed December 12, 2021. https://fod.infobase.com/PortalPlaylists.aspx?wID=104013&xtid=168685.

[16] Ronald C. White, Jr., A. Lincoln: A Bibliography (Random House Trade Paperbacks, 2009), 808.

[17] “Second Inaugural (1865)”, Knowledge for Freedom Seminar, Accessed December 13, 2021. https://housedivided.dickinson.edu/sites/teagle/texts/second-inaugural-1865/

[18] Ronald C. White, Jr., A. Lincoln: A Bibliography (Random House Trade Paperbacks, 2009), 787.

[19] Ronald C. White, Jr., A. Lincoln: A Bibliography (Random House Trade Paperbacks, 2009), 812.

[20] Ronald C. White, Jr., A. Lincoln: A Bibliography (Random House Trade Paperbacks, 2009), 813.

[21] Masur, 79.

[22] Lincoln’s Greatest Speech: The Second Inaugural Address. Films On Demand. 2015. Accessed December 12, 2021. https://fod.infobase.com/PortalPlaylists.aspx?wID=104013&xtid=168685.

Since the very beginning of the United States of America there was an incredibly divisive issue at the heart of the nation. A nation built upon the ideals of equality and freedom was also built using the institution of slavery, an institution exemplifying the traits of cruelty, subservience, and captivity.

American Civil War (Wikipedia)

Throughout the first half of the 19^th century, the tension between the two regions of the United States grew until it could no longer be contained on April 12, 1861, when confederate forces fired upon Fort Sumter.[1] Through the first 2 years of the war, Lincoln refused to make the war effort about the emancipation of slaves. While some cases of contraband act and confiscation helped free some slaves, there was no sweeping legislation to free most of the slaves in the nation.[2] However, after the Battle of Antietam the President put forth the Emancipation Proclamation which freed all the slaves within the confederate states.[3] Once it was clear the war is being fought for the freedom of African Americans across the union Frederick Douglas steps in front of a crowd at Rochester NY on March 2, 1863. While this speech appeared to be hopeful and inspirational to rally support behind the northern cause, Frederick Douglas truly feared that a war won without the help of the African American race would invalidate a large portion of the work done to develop the equality of races.

Frederick Douglas (The Guardian)

Frederick Douglas, a former slave who turned into an incredibly influential abolitionist, gave an essential speech to win over the hearts of a powerful fighting force. Throughout the speech he developed his argument with a historical base. In the very beginning of the speech, he emphasized how and when the war between regions was started. Frederick Douglas highlighted the firing on Fort Sumter. Within that first paragraph Douglas claimed that he predicted that the final cause of the war would be to end the institution of slavery saying that “I predicted that the war then and there inaugurated would not be fought out entirely by white men”.[4] He then moved on to the politics of Emancipation and his pressure to manufacture a new cause for the war. Within the speech Frederick Douglas claimed that “I have implored the imperiled nation to unchain against her foes, her powerful black hand”. [5] In this excerpt he is demonstrating his support for a cause of war to be built out of equality for all men no matter the race so that the African populous in America may fight upon the unions side. Then the speech shifted towards a call to action. Douglas changed his tone to compel people into action and fight for their basic rights to be protected. He does this by shaming the “weak and cowardly men” while spotlighting the ideas of the “brave men” fighting with the union forces.[6] Douglas wrapped up the speech by imploring the listeners to think about not only themselves but other slaves, their children, and their future within the United States of America. Through these ties Douglas created the nature of the speech to be one of a call to action. Frederick Douglas, a powerful orator successfully conjures up the feelings of hope

First Reading of the Emancipation Proclamation of President Lincoln (Wikipedia)

and necessity which madee this speech one of an inspirational message with an incredibly powerful effect on the African American contingent in Union at that time. Douglas uses a multitude of powerful words such as “imperiled nation”, “unchain”, and “great struggle” to stir up the emotions and create support for the northern cause showcasing the true nature of the speech.[7]

Frederick Douglas, one of the most famous orators and former slaves of all time, was not always destined for greatness. He was born on the eastern shore of Maryland in 1818 as a slave.[8] He never knew either of his parents. At 8 years old he was loaned out to a client in Baltimore. Although he was not allowed to attend school in Baltimore, Douglas first began to learn to read and write on the streets of Baltimore.[9] He read a multitude of sources however the most prominent piece of literature that influenced his actions was a book called “The Columbian Orator”.[10] This book was filled with passionate speeches and scintillating debates. When he arrived back to the eastern shore of Maryland, Douglas rebelled and educated the other slaves on the plantation to such a degree that he was sent back to Baltimore.[11] On his return trip to Baltimore, he met Anna Murray, a young free African American woman, who facilitated his escape to freedom by buying him a train ticket.[12] Once free, Frederick Douglas became the man

Frederick Douglass, from the 1855 (Wikipedia)

that he is known for today. He gained fame as a powerful orator pushing for the abolition of slavery and eventually developed his own newspaper, “The North Star”.[13] When the Civil War broke out, he repeatedly pushed Abraham Lincoln to change the true nature of the war from one of national unity to a war fought over the abolition of slavery. Douglas helped galvanize the support of the black populous to support the Union war effort and ultimately led to the defeat of the Confederate states. Throughout Frederick Douglas’s youth he felt the hardships of being a slave. This experience made him determined to put an end to the awful institution by any means possible. For the rest of his life, he was committed to establishing a better future for his children and wife. Douglas died in 1895 at the age of 77 due to a heart attack.[14]

When the Civil War started in 1861, the north was extremely confident in the fact that it would be a quick and decisive war. However, within the first two major battles of the war that idea would soon prove to be a fantasy. In the battles of Bull Run and Wilson Creek in 1861, the union forces were soundly defeated which signaled that the war would drag on for many years.[15] While the Union forces had greater men and manufacturing fueling them, they had to capture and occupy land whereas the Confederate forces simply had to defend. This difference in military objectives led to an increasing number of defeats for the Union army. A

“The Capture of Rickett’s Battery” by Sidney King, 1964. (Wikipedia)

lack of major victories in the eastern theater was quelling the excitement of war and damaging the northern morale. By September 1862, the Confederate states seemed to be winning the war so far. Frederick Douglas alluded to this by pointing out that the effort to incorporate the black citizens of the Union should have started sooner.

Lincoln was extremely clear in the intentions of the war at the outbreak of the Civil War: to maintain the Union. The balance of states that held up the Union position was too vital to potentially sever. However, as the time slowly dragged on, the importance of emancipation grew increasingly distinct due to a lack of major military victories for the northern states. Within the speech, Douglas alluded to all the times he petitioned the President to change the focus of the war from one of unity to one of equality. However, Lincoln was firm in his judgement to wait a while longer which can be seen in Lincoln’s response to Horace Greeley, an abolitionist and editor of the New York Tribune and colleague to Douglas, in August of 1862 where he states, “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy Slavery”.[16] Even with this façade to the American public, Congress and Lincoln had already begun to slowly chip away at slavery. Beginning with the Contraband act and Confiscation acts in 1861, the northern armies began to become a haven for blacks escaping the southern war effort.[17] While these acts were justified because they hurt the southern war effort, they also began the slow adjustments necessary for emancipation.

A staggering war effort and a lack of decisive policy measures made the President a relatively unpopular man in Washington D.C. However, these two issues would be combined and solved through the same action: The Battle of Antietam. The Battle of Antietam would culminate to be the

Emancipation Proclamation (Wikipedia)

bloodiest day in American history in which 23,000 men were killed or wounded on the battlefield.[18] It ended the Confederate armies first foray into union territory and was one of the first major victories for the northern states along the eastern seaboard. President Lincoln saw this as the most apt time to release a draft he had been working on for months: the Emancipation Proclamation. This revolutionary action was an executive order set to free the slaves within the southern states. The abolitionists were overjoyed by the news of a first great step towards the ending of the fight they have dedicated their lived towards. Frederick Douglas commented on the proclamation in a speech in October of 1862, “But read the proclamation for it is the most important of any to which the President of the United States has ever signed his name”.[19] Now less than 3 months after the Emancipation Proclamation, Douglas was once again urging people to join the war and support the northern cause with the greatest possible sacrifice a man can make.

In the speech “Men of Color to Arms” Douglas portrayed the tone of an inspirational speaker. He created feelings of hope and courage to encourage people to fight for a cause bigger than themselves. However, when you consider the context and message of the speech, you will find that Douglas is also speaking out of fear. This is not a fear of the southern state’s military or political power. It is a fear born out of the attitudes of the northern populous, congressmen, and Union soldiers. Douglas feared that a war won without the help of the African American race would invalidate a large portion

United States Colored Troops (WIkipedia)

of the work done to develop the equality of races. This fear from Douglas is not irrational. In February of 1864, black soldiers stationed in Zanesville, Ohio were tormented by racial slurs and attacked.[20] Racist opinions permeated throughout the entire nation, north or south. The lack of an established black regiment throughout the army would only have developed the ideas of the American population of 1860s that equality was unrealistic as blacks would always be less than whites. Even union soldiers fighting on the front lines held these same sentiments. For example, John Cuddy, a private in the Union army, wrote home to his parents claiming, “Dear friends this ware is an auffel thing fighting for ngroes now is a bad thing”.[21] This demonstrates the direct disconnect between the grand visions of the abolitionists and the common person. Political power in the north was also a major obstacle which could only be overcome by demonstrating that the blacks of American had also given all they could to defeat a common enemy. The Northern Democrats were an obstacle which could have easily endangered the building of equality between races. Horacio Seymour, a northern democrat commented on the Emancipation Proclamation by calling it “unconstitutional”.[22] Only military success would help begin to turn opinions.

Frederick Douglas, a slave, an abolitionist, a father, and an orator, looked to turn the tide in both the efforts of the Civil War and the war against the racist outlooks. He aimed to complete both tasks with the speech in Rochester, NY named “Men of Color to Arms”. Within this speech he projected a confident and inspirational tone while also looking to prevent the invalidation of the

4th United States Colored Infantry Regiment (Wikipedia)

abolitionists work in the future. With the help of influential speakers like Frederick Douglas, enrollment by African Americans swelled to nearly 200,000 in all the armed forces. These armed forces served with distinction quelling any concerns about their ability on the battlefield.[23] Sixteen black soldiers were awarded the medal of honor and helped tear down the wall of racial prejudice.[24] While the fight to end the war against racial discrimination continues today, the fight may have not been started had it not been for people like Frederick Douglas and speeches like “Colored Men to Arms”.

[1] “Civil War Timeline,” National Park Service, last modified March 5, 2021, https://www.nps.gov/gett/learn/historyculture/civil-war-timeline.htm

[2] Louis Masur, The Civil War (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011), 39.

[3] “Civil War Timeline”

[4] “FREDERICK DOUGLASS, MEN OF COLOR, TO ARMS (1863),” House Divided Project at Dickinson College, last modified n.d.,

https://housedivided.dickinson.edu/sites/teagle/texts/frederick-douglass-men-of-color-to-arms-1863/

[5] “FREDERICK DOUGLASS, MEN OF COLOR, TO ARMS (1863),”

[6] “FREDERICK DOUGLASS, MEN OF COLOR, TO ARMS (1863),”

[7] “FREDERICK DOUGLASS, MEN OF COLOR, TO ARMS (1863),”

[8] “Frederick Douglass,” National Park Service, last modified July 24, 2021, https://www.nps.gov/frdo/learn/historyculture/frederickdouglass.htm

[9] “Frederick Douglass”

[10] “Frederick Douglass”

[11] “Frederick Douglass”

[12] “Frederick Douglass”

[13] “Frederick Douglass”

[14] “Frederick Douglass”

[15] “Civil War Timeline”

[16] Howard Zinn, A People’s History of the United States: 1492 – Present. (New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2003), 190.

[17] Zinn, People’s History of the United States, 190.

[18] “Antietam: A Savage Day In American History,” npr, last modified September 17, 2012, https://www.npr.org/2012/09/17/161248814/antietam-a-savage-day-in-american-history

[19] “Frederick Douglass Project Writings: Emancipation Proclaimed,” University of Rochester, last modified n.d., https://rbscp.lib.rochester.edu/4406

[20] Zinn, People’s History of the United States,  195.

[21] “John T. Cuddy to John H. Cuddy, January 16, 1863,” House Divided: The Civil War Research Engine at Dickinson College, https://hd.housedivided.dickinson.edu/node/32755.

[22] Masur, The Civil War, 43.

[23] “Black Soldiers in the U.S. Military During the Civil War,” National Archives, last modified September 1, 2017, https://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/blacks-civil-war

[24] “Black Soldiers in the U.S. Military During the Civil War”

John T. Cuddy Letter: July 7, 1861

John T. Cuddy Letter, January 16. 1863

John T. Cuddy Letter to John H. Cuddy from July 7, 1863 (housedivided.dickinson.edu)

From “having more fun than ever”[1] as a Union soldier in 1861 to wishing “that this ware was over”[2] in 1863, John Taylor Cuddy was a Union Army soldier who documented his experiences throughout most of the Civil War. He was born in Carlisle, Pennsylvania. During the war period, he experienced events such as Antietam and the Second Battle of Bull Run.[3] As he experienced the trials and tribulations as a Union soldier, he began writing back to his family in letters that are preserved in the Dickinson College Archives. Two of his letters to his father illustrated the different feelings among soldiers over the purpose of the war and its politics as it evolved from 1861 to 1863.

Cuddy’s letter to his father on July 7, 1861, marked one of his earliest correspondences to his family after recently being deployed into the Union Army. He described in his letter his optimism of a speedy end to the conflict. “I hope to get our discharge in three months” [4] is what Cuddy described to his parents in his optimistic letter from 1861. He even elaborated on how life in the Army was fun and exciting while he was stationed at Camp Wayne in West Chester, Pennsylvania.[5] In addition to his social life being described as exquisite in his letters, he also mentioned how all 1600 of the men in his camp had abundant food and clothing. This letter demonstrates a stark contrast to his letters from later in the war.

The language in Cuddy’s 1861 letter to his father connects to the historical context of the early war period. Like many other Americans, Cuddy at the time believed that the war would lead to a hasty conclusion and decisive victory for the United States. As we know during the battle of Manassas, citizens followed the Union Army to Centerville, Virginia to watch what they believed to be the quick end to the conflict.[6] The United States had a clear set of advantages over the Confederacy at the time of the outbreak of the war. Textile mills, iron works, transit networks, railroads, and food production were all resources that the United States had abundantly more of than the Confederate states.[7] Cuddy shared his optimism with his family when he shared his prediction of events that he believed would occur. He truly felt like much of the public. He thought that the Civil War would have been a simple, clear, and decisive victory for the Union. Unfortunately for Cuddy, his perception of a quick end to the war proved to be vastly incorrect.

Political cartoon depicting the United States’ blockade on the Confederate states. (wikipedia.org)

Although many Americans were optimistic like Cuddy for a hasty end to the war, many politicians were more cautious on how long they believed the war would last. Abraham Lincoln knew that the Confederacy could eventually fall, but he was not as optimistic as most of the American public in such a hasty conclusions. When thinking of a lack of resources that the Confederates had, Lincoln prepared to demonstrate a form of political power to increase the strain on their economic structures. He believed that through limiting the Confederacy’s availability of resources, most southerners would eventually rebel against the pro-slavery leaders of the Confederacy. [8]  Many Americans (including Lincoln) also believed that the South was simply under the involuntary control of “the slave power conspiracy.”[9] He ultimately initiated a Confederate-wide blockade in 1861. Likewise of Lincoln, Cuddy likley believed in this theory as he clearly thought that the United States would easily “make the South in the Union again.”[10] Unfortunately for Lincoln’s popularity and the optimism of the American public, the war was set to rage on for many more years.

Letter from John T. Cuddy to John H. Cuddy: January 16th, 1863. (archives.dickinson.edu)

Many began to recognize that the war was going to be much worse than they initially thought. John T. Cuddy’s tone in his letter to his father on January 16^th, 1863, demonstrates the shift that occurred in his outlook and opinion of the Civil War between 1861 and 1863. He mentions more than once his desire for an end to the war and that he would never again be a soldier after his service under the Union. He mentioned throughout his letter how he hoped that God would protect him through the war’s end and once again reassured his hopes of an end to the war by the Spring of 1863. He specifically pointed out Abraham Lincoln in his letter as well. He spoke out blaming Lincoln for making the war an issue over slavery and causing it to drag out for so long. Most soldiers for the Union at the time were still contending with the debate over whether Slavery could still exist in a government like the Union after it was reunified.[11] This question that existed was precisely what was going through Cuddy’s head when he learned about Lincoln’s emancipation.

Soldiers like John T. Cuddy were upset with Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation because at the time, factions existed in the Union that dominated Lincoln’s approval. Since Cuddy joined the Union cause early in the war in 1861, he held a viewpoint of most soldiers who believed that they were fighting in the war to preserve the Union more than to abolish slavery.[12] The historical occurrence of the time explains why Cuddy explicitly pointed out that he was upset about Lincoln’s freeing of the slaves. There were conservatives (like Cuddy) who were fighting in the Civil War to preserve the United States and then there were abolitionist who believed that the war was meant to be over slavery. Unfortunately for Abraham Lincoln, he was disliked by both political factions throughout the war. His popularity among anti-slavery Republicans began to slide as he made pro-slavery decisions like when he declared General Freemont’s martial law to begin freeing contraband slaves in the border state of Missouri as null in 1861.[13] Later on, when Lincoln emancipated the slaves in the Confederacy in 1863, he clearly angered conservatives like Cuddy who were very hopeful for an end to a war that they joined to preserve the Union.[14] Imagining how Cuddy must have been feeling at the time, his frustrations over Abraham Lincoln in his letters were clearly justified at the time as he was probably exhausted from the struggles that he and his fellow soldiers were experiencing in 1862 and 1863.

Abraham Lincoln signing the Emancipation Proclamation. January 1, 1863 (clarionledger.com)

When we look at John Cuddy’s letters to his father during his time fighting for the United States during the Civil War, his intentions in his first letter were to reassure his family members that he not only was happy and safe, but that the war would be short and easy for the Union. Contrary to his expectations, Cuddy ended up fighting in a brutal three-year war before dying in a prisoner of war camp in 1864.[15] The documentation of his experiences has helped display the political and emotional struggles that the everyday soldiers in the United States Army experienced during the American Civil War.

[1] John T. Cuddy “John T. Cuddy to John H. Cuddy, July 7, 1861.” John T. Cuddy to John H. Cuddy, July 7, 1861 | House Divided. Housedivided.dickinson.edu, June 9, 2010. https://hd.housedivided.dickinson.edu/node/32759.

[2] John T. Cuddy “John T. Cuddy to John H. Cuddy, January 16, 1863.” John T. Cuddy to John H. Cuddy, January 16, 1863 | House Divided. housedivided.dickinson.edu, June 9, 2010. https://hd.housedivided.dickinson.edu/node/32755.

[3] “Cuddy, John Taylor,” House Divided: The Civil War Research Engine at Dickinson College, https://hd.housedivided.dickinson.edu/node/5511.

[4] John T. Cuddy, “John T. Cuddy to John H. Cuddy, July 7, 1861.” John T. Cuddy to John H. Cuddy, July 7, 1861 | House Divided. Housedivided.dickinson.edu, June 9, 2010. https://hd.housedivided.dickinson.edu/node/32759.

[5] Ibid

[6] Jim Burgess, “Spectators Witness History at Manassas,” American Battlefield Trust (Hallowed Ground Magazine, March 26, 2021), https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/spectators-witness-history-manassas.

[7] Louis P. Masur, “1861,” in The Civil War: A Concise History (Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press, 2011), pp. 21-30, 25.

[9] Varon, Elizabeth R. Armies of Deliverance : a New History of the Civil War  College edition. New York: Oxford University Press, 2021, 4.

[10] John T. Cuddy “John T. Cuddy to John H. Cuddy, July 7, 1861.” John T. Cuddy to John H. Cuddy, July 7, 1861 | House Divided. Housedivided.dickinson.edu, June 9, 2010. https://hd.housedivided.dickinson.edu/node/32759.

[11] Gary W. Gallagher. The Union War. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 2011, 77. https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=e000xna&AN=597465&site=ehost-live&scope=site.

[12] Joseph L. Locke and Ben Wright, “The American Yawp: A Massively Collaborative Open U.S. History Textbook,” in The American Yawp: A Massively Collaborative Open U.S. History Textbook (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2019).

[13] Lorraine A. Williams, “Northern Intellectual Reaction to the Policy of Emancipation.” The Journal of Negro History 46, no. 3 (1961): 174–88. https://doi.org/10.2307/2716047.

[14] Hans L. Trefousse, “Introduction.” In First among Equals: Abraham Lincoln’s Reputation During His Administration, ix–xvi. Fordham University Press, 2005. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt13wzxz7.3.

[15] Archives at Dickinson College, “John T. Cuddy,” John T. Cuddy papers | Dickinson College (Archives & Special Collections at Dickinson College, 2021), https://archives.dickinson.edu/collection-descriptions/john-t-cuddy-papers.

John Cuddy (House Divided)

All quotations from John Cuddy’s 1863 Letter are written exactly as they appear in his writings

John Taylor Cuddy, like any teenage boy, was eager to prove himself as a worthy, capable young man at the outset of the Civil War.  In April, 1861, Cuddy readily joined the Carlisle Fencibles, a volunteer corps of troops formed in his hometown of Carlisle, Pennsylvania. Perhaps blinded by both naïveté and a tidal wave of patriotism, Cuddy shared the same hyper-optimistic view of the impending war as many of his fellow soldiers and Northern citizens. In a July 1861 letter to his father, Cuddy bluntly stated, “the north is going to rase a big armey and then we will make the south in the union agin the south cannot stand before our army we will soon lick the south and then we will come home.”[1] In hindsight, it is easy to look upon Cuddy and his contemporaries as wide-eyed and foolish, but every man had his own reason for joining the fight. Contrary to what one might assume, most Union soldiers did not answer the call to arms due to personal anti-slavery sentiments. In fact, in a war whose cause can best be traced back to slavery, many soldiers on the anti-slavery side essentially fought in spite of their personal beliefs on the institution. In January 1863, John Cuddy wrote a very different letter to those he loved back in Carlisle, one that showed just how much he had changed his tune on the war and his reasons for fighting. At the start of the war, John Cuddy exemplified the stereotype of the eager Union volunteer, but as the war droned on, he proved to be the exception to the rule of the dutiful soldier.

Cuddy Letter, 1863 (House Divided)

On the 16th of January, 1863, John Cuddy wrote a letter to family and friends with a demeanor much different from that of his jovial first letter home nearly two years prior. In striking contrast with his early-war sentiment, Cuddy then stated, “i hope and pray to god to spare me through this ware and let me get home safe again.”[2] From there, he went on to address his friends, and complained that “Old abe done a bad thing wen he freed all the slaves” and lamented about “fighting for ngroes.”[3] He then made a point of saying how he was sick of the war and the fighting, and how he wished he could come home and be with those he loved. In his final paragraph, Cuddy questioned what was gained by fighting in the war because he felt that more was lost than was gained. He rounded out his writing by once again stating how he wished the war would end, and how he hoped to be with friends and family sooner rather than later.

While it may be tempting to attribute Cuddy’s change in opinion on the war to the shock and distaste of the horrors of battle, the true reason behind this transition was not quite so clean-cut. At the outset of the war in 1861, the North was caught up in rage militaire, or the fervent need to stand by the stars and stripes in an effort to prove one’s masculinity and patriotism.[4] The unifying nature of rage militaire and the desire to “lick the south”, as Cuddy put it, made it easy to put aside partisan differences for the benefit of preserving the Union.[5] The excitement over the prospect of battle and the optimistic prediction of a swift end to the war as portrayed in Cuddy’s first letter reflect the concept of rage militaire perfectly. Initially, in the eyes of Cuddy and his fellow soldiers, patriotism and hardly anything more was the only reason for wanting to join the fight. But as the war evolved into something more complex, so too did opinions and expectations surrounding how it should have been fought. 

The John Cuddy who wrote home in January of 1863 was a very different man than the one who was so enamored by rage militaire just two short years prior. Clearly worn out from the trials of battle and military life, Cuddy was also clearly grappling with the blow dealt by President Lincoln’s recent Emancipation Proclamation. The proclamation ensured that all enslaved individuals in Confederate territories were irrevocably freed from bondage. Issued on January 1, 1863, the document “elated Northern Republicans, dismayed Northern Democrats, and outraged Southern rebels.”[6] For Union soldiers, however, “contact with African Americans as Union armies moved southward influenced attitudes about slavery and race, building support for emancipation.”[7] Even among those soldiers who were opposed to emancipation as a matter of principle, perhaps due to Democratic loyalty, the necessity of the proclamation as a wartime measure was widely acknowledged. Troops were relieved to find that the war was no longer just a duel between the North and South, but a battle between morality and sin. [8] While those back home were more distinctly divided over the issue of emancipation, the men on the front lines knew that it not only meant that an end to the war may have been on the horizon, but also that they had something more to fight for.

The Emancipation Proclamation (Wikipedia)

Despite the overwhelmingly- sometimes begrudgingly- positive reaction to the Emancipation Proclamation from the Union Army, John Cuddy did not hold the same optimistic views as his peers. While his words may sound angry, Cuddy’s tone seems more tired when he says “this ware is an auffel thing fighting for ngroes now is a bad thing” and that “Old abe done a bad thing wen he freed all the slaves.”[9] It is certainly possible that Cuddy was wholly opposed to the idea of emancipation, since his hometown of Carlisle housed a great Democratic majority, and support for Lincoln was sparse.[10] However, it is unlikely that Cuddy’s statements were intended to be as malicious as they may come across. After all, he was a young man who went into what he thought would be a swift war with a sense of patriotic duty and high hopes of adventure, only to be met with years of horrific battle. Cuddy said so himself that he was “tiard of ware,” and so he was, in all likelihood, expressing deep frustration over the situation he found himself in.[11] Others in his situation presumably felt news of the proclamation had a relieving effect rather than an aggravating one, and were able to overlook personal prejudices about emancipation in favor of the greater good of repairing the nation. For Cuddy, emancipation exacerbated both his existing prejudices and his resentment towards the war as a whole, which resulted in his unique dissatisfaction towards the issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation.

Cuddy was clearly resentful over the longevity of the war and the direction in which its ideological goals appeared to be headed. Not only this, but he was also a man consumed by sorrow and loss. Although crude in phrasing, but nevertheless poignant in meaning, Cuddy asked, “What have we gained by fighting yet we lost more then we ganed[?].”[12] By this point in the war, Cuddy’s unit had lost many of its original men. In the latter part of his letter, he mentioned the need for his division to recruit more men, as they only had 2,500 men remaining at the time of his writing.[13] Not even a year prior to the writing of this 1863 letter, Cuddy lost one of his close friends, William Henderson, to pneumonia, and four of his fellow soldiers to a single cannonball at Antietam just a few months after that.[14] Miserable in the absence of those he loved and mourning the loss of his comrades, Cuddy expressed distaste for the proclamation that did nothing to benefit his immediate situation. The Emancipation Proclamation did nothing for his fallen friends, and it did not bring his family any closer, it only transformed the conflict into something of greater moral substance, and to Cuddy this was not enough.

Modern views of the Civil War tend to focus on its two-sidedness, painting it as a war of right vs. wrong with hardly any sense of nuance. Even during the war, many tended to hold a relatively similar view, with each side essentially wanting revenge for wrongs committed by the other. There is some truth to this notion, as the ideological differences that permeated the Union were largely able to be overlooked in favor of the larger uniting goal of restoring the United States. But, as demonstrated by the case of John Cuddy, putting aside those differences was not as easily done as it may have appeared, especially as the circumstances of the war evolved over time. The Civil War may have had two sides, but it was not strictly two-sided, and there was instead a spectrum of opinions that existed within each faction. Although John Cuddy may be a small exception to the stereotype of the moral, duty-bound Union soldier, he was proof that each side of the Civil War had many sides of their own. 

Works Cited:

[1] “John T. Cuddy to John H. Cuddy, July 7, 1861,” House Divided: The Civil War Research Engine at Dickinson College, [WEB].

[2] “John T. Cuddy to John H. Cuddy, January 16, 1863,” House Divided: The Civil War Research Engine at Dickinson College, [WEB]. 

[3] “John T. Cuddy to John H. Cuddy, January 16, 1863”

[4] Zachery A. Fry, A Republic in the Ranks : Loyalty and Dissent in the Army of the Potomac, (Civil War America. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 2020), 16, [WEB].

[5] “John T. Cuddy to John H. Cuddy, July 7, 1861,” 

[6] Louis Masur, The Civil War, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011), 48.

[7] Gary W. Gallagher, The Union War, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2011), 80.

[8] Masur, 48.

[9] “John T. Cuddy to John H. Cuddy, January 16, 1863,”

[10] “From Carlisle to Andersonville,” House Divided, April 19, 2011, video, [WEB].

[11] “John T. Cuddy to John H. Cuddy, January 16, 1863,”

[12] “John T. Cuddy to John H. Cuddy, January 16, 1863,”

[13] “John T. Cuddy to John H. Cuddy, January 16, 1863,”

[14] “From Carlisle to Andersonville,”

Douglass Statue in New York, courtesy of Law & Liberty

“Few evils are less accessible to the force of reason, or more tenacious of life and power, than a long-standing prejudice.”[1] This powerful quote opened “The Color Line,” an article written by Frederick Douglass in 1881. As a formerly enslaved person later known for his literature and orations focusing on equal rights for Black Americans, Douglass offered numerous insights regarding race relations in America. Throughout the Reconstruction Era, as some in the politically reunified country attempted to reconcile the horrific cost of slavery on human lives, Douglass asserted himself as a scholar on the topics of enslavement and the prejudice that came from it. His position in American politics and his autobiographical experiences further contextualized his authorship of “The Color Line” in 1881, including his life as an enslaved man, his complicated relationship with Abraham Lincoln, and his various political roles in the 1870s. Douglass’ article offered an opening in which the impact of slavery was philosophically analyzed through the lens of its past and its anticipated future in the (Re)united States of America. “The Color Line” could be used today to view Douglass’ life through sociological and philosophical lenses in a work that is shorter than his autobiographies, but just as impactful.

First Page of “The Color Line,” courtesy of Internet Archive

“The Color Line” was published in 1881 in The North American Review, the oldest literary magazine in the United States.[2] The article was eleven pages in length and was presented as an informative text about how the color line came to be and why it was persistent in American society. As presented by Douglass throughout his article, the color line described the social division between Black people and White people in America. This division was created by slavery and continued through the introduction of divisive legislation by Southern state governments, such as poll taxes, literacy tests, and grandfather clauses in the years following the implementation of the 15^th Amendment.[3] In Northern states, the color line was more evident socially in the “widely divergent spheres” of the two races.[4] As a phenomenon that was both old (in the relationship between slaveholders and those enslaved) and new (as a sociolegal development after the Reconstruction Amendments), the color line was an important issue for Douglass to discuss in his article.

In the opening paragraph of “The Color Line,” Douglass discussed the nature of prejudice in society and its lasting impact on those it oppressed. He claimed that “few evils” were as rigid as “long-standing prejudice,” which he argued was a “moral disorder,” that became stronger as it denied arguments against it, especially as it created new, ugly images of Black people in society. Douglass further claimed that it was easy for people “to see repulsive qualities in those we despise and hate,” as prejudice added a new tint to the lenses of oppressors’ vision.[5] In the remainder of the article, Douglass discussed the origins of prejudice in slavery, its effects on the Black race, and its persistence in society. After the first paragraph, he discussed the existence of prejudice in historical England. He claimed that prejudice has existed elsewhere in other forms, but “of all the races and varieties of men which have suffered from this feeling, the colored people of this country have endured the most.” Douglass further argued that prejudice was “unreasoning,” and it made the Black man “the slave of society” even after slavery was abolished in America in 1865.[6]

Portrait of Douglass as a Young Man, courtesy of National Park Service

Even though some claimed that prejudice was “natural, instinctive, and invincible” in society, Douglass argued that if this were true, then it would have been true universally.[7] He claimed that there was “no color prejudice in Europe,” which discredited his first and second caveats of prejudice, and he further argued that most prejudices in America came from the guilt of White people, as they found it easier to oppress those they had harmed, rather than to make reparations for their actions.[8] Additionally, since White people in the South were economically interested in keeping Black people enslaved, they continued to oppress and belittle them. “Out of slavery has come this prejudice and this color line,” Douglass asserted in his article.[9] After he established the origins of the American color line, Douglass claimed that the prejudice in society could not be attributed to merely the color of one’s skin—there must have been an association of skin color with undesirable conditions, such as “slavery, ignorance, stupidity, servility, poverty, [and] dependence.”[10] Douglass claimed that this color line must have been man-made, for it was too inconsistent to be natural. One example of this inconsistency was the way White men feared the rise of the Black race, yet they claimed Black people were “originally and permanently inferior.”[11]

In his closing paragraph, Douglass asserted his belief in great men to overcome the effects of prejudice. “Men who are really great,” he wrote, “are too great to be small,” and he included Abraham Lincoln amongst others in his subsequent list of great men he knew.[12] In an optimistic outlook, Douglass stated that “the number of those who rise superior to prejudice is great and increasing,” but he still envisioned a nation in which all people “respect[ed] the rights and dignity” of each other. As seen in his first paragraph, he ultimately knew that prejudice would be difficult to rid the country of.[13] The descriptions of discrimination in “The Color Line” were likely an attempted appeal to members of the public who supported the abolition of slavery during the Civil War, as it would have been in their ability to perhaps open the eyes of those who denounced equal rights. Additionally, when he wrote this article, Douglass was focused on an updated version of his autobiography, which may have contributed to his philosophical views regarding experiences with prejudice.

Douglass’ First Place of Residence in New Bedford, courtesy of National Park Service

Douglass was born in the Eastern Shore region of Maryland in 1818 as an enslaved man, and at the age of eight, he was hired out by his master and relocated to Baltimore, where he taught himself how to read and write. At the age of fifteen, he was sent back to the Eastern Shore, where he taught other enslaved people and eventually attempted to escape. He was then returned to Baltimore where he met Anna Murray, a free Black woman. Murray helped Douglass escape by providing him with money for a train ticket, which he boarded under disguise and rode to New York City, where he declared himself free. In New York, he married Anna, and they moved to New Bedford, Massachusetts after they decided it would not be safe for Douglass to live in the city as a fugitive. In Massachusetts, Douglass attended abolitionist meetings and spoke about his experiences as a slave, and he soon began to work as an agent for the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society. To prevent himself from being captured and enslaved again, Douglass traveled overseas to Europe where he gave speeches about emancipation and sold copies of his first autobiography. After abolitionists in Europe offered to purchase his freedom, Douglass returned to America as a free man. He and Anna relocated to Rochester, New York, where he started a newspaper, The North Star.[14]

Lincoln and Douglass Meet During the Civil War, courtesy of Library of Congress

When the Civil War began in 1861, Douglass worked to ensure that emancipation would be a result. He continued to speak about his experiences, and he even denounced President Abraham Lincoln’s inaction on slavery at the beginning of the war.[15] After the Emancipation Proclamation was presented on January 1, 1863, Douglass worked to recruit Black soldiers to join the war effort. He believed that serving in the army would guarantee them citizenship after the war ended.[16] During the war, Douglass also met with Lincoln to advocate on the behalf of Black soldiers who were not receiving equal treatment to White soldiers.[17] The relationship between Douglass and Lincoln was historically complicated, as the orator was oftentimes frustrated with the president, but eventually praised his character and decision-making. This was particularly evident in “The Color Line,” when Douglass mentioned him as a man “too great to be small.”[18] Douglass’ work during the Civil War exhibited his desire for Black representation and equality in the nation, and it additionally helped him gain standing in the Republican Party, which he became closely aligned with in the following years.[19]

In 1872, the Douglass family moved to Washington D.C. where Frederick held several office positions before the election of President Rutherford B. Hayes in 1876, “including assistant secretary of the Santo Domingo Commission, legislative council member of the D.C. Territorial Government, board member of Howard University, and president of the Freedman’s Bank.” Later, between 1877 and 1891, Douglass served under five presidents at three different positions.[20] After serving as the U.S. Marshall for Washington D.C. under President Hayes from 1877 until the change of administration in 1881, Douglass was appointed as the Recorder of Deeds for Washington D.C. under President James A. Garfield.[21] This less-involved position frustrated Douglass, which could have contributed to his thoughts on the prejudice he saw and felt as a Black politician in America. Throughout his political career, Douglass aligned himself with the Republican Party, although he presented his ideas during and after the Civil War as typically radical.[22] It was during these years in his political career that Douglass published “The Color Line.” Additionally, over the course of his life, Douglass produced three autobiographies: Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass in 1845, My Bondage My Freedom in 1855, and Life and Times in 1881.[23]

Terrorizing a Black Voter at the Ballot Box, courtesy of Tennessee State Library and Archives

When “The Color Line” was published in 1881, Black people were beginning to experience the oppression and racism of the Jim Crow Era in the American South.[24] The Reconstruction Amendments—including the 13^th in 1865, the 14^th in 1868, and the 15^th in 1870—had appeared to offer legislative protection to those of African descent, but they were quickly circumvented by legislators repulsed by racial equality.[25] Through the implementation of poll taxes, residency requirements, grandfather clauses, literacy tests, and other discriminatory regulations, Black people were largely prevented from exercising their constitutional right to vote in the South from the 1870s until the Voting Rights Act of 1965.[26] During a campaign address for President Garfield in 1880, Douglass spoke about the nullification of the Reconstruction Amendments by the South, and this racist legislation was likely at the forefront of his mind when writing his article in 1881.[27] In “The Color Line,” Douglass presented readers with an explanation for the persistence of prejudice in society as seen in the regulations preventing the Black vote. He alerted his audience that because of the characteristics of prejudice, it could survive and thrive in post-Civil War American society for years to come.

In the election of 1880, Douglass campaigned for Republican candidate James Garfield, but his role was less important than it had been during the two previous administrations. As “a new generation of black leaders” came into the political realm, Douglass was slowly pushed out.[28] This new generation was mentioned in the last paragraph of Douglass’ article when he referred to numbers growing of people “who rise superior to prejudice.”[29] When Garfield was elected in 1880, Douglass hoped for another presidential appointment to a position of importance, even though internally he was only waveringly faithful to the new Administration. Instead, he received what he saw as a demotion to the Recorder of Deeds for Washington D.C., which likely left a bitter impression with prejudice on his mind. Around the publishing of “The Color Line” in 1881, Douglass also completed an updated version of his autobiography titled Life and Times, in which he reflected heavily on his experiences with great men and sought to define “the theory of the American self-made man.”[30] As Douglass reflected on his life while writing this third autobiography and “The Color Line,” he must have also considered his various encounters with prejudice.

Douglass as a Politician, courtesy of Library of Congress

Even though the Reconstruction Era ended in 1877, Douglass believed that White Americans still had to evolve in their thoughts and actions towards other races. By claiming there are “few evils” that act in the same ways as prejudice, he asserted that racial discrimination was one of the worst societal diseases man could experience.[31] This was perhaps the mindset of someone tired of people with the same skin color as him being treated with such hatred. This prejudice “refus[ed] all contradiction,” namely from Southern legislators and White supremacists, which allowed it to “[distort] the features of the fancied original” and render the voice of the Black man silent.[32] Furthermore, because it “create[d] the conditions necessary to its own existence,” Douglass believed that prejudice would continue to affect Black lives in the future. By hating Black people for more than merely the color of their skin and associating the entire race with undesirable qualities—as discussed by Douglass in the rest of his article—the White race was (and will continue to be) consistently oppressive to People of Color.[33]

In the opening paragraph of “The Color Line,” Douglass described the prejudice that had taken hold of American society during and after the abolition of slavery. He claimed this prejudice would continue to affect the lives of Black people in the future, such as the implementation of discriminatory legislation following the Reconstruction Amendments that affected Black people at the ballot boxes. Douglass’ multiple careers during the initial years of these Jim Crow laws further allowed him to effectively analyze the philosophy of this prejudice through his growing disappointment with American politics.

Douglass Statue at Talbot County Courthouse in Maryland, courtesy of Maryland Office of Tourism

Today, “The Color Line” may seem to be one of Douglass’ more insignificant works, especially in the wake of his speech in 1876 at the Emancipation Memorial in Washington D.C., proceeding his reflections on the Lost Cause in 1883, or when he published three separate autobiographies: Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass in 1845, My Bondage My Freedom in 1855, and Life and Times in 1881.[34] Despite these other, more famous works by Douglass, “The Color Line” can serve several purposes when analyzed fully. Although it is not directly an autobiographical work, it reflects many of Douglass’ experiences as an enslaved man, a writer, an orator, an abolitionist, a war-time recruiter, and a politician. This article could therefore be used to peer into Douglass’ life through sociological and philosophical lenses, especially since it is much shorter and easier to sift through than a full autobiography. By incorporating explanations for the history of prejudice into “The Color Line,” Douglass provided a glimpse into the possible future of race relations in American society.

[1] Frederick Douglass, “The Color Line,” The North American Review, University of Northern Iowa, vol. 132, no. 295 (June 1881), 567, [WEB].

[2] Author Unknown, North American Review, University of Northern Iowa, 2021, Accessed Dec. 6, 2021, [WEB].

[3] Farrell Evans, “How Jim Crow-Era Laws Suppressed the African American Vote for Generations,” History, May 13, 2021, Accessed Dec. 9, 2021, [WEB].

[4] John Mecklin, “The Philosophy of the Color Line, American Journal of Sociology, vol. 19, no. 3 (Nov. 1913), 354, [WEB].

[5] Douglass, “The Color Line,” 567. [6] 568. [7] 569. [8] 571. [9] 573. [10] 575. [11] 576. [12] 577. [13] 577.

[14] Author Unknown, “Frederick Douglass,” National Park Service, July 24, 2021, Accessed Dec. 6, 2021, [WEB].

[15] Louis P. Masur, The Civil War, (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2011), 41.

[16] Masur, 56-57.

[17] Author Unknown, “Frederick Douglass.”

[18] David W. Blight, Frederick Douglass: Prophet of Freedom, (New York, NY: Simon & Schuster, 2018), 337: Author Unknown, “Reminiscences of Abraham Lincoln: Frederick Douglass (1818-1895)” from The Lincoln Anthology: Great Writers on His Life and Legacy from 1860 to Now, Library of America, Feb. 9, 2013, Accessed Dec. 10, 2021, [WEB]: Douglass, “The Color Line,” 577.

[19] Roy E. Finkenbine, “Douglass, Frederick,” American National Biography, February 2000, Accessed Dec. 8, 2021, [WEB].

[20] Author Unknown, “Frederick Douglass,” National Park Service, July 24, 2021, Accessed Dec. 6, 2021, [WEB].

[21] Noelle Trent, “Frederick Douglass,” Britannica, Oct. 5, 2021, Accessed Dec. 11, 2021, [WEB].

[22] Louis P. Masur, The Civil War, (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2011), 41.

[23] William L. Andrews, “African American Literature,” Britannica, Jul. 28, 2020, Accessed Dec. 12, 2021, [WEB].

[24] Evans, “How Jim Crow-Era Laws Suppressed.”

[25] Author Unknown, “The Reconstruction Amendments,” National Constitution Center, Accessed Dec. 13, 2021, [WEB].

[26] Evans, “How Jim Crow-Era Laws Suppressed.”

[27] Blight, Frederick Douglass, 616.

[28] Blight, Frederick Douglass, 612.

[29] Douglass, “The Color Line,” 577.

[30] Blight, Frederick Douglass, 615, 619.

[31] Douglass, “The Color Line,” 567. [32] 567. [33] 571.

[34] Anna Maria Gillis, “Frederick Douglass Lived Another Fifty Years After Publishing His First Autobiography,” Humanities, vol. 38, no. 1 (2017), from National Endowment for the Humanities, Accessed Dec. 12, 2021, [WEB]: Andrews, “African American Literature.”

Frederick Douglass, Speech, 1876

Frederick Douglass on Lincoln and Reconstruction from The Gilder Lehrman Institute on Vimeo.

Emancipation Memorial, Washington DC (Wikipedia)

This close reading will cover excerpts from Frederick Douglass’s speech at the dedication of the Emancipation Memorial in Washington, DC in April 1876.