The American Civil War - Term Paper Example

American Civil War (master narrative) 04 May Introduction The American civil war is a painful episode in the nation’s history. It was a war that should not have happened but in retrospect, it was perhaps inevitable because of the clash of ideas between the people of the North from those in the South. The main issue between them was slavery which the North wants abolished while the South wants it retained because social structure was based on the work of slaves in the southern plantations and its lifestyle. A war on an emotional issue as slavery may have its merits, since it abolished slavery forever all throughout the entire United States territories. The civil war was also a morality issue. Most stories of the civil war are depicted from the eyes and viewpoint of the whites, either Northern or Southern white people. There are not many books detailing the war from the perspective of the African-American slaves at that time and their roles in the civil war. They had certainly made big contributions to the ultimate victory of the North but these were mostly either not given prominence or just glossed over to a certain extent. The previous kind of master narratives viewed the US civil war as mainly among the white themselves. This paper attempts to explore a narrative within this master narrative. It will detail in the following pages how the issue of slavery took a decisive role in the ultimate victory of the North because of the help from the black slaves who took great risks to choose their freedom. Moreover, this paper will also try to explain and demolish some of the myths surrounding the role of the blacks in the civil war at its most crucial moments when the outcome of the war had hung in the balance (no pun intended). Finally, this paper also talks about how slavery in America really indeed, with the wits and guile of an obscure general named Butler. Discussion The US civil war started when eleven Southern states declared their secession from the United States of America and formed the Confederate States of America. The core of the issue was slavery but even the newly-elected Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, did not call for its outright abolition. In fact, he was very careful to tread on this sensitive issue and declared only that slavery should not be allowed to expand into other states. In other words, slavery will remain in those states where slavery already existed. However, Southern whites took umbrage at this declaration which they considered to be a threat to their way of life that was based on slave labor. The larger narrative of the civil war was that Pres. Lincoln did not take direct steps to abolish slavery precisely to avoid war and preserve the Union. Lincoln gave this reassurance because he knew there will no winners or losers in civil war; there will only be losers on both sides. His phronesis (practical wisdom) and training as a lawyer gave him the ability to weigh several options but all based on constitutionality. But as the South declared hostilities and as the war progressed, his position took a hardline stance as he knew the issue of slavery will rear its ugly head once again if allowed to continue. This issue will never rest until it is extinguished completely and one sure way to do that was win the war decisively. His ultimate objective was to preserve the Union at all costs but somehow later down the road, also find justification for abolishing slavery through legal means. Pres. Lincoln was in a serious quandary as the US Constitution had guaranteed rights to slavery for those states who wanted it (McPherson, 1996, p. 100). He was also personally against slavery and abhorred its practices and evil inhumanity to fellow human beings but he could not just prosecute the war to its bitter end and present it as a war against slavery. There has to be some other solution and it came from a newly-appointed general named Benjamin Franklin Butler; he was a lawyer by profession and given the rank of major general. The narrative – most accounts of the civil war indicated Lincoln tried peaceful means to avert war but he also abhorred slavery. By some historians’ accounts, the elusive solution to solving this thorny issue was provided by Maj. Gen. Butler who was commissioned to take command of Fort Monroe in Virginia (Goodheart, 2011, p. 1). Federal law at that time had been very clear on one point: all fugitive slaves must be returned to their masters and this was the prevailing law at the moment when three slaves (Baker, Mallory and Townsend) had went rowing across to Fort Monroe in the dead of night. For a lawyer like Gen. Butler, appearance of the three field hands presented a unique dilemma but at the same time a legal precedent. It was a conundrum with political and military implications (ibid. p. 2) and his brilliant solution and repartee to the white Southern officer who wanted the three slaves back provided inspiration to Pres. Lincoln and which soon became a battle cry for abolitionists in the North. The stance of Gen. Butler was not to return the three young black men to their masters and his argument was based on the state of Virginia having seceded already from the Union. The three black men were already considered as contrabands of war and therefore rightfully belonged to the fort command just like any enemy property. Combatants had every right to intercept enemy contraband as the three black men were considered as property too. This fine legal point provided the backdrop for what would eventually be Pres. Lincoln’s response to the issue of slavery as the war dragged on. The settling of this issue (arrival of three slaves at Fort Monroe) provided the tipping point in the argument for fighting against slavery. The Lincoln administration was faced with a serious issue and Pres. Lincoln realized he will soon be forced to make a crucial decision on the very matters he had tried to avoid: slavery, race and emancipation (ibid. p. 3). Gen. Butler himself was not sure how his actions will be perceived by the president but this legal precedent constituted one of several small circumstances that later determined the course of war events (Olsen, 2007, p. 125). Gen. Ben F. Butler was let by Pres. Lincoln to decide the matter of the slaves at the fort by himself, as Lincoln and his cabinet punted and prevaricated on this crucial decision. The slave fugitives earned the unflattering nickname of contrabands as reported in the day’s newspapers at that time. Events unfolded quickly soon enough and Fort Monroe had about five hundred slaves within a few days’ time. For all intents and purposes, the situation at the fort provided Lincoln with a good excuse to issue the tentative Emancipation Proclamation; he later on expanded this and made it official by working hard for the passage of Thirteenth Amendment that outlawed slavery and involuntary servitude except as crime punishment. It can be said then that it was a general which forced the hand of Pres. Lincoln to give his imprimatur to abolition of slavery because his original intent was to preserve the Union. It is this little narrative that shatters the myth of how slavery was eventually abolished by great Pres. Lincoln but his move to do so was forced by the quickly-evolving circumstances. This side story to the civil war is somehow related to another Southern myth (or fear) regarding a black man being armed. Contrary to their general expectations, the blacks who choose to be enlisted in the Union Army did so by going to the North’s frontlines to join. Many blacks did not kill their white masters while still on the plantation but were honorable enough and manly enough to join the fight fair and square. All blacks, almost to a person, desired to be free and what the three young men started at Fort Monroe became part of a larger revolution. It was a revolution within a revolution, or a narrative within a master narrative of the civil war. Firearms in the hands of slaves had been the constant nightmare of the white slave owners but the civil war brought a second revolution when four million slaves became free (McPherson, 1996, p. 109). The blacks fought for their freedom and rightly earned it by the sheer sacrifice of giving up their lives. This was the same revolution acknowledged by two of Lincoln’s cabinet members (John Hay and John Nicolay) as a most sudden epiphany. The civil war brought forth a new paradigm in the Southern minds: what they feared most of an armed black man slaughtering his master and the entire household did not happen. Majority of the slaves did not do it because they did not want vengeance; all they wanted was be free (Goodheart, 2011, p. 6). A Confederate flag is a symbol of oppression for blacks but a source of pride for whites (Brown, 2004, p. 25) or for blacks today (Everett, 2004, p. 93). The North used the contraband doctrine, as it became known, to detract the South in a war of attrition. This is because the Southern slave states had to keep an eye on two fronts: a first is the front lines of the battle and the second is keeping a sharp watch on the slaves who were more than eager to move north and join the fight on its side. The South cannot expect to win a war this way, as the North already had a numerical superiority in men and materiel. Conclusion The role of black enlisted men was not properly acknowledged in most history books. There is still some latent racism in this regard but the movie “Glory” showed how black men fought and died bravely. Instances of racism depicted in the film were initial refusal to give boots and the lower pay given to black soldiers (McPherson, 1996, p. 109). End of the war in 1865 saw most stories of black valor and sacrifice being suppressed (Whites, 2004, p. 224). A jaundiced view of the black contribution to the North’s victory is expected as most historians and writers of the civil war were whites. It is only now after the Civil Rights Movement that some black writers had set out to set the record straight through revisionist history. For most of black men, enlisting in the Union was their only option, unlike idealistic young white men who dream about joining the army for fame and glory (Crane, 1895, p. 3). The “Glory” did a correct portrayal and rectifies many historical myths as film is a wonderful medium to teach history by putting the contribution of the black soldiers in the right context. It dispelled some persistent notions about the willingness and courage of black men to fight (IMDB, 2001, p.1). Works Cited Brown, T. J. (2004). The Public Art of Civil War Commemoration: A Brief History with Documents. Irving Place, NY, USA: Bedford-St. Martin’s. Crane, S. (1895). The Red Badge of Courage: An Episode of the American Civil War. Charleston, SC, USA: Forgotten Books (re-published in 2008). Everett, P. (2004). Stories: The Appropriation of Cultures. St. Paul, MN, USA: Gray Wolf Press. Goodheart, A. (2011, April 1). How Slavery Really Ended in America. The New York Times, 1-6. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/03/magazine/mag-03CivilWar-t.html?ref=fugitiveslaves Internet Movie Data Base (2011). Synopsis for Glory. IMDB. Retrieved from http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097441/synopsis McPherson, J. M. (1996). Drawn with the Sword: Reflections on the American Civil War. New York, USA: Oxford University Press. Olsen, C. J. (2007). The American Civil War: A Hands-on History. New York, USA: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Whites, L. (2004). You Can’t Change History by Moving a Rock: Gender, Race and the Cultural Politics of Confederate Memorialization. In Alice Fahs and Joan Waugh (Eds.), The Memory of the Civil War in American Culture (pp. 215-236). Chapel Hill, NC, USA: The University of North Carolina Press. Read More