A Tale of Two Abolitionists
By Mary Theroux • Monday November 19, 2012 10:07 PM PDT • 9 Comments
An excellent movie released six years ago, “Amazing Grace,” depicted the life of William Wilberforce and his ultimately successful efforts to abolish, first, the British Slave Trade in 1806, and then slavery throughout the English empire with the Slavery Abolition Act of 1833. He did so entirely peacefully, through the British parliamentary system. It was a long and arduous struggle, and he is rightly depicted as a man of deep religious conviction who dedicated his entire life to this noble cause.
Last weekend Steven Spielberg’s biopic, “Lincoln”, was released, concentrating on the several weeks of Lincoln’s similarly successful machinations to have the 13th Amendment abolishing slavery passed by Congress.
While the carnage and horrors of the Civil War make brief appearances, the movie focuses on the political back-room deal-making, horse-trading, and scheming surrounding Lincoln’s championing of the amendment.
In this, then, the two movies similarly deal with slavery as public policy, and how laws abolishing the practice were passed.
Which then begs the question—why, then, the American Civil War?
If, ultimately, what did away with slavery was a change in the law of the land, which passage of the 13th Amendment accomplished in America in 1865 what the Slavery Abolition Act accomplished throughout the British empire in 1833, why did 620,000 Americans out of a population of 30 million die horrific deaths in a war supposed to have been to “end slavery” in the U.S., with no war required to abolish it anywhere else?
Or, as Thomas DiLorenzo expounded in our event, “The Real Abraham Lincoln: A Debate”,
In the book, Time on the Cross, by Fogel and Engerman, they do a survey of emancipation in this time period, and they find that dozens of countries, including the British Empire, the Spanish Empire, the French and Danish colonies—dozens of countries ended slavery peacefully through some sort of compensated emancipation.
...The one big quandary is, why didn’t we do what every other country in the world did during the previous 50 years that ended slavery, and end it peacefully through compensated emancipation?
Numerous scholars have done superb work studying the issues around the Civil War and Lincoln’s despotic rule during it, and Spielberg’s movie includes the president’s musing aloud upon the legality of his actions. In addition to unleashing total war against the South, instituting a draft, and violently suppressing draft riots in New York, he famously suspended habeas corpus, censored all telegraph communication, nationalized railroads, and ordered federal troops to interfere in Northern elections.
Lincoln deported Ohio Congressman Clement Vallandigham for disagreeing with him. He confiscated firearms. Ministers in the South were imprisoned for not praying for Abraham Lincoln. Secretary of State William Seward set up a secret police force, and he famously boasted to Lord Lyons, the British Ambassador, that he could ring a bell and have any man in America arrested.
Steven Spielberg is, of course, a master filmmaker, and “Lincoln” is no exception, with a superb cast. But for a tale of the principled fight to abolish slavery, see “Amazing Grace.” It is a far more satisfying tale of how one pursues noble ends—not through a wanton disregard for human life, liberty, and the rule of law under the guise of “the ends justifying the means.”
Meanwhile, the reader interested in further enlightenment on the question of why the United States, uniquely in all the history of the world, required a war to “end slavery”, should read the transcript or listen to the audio of the above-referenced debate; or check out any of the following wonderful resources on our site—and there are many more elsewhere:
- “The Great Centralizer: Abraham Lincoln and the War between the States,” by Thomas J. DiLorenzo
- “The Bloody Hinge of American History,” by Robert Higgs
- Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men: A History of the American Civil War, by Jeffrey Rogers Hummel, reviewed by Stanley L. Engerman
- “The Civil War: Liberty and American Leviathan,” featuring Henry Mayer and Jeffrey Rogers Hummel
- “Civil War and the American Political Economy,” by Joseph R. Stromberg
And, of course, Robert Higgs’s prescient classic, Crisis and Leviathan, now in a new 25th Anniversary Edition, tracing the growth of today’s leviathan state from its roots in the American Civil War and Lincoln’s precedent-setting power-grab.
Tags: Africa, American History, Books, Censorship, Christianity, Civil Liberties, Constitution, Culture, Entertainment, History, Liberty, Peace, Personal Liberty, Presidential Power, The State, Totalitarianism, War 
The civil war was just another war fought, on the part of the U.S. government, on false pretenses, i.e., hypocrisy. Every war the U.S. has fought it has provoked and sought.
hammersmith | Nov 20, 2012 | Reply
The title of this post is based on a false premise, namely that Lincoln was an abolitionist, which in reality he wasn’t, at least not in the proper context of the term. In fact, abolition was simply a means to an end and was never really a primary motivator for Lincoln.
It should also be pointed out that given that slavery (although not specifically mentioned by name in the Constitution) was certainly accepted as a pre-existing condition and regulated through the Constitution, its abolition required an amendment to the Constitution in the US, which simply wasn’t going to happen in the middle of the 19th century in the US. It didn’t matter how much real abolitionists like say Garrison or Douglas lobbied and agitated for it.
On the other hand, a case certainly can be made that the Civil War was an unnecessary war. Further it was not fought to end slavery as a primary war aim, but Lincoln’s purpose was to prevent the break-up of the United States. To these ends he chose war with the Confederacy as a path to maintaining unity, when he could also have chosen a policy of economic belligerence toward the newly created CSA, while Constitutionally ending slavery in the remaining United States, in an effort to encourage “(.e. peacefully force) the seceding states to return under the new no slavery circumstances. It certainly would have taken some time, but many of those states likely would have opted to return, as they lacked the broad economic stability and dynamism to remain separate in the long-term, especially if the US were to take steps to box them in politically and economically, which the industrialized North could have done.
Bob Jones | Nov 21, 2012 | Reply
The actual spark that led to the fiery war might better be associated with northern abolitionist JOHN BROWN. Brown took a revolutionary position, espousing his belief that GOD desired slavery to be accursed and the chief sinners were those that would maintain and extend slavery westward. The Congress was full of Southern Methodists and Southern Democrats who did not adopt the religious furor of John Brown. So there appeared to be deep rooted religious differences. The Apostolic early church of the Roman Empire, and old Testament Hebrew tribes did not advocate elimination of slavery per se. The evangelist, John Whitefield, took the position that slavery was a property right that had Biblical roots in Judeo-Christian history, and he believed that he should preach spiritual salvation to the Black slaves, but he thought that God still allowed the condition of slavery, some of his comments speak of the necessity to continue the great economic growth of the southern plantations, and with slaves. John Newton had a personal compulsion to seek the end of slavery, because he saw the cruelty and suffering of the institution of slavery as a serious sin.
England and the United States of America, both had Civil Wars. In fact, Wilberforce would have had less influence had not the Parliamentarians gained much against the monarchy in their bloody conflicts. Why didn’t the English Civil war resolve itself in Parliament, before Oliver Cromwell and the Stewarts fought the war.
Jesus Christ predicted wars and rumors of war will be a constant challenge until HE returns, just as the spiritual warfare has gone on for centuries, between Michael the Arch angel and Satan himself.
As far as the difference, between Congress and Parliament, the study of the defeat of the Congressman Wilmot’s legislation for westward expansion, and other studies of the early 19th century Congressional battles will demonstrate the differences, and show how slavery was not the only issue, as much as economic competition between King Cotton and northern industrial might. Perhaps had England and Scotland had massive plantations on their soil with slave labor, and George Whitefield advocating his theological understanding, Wilberforce and Newton would have had more opposition.
Did not Congress also default on the cruel treatment of the Native American tribes as Manifest Destiny forced the native people into conditions where treaty after treaty were abrogated and a constant war existed throughout the 19th century between the U.S.A. and the native tribes, leading to the system of reservations, also a historical disgrace of Congress.
William Steven | Nov 24, 2012 | Reply
We also ought to hesitate when proclaiming Wilberforce as an abolitionist hero. He and his pal Penn recognized a political opportunity and grasped it. By helping to create the evangelical faction through nearly non-stop propaganda and politiking Wilberforce managed to enjoy a full career in Parliament.
When once abolition was achieved many slaves were “used up” by their masters in the short transitional period, a rational think to do with rapidly depreciating capital, many slaves moved to rebellion quickly, older slaves were abandoned with no means to survive their old age, and plantation owners were deprived a fair value on their investment.
Perhaps it was the best *institutional* response available, but it was still flawed, and Wilberforce’s primary motivation was likely to have been advancement of his own prestige, just like Lincoln...
The appropriate path to ending perceived historical injustice is individual and not institutional. That is, if I perceive an injustice, if I develop a sympathy for someone in a circumstance I should not want to find myself in, I then become the homesteader of that injustice. It becomes my responsibility to rectify it out of my own means.
This I call Sacrificial Altruism. It emulates the way of Christ, it keeps the state out of things, it provides rescue to victims and the possibility of redemption of oppressors, and overcomes transitional gains traps.
Nathanael Snow | Nov 27, 2012 | Reply
Mary, please read 2 books by Charles Chiniquy. 50 Years in the “Church” of Rome being the one that deals with Lincoln and the causes of the Civil War. Judging by your surname you will have a heap of bigotry to overcome. Perhaps, though, understanding that war as a religious one may give you a pause, at least, for thought.
Bruce Welty | Feb 24, 2013 | Reply
The government of ole Jeff Davis did pretty much the same,only first.The confederacy established martial law,imprisoned northern sympathisers,suspended habeas corpus,abd established war socialism each before the dam yankees did each.The south had no freedom of the press for opponents of slavery,years before the Civil War:the citizenry destroyed printing presses of opponents of slavery years before the War.Also local postmasters censored the Federal Mails,destroying the writing of opponents of slavery long before the war.Read the two books by Mark Neely on the civil war regimes of both the Union and the Confederacy.Ya see guys,they each were waging a war,on each other.Except that the north had pretty much abolished slavery,and the south seceeded to maintain slavery.The first twopm states to secceed had a majority population of slavey,and a minority white population.Most states of the confederacy claimed the right to keep slaves in perpetuity in their articles of secession.And as to other countries:the slave-owners in the English Empire had few votes in the Parliament,whereas the South had legislatures and armies.
William Ford | Feb 25, 2013 | Reply
Bruce,
A quick look at Mr. Chiniquy’s Wikipedia profile leads me to believe the time spent reading two of his books would be rather wasted. I sincerely doubt that Lincoln’s assassination was a conspiracy by the Catholic church, but even had it been, it would make no difference in Lincoln’s record as president.
You might also be interested in these articles on Mr. Chiniquy.
Your identity politics similarly serves you unwisely. I commend my husband’s writings to you as more enlightening than Mr. Chiniquy’s:
“C. S. Lewis on Mere Liberty and the Evils of Statism”
“Secular Theocracy: The Foundations and Folly of Modern Tyranny”
More, here.
Best wishes,
Mary
Mary Theroux | Feb 25, 2013 | Reply
I was attempting to guide you to a first person account by a man who happened to be a client and a friend of Lincoln. To out-of-hand rule out the possibility of Rome’s covert or even overt involvement in the 1861-1865 war is to fly in the face of all to prevalent wars, current and historical, that they are most intimately involved. The Vatican has been at enmity with Christians for centuries. They have slaughtered thousands of us.
Bruce Welty | Feb 25, 2013 | Reply