The Legacy of Slavery: Presidents and How They Should Be Remembered
In retrospect, it occurs to me that the title of this month's series has been incorrectly named. These posts have nothing to do with slavery's legacy, but rather with the legacy left by the Presidents who had to confront the issue. At the beginning of this series there was a reflection on what today is the obvious immorality of the enslavement of other human beings. Imagine for a moment that tomorrow morning, you and your family were suddenly kidnapped, shackled, forced to endure a long ride on a primitive ship, only to arrive at an unfamiliar destination to be subjected to forced labor (or worse) under penalty of being whipped if you didn't comply. Now imagine if those who held you in slavery justified their action based on your skin color. Would any rational person fail to see the immorality and wickedness of such a thing? Hopefully not. All of which then calls for the obvious question: what were early American thinking when the tolerated and even justified such a thing to happen?
As with many of history's great moral wrongs, some likely justified their action on biblical passages, including in Deuteronomy and in some of the letters of Paul in the New Testament. Others just saw it as an accepted way of life, a practice that dated back to biblical times and still exited in the mother country of Great Britain until the Slavery Abolition Act of 1833. A paternalistic and bigoted mentality saw those of other races as inferior. This view was not only prevalent among the uneducated, but among the so-called "upper classes", those with education, money and privilege.
Of the first seventeen US Presidents, ten were slaveholders. Of the remaining seven, four were described as "doughface" Presidents (northerners who were not slaveholders, but who were supportive of the rights of those who held persons in slavery): Martin Van Buren, Millard Fillmore, Franklin Pierce and James Buchanan. Van Buren would later run for President under the banner of a party that called for the abolition of slavery. Two of the remaining three, John Adams and his son John Quincy, would take no steps to end slavery during their presidencies, though John Quincy was very active in support of the Abolitionist cause following his time as President.
The remaining President, Abraham Lincoln, was not an abolitionist, contrary to how many people perceive him. At least not initially. He was first and foremost a Unionist. He famously wrote "If I could save the union without freeing any slaves 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." He wrote this in a letter to New York Tribune editor (and future Presidential candidate) Horace Greeley on August 22, 1862. To be fair however, by this time he had chosen the second option. The Emancipation Proclamation had already been decided on and would be issued the following month on September 22, 1862 to take effect the following New Year's Day.
One other President, Ulysses Grant, is sometimes considered to have been a slave holder, though this is because his wife, Julia Dent, inherited four enslaved persons. Grant's personal views as well as his record as an opponent of slavery is almost certainly unmatched. This is best exemplified by his use of US troops to combat the actions of the Ku Klux Klan in the southern states.
What does all of this mean today? More specifically, should those Presidents who were slaveholders be stripped of their monuments and tributes? Should statues of them that remain in prominent places be removed? Should their names be taken off of public buildings and institutions that have been named in their honor, as was the case at the University of Buffalo where buildings named after Millard Fillmore were rechristened? And what about the Presidents who didn't own slaves, but who enabled it? Should the legacy of all of these persons be judged according to the standards of their times, or of ours?
History has a way of looking considerably different through its rear-view mirror. Presidents such as Ulysses Grant and Warren Harding have long been remembered and criticized for the scandals that plagued their administrations. More recently however both have gone up in the estimation of many historians for their support of civil rights to a level that was seen as ahead of their time. Harding had the courage to lecture southerners about the moral wrongs of racial prejudice and to do it not from the security of the White House, but to a live audience in Birmingham, Alabama. Herbert Hoover was once blamed for the Great Depression, but more recent reassessments show that he was trying to do the very same things that his successor did that were credited for bringing about the depression's end.
Should the faces of Washington and Jefferson be chiseled off of Mount Rushmore and replaced with those of the two Adams or of Grant? The argument against doing so is that their actions must be judged according to their times, and that expecting them to take radical action at the time when slavery existed would have split the country apart and would have been of no practical value. Proponents of this theory argue that honoring these leaders for their positive contributions to American society is not the same as approving slavery.
The contrary argument is that continuing to honor leaders who were slaveholders or who enabled slavery's continued existence (especially after many of the leading nations in Europe were abolishing it) is to devalue the worth of the descendants of those who were held in slavery and to signal approval or at least tacit acceptance of a reprehensible practice.
Slavery's legacy remains with us today. It continued even after the Emancipation Proclamation with the failure of proper reconstruction of the divided nation, made worse by Rutherford Hayes' approval of a so-called "compromise" that undid much of the good that Ulysses Grant had accomplished in seeking to protect freedmen and include them in the governing of their states. It was kept alive by the actions of the Klan, who were welcomed at Democratic Party conventions in the early 20th century, and in the Jim Crow laws in southern states. It was personified by persons like Ben "Pitchfork" Tillman, Thomas Watson, Bull Connor, Strom Thurmond, George Wallace and David Duke and its presence was clear more recently in Charlottesville. Its effects are generational. It has left a permanent scar on the nation.
Reasonable people can disagree on how we should remember those presidents who were slaveholders and those who enabled the unholy practice to continue. It is an important discussion to have as we strive to be better people, as Lincoln might say, to follow our "better angels". It is important that we remember how we were once led in an evil direction, and how we must be diligent and strive never to repeat such a horrible mistake. We must use our understanding of what slavery was and how it came about as a method of learning how political expediency can lead to grave injustice, and resolve that such a thing must never happen again.
As with many of history's great moral wrongs, some likely justified their action on biblical passages, including in Deuteronomy and in some of the letters of Paul in the New Testament. Others just saw it as an accepted way of life, a practice that dated back to biblical times and still exited in the mother country of Great Britain until the Slavery Abolition Act of 1833. A paternalistic and bigoted mentality saw those of other races as inferior. This view was not only prevalent among the uneducated, but among the so-called "upper classes", those with education, money and privilege.
Of the first seventeen US Presidents, ten were slaveholders. Of the remaining seven, four were described as "doughface" Presidents (northerners who were not slaveholders, but who were supportive of the rights of those who held persons in slavery): Martin Van Buren, Millard Fillmore, Franklin Pierce and James Buchanan. Van Buren would later run for President under the banner of a party that called for the abolition of slavery. Two of the remaining three, John Adams and his son John Quincy, would take no steps to end slavery during their presidencies, though John Quincy was very active in support of the Abolitionist cause following his time as President.
The remaining President, Abraham Lincoln, was not an abolitionist, contrary to how many people perceive him. At least not initially. He was first and foremost a Unionist. He famously wrote "If I could save the union without freeing any slaves 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." He wrote this in a letter to New York Tribune editor (and future Presidential candidate) Horace Greeley on August 22, 1862. To be fair however, by this time he had chosen the second option. The Emancipation Proclamation had already been decided on and would be issued the following month on September 22, 1862 to take effect the following New Year's Day.
One other President, Ulysses Grant, is sometimes considered to have been a slave holder, though this is because his wife, Julia Dent, inherited four enslaved persons. Grant's personal views as well as his record as an opponent of slavery is almost certainly unmatched. This is best exemplified by his use of US troops to combat the actions of the Ku Klux Klan in the southern states.
What does all of this mean today? More specifically, should those Presidents who were slaveholders be stripped of their monuments and tributes? Should statues of them that remain in prominent places be removed? Should their names be taken off of public buildings and institutions that have been named in their honor, as was the case at the University of Buffalo where buildings named after Millard Fillmore were rechristened? And what about the Presidents who didn't own slaves, but who enabled it? Should the legacy of all of these persons be judged according to the standards of their times, or of ours?
History has a way of looking considerably different through its rear-view mirror. Presidents such as Ulysses Grant and Warren Harding have long been remembered and criticized for the scandals that plagued their administrations. More recently however both have gone up in the estimation of many historians for their support of civil rights to a level that was seen as ahead of their time. Harding had the courage to lecture southerners about the moral wrongs of racial prejudice and to do it not from the security of the White House, but to a live audience in Birmingham, Alabama. Herbert Hoover was once blamed for the Great Depression, but more recent reassessments show that he was trying to do the very same things that his successor did that were credited for bringing about the depression's end.
Should the faces of Washington and Jefferson be chiseled off of Mount Rushmore and replaced with those of the two Adams or of Grant? The argument against doing so is that their actions must be judged according to their times, and that expecting them to take radical action at the time when slavery existed would have split the country apart and would have been of no practical value. Proponents of this theory argue that honoring these leaders for their positive contributions to American society is not the same as approving slavery.
The contrary argument is that continuing to honor leaders who were slaveholders or who enabled slavery's continued existence (especially after many of the leading nations in Europe were abolishing it) is to devalue the worth of the descendants of those who were held in slavery and to signal approval or at least tacit acceptance of a reprehensible practice.
Slavery's legacy remains with us today. It continued even after the Emancipation Proclamation with the failure of proper reconstruction of the divided nation, made worse by Rutherford Hayes' approval of a so-called "compromise" that undid much of the good that Ulysses Grant had accomplished in seeking to protect freedmen and include them in the governing of their states. It was kept alive by the actions of the Klan, who were welcomed at Democratic Party conventions in the early 20th century, and in the Jim Crow laws in southern states. It was personified by persons like Ben "Pitchfork" Tillman, Thomas Watson, Bull Connor, Strom Thurmond, George Wallace and David Duke and its presence was clear more recently in Charlottesville. Its effects are generational. It has left a permanent scar on the nation.
Reasonable people can disagree on how we should remember those presidents who were slaveholders and those who enabled the unholy practice to continue. It is an important discussion to have as we strive to be better people, as Lincoln might say, to follow our "better angels". It is important that we remember how we were once led in an evil direction, and how we must be diligent and strive never to repeat such a horrible mistake. We must use our understanding of what slavery was and how it came about as a method of learning how political expediency can lead to grave injustice, and resolve that such a thing must never happen again.