Emancipation, the Union Army, and the Reelection of Abraham Lincoln (Jonathan W. White)

 

In Emancipation, the Union Army, and the Reelection of Abraham Lincoln, Jonathan White presents a more cynical but probably more realistic take on the Union Army in regards to the motivations of its soldiers. He challenges the popular historical consensus that the overwhelming army vote for Lincoln in the 1864 election reflected solidarity with Republican war aims of emancipation. While he directly addresses James McPherson’s works, which trumpeted the army as a force of emancipation, he also criticizes Chandra Manning’s What This Cruel War Was Over, and in doing so challenges her thesis as well. In her book Manning claimed that by looking at hundreds of Union and Confederate letters, the soldiers obviously fought for the issue of slavery. As regards the Federals, she believes they for the most part put Unionism I the background in favor of destroying slavery. White believes that she and other historians inferred too much from a considerable, yet still fractionally small pool of letters and diaries. I add that they also failed to take differing ethnic and regional backgrounds to account (for example, a soldier from southern Illinois would not be as inclined towards abolitionism as a Massachusetts man or radical German immigrant). Furthermore, he believes that soldiers’ views change back and forth in response to events. Historians can fall into the trap of taking a few diaries and letters and making them representative of the whole army. He avoids being representative himself, stating that he only wishes to flesh out those who did not vote against Lincoln and not make any monolithic claims.

He argues several general facts that challenge the popular narrative. Using voting statistics, he shows that 20% of soldiers eligible to vote chose not to do so, showing either disinterest or disgust with both parties. Many who voted for Lincoln did so because they did not approve of the Democrats’ anti-war platform and just wanted to win the war. Finally, in the age of public ballots, there was an atmosphere of intimidation that dissuaded Democrat votes. Some Republican officers rigged pro-emancipation regimental resolutions to appear unanimously in favor. Soldiers who wanted to vote for McClellan could be stopped out of fear of riling up their comrades and being accused of disloyalty. Officers could have their careers stalled or destroyed if they expressed too much criticism of abolitionism.

Through his work White concludes a common historiographical trend. Often there is a prevailing view of a historical event that stays entrenched for decades. Then a revisionist makes a stark counter-argument that becomes the predominant view, only later on for a third “neo-revisionist” work to argue a middle ground. For a long time the Union soldier was presented for fighting primarily for preservation of his republic. Then it became emancipation. White shows that “for many northern soldiers, restoring the Union was the only true goal of the war from beginning to end.” Though his lack of time on it may not reveal it, he argues that many soldiers indeed came to see emancipation as the higher cause, but perhaps just as many prioritized preserving the Union without any concern for blacks. He argues that the Union Army was an army of emancipation not from some popular “bottom-up” movement by the soldiers, but from a top-down implementation of policies by Lincoln, the War Department, and then the generals and other officers.

White’s book does a good job of providing a more nuanced view of the Union army and showing that there was not a strong pro-emancipation majority, but there are a couple flaws. White makes the same mistake as Manning in not differentiating the different types of ethnicities and regions making up the armies. In reading this book I noticed that the soldiers with the strongest anti-emancipation views came from such states as Illinois and Ohio. General Sherman’s 1864 army, which was made up of westerners, refused to accept any black soldiers. Westerners had stronger economic ties with the South, and may have shared more of their racial views as a result. My second issue is that some of the officers and soldiers that were dismissed for disloyalty were directing some very bold criticisms and insults towards Lincoln and abolition. White never suggests that they might have twisted the stories behind their comments when presenting them in court. A pillar of the United States is free speech but one wonders if such blatant attacks on war aims and the commander-in-chief would have been accepted or still are.

Regardless this is a great book from the recent Dark Turn in Civil War historiography. While not pleasant, it is essential for White and others to challenge some of the comforting narratives. White also better accounts for the fact that history is made up of individuals, not collectives. While group pressure can shape an individual, he, especially an American one, is likely to have some degree of difference in views. Federals soldiers’ views on emancipation varied widely from outright abolitionism to pragmatic emancipation to complete disinterest to even anti-emancipation.

The book can be bought here. It's price has gone down significantly since I had to get it for my Master's course.

Rating: Highly Recommend

Rating System

Must-Read: Definite read for history in general

Highly Recommend: Definite read within a certain subject

Recommend: Good for further information or info on a certain topic

Adequate: Useful if looking for further information certain topic

Pass: Awful, only useful for examining bad or ideologically-tainted history