The 1619 Project (in the New York Times Magazine)

[David Lockmiller]

Reply to Leslie M. Harris, Professor of History, Northwestern University email dated May 27, 2020


To: A. G. Hodges, Esq
Frankfort, Ky.

From: President Abraham Lincoln
Executive Mansion, Washington, DC
April 4, 1864.

My dear Sir: You ask me to put in writing the substance of what I verbally said the other day, in your presence, to Governor Bramlette and Senator Dixon. It was about as follows:

It would appear that President Lincoln had a lot of discussion on this particular topic in a narrow span of time. Francis Carpenter in his book Six Months at the White House at page 79 wrote:

Upon referring to the date of the "Hodges" letter, it will be seen that it was written April 4th, only three days before the visit of Mr. Thompson and party. The coincidence of thought and expression in that statement, and the President's conversation on this occasion, are noticeable; and are explained by the fact, that, with the language of that letter still fresh in his mind, he very naturally fell into a similar vein of illustration.

Francis Carpenter's discussion on this subject runs from page 75 through page 79 of his book. It is an excellent read. The following is a limited portion of the text.

Mr. George Thompson, the English anti-slavery orator, delivered an address in the House of Representatives, to a large audience, April 6th, 1864. Among the distinguished persons present was President Lincoln, who was greatly interested. The following morning, Mr. Thompson and party . . . called at the White House. The President was alone when their names were announced, with the exception of myself. Dropping all business, he ordered the party to be immediately admitted. Greeting them cordially, the gentlemen took seats, and Mr. Thompson commenced conversation by referring to the condition of public sentiment in England in regard to the great conflict the nation was passing through. He said the aristocracy and the "money interest" were desirous of seeing the Union broken up, but that the great heart of the masses beat in sympathy with the North. They instinctively felt that the cause of liberty was bound up with our success in putting down the Rebellion, and the struggle was being watched with the deepest anxiety.

Mr. Lincoln thereupon said: "Mr. Thompson, the people of Great Britain, and of other foreign governments, were in one great error in reference to this conflict. They seemed to think that, the moment I was President, I had the power to abolish slavery, forgetting that, before I could have any power whatever, I had to take the oath to support the Constitution of the United States, and execute the laws as I found them. When the Rebellion broke out, my duty did not admit of a question. That was, first, by all strictly lawful means to endeavor to maintain the integrity of the government. I did not consider that I had a right to touch the 'State' institution of 'Slavery' until all other measures for restoring the Union had failed.

. . . It seems clear, then, that in the last extremity, if any local institution threatened the existence of the Union, the Executive could not hesitate as to his duty. In our case, the moment came when I felt that slavery must die that the nation might live! I have sometimes used the illustration in this connection of a man with a diseased limb, and his surgeon. So long as there is a chance of the patient's restoration, the surgeon is solemnly bound to try to save both life and limb; but when the crisis comes, and the limb must be sacrificed as the only chance of saving the life, no honest man will hesitate.

. . . It is my conviction that, had the proclamation been issued even six months earlier than it was, public sentiment would not have sustained it. . . . The step, taken sooner, could not, in my judgment, have been carried out. A man watches his pear-tree day after day, impatient for the ripening of the fruit. Let him attempt to force the process, and he may spoil both fruit and tree. But let him patiently wait, and the ripe pear at length falls into his lap! We have seen this great revolution in public sentiment slowly but surely progressing, so that, when final action came, the opposition was not strong enough to defeat the purpose. I can now solemnly assert," he concluded, "that I have a clear conscience in regard to my action on this momentous question. I have done what no man could have helped doing, standing in my place."

From: Leslie M. Harris by email on 5/27/2020
Subject: Re: I Helped Fact-Check the 1619 Project. The Times Ignored Me.

Dear Mr. Lockmiller,

The Emancipation Proclamation only freed those enslaved people who were in the states still in rebellion--which encouraged the enslaved to flee in larger numbers to federal lines, but did not convince rebellious states that slavery had ended. Both the Emancipation Proclamation and the 13th Amendment resulted because of the war--not because the Constitution as written provided enough guidelines to end slavery. My point is less about Lincoln's lack of power or his lack of will to end slavery (it's clear he thought it should end). My point is more about the weakness of the Constitution as a tool to end slavery. Lincoln wished to end slavery in DC during his time in Congress, but could not convince his fellow elected officials to do so; and he, as with other anti-slavery activists, could not convince the nation as a whole that slavery was not supported by the Constitution. The completion of the project of emancipation resulted through Civil War.

best wishes,
LMH

Leslie M. Harris
Professor of History
Northwestern University