A Misreading of History

I don't think I'm splitting hairs here.  But I find it necessary to correct a premise put forth by a contributor to the pages of the New York Times this morning.  Marc Egnal, professor of history at York University, in "Becoming the Party of Freedom," writes:

Republicans began the Civil War as the party of Union, not the party of Freedom. They did not become the celebrated destroyers of slavery until almost two years into the war, with the Emancipation Proclamation, issued Jan. 1, 1863. But during the summer of 1861 the direction of change was unmistakable, as Republicans took the first, crucial steps in a mounting attack on the South’s “peculiar institution.” Long-held beliefs about the immorality of slavery combined with the challenges posed by an escalating conflict, explain the evolving outlook of the Republicans.

In truth, Republicans began the Republican Party because of their interest in the abolition of slavery and freedom for America's four million slaves.

No, they may not have called for outright emancipation - nationally - when the Party was founded in 1855 by anti-slavery activists. A move that would have been, at the time, too bold to garner widespread support from the electorate at large, and a stance that would rend the country even earlier than the issue did five and six years later. But there was no doubt at the time why the GOP existed.

It's worth remembering that the GOP's predecessor in our two-party system of governance - the Whig Party - had crumbled because of that very same issue.  The party was ultimately destroyed by the question of whether to allow the expansion of slavery to the territories.  Out of those ashes arose the Republican Party.*

Is this a small matter?  Am I reading more into Mr. Egnal's contention than he meant for us to take from it?  Perhaps.

But all I know is this:  Had we maintained the system whereby major candidates for high office affiliated with either the Democratic Party or the Whig Party, slavery might still be in existence today.****  It required a lot of brave Republicans to step up - beginning in 1855 - and end the nightmare.

* It's worth noting that Abraham Lincoln was originally a member of the Whig Party.

** In its first Party platform in 1856, the Republican Party adopted the following:


"Resolved: That, with our Republican fathers, we hold it to be a self-evident truth, that all men are endowed with the inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and that the primary object and ulterior design of our Federal Government were to secure these rights to all persons under its exclusive jurisdiction; that, as our Republican fathers, when they had abolished Slavery in all our National Territory, ordained that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, it becomes our duty to maintain this provision of the Constitution against all attempts to violate it for the purpose of establishing Slavery in the Territories of the United States by positive legislation, prohibiting its existence or extension therein. That we deny the authority of Congress, of a Territorial Legislation, of any individual, or association of individuals, to give legal existence to Slavery in any Territory of the United States, while the present Constitution shall be maintained.


"Resolved: That the Constitution confers upon Congress sovereign powers over the Territories of the United States for their government; and that in the exercise of this power, it is both the right and the imperative duty of Congress to prohibit in the Territories those twin relics of barbarism — Polygamy, and Slavery.

"Resolved, That Kansas should be immediately admitted as a state of this Union, with her present Free Constitution, as at once the most effectual way of securing to her citizens the enjoyment of the rights and privileges to which they are entitled, and of ending the civil strife now raging in her territory."

No, there was no call for the abolition of slavery nationally.  But it certainly demanded it with regard to its various territories. In 1856.  The GOP, from the outset, was the Party of emancipation.  But in incremental terms.

*** This, from the University of Richmond, is instructive:

"The Republican Party was formed as an anti-slavery party and in the presidential election of 1856, John Fremont became the party's first candidate for president. Ironically, Fremont was the only candidate in the presidential election from the South, yet he was also the only one who spoke out against slavery. Fremont campaigned to wipe out what he felt to be the two biggest sins plaguing the country: polygamy and slavery.

"The political climate of the era remained particularly tense due to conflict in Kansas and Missouri over slavery. This anti-slavery stance did not help him gain popularity with the majority of southerners. In addition, Fremont, if elected, wanted to admit Kansas into the Union as a free state, which enraged southerners even more. Southerners were further provoked by speeches given by Fremont supporters that declared if Fremont won the election he would “subjugate the South to freedom (The Daily Dispatch, Aug 8, pg. 3).' Needless to say, Fremont did not win over southerners with his abolitionist rhetoric and this eventually led to his defeat."

**** Okay, that might be an exaggeration.