In Search of Freedom

In Search of Freedom: African Americans and the Civil War  was a workshop held at the Catoctin Center at Frederick Community College in March 2013.  In terms of content and the knowledge and reputation of the speakers - this was outstanding.

Cheryl LaRoche from UMD introduced the "balance principle", that there was a balance of free and slave states from the beginning of the Union. Vermont was cut off from New York. Florida had to be a slave state, even though for 200 years it had been a place for slaves to escape to, when in 1845 Iowa joined the Union as a free state and Florida was its pair, and therefore slave.

Chandra Manning-from Georgetown University spoke of  "contraband", the term used to describe slaves who ran from their masters when the Union Army entered the south. They assisted the army by digging, washing etc and often lived in squalid camps.See Sick from Freedom: African-American Illness and Suffering during the Civil War and Reconstruction.
 
James McPherson from Yale spoke about "black men in blue". After the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln permitted African Americans to join the army, though they had been in the navy from the early days of the war.  African Americans received inferior pay, had white officers and were often garrisoned, guarding forts, railway lines etc, rather than be actively fighting.  When they did encounter Confederate troops they were often harshly treated, when captured sold back into slavery or, in the case of Fort Pillow in Mississippi, killed when they surrendered.  The Confederates refused to exchange black prisoners, leading to the overcrowding and abuse at places like Andersonville.  The African American troops fought to free the slaves in the south and also to gain acceptance as more than second class citizens.

Barbara Krauhamer from Amherst introduced photographs of African Americans during the Civil War. They ranged from pictures of slaves with scarred bodies in degrading situations, to photographs taken of United States Colored Troops in uniform, to slaves caring for white children, and finally to photographs of African Americans taken by African Americans. It was a very moving presentation.

Barbara Fields of Columbia University's topic was "Was Emancipation a War Crime?" She dealt with whether slaves were people or property.  And if property how could they be responsible for running away?

Lincoln's view was along the lines of "I do not want a negro woman to be a slave, but nor do I want her as a wife." He seized slaves from the south because they were rebel property.  Emancipation, in Field's view, was a war choice.  The language of the day was that slaves wanted their freedom because of outside agitators, not that they were unhappy with their situation.

Should slave holders be compensated for losing their property?  This may seem an absurd question now,  but it was a significant one at the time. A slave holder paid for his slave, and had fed, house and clothed this person, even if he were property. And the Federal government expected the south to give up their slaves without compensation. But to some, this seemed unreasonable. Hence the title of the talk - "Was Emancipation a War Crime?"

When the slaves in Barbados were freed, huge sums were paid to British slave holders - see Britain's colonial shame: Slave-owners given huge payouts after abolition  The slaves themselves received no compensation. Even indentured servants received freedom dues at the end of their term, but freed slaves were given nothing.