Introduction
In the book “Taking Sides,” Vincent Harding makes an argument that refutes the widely accepted theory on Abraham Lincoln’s contribution to the freedom of slaves. Although historians frequently credit Lincoln’s policies for freeing the slaves, Harding argues that the enslaved people themselves were instrumental in achieving their freedom. This article will examine Harding’s viewpoint and consider his assertions in light of prior research. As such, the argument goes that acknowledging the agency of the enslaved population is necessary for a thorough understanding of the processes leading to freedom, in addition to being historically correct.
Individual Agency
The primary claim of Vincent Harding’s theory is that the population of enslaved people’s agency played a critical role in their ultimate freedom. Instead of focusing just on Lincoln’s political ploys, Harding highlights the active part that people held in bondage performed. Stated differently, he presents a convincing argument, claiming that the enslaved people actively and critically contributed to their own liberation.
Put another way, Harding emphasizes the enslaved people’s resistance, tenacity, and quest for freedom as essential factors that molded their release rather than viewing emancipation as a gift from above. According to Harding, praising Lincoln’s political scheming alone ignores the dynamic contributions of individuals who were held as slaves. The oppressed took an active role in determining their own fate, as opposed to being passive receivers of liberty. Their final release was greatly impacted by and a result of their acts of resistance, steadfast determination, and unrelenting quest for freedom.
Broader Support from the Literature
Manning’s analysis of how people perceived emancipation and Abraham Lincoln provides important support for Harding’s position. Manning depicts the shifting popular perceptions of Lincoln’s position on slavery in a clear and concise manner. She makes clear how societal norms and outside influences shaped people’s opinions on these important subjects.
To put it another way, Manning demonstrates how opinions regarding Lincoln and slavery changed over time as a result of outside factors and shifting social norms. This historical background becomes a vital point of contention for Harding. He argues that the agency of the enslaved population was crucial, and Manning’s observations shed light on this.
The political environment was under pressure to alter as popular attitudes against slavery evolved. To put it another way, the people who were enslaved were not only figuring out how to go free; they were doing it in a setting where society at large was reconsidering its stance on slavery. Consequently, affirms that the agency of the slaves had a crucial role in influencing the political climate of the day in addition to being important on an individual basis.
Harding’s viewpoint is strengthened by Danoff’s examination of Abraham Lincoln’s pre-Civil War handling of the slavery problem. Lincoln, according to Danoff, used a political tactic akin to walking a tightrope and carefully balancing to manage a sharply divided country. Danoff said that this tactic even involved a certain amount of slavery condoning. This implies that in order to prevent the country from collapsing, Lincoln had to exercise extreme caution, which included giving up on the slavery debate.
Consequently, Harding’s perspective coincides with Danoff’s interpretation, resulting in a more comprehensive comprehension of Lincoln’s stance. Danoff’s thoughtful analysis strengthens Harding’s argument that the enslaved people actively participated in choosing their own route to liberation. Harding makes the case that slaves were active agents in determining their own fate rather than passive observers in a complicated and conflicting political environment where even Abraham Lincoln was forced to make difficult concessions. This is one more example of the argument’s strength of argument.
Given the narrow focus of Lincoln’s original goals, the role played by the slaves in achieving their liberation becomes even more evident. Harding refutes the claim that Lincoln’s main objective was to abolish slavery immediately, pointing out that the President did not adopt the concept of complete emancipation until much later in the Civil War. Harding’s claim that the actions of the enslaved community shaped the course of their release is supported by this delay in the creation of policy. As society developed, the enslaved population’s tenacity and resolve affected larger attitudes and exerted pressure on political authorities to address the escalating need for liberation.
In addition, Harding argues that the population of enslaved people was dedicated to achieving liberation not just via individual battles but also through the development of a communal consciousness among slave communities. The enslaved’s formation of networks and alliances and their cooperation with abolitionists demonstrate a clever and calculated strategy for achieving liberation. Harding’s emphasis on the collective endeavor is consistent with Manning’s examination of changing cultural perspectives, stressing the relationship between personal behaviors and the transformation of the wider society. To put it simply, the things that people do in their communities are entwined with and contribute to the bigger changes that are taking place in society.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Vincent Harding’s argument that the enslaved population played an active role in their own liberation offers a fresh and necessary perspective on the history of slavery and emancipation. Harding challenges the commonly accepted view that Abraham Lincoln was the primary agent responsible for the freedom of the slaves, suggesting instead that the actions and resistance of the enslaved themselves were pivotal in shaping their path to freedom. This argument is supported by the insights provided by Manning and Danoff, who emphasize the broader societal and political context in which slavery was abolished.
By examining the role of individual agency, collective resistance, and the evolving political environment, this paper highlights the importance of acknowledging the enslaved people’s contributions to their own emancipation. Harding’s viewpoint enriches our understanding of history, shifting the narrative from one of passive subjugation to one of active struggle and agency, ultimately providing a more comprehensive understanding of the forces that shaped American freedom.
References
Harding, V. (2009). Taking Sides: Clashing Views in United States History, Volume 1, The Colonial Period to Reconstruction (13th ed.). McGraw-Hill Higher Education.
Manning, C. (2013). The Shifting Terrain of Attitudes Toward Abraham Lincoln and Emancipation. Journal of the Abraham Lincoln Association, 34(1), 18-39. Web.
Danoff, B. (2015). Lincoln and the “Necessity” of Tolerating Slavery before the Civil War. The Review of Politics, 77(1), 47-71. Web.