One presidential candidate recently speculated that he was so good at “the art of the deal” that he might have negotiated a deal that would have prevented the civil war.

Such arrogant boasting overlooks an essential historical fact:  in the first century of the United States, there were a number of “deals” that prevented a civil war. But these were only “deals” among people of European ancestry.

People of African ancestry were never included in the negotiation of these “deals”. Indeed, the kidnapping and enslavement of people of African ancestry was the price paid for preventing a civil war between people of European ancestry! (see my blog “‘Deals’ About Slavery and Racism: The Constitution (1787)”)

Furthermore, in my book Visions of America (first published in 2004), I describe how Lincoln tried to reach a “deal” to avoid the Civil War. But he failed.

As I wrote in 2004:

Fearing the destruction of their economy by [Lincoln’s] economic policies that favored the North and fearing the destruction of their lives by rebellious slaves, Southern states began leaving the Union. . . . .

Deeply alarmed, Lincoln and others began looking for a way to defuse the crisis. There was even some support for a constitutional amendment that would forever guarantee the existence of slavery in the South.

No wonder [the abolitionist leader and former slave] Frederick Douglass despaired.

Again and again in American history, whites in the North and the South had compromised their differences by sacrificing the liberty of blacks.

In 1787, at the Constitutional Convention, whites compromised by permitting the slave trade to continue for at least another 20 years.

In 1820, whites compromised by permitting the South to add new slave states and by promising the North that slavery (and cheap black labor) wouldn’t spread to the North.

In 1850, whites compromised by agreeing that the North would increase its efforts to return runaway slaves to their masters in the South.

Now, in 1861, it looked as if whites in the North might compromise to preserve the Union by adopting a constitutional amendment that would guarantee that slavery could exist forever in the South.

How would the new president respond?

As a practical politician, Lincoln was willing to compromise any issues except “the extension of slavery into the national territories”—not because Lincoln was worried about the effect of extending slavery on black people—but because Lincoln feared that a compromise on extending slavery into the national territories “would disrupt the party that had elected him.”

All of this talk of compromise at the expense of blacks was a far cry from Abraham Lincoln’s motto for the Republican Party: “Liberty and Union, now and forever, one and inseparable.”

Therefore, Frederick Douglass attacked Lincoln’s timidity.

In an editorial, [Frederick Douglass] complained that, “With the single exception of slavery extension, Mr. Lincoln proposes no measure which can bring him into antagonistic collision with the traffickers in human flesh.”

Weary with such betrayals of his people, Frederick Douglass lost hope.

“Disappointed by Lincoln’s Inaugural Address, alarmed by public persecution, he fear[ed] for his people. For the first time in twenty years, he [lost] hope in the American dream.”

Wondering whether blacks would be better off fleeing America, [Frederick] Douglass chartered a boat to investigate Haiti as a possible haven.

Then the South made a fatal mistake.

Hotheads in South Carolina didn’t merely want Fort Sumter to be abandoned because it ran out of food. They wanted to take credit for forcing Fort Sumter to surrender.

These shortsighted fools did not see the bloodshed of war. They were too blinded by delusions of glory.

These deaf prophets did not hear the weeping that comes from needless death and suffering. They were too deafened by talk of glory.

These wicked men did not understand that starting a war would enable Lincoln to do something that he could never have done in peacetime: freeing the slaves.

And so, “[a]t four thirty in the morning of April 12 a signal mortar sounded and a red ball ascended in a lazy curve to burst above the fort.” “All day and into the rainy night the encircling batteries pounded at the fort” and its Star-Spangled Banner.

After a bombardment that lasted thirty-four hours, Fort Sumter surrendered.

In the South, people cheered.

But in the North—in the “Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave—people rose in fury at the traitors who dared to fire at the Star-Spangled Banner.

Frederick Douglass didn’t go to Haiti. Instead, he shouted, “God be praised!”

Frederick Douglass did not rejoice because he liked war.

Frederick Douglass rejoiced because he saw that war would bring liberty.

Frederick Douglass rejoiced because he heard God’s truth marching on.

Frederick Douglass rejoiced because he understood that the Union could only be saved by granting liberty to those Americans [whose ancestors] had come from Africa.

Frederick Douglass rejoiced because he understood that Liberty AND Union truly were one and inseparable, then and forever.

THINGS TO THINK ABOUT

Why are Liberty and Union one and inseparable?

How should we apply this principle within the United States today? Why?

How should we apply this principle to choosing the friends and allies of the United States around the world today? Why?

How should we apply this principle to the United Nations today? Why?

READ MORE

For related ideas, please read my blogs “Deals About Slavery and Racism: The Constitution (1787)”, “How Do We Build a Civilization That Is Good—That Is Very Good?”, “Racism Is America Gone Astray”, “The 500-Year Marathon To Overcome Racism”, and “Nationalism Is Patriotism Gone Astray”.

For applicable endnotes, please see my book “Visions of America”, including materials found in Before the Mayflower: A History of Black America, by Lerone Bennett, Jr. (1993).