What do you think?
Rate this book
I Freed Myself: African American Self-Emancipation in the Civil War Era
For a century and a half, Abraham Lincoln's signing of the Emancipation Proclamation has been the dominant narrative of African American freedom in the Civil War era. However, David Williams suggests that this portrayal marginalizes the role that African American slaves played in freeing themselves. At the Civil War's outset, Lincoln made clear his intent was to save the Union rather than free slaves – despite his personal distaste for slavery, he claimed no authority to interfere with the institution. By the second year of the war, though, when the Union army was in desperate need of black support, former slaves who escaped to Union lines struck a bargain: they would fight for the Union only if they were granted their freedom. Williams importantly demonstrates that freedom was not simply the absence of slavery but rather a dynamic process enacted by self-emancipated African American refugees, which compelled Lincoln to modify his war aims and place black freedom at the center of his wartime policies.
*Challenges the dominant narrative of how African Americans obtained their freedom
*Is accessible for all reading/education levels
*Brings a new perspective to understanding the emancipation of slaves
*Challenges the dominant narrative of how African Americans obtained their freedom
*Is accessible for all reading/education levels
*Brings a new perspective to understanding the emancipation of slaves
275 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2014
3 people are currently reading
198 people want to read
About the author
David Williams
12 books7 followersLibrarian Note: There is more than one author in the GoodReads database with this name. See this thread for more information.
A professor of history at Valdosta State University, David Williams received his Ph.D. in history from Auburn University in 1988. The author of numerous articles on Georgia history, the Old South, Appalachia, and the Civil War, Williams is the author of Rich Man's War: Class, Caste, and Confederate Defeat in the Lower Chattahoochee Valley and Johnny Reb's War: Battlefield and Homefront and the coauthor of Gold Fever: America's First Gold Rush and Plain Folk in a Rich Man's War: Class and Dissent in Confederate Georgia. He lives in Valdosta, Georgia.
A professor of history at Valdosta State University, David Williams received his Ph.D. in history from Auburn University in 1988. The author of numerous articles on Georgia history, the Old South, Appalachia, and the Civil War, Williams is the author of Rich Man's War: Class, Caste, and Confederate Defeat in the Lower Chattahoochee Valley and Johnny Reb's War: Battlefield and Homefront and the coauthor of Gold Fever: America's First Gold Rush and Plain Folk in a Rich Man's War: Class and Dissent in Confederate Georgia. He lives in Valdosta, Georgia.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews
May 9, 2014
I Freed Myself is a great text for popular audiences who, unlike historians, haven't read much of the recent scholarship by Stephanie McCurry, Thavolia Glymph, etc. on what some call "the slaves' war" against their masters. Nevertheless, in light of recent focus devoted to the roles Lincoln (Eric Foner's The Fiery Trial), the Union Army (Chandra Manning's What This Cruel War Was Over and Gary Gallagher's The Union War), and congressional Republicans (James Oakes's Freedom National and "Reluctant to Emancipate?") played in moving the country toward the legal destruction of slavery, it's good to see a book length project devoted to enslaved people's roles in the process. Indeed, if enslaved people had simply stayed put, instead of fleeing their masters and refusing to work, then Lincoln et al might have felt no need to develop policies like the Confiscation Acts, the Emancipation Proclamation, enforcing the slave trade ban on the seas, abolishing slavery in DC, and the Thirteenth Amendment, because going into the war, this certainly wasn't part of most white Americans' plans.
August 25, 2021
African people were the driving force for their emancipation from chattel enslavement. That is the thesis of this sharp and extremely important book that seeks to reframe a chronically and deliberately mischaracterized time in American history. Why does Abraham Lincoln and the Republican Party—and by extension the white North—get credited for saving the Union and “freeing the slaves,” when it was the Africans themselves who were both the cause of the underlying conflict leading to Civil War and the decisive factor in its outcome? This book, by centering the self-emancipatory agency of enslaved Africans, seeks to answer this question, and more.
As author David Williams makes clear, “Abolition was the excuse for secession. Slave resistance was the underlying cause.” In short, the U.S. Civil War was essentially a slave rebellion. It was brought about by enslaved Africans who simply refused to remain idle in their tortuous Southern slave labor camps, and it was won by those same Africans who tipped the scales of power in the Union’s favor through various means of resistance. The author characterized the state of Africans during the Civil War era as “slavery without submission.” Injecting historical reality into the more conventional (and racist) framing, the author demonstrates how the North’s supposed “anti-slavery” position was actually rooted in an exclusionary form of white supremacy, as evidenced by the stark violence, discrimination and outright banning of Black people in the so-called “free states.” The author explains that while the South was white supremacist in its ruthless exploitation of African labor, the North was white supremacist in its overt exclusion of African people from American citizenry.
This book really drives home the point that neither Lincoln, the GOP, nor the North more generally were aiming to emancipate the slaves nor abolish slavery. In fact, most white Northerners were perfectly fine with slavery as long as it was confined to the South, as it not only fueled Northern industry, but it kept the masses of Black people out of the North and Western territories. Accordingly, the Civil War became a necessity from the white Northerner’s point of view because a divided Union threatened to not only cripple American industry, but it might lead to an explosion and expansion of the Black population outside of the South (enslaved Africans were running away by the tens of thousands at this time). Essentially, Black flight caused the conflict, and Black people claiming their freedom independent of anything the North did forced Lincoln to “emancipate” slaves in the Confederate states. At the time of the Confiscation Acts and the Emancipation Proclamation, Africans all over the South already saw themselves as free. Lincoln knew this, and was eventually forced to reckon with this reality.
I found this book’s reframing of Abraham Lincoln fascinating. Lincoln gets credited as the “Great Emancipator,” when he should really be blamed for laying the groundwork for the re-enslavement and continued exploitation of African “freedmen.” Not only did Lincoln utterly ignore Black folks’ calls for land allotment and redistribution (instead choosing to largely return lands to former slaveholders who pledged allegiance to the Union), he encouraged the government itself to sell confiscated Southern lands to Northern investors, who at the war’s end either sold it back to the Southern Slavocracy, or got into the business of Black labor exploitation via sharecropping, convict leasing, vagrancy / debt peonage, etc. Lincoln’s actions paved the way for the continued plunder of African people, yet he gets credited for the limited “freedom” that Africans themselves initiated and achieved. This is a must read for the simple fact that it explodes a vital aspect of American mythology, and highlights the agency of Black people in their desire for freedom and self-determination.
As author David Williams makes clear, “Abolition was the excuse for secession. Slave resistance was the underlying cause.” In short, the U.S. Civil War was essentially a slave rebellion. It was brought about by enslaved Africans who simply refused to remain idle in their tortuous Southern slave labor camps, and it was won by those same Africans who tipped the scales of power in the Union’s favor through various means of resistance. The author characterized the state of Africans during the Civil War era as “slavery without submission.” Injecting historical reality into the more conventional (and racist) framing, the author demonstrates how the North’s supposed “anti-slavery” position was actually rooted in an exclusionary form of white supremacy, as evidenced by the stark violence, discrimination and outright banning of Black people in the so-called “free states.” The author explains that while the South was white supremacist in its ruthless exploitation of African labor, the North was white supremacist in its overt exclusion of African people from American citizenry.
This book really drives home the point that neither Lincoln, the GOP, nor the North more generally were aiming to emancipate the slaves nor abolish slavery. In fact, most white Northerners were perfectly fine with slavery as long as it was confined to the South, as it not only fueled Northern industry, but it kept the masses of Black people out of the North and Western territories. Accordingly, the Civil War became a necessity from the white Northerner’s point of view because a divided Union threatened to not only cripple American industry, but it might lead to an explosion and expansion of the Black population outside of the South (enslaved Africans were running away by the tens of thousands at this time). Essentially, Black flight caused the conflict, and Black people claiming their freedom independent of anything the North did forced Lincoln to “emancipate” slaves in the Confederate states. At the time of the Confiscation Acts and the Emancipation Proclamation, Africans all over the South already saw themselves as free. Lincoln knew this, and was eventually forced to reckon with this reality.
I found this book’s reframing of Abraham Lincoln fascinating. Lincoln gets credited as the “Great Emancipator,” when he should really be blamed for laying the groundwork for the re-enslavement and continued exploitation of African “freedmen.” Not only did Lincoln utterly ignore Black folks’ calls for land allotment and redistribution (instead choosing to largely return lands to former slaveholders who pledged allegiance to the Union), he encouraged the government itself to sell confiscated Southern lands to Northern investors, who at the war’s end either sold it back to the Southern Slavocracy, or got into the business of Black labor exploitation via sharecropping, convict leasing, vagrancy / debt peonage, etc. Lincoln’s actions paved the way for the continued plunder of African people, yet he gets credited for the limited “freedom” that Africans themselves initiated and achieved. This is a must read for the simple fact that it explodes a vital aspect of American mythology, and highlights the agency of Black people in their desire for freedom and self-determination.
September 10, 2016
Williams is smoking hot when it comes to the role of African-Americans in the American Civil War. The overstatement that Lincoln freed the slaves rubs many of us, and his thesis that not only did the slaves largely set themselves free, but were pivotal to the Union’s ultimate victory, is a strong one.
In Marxist organizations, there is an expression for a political over-correction. It’s called “bending the stick too far back”. The idea is that you want the stick to be straight up, but sometimes when something has been done wrong, and once the evidence piles up until the reader cannot believe that anyone was dumb enough to think otherwise, it can cause other mitigating facts to be obscured; thus, the stick is bent too far the other way. And although I really like the work Williams has done here, and am making my 4.5 rating round up to 5 lest anyone not read this scholarly, well documented work, I do think he has made an error or two by disregarding the dynamics of the war and the decision-making process. It’s easy to do.
Actually, when I taught about this subject, I treated Lincoln and his role in it largely the way Williams does here, and that was a mistake. I used the same quotes Williams uses, and said that every American president basically does whatever he is pressured to do by those who hold the economy in their grip.
I was mistaken, and Williams is too, in this one way. Lincoln was such a friend to the Black man, in fact, that his name did not even appear on Southern presidential ballots (according to Catton, who notes it in the first volume of his trilogy). It was exactly because of this known fact that South Carolina gave notice of its secession even before Lincoln was inaugurated. And when Lincoln was being smuggled from his home to Washington, DC, plans for what to do once in office were prefaced by the qualifier, “If you live…” Because, despite the things Lincoln had to do to set the wheels in motion and set the stage for Emancipation, he was going to see the slaves freed.
The first thing Lincoln had to do, though, was protect the integrity of the Union. This was not a racist error; it’s hard to read about the things he said and did, but if the South were allowed to secede, or succeeded in its mission, it would become entirely dependent upon Britain for its manufactured goods, and largely so for its cotton market, and the slaves might well have remained in bondage much longer than they did.
The most graphic way to see it is this way: take a very basic political map of North America. Draw a line where the states end and territory begins as of 1861. Color all of Canada, which was a protectorate of Britain, red. Now color all of the Confederate States red. Mark the Border States with red stripes. Draw red arrows toward the eastern coast of North America pointing toward the USA. And once you have done all of this, put some red question marks on all of the western territory, and color the remaining Union states blue.
The result will be a very small piece of blue in the middle of all that red. If Britain were able to dominate North America so overwhelmingly, it would only be a matter of time before she began arming the borders, to the north, to the south, occupying harbors, and proceeding to take her “colonies” back. (Remember this had been attempted just 50 years before the Civil War during the War of 1812, when Britain burned the US Capitol to the ground.) So in many ways, this war started out being about maintaining national sovereignty, and could only be about freeing the slaves—which HAD to be done in order for Feudalism to die and capitalism to move forward, as history demands—once it was clear that the Union was safe. And the starting point there was keeping Maryland and Kentucky in the Union. (Color Maryland red and you will note that the entire Capitol city is now surrounded by the enemy; with the president and Congress on hostile soil, the war ends pretty quickly, and the slaves are still slaves, at least for the time being.) So I think that Williams is too harsh in his judgment of Lincoln at the outset of the war. It was like a chess game, in which everything had to be done in order. Had the South remained in the Union, slavery would still have had to end, and perhaps with less bloodshed. Most of Europe had ended slavery through government buy-out programs, and Lincoln quietly probed for this alternative several times, even after South Carolina had announced its secession. But the southern power brokers were having none of it.
But this does not diminish (as US history texts do) the role of the slave, the role of the free Black man, the role of the former slave, in the victory of the Union. And I learned a lot from Williams, because written US history has largely suppressed slave revolts, noting only the Nat Turner rebellion, and of course, the one led by John Brown, the only Caucasian male for many, many years that would fight and die for Black people. Williams fills out this missing piece of the puzzle admirably, and to my knowledge, no one else has adequately done so.
For the vast number of incidents documented here in one body for the first time that I am aware of, and done in such a methodical and scholarly fashion, all the while drumming away at Black empowerment and the role played by people of color, this book is worth your buck. If you have any interest whatsoever in the American Civil War; American history; or Black rights, this book should grace a place in your personal library.
And oh teachers, if you don’t have a copy of this in your classrooms—never mind that there is some difficult vocabulary here; when something is important enough, students will access the material—you should definitely dip into your classroom supply kitty, or if you don’t have one, your own wallet if necessary. African-American students have such a hard time dealing with the humiliating details surrounding slavery and the Civil War. They need to see this. They need to see that those who came before them stood up.
Black American leadership started during the American Civil War. Over 200,000 African-American men served as soldiers, and countless others did manual labor, served as spies and saboteurs, or simply walked away from the plantations. Others took ownership, literally, moving into the empty plantation houses and taking what they had already more than earned. (Would that the US government had enforced Reconstruction and kept it alive; but that is another story, a different book.)
Get this book. Read it. If you can afford to do so, get two copies so you can highlight one and write in the margins, and keep the other copy clean for visitors or family members. Its place in American Civil War history is unquestionable.
In Marxist organizations, there is an expression for a political over-correction. It’s called “bending the stick too far back”. The idea is that you want the stick to be straight up, but sometimes when something has been done wrong, and once the evidence piles up until the reader cannot believe that anyone was dumb enough to think otherwise, it can cause other mitigating facts to be obscured; thus, the stick is bent too far the other way. And although I really like the work Williams has done here, and am making my 4.5 rating round up to 5 lest anyone not read this scholarly, well documented work, I do think he has made an error or two by disregarding the dynamics of the war and the decision-making process. It’s easy to do.
Actually, when I taught about this subject, I treated Lincoln and his role in it largely the way Williams does here, and that was a mistake. I used the same quotes Williams uses, and said that every American president basically does whatever he is pressured to do by those who hold the economy in their grip.
I was mistaken, and Williams is too, in this one way. Lincoln was such a friend to the Black man, in fact, that his name did not even appear on Southern presidential ballots (according to Catton, who notes it in the first volume of his trilogy). It was exactly because of this known fact that South Carolina gave notice of its secession even before Lincoln was inaugurated. And when Lincoln was being smuggled from his home to Washington, DC, plans for what to do once in office were prefaced by the qualifier, “If you live…” Because, despite the things Lincoln had to do to set the wheels in motion and set the stage for Emancipation, he was going to see the slaves freed.
The first thing Lincoln had to do, though, was protect the integrity of the Union. This was not a racist error; it’s hard to read about the things he said and did, but if the South were allowed to secede, or succeeded in its mission, it would become entirely dependent upon Britain for its manufactured goods, and largely so for its cotton market, and the slaves might well have remained in bondage much longer than they did.
The most graphic way to see it is this way: take a very basic political map of North America. Draw a line where the states end and territory begins as of 1861. Color all of Canada, which was a protectorate of Britain, red. Now color all of the Confederate States red. Mark the Border States with red stripes. Draw red arrows toward the eastern coast of North America pointing toward the USA. And once you have done all of this, put some red question marks on all of the western territory, and color the remaining Union states blue.
The result will be a very small piece of blue in the middle of all that red. If Britain were able to dominate North America so overwhelmingly, it would only be a matter of time before she began arming the borders, to the north, to the south, occupying harbors, and proceeding to take her “colonies” back. (Remember this had been attempted just 50 years before the Civil War during the War of 1812, when Britain burned the US Capitol to the ground.) So in many ways, this war started out being about maintaining national sovereignty, and could only be about freeing the slaves—which HAD to be done in order for Feudalism to die and capitalism to move forward, as history demands—once it was clear that the Union was safe. And the starting point there was keeping Maryland and Kentucky in the Union. (Color Maryland red and you will note that the entire Capitol city is now surrounded by the enemy; with the president and Congress on hostile soil, the war ends pretty quickly, and the slaves are still slaves, at least for the time being.) So I think that Williams is too harsh in his judgment of Lincoln at the outset of the war. It was like a chess game, in which everything had to be done in order. Had the South remained in the Union, slavery would still have had to end, and perhaps with less bloodshed. Most of Europe had ended slavery through government buy-out programs, and Lincoln quietly probed for this alternative several times, even after South Carolina had announced its secession. But the southern power brokers were having none of it.
But this does not diminish (as US history texts do) the role of the slave, the role of the free Black man, the role of the former slave, in the victory of the Union. And I learned a lot from Williams, because written US history has largely suppressed slave revolts, noting only the Nat Turner rebellion, and of course, the one led by John Brown, the only Caucasian male for many, many years that would fight and die for Black people. Williams fills out this missing piece of the puzzle admirably, and to my knowledge, no one else has adequately done so.
For the vast number of incidents documented here in one body for the first time that I am aware of, and done in such a methodical and scholarly fashion, all the while drumming away at Black empowerment and the role played by people of color, this book is worth your buck. If you have any interest whatsoever in the American Civil War; American history; or Black rights, this book should grace a place in your personal library.
And oh teachers, if you don’t have a copy of this in your classrooms—never mind that there is some difficult vocabulary here; when something is important enough, students will access the material—you should definitely dip into your classroom supply kitty, or if you don’t have one, your own wallet if necessary. African-American students have such a hard time dealing with the humiliating details surrounding slavery and the Civil War. They need to see this. They need to see that those who came before them stood up.
Black American leadership started during the American Civil War. Over 200,000 African-American men served as soldiers, and countless others did manual labor, served as spies and saboteurs, or simply walked away from the plantations. Others took ownership, literally, moving into the empty plantation houses and taking what they had already more than earned. (Would that the US government had enforced Reconstruction and kept it alive; but that is another story, a different book.)
Get this book. Read it. If you can afford to do so, get two copies so you can highlight one and write in the margins, and keep the other copy clean for visitors or family members. Its place in American Civil War history is unquestionable.
March 6, 2015
The role of slaves in their own emancipation isn’t part of the standard American story. It should be. This interesting book recounts heroic acts of slave escapes, revolts and military service. And as slaves grabbed freedom, Williams shows how they pushed a reluctant Lincoln and nation into ending slavery.
At the beginning of the Civil War, outside a small group of abolitionists, virtually no whites were ready to end slavery. Even Lincoln had been willing to pass a constitutional amendment guaranteeing slavery forever to avoid conflict. But ultimately over 200,000 freedmen and former slaves would fight in the Union Army. And as the nation saw them fighting and dying alongside their white sons, husbands and fathers, the north embraced the rightness of freedom.
This book will give you a new perspective on who deserves credit for emancipation.
At the beginning of the Civil War, outside a small group of abolitionists, virtually no whites were ready to end slavery. Even Lincoln had been willing to pass a constitutional amendment guaranteeing slavery forever to avoid conflict. But ultimately over 200,000 freedmen and former slaves would fight in the Union Army. And as the nation saw them fighting and dying alongside their white sons, husbands and fathers, the north embraced the rightness of freedom.
This book will give you a new perspective on who deserves credit for emancipation.
October 7, 2023
David Williams writes another killer book about the Civil War. If you have even a passing interest in Civil War history, I would consider this a must-read.
There's So Much to this book that's incredible, but Williams carries it along the same way he made Plain Folk in a Rich Man's War so good; just incredibly artfully chosen primary sources and first-hand accounts.
This does make the first part of this book pretty brutal, as they are filled with primary source accounts of the horrors of chattel slavery, but it's kind of brutal in a way that's good for you, every once in awhile. The rest of the book will have you alternately hooting and hollering and pumping your fist when black folks take matters into their own hands and screaming in incoherent fury as some rich ghoul says the quiet part loud, often in a fucking newspaper.
There's also a passage in this book from an editorial in the New York Times that will live rent-free in my head for the rest of my life:
"Is it not manifest that the same philosophy which seeks to recompense the Southern laborer by confiscating a portion of employer's property, will also seek to recompense the Northern laborer in a similar manner?"
Once again history proves that the ultimate class solidarity is rich people against literally anyone getting some of their ill-gained shit.
There's So Much to this book that's incredible, but Williams carries it along the same way he made Plain Folk in a Rich Man's War so good; just incredibly artfully chosen primary sources and first-hand accounts.
This does make the first part of this book pretty brutal, as they are filled with primary source accounts of the horrors of chattel slavery, but it's kind of brutal in a way that's good for you, every once in awhile. The rest of the book will have you alternately hooting and hollering and pumping your fist when black folks take matters into their own hands and screaming in incoherent fury as some rich ghoul says the quiet part loud, often in a fucking newspaper.
There's also a passage in this book from an editorial in the New York Times that will live rent-free in my head for the rest of my life:
"Is it not manifest that the same philosophy which seeks to recompense the Southern laborer by confiscating a portion of employer's property, will also seek to recompense the Northern laborer in a similar manner?"
Once again history proves that the ultimate class solidarity is rich people against literally anyone getting some of their ill-gained shit.
April 12, 2014
It is one of those common truisms of US history that the Civil War was fought over slavery and that Abraham Lincoln is to be universally lauded for his abolitionist spirit that led to the signing of the Emancipation Proclamation. It is, in fact, one of the defining moments in American history. However, according to author David Williams, this focus on the role Lincoln played in the war and emancipation is overstated and, worse, hides the crucial role that African Americans themselves played both towards the outcome of the war and the abolition of slavery. Without them, things could have gone very differently.
For the north and for Lincoln, the war was not about abolishing slavery but about preserving the union. Despite the fact that Lincoln was personally opposed to slavery, he did not believe that it was in the interest of the nation or within the limits of his powers to end the institution. At the beginning of the war, in fact, slave owners on both sides of the conflict were assured that Washington had no intention of freeing the slaves. Northern troops were instructed that should any runaway slaves try to enter their camps, they were to be returned to their owner. But it soon became clear that this was impracticable, not least because of the huge numbers of slaves who saw the war as a fight for their freedom and sought asylum in Union camps. It also seemed unreasonable to many Northern officers to return slaves to the enemy who could then use them against the Union. Instead, these runaway slaves were labeled as contraband and were allowed to stay, in many cases, making themselves indispensible to the smooth operations of the camps.
Many blacks tried to enlist but the north at first refused to accept them. However, as the war continued into its second year and the north was faced with a series of defeats and a severe shortage of available white men, it became clear they no longer had any choice. The Union finally and reluctantly agreed to allow blacks to enlist. However, they were paid less than whites and were limited in the ranks they could achieve. Many black leaders began to demand that, if they were willing to fight and die for the Union, they should have the same rights as whites including the right to freedom. As the demand for abolition became louder and as it became more apparent that the war couldn’t be won without black troops, Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation despite his own reluctance and opposition from most northerners. He convinced them to accept it by arguing that, if freed, blacks would have no reason to leave the south and many who had already migrated north, would return there.
Williams also paints a very bleak picture of life for blacks after emancipation. Once the war was over, freedom turned out to be, to a great extent, an illusion for many. They had thought that they would be given the land that they had worked for so long. However, the land was sold to northern speculators and, in many cases, was eventually restored to the original owners. Blacks became, in most cases, sharecropper, a situation which almost inevitably led to debt servitude. With this and the new ‘Jim Crow’ laws which were enacted throughout the south, along with the rise of the Ku Klux Klan and lynchings, many African Americans found themselves no better off than they had been before the war.
Good history, like good science, doesn’t just parrot accepted views; it unapologetically challenges, tests, and, if the original history doesn’t stand up to vigorous scrutiny, it provides compelling evidence for its new perspective. Williams does this exceedingly well in I Freed Myself. He uses both primary and secondary sources to prove his thesis including contemporaneous documents and newspaper articles. But this is no dry dusty tome, putting the reader to sleep with its pompous, pedagogical erudition. His writing style is clear, concise, and cogent, but most of all, it is extremely interesting, compelling, and very readable.
For the north and for Lincoln, the war was not about abolishing slavery but about preserving the union. Despite the fact that Lincoln was personally opposed to slavery, he did not believe that it was in the interest of the nation or within the limits of his powers to end the institution. At the beginning of the war, in fact, slave owners on both sides of the conflict were assured that Washington had no intention of freeing the slaves. Northern troops were instructed that should any runaway slaves try to enter their camps, they were to be returned to their owner. But it soon became clear that this was impracticable, not least because of the huge numbers of slaves who saw the war as a fight for their freedom and sought asylum in Union camps. It also seemed unreasonable to many Northern officers to return slaves to the enemy who could then use them against the Union. Instead, these runaway slaves were labeled as contraband and were allowed to stay, in many cases, making themselves indispensible to the smooth operations of the camps.
Many blacks tried to enlist but the north at first refused to accept them. However, as the war continued into its second year and the north was faced with a series of defeats and a severe shortage of available white men, it became clear they no longer had any choice. The Union finally and reluctantly agreed to allow blacks to enlist. However, they were paid less than whites and were limited in the ranks they could achieve. Many black leaders began to demand that, if they were willing to fight and die for the Union, they should have the same rights as whites including the right to freedom. As the demand for abolition became louder and as it became more apparent that the war couldn’t be won without black troops, Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation despite his own reluctance and opposition from most northerners. He convinced them to accept it by arguing that, if freed, blacks would have no reason to leave the south and many who had already migrated north, would return there.
Williams also paints a very bleak picture of life for blacks after emancipation. Once the war was over, freedom turned out to be, to a great extent, an illusion for many. They had thought that they would be given the land that they had worked for so long. However, the land was sold to northern speculators and, in many cases, was eventually restored to the original owners. Blacks became, in most cases, sharecropper, a situation which almost inevitably led to debt servitude. With this and the new ‘Jim Crow’ laws which were enacted throughout the south, along with the rise of the Ku Klux Klan and lynchings, many African Americans found themselves no better off than they had been before the war.
Good history, like good science, doesn’t just parrot accepted views; it unapologetically challenges, tests, and, if the original history doesn’t stand up to vigorous scrutiny, it provides compelling evidence for its new perspective. Williams does this exceedingly well in I Freed Myself. He uses both primary and secondary sources to prove his thesis including contemporaneous documents and newspaper articles. But this is no dry dusty tome, putting the reader to sleep with its pompous, pedagogical erudition. His writing style is clear, concise, and cogent, but most of all, it is extremely interesting, compelling, and very readable.
March 31, 2014
http://bookreviewsbyme2.wordpress.com...
This was a fascinating read; analyzing the impact that African Americans had on their own emancipation. This book is a technical, yet understandable read, allowing it to be comprehended by readers of variable skill levels.
This book gives a comprehensive analysis on the roles African Americans, enslaved or otherwise, played in obtaining their emancipation. It’s not an oft talked about fact that African Americans played a pivotal role in freeing themselves. Without the rebellion of slaves and opposition to slavery or inequality of free blacks in the north, emancipation would never have occurred.
This book does a really good job of presenting the reader with a lot of important information. This book talks about everything from maroons to political parties and the impact everything had on the end of slavery. This book presents a lot of information in an easily understandable manner, allowing the reader to get a complete grasp on everything that built up to emancipation.
The writing in this book was pleasant to read. While the author does present the reader with a lot of information (some presented in a technical manner), this book is generally easy to read and understand. This author definitely understands how to write a good non-fiction, history book in a way that is pleasant and still gets the information completely across to the reader.
The only problem that I had with this book was with the formatting. There are a lot of footnotes in this book, at the bottom of each page. I would have been happier having the footnotes at the end of the chapter, or at the end of the book entirely, as having the footnotes at the bottom of each page got distracting and detracted from the reading experience.
I would definitely recommend this book for anyone interested in slavery and emancipation, especially the role of African Americans in emancipation. I would also recommend this book for anyone interested in learning more about the role African Americans played in their own freedom. This is definitely an interesting and eye-opening read about the civil war era.
I received this book for review purposes via NetGalley.
This was a fascinating read; analyzing the impact that African Americans had on their own emancipation. This book is a technical, yet understandable read, allowing it to be comprehended by readers of variable skill levels.
This book gives a comprehensive analysis on the roles African Americans, enslaved or otherwise, played in obtaining their emancipation. It’s not an oft talked about fact that African Americans played a pivotal role in freeing themselves. Without the rebellion of slaves and opposition to slavery or inequality of free blacks in the north, emancipation would never have occurred.
This book does a really good job of presenting the reader with a lot of important information. This book talks about everything from maroons to political parties and the impact everything had on the end of slavery. This book presents a lot of information in an easily understandable manner, allowing the reader to get a complete grasp on everything that built up to emancipation.
The writing in this book was pleasant to read. While the author does present the reader with a lot of information (some presented in a technical manner), this book is generally easy to read and understand. This author definitely understands how to write a good non-fiction, history book in a way that is pleasant and still gets the information completely across to the reader.
The only problem that I had with this book was with the formatting. There are a lot of footnotes in this book, at the bottom of each page. I would have been happier having the footnotes at the end of the chapter, or at the end of the book entirely, as having the footnotes at the bottom of each page got distracting and detracted from the reading experience.
I would definitely recommend this book for anyone interested in slavery and emancipation, especially the role of African Americans in emancipation. I would also recommend this book for anyone interested in learning more about the role African Americans played in their own freedom. This is definitely an interesting and eye-opening read about the civil war era.
I received this book for review purposes via NetGalley.
September 14, 2016
An Excellent Read
Good book for anyone to add to their collection about the Antebellum South, African Americans or slavery. Many seem to think that black people were docile during the Civil War and simply waited for the Yankees to free them. The truth is slaves shaped their own future and this book discusses the reasons they did and the methods.
Good book for anyone to add to their collection about the Antebellum South, African Americans or slavery. Many seem to think that black people were docile during the Civil War and simply waited for the Yankees to free them. The truth is slaves shaped their own future and this book discusses the reasons they did and the methods.
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews