What Is The Difference Between Abraham Lincoln And Slavery

There are few things more synonymous with each other than Abraham Lincoln and slavery. As a child everyone is taught that Lincoln freed the slaves and that’s the end of that. However, history is a culture of argument, which allows for different people to interpret history differently. That is exactly what happens between James McPherson and Ira Berlin. While trying to come up with the answer to "Who Freed the Slaves" they came to two different ideas. McPherson decides that Lincoln freed the slaves and Berlin decided that the slaves created the perfect environment for them to be freed. The argument differs at two major points, whether historical change should be viewed Top to Bottom or Bottom to Top and the role Lincoln played. McPherson looked at the historical change from Top to Bottom as he believed the change came from Lincoln downward. He also believes that Lincoln's ability as president made all the difference. He goes on to say that "Lincoln's greatest skills as a political leader were his sensitivity to public opinion and his sense of timing." This illustrates that he believes Lincoln was a great politician and on
This is more of a bottom to top look. Saying that the slaves created the environment for the politicians and Lincoln to write these important documents. As well Berlin doesn’t view Lincoln in as this great strategist with impeccable timing, he says "To think that Lincoln could have anticipated these changes—or more strangely still, somehow embodied them—imbues him with a power over the course of events that no human being has ever enjoyed." He believes that Lincoln while obviously skilled he isn’t as masterfully calculated as McPherson implies. He even goes on to say that "Had another Republican been in Lincoln's place, that person doubtless would have done the same." This goes further into his believe that Lincoln wasn't as special as he is regarded