Article Review: "The Deformed Child: Slavery and the Election of 1864."

Michael Vorenberg’s article The Deformed Child: Slavery and the Election of 1864, examines the level of importance that the issue of slavery played in Lincoln’s bid for a second term in office.[i]    The key question raised by the author in the article asks “Was the Union election of 1864 a referendum on slavery?”[ii]  Vorenberg takes an interesting path in this article by attacking historians on both sides of the issue at hand.  Vorenberg cites historians David Long, Phillip Paludan, and George Hoemann as firmly in the camp of those that represent the argument that slavery was the central issue of the 1864 election.  Vorenberg goes on to cite historians Ludwell Johnson and Lex Renda as historians that represent the opposite view that slavery was in fact not the central issue of the election.[iii]   For Vorenberg, taking one side or another in this argument is lacking. 

He argues that there were two distinct slavery issues at play in the campaign and “it is the failure of historians to distinguish between them that has confused the place of slavery in the election of 1864.”[iv]   The two distinct slavery issues are divided between the peace question, and the law question.  The peace question of slavery dealt with presidential power in ending the war according to Vorenberg, while the law question dealt with the fate of antislavery legislation on the national and local government level.  Throughout the article Vorenberg argues that these two slavery issues were in a constant evolutionary flux throughout the campaign.  Ultimately Vorenberg argues that Lincoln and the republicans chose to make emancipation “an issue of law rather than a precondition of peace.”[v] 

Vorenberg makes a very effective argument throughout the article.  He utilizes several primary sources in his work.  He uses speeches of Frederick Douglass and Abraham Lincoln.  He uses sources from sessions of congress during the campaign especially the Wade-Davis bill to great effect as well. His argument is effective and well researched.  My only issue is that perhaps the author does not make an argument against the evidence that suggests the Lincoln campaign taking a conciliatory approach to the south in the selection of Andrew Johnson as Lincoln’s running mate.  This is a glaring piece of evidence that remains largely absent from the article.  This is only a minor setback however, because Vorenberg presents a well thought out and researched argument in this article.

---

[i] Vorenberg, Michael.  “The Deformed Child: Slavery and the Election of 1864.”  In Civil War History, Vol. 47, Number 3,p 240-257,  Kent State University Press, September 2001.

[ii] Ibid, p240.

[iii] Ibid, p241.

[iv] Ibid, p241.

[v] Ibid, p255.