Posted on 06/25/2002 10:40:23 AM PDT by TexConfederate1861
The Emancipation Proclamation, more than any act, exposes the real President Lincoln and hits at the core of why the mythical day of June 19 is celebrated.
Issued on the 22nd day of September in 1862, [the Emancipation Proclamation] stated that on the first day of January 1863, "all persons held as slaves within any state or designated part of a state, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free."
Clearly, this was a war measure for suppressing the so-called rebellion. If the Confederate States of America stop rebelling before Jan. 1, 1863, they could keep their slaves.
This document suggested that one could not own another human unless one was loyal to the United States. Then again, how could the president free anyone in another nation? The document did not apply to the four border states, Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland and Missouri, slave states that remained loyal to and in the United States.
Where the president had authority (in the border states), he did nothing; where he had no authority (in the CSA), he did something.
Why do African-Americans continue to praise Abraham Lincoln and the Emancipation Proclamation? Are we allowing miseducation that flatters our thinking to overtake us? Slavery, legal slavery, ended in December 1865, when three-fourths of the states ratified the 13th Amendment.
"Juneteenth," the 19th of June, started as a traditional Texas celebration and now has expanded. It marks the date when the news of Lincoln's proclamation reached parts of the state of Texas in 1865. The document had first been issued in September 1862. The president had taken advantage of a Union victory during the Civil War, the Battle of Antietam, to make his preliminary announcement of emancipation, to become effective on Jan. 1, 1863. The story goes that it was not until June 19, 1865, after Lincoln had died, that slaves in Galveston, Texas, were read General Order No. 3 "that, in accordance with the president's proclamation, all slaves were free."
The proclamation did not free slaves; nor did the order delivered by Gen. Gordon Granger on June 19, 1865. On that date, Texas was not even part of the United States, thus any orders issued to Texas would be of no consequence. Yet still slaves in Texas were told that the late President Lincoln, with the stroke of his pen, had "freed" them and other slaves in rebelling states.
Now 139 years later, this mythical date of African-American freedom is celebrated, mainly by African-Americans. They turn out with parades, holiday attire and spirit to commemorate and praise Lincoln and the document. Ironically, to many the 19th of June symbolizes African-American Independence Day and is celebrated in lieu of the Fourth of July.
Students are still instructed that Lincoln did away with slavery with the signing of the Emancipation Proclamation. To credit the 16th president of the United States with being "the Great Emancipator" is shameless hypocrisy, a pathological exercise in intellectual sissyism.
In his first inaugural address, Lincoln made it very clear that he had no interest, directly or indirectly, in interfering with slavery where it legally existed.
He was opposed to the expansion of slavery. He feared that competition with slavery would have a negative impact on free white laborers in the territories. He could not void the Constitution, which protected and encouraged slavery; an amendment to the Constitution was required.
Any individual, group or organization that parlays June 19 into a freedom-day celebration for blacks is either miseducated, misinformed or just plain hustling people who are seeking validation and acceptance. The ratification date of the 13th Amendment in 1865 would be more appropriate for a celebration.
It is time to face the facts squarely: The plain and painful truth is that Lincoln was not the Great Emancipator of African-American freedom. Neither the Emancipation Proclamation nor General Order No. 3 freed slaves in the United States or in Texas, as the Juneteenth celebration would have it.
In fact, Lincoln was as elusive on the issues of freedom for African-Americans as equality of opportunity is today.
If one interprets the documents literally, slaves in the United States remained in slavery. There is no justifiable cause to celebrate a myth or bad news.
In the abstract, Lincoln used what is known as tricky logic. He moved politically, not morally. In his words, there was an immutable physical barrier of color and probably of mental and moral inferiority separating the black and white races.
Lincoln felt that African-Americans were included in the Declaration of Independence, yet he denied and did not believe in social and political equality of the races. He refused to support the abolitionist movement.
Lincoln was not in favor of African-American citizenship in the United States and he advocated colonization as a solution to the race problem. This might explain why in August 1862, one month before he issued the Emancipation Proclamation, he called so-called African-American leaders to the White House and told them that money had been appropriated by Congress to colonize "their kind" outside the country.
If African-Americans are looking for pre-1865 heroes to praise, David Walker, Nat Turner, Harriet Tubman, Henry Highland Garnet, Denmark Vesey and many more would fit the criteria. If African-Americans need documentation, try reading David Walker's "Appeal," Henry Highland Garnet's "Message to the Slaves" or Frederick Douglass' "What to the Slave Is the 4th of July?"
I suggest African-Americans rethink Lincoln and the Emancipation Proclamation and Juneteenth when choosing celebrations and be careful that we do not contribute to the continuance of our own ignorance.
Dr. Theman Ray Taylor Sr. is a history professor at the University of Central Arkansas at Conway.
This article was published on Saturday, June 15, 2002
Most of the CSA apologists use natural law arguments and sources to counter U.S. law and the words of the founders professing the permanance of the Union.
I doubt they really believe that secession was legal under U.S. law.
Walt
Lincoln said, "I felt that measures, otherwise unconstitutional, might become lawful..."
Which word(s) are you having a problem with?
Secession was a central issue in Texas v. White because the defense was arguing that since Texas had left the United States and was currently governed under reconstruction law then she was not actually a state and did not have the right to have the case heard by the Supreme Court. The Court, in a 5-3 majority, ruled that secession as practiced by Texas was illegal and therefore Texas had never ceased to be a state even when she was in rebellion. This was the first time the issue had been taken to the court and the ruling was proper. The fact that it was issued 8 years later means nothing. Most Supreme Court decisions are made years after the fact.
I think E just did a special on Ft. Jefferson as an "out of the way" paradise.
The import of the Hodges letter is that the EP -was- constitutional because of the situtation. It is a lie to say that Lincoln -thought- the EP was unconstitutional. You also have been shown the Conkling letter in the last few days. You cannot claim to be offering a fair interpretation when you ignore the data you don't like.
From the Conkling letter:
"But to be plain, you are dissatisfied with me about the negro. Quite likely there is a difference of opinion between you and myself upon that subject. I certainly wish that all men could be free, while I suppose that you do not. Yet I have neither adopted nor proposed any measure, which is not consistant even with your view, provided you are for the Union. I suggested compensated emancipation; to which you replied you wished not to be taxed to buy negroes. But I had not asked you to be taxed to buy negroes, except in such way, as to save you from greater expense, to save the Union exclusively by other means. You dislike the emancipatio proclamation; and perhaps, would have it retracted. You say it is unconstitutional--I think differently. I think the Constitution invests the commander in chief with the law of war, in time of war. The most that can be said, if so much, is, that slaves are property. Is there--has there ever been--any question that by the law of war, property, both of enemies and friends, may be taken when needed? And is it not needed whenever taking it helps us, or hurts the enemy?"
President Lincoln stated plainly he thought the EP was constitutional. You knew that. You lied.
Walt
You have to truncate the sentence. You are pushing something not at all supported in the record.
"I felt that measures, otherwise unconstitutional, might become lawful, by becoming indispensible to to the preservation of the of the Constitution, through the preservation of the nation. Right or wrong, I assumed this ground, and now avow it."
Lincoln is clearly saying that the EP was lawful because it became indispensible. He -thought- it to be lawful. Your earlier statement that "even Lincoln" thought the EP was unlawful is just a lie.
Walt
No, 8 months LATER he admits that it was unconstitutional.
In your world, does that mean legal or illegal?
In your world, does that mean legal or illegal?
It means you have to snip the record to mae your poonts.
Walt
Dred Scott was a horrible decision, (that all the Confederates loved) but it was the decision none the less just as Roe v. Wade was a horrible decision but remains the law. You can't pick and choose what laws you wish to respect, you can only work to change them, or accept the legal consequences of violating them.
Because the 13th amendment overturned the concept of "people as property" and the 15th amendment made all blacks born in the US, citizens with equal rights under the law. Congress and the people through amendment can overturn any SC decision they want.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.