Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Emancipation Proclamation didn't end Slavery
Arkansas Democrat-Gazette | 6-15-02 | THEMAN R. TAYLOR

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


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; Government; Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: nutsanddolts
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-154 next last
To: Non-Sequitur
Dr. Taylor is apparently after the same thing Dr. Lorenzo is:

Sensationalism.

Walt

21 posted on 06/25/2002 12:10:38 PM PDT by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: BigNate
I don't think that the Army was using the same slave labor in 1871 that they started with for two reasons. One, construction on the fort began in 1846 and two, slavery ended in 1865.
22 posted on 06/25/2002 12:17:19 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: TexConfederate1861
Lincoln knew the EP was unconstitutional and said as much. He issued it to prevent blacks from fighting for the Confederacy, or to cause them to fight for the North, and to revolt against the South.

Of course, with the majority of Southern men were off fighting, that would mean that Lincoln was condoning revolution against women, children and old men.

I did understand however, that my oath to preserve the constitution to the best of my ability, imposed upon me the duty of preserving, by every indispensable means, that government --- that nation --- of which that constitution was the organic law. Was it possible to lose the nation, and yet preserve the constitution? By general law life and limb must be protected; yet often a limb must be amputated to save a life; but a life is never wisely given to save a limb. I felt that measures, otherwise unconstitutional, might become lawful, by becoming indispensable to the preservation of the constitution, through the preservation of the nation. Right or wrong, I assumed this ground, and now avow it. I could not feel that, to the best of my ability, I had even tried to preserve the constitution, if, to save slavery, or any minor matter, I should permit the wreck of government, country, and Constitution all together.  When, early in the war, Gen. Fremont attempted military emancipation, I forbade it, because I did not then think it an indispensable necessity. When a little later, Gen. Cameron, then Secretary of War, suggested the arming of the blacks, I objected, because I did not yet think it an indispensable necessity. When, still later, Gen. Hunter attempted military emancipation, I again forbade it, because I did not yet think the indispensable necessity had come. When, in March, and May, and July 1862 I made earnest, and successive appeals to the border states to favor compensated emancipation, I believed the indispensable necessity for military emancipation, and arming the blacks would come, unless averted by that measure. They declined the proposition; and I was, in my best judgment, driven to the alternative of either surrendering the Union, and with it, the Constitution, or of laying strong hand upon the colored element. I chose the latter.
Abraham Lincoln, "To Albert G. Hodges", 4 Apr 1864, Collected Works Of Abraham Lincoln, (Roy P. Basler, Ed.), Vol VII, p. 281.


23 posted on 06/25/2002 12:20:55 PM PDT by 4CJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EvilRightWingCapitalist
I don't recall seeing you around before. Your post was really well done all the way around.
24 posted on 06/25/2002 12:25:41 PM PDT by Huck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: TexConfederate1861
There is no justifiable cause to celebrate a myth...

Did you ever see that Simpsons episode where Lisa discovered that the town founder, Jebadiah Springfield, was a pirate and horrible person and was going to reveal it to all during the festivities and parade marking the founder's founding of the town?

She discovered that, sometimes, celebrations of myths are good because of what they do to those who do the celebrating. In the end, Lisa chose not to reveal her information and to let the town come together in a spirit of celebration, because the myth was more valuable to the town as a town than the truth.

Yes, there are good and justifiable reasons to celebrate a myth.
25 posted on 06/25/2002 12:29:20 PM PDT by BikerNYC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Go there...Look at the pictures... Read the Plaque. It took a long time to build.
26 posted on 06/25/2002 12:29:38 PM PDT by BigNate
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: BigNate
My understanding is that Fort Jefferson during and after the war was a prison. I'd like to see that plaque you describe.
27 posted on 06/25/2002 12:33:11 PM PDT by Huck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: 4ConservativeJustices
And where, from that letter, do you come to the conclusion that Lincoln was condoning revolution against women, children and old men? In fact there were no slave uprisings in the south during the war, perhaps because the southern leadership was terrified of that very thing and kept tens of thousands of able men out of the army and in state militias to protect against it.
28 posted on 06/25/2002 12:35:50 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
4CJ posted this same letter on another thread. Of course the clear import of the letter is that Lincoln had -become- convinced that the EP -was- constitutional. You wonder who these neo-rebs are trying to fool.

I also in the other thread quoted the Conkling letter from August, 1863, where Lincoln states unequivocally that he had the power to issue the EP as commander in chief of the armed forces.

Yet 4CJ is on this thread now with the same skewed unsupported interpretation.

Walt

29 posted on 06/25/2002 12:44:23 PM PDT by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
On the contrary, Texas was part of the United States on June 19, 1865 and every day prior to that since she first petitioned for inclusion into the United States. The rebellion didn't change that.

A state is more than a political subdivision of a nation. Texas, a free, independent, sovereign nation, chose to become one of the united States. Later, Texas chose to dissolve that relationship. You can read the Texas Declaration of Seccession at http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/csa/texsec.htm

30 posted on 06/25/2002 12:49:56 PM PDT by robert0122
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: robert0122
I've read it. And in 1869 the U.S. Supreme Court determined that the Texas acts of secession were illegal and that Texas had never ceased to be a state.
31 posted on 06/25/2002 12:58:14 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
And in 1869 the U.S. Supreme Court determined that the Texas acts of secession were illegal and that Texas had never ceased to be a state.

Does that seem odd to you? The US Supreme Court deciding whether or not it's legal for a sovereign entity to leave? Do you think they might be just a little biased? Not to mention questions of jurisdiction.

The government derives its power to govern by the consent of the governed. If the people so governed choose to change their government, who can say no? The government must resort to military conquest and occupation, which is precisely what happened. The United States turned into simply a name, not an accurate description of our nation.

32 posted on 06/25/2002 1:04:33 PM PDT by robert0122
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
The 13th Amendment that ended slavery was shepherded through the Senate by Abraham Lincoln. When the amendment did not receive sufficient votes in the House to be sent to the states for ratification, Lincoln saw to it that emancipation was made a central point in the 1864 Republican platform. Because of this, Congress passed the amendment in January 1865 and sent it to the states. Without Lincoln's wholehearted support and tireless efforts the amendment wouldn't have been ratified. So it is in no way wrong to refer to him as 'The Great Emancipator'.

Yes, but THIS event, taken alone doesn't prove he was. What? You want people to quit living in a vacuum? :)

33 posted on 06/25/2002 1:06:00 PM PDT by lepton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: robert0122
I don't think it's odd at all. The Constitution gives the Suprem Court original jurisdiction in matters where a state is a party. In matters where acts of a state legislature conflict with the Constitution then it is the duty of the Supreme Court to rule on the legality of the state's actions. And in this case they ruled for Texas and determined that Texas had been a state even when in rebellion. The case was Texas v. White. The court ruled that the Texas acts of secession were illegal. And as for bias, since you disagree with the decision there is no way I will ever be able to convince you that the court wasn't biased.
34 posted on 06/25/2002 1:13:16 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: TexConfederate1861
BUMP
35 posted on 06/25/2002 1:13:21 PM PDT by Aurelius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Huck
Lat: N 24 37' 38.2"
Long: W 82 52' 19.5"

Look for a big fort.

36 posted on 06/25/2002 1:16:46 PM PDT by stainlessbanner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: EvilRightWingCapitalist
"There is only one history, and only one reality."

Just goes to show how wrong you can be. There are as many histories and as many realities as there are people to interpret them.

37 posted on 06/25/2002 1:18:38 PM PDT by Aurelius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: stainlessbanner
It's red. Made out of brick. Can't miss it.
38 posted on 06/25/2002 1:18:43 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Huck
It was used as a prison. They didn't completely finish construction until after the war. Like all Government projects, they just kept building, even if they didn't need it. I don't claim to be an expert on the subject (or any other) I just know what I read. Go there. It is worth the trip, even if you just go for birding.
39 posted on 06/25/2002 1:23:59 PM PDT by BigNate
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: BigNate; Huck; Non-Sequitur
Fort Jefferson was begun in 1846 to protect anchorages on the only shipping channel into the Gulf of Mexico. Building continued until 1875 with slaves of African extraction doing much of the construction under the direction of the US Army Corps of Engineers. As many as 40 million bricks were used for the inconceivably ambitious project.
40 posted on 06/25/2002 1:27:12 PM PDT by stainlessbanner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-154 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson