"It was freedom on paper, not freedom in practice," -- Rock Hill NAACP president
Anything to not give the Republican Party proper credit for ending the Democratic Party’s institution of slavery.
Poor guy has his historical facts terribly wrong.
“”This was strictly to free black men, those 250,000 who fought. It gave them the right to fight.”
Those black men joined the Union to fight in the Civil War, he said.
“They didn’t even receive pay, but they fought anyway,” Randolph said.
For freedom
Slavery was outlawed in 1808, but liberty for black soldiers and other blacks was a long time coming, he said.””
“I wonder what was on Lincoln’s mind when he signed it,” Randolph said of the proclamation. “Why didn’t he say, ‘Ya’ll free today?’ Why was there a Sabbatical?
“I know what the thinking was. There was a battle. The Confederates were winning.”
Rubbish. Read Lincoln’s reasons—he had promised God that he would free the slaves, and he kept his promise.
Freeing them actually meant that the South would thereafter never accept peace terms; it was an end to hopes for a compromise end to the war.
Apparently Harry Reid is not aware of this...........
The Proclamation did not end any slavery in Union states that allowed it. Nor did it end any slavery in Confederate states that did not recognize Lincoln as their president. The end of slavery in the USA began on 04/09/1865 with the surrender of Lee to Grant. That is what should be celebrated if you want to commemorate the end of slavery in the USA.
Further evidence of “publik skool edjoocashun”...
What a bunch of ingrates.
Keep moving those goal posts. Whitey will owe you transfer payments for the next 100 years.
Probably because Lincoln was an educated man, and not some ignorant, race-baiting lout.
“History is a truthteller,” he said. “When you know history, you know truth, and you indeed will be free.”
This may be a little off topic,but I have to ask...Where is all this concern for what’s truthful,and what’s history,and what freedom is, when it comes to the War on Terror? Maybe this guy can stand up at a podium at some ANSWER rally and speak these words on behalf of all who fight and die and continue to fight to free people we never even met,and to improve the quality of their lives,and give them freedom and dignity.
(Wow. I really gotta stop drinking the bong water.I’m talking crazy!)
Yep, there are plenty more slaves in America to be freed. They can start with the 30-40% of my salary that I'm mandated to pay to the Gov't every year.
Is that what they meant?
“The Emancipation Proclamation really didn’t do anything,” — South Carolina NAACP president
Internally, it transformed the conflict from being about “succession from the Union” into a crusade against slavery. Recall that before the Proclamation, Lincoln had said that if he could save the Union by freeing all the slaves, none of the slaves, or just part of the slaves, he would. After two years of war, and ever increasing casualties, enthusiasm for “saving the Union” was waning. So making the conflict about ending slavery was a public relations ploy ... that worked. His critics at the time noted that the Proclamation did not free slaves where he was in control (e.g., Maryland), and purported to free slaves in places where he did not control, so it was “just words”.
On the other hand, externally his Proclamation made it impossible for England (and hence France) to support the South, because they were absolutely against Slavery, and would not be seen as supporting Slavery.
So, even though it freed not one slave at the time, it did seal the doom of the South ... and hence slavery.
It was the key instrument in attempting to ensure that after the union won the war there would be no doubt that the slaves were free and that their freedom would not be legally contested.
It was a sharp stick in the eye for the party of slavery. The slaves at the time understood that; their decendants seem completely ignorant of the complicity of the democrat party before and after the civil war in keeping them enslaved.