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 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-154 next last

1 posted on 06/25/2002 10:40:23 AM PDT by TexConfederate1861
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: TexConfederate1861
Where the president had authority (in the border states), he did nothing; where he had no authority (in the CSA), he did something.

This is exactly backwards. The EP was constitutional as a war measure. It was the ONLY way the President could free ANY slaves.

2 posted on 06/25/2002 10:44:42 AM PDT by Huck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rdb3; Khepera; elwoodp; MAKnight; South40; condolinda; mafree; Trueblackman; FRlurker; ...
Black conservative ping

If you want on (or off) of my black conservative ping list, please let me know via FREEPmail. (And no, you don't have to be black to be on the list!)

3 posted on 06/25/2002 10:45:38 AM PDT by mhking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TexConfederate1861
In an underhanded way, the Civil War brought freedom to slaves. That is undeniable...
4 posted on 06/25/2002 10:51:59 AM PDT by Texaggie79
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TexConfederate1861
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/7715/bhistory2-2.html

This link will tell you when slavery really began.

5 posted on 06/25/2002 10:58:14 AM PDT by varina davis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TexConfederate1861
On that date, Texas was not even part of the United States, thus any orders issued to Texas would be of no consequence.

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.

6 posted on 06/25/2002 11:08:47 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TexConfederate1861
"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."

Neither did it apply to such Confederate jurisdictions under Federal control as Norfolk and New Orleans, nor to such "free" states as New Jersey that had banned "new" slaves while allowing the owners to keep the "old" ones. Pretty cynical, huh?

(Actually, it's been opined that New Jersey was simply being progressive. Slave owners in such other states as New York that had banned slavery outright commonly sold their former charges "down the river" to markets in New Orleans.

7 posted on 06/25/2002 11:12:30 AM PDT by OBAFGKM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TexConfederate1861
Sorry, but this is a BIG duh to me, the EP meant nothing because he had no power in the places where this was supposed to take effect.

The main reason he did this was that he was hoping that the newly "freed" slaves would revolt against their masters and make his destruction of the south that much easier. It didn't work, but miseducation and changes of history have made him a hero. Such a crock.
8 posted on 06/25/2002 11:31:28 AM PDT by Aric2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #9 Removed by Moderator

To: Huck
I would suggest that Dr. Taylor hit the books and do some research. 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'.
10 posted on 06/25/2002 11:35:56 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: TonyRo76
The Democrat Plantation......
11 posted on 06/25/2002 11:36:46 AM PDT by Texaggie79
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: TexConfederate1861
He could not void the Constitution ... an amendment to the Constitution was required.

Fortunately our politicians no longer let this obstruct them. < /sarcasm>

12 posted on 06/25/2002 11:39:05 AM PDT by Straight Vermonter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TexConfederate1861
If one interprets the documents literally, slaves in the United States remained in slavery.

Ahhhh....the irony!

13 posted on 06/25/2002 11:41:52 AM PDT by stainlessbanner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TexConfederate1861
p.s.

Furthermore, I demand an immediate end to all so-called "Independence Day" celebrations on the Fourth of July. The Declaration of Independence as adopted by the Continental Congress obviously had no legal standing in the still British colonies. Anyone knows that we should celebrate British recognition of the new government in the Treaty of Paris on September 3rd, except of course for residents of Florida, who were ceded to Spain at that time. Shoddy, shoddy scholarship.

And no more Star Spangled banner either, since it clearly refers to the war of 1812 and is singularly inappropriate for the new September 3rd holiday.

And don't even get me started on Christmas.
14 posted on 06/25/2002 11:45:10 AM PDT by dan909
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TexConfederate1861
President Lincoln's rationale behind the EP was that as commander in chief of the armed forces, he had the power to sieze enemy property. And the slave holders said that black slaves were property. They brought down the power of the federal government on themselves by their traitorous acts.

It's hard to imagine that the author had any purpose besides sensationalism in writing this. That is because President Lincoln was also a main proponent of the 13th amendment. Although it became law after his death, he helped lay the groundwork through his determined efforts. It should also be noted that he supported voting rights for black soldiers and that he dropped any mention of resettlement or colonization after black soldiers were enlisted, beginning in 1863. And he -never- advocated that anyone be forced out of the country.

President Lincoln turned to colonization as a means to end the war. It was not written in stone that the south be completely destroyed before the war would end. It could have ended at any time upon recognition of the national authority, and later, after the EP, upon condition of Union and freedom. Those terms were anathema to the slave holders, and the war continued until they had had enough.

Walt

15 posted on 06/25/2002 11:51:28 AM PDT by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: varina davis

This painting could be fairly important not only because the artist is nationally recognized but because of the ancestry of the sitter.

According to Paul Heinegg, author of "Free People of Color in North Carolina," this Thomas Johnson, a wealthy Maryland planter, was none other than the great grandson of Anthony Johnson, one of the earliest African Americans to settle Virginia. And it is this very Anthony Johnson who is a pivotal figure in the debate over the origins of slavery.

Anthony Johnson had acquired close to a thousand acres of land by the middle of the 17th century and was among the first generation of free blacks whose relative affluence have forced scholars of the Colonial south to revise their original views on the origins of American slavery and the fine line between this "peculiar" institution and indentured servitude.

What makes Anthony Johnson a central figure in the debate is an utterly bizarre and "politically incorrect" twist of fate. From evidence found in the earliest legal documents extant, it is Anthony Johnson who we now must recognize as the nation's first slaveholder. After all, the court battle he eventually won in 1655 to keep John Casor (Ceasar?) as his servant for life, identifies this unfortunate soul as the first slave in the recorded history of our country. Claiming that he had been imported as an indentured servant, Casor attempted to transfer what he argued was his remaining time of service to Robert Parker, a white, but Johnson insisted that "hee had ye Negro for his life".

The court ruled that "seriously consideringe and maturely weighing the premisses, doe fynde that the saide Mr. Robert Parker most unjustly keepeth the said Negro from Anthony Johnson his master....It is therefore the Judgement of the Court and ordered That the said John Casor Negro forthwith returne unto the service of the said master Anthony Johnson, And that mr. Robert Parker make payment of all charges in the suit."

from: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/secret/famous/johnson.html


16 posted on 06/25/2002 11:52:17 AM PDT by AnnaZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: TexConfederate1861
He could not void the Constitution, which protected and encouraged slavery; an amendment to the Constitution was required.
 
Can someone please cite the article # of this?

17 posted on 06/25/2002 11:54:51 AM PDT by AnnaZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
In all my reading, and all my lectures, I have come across hundreds of references to our Civil War being fought over every issue besides slavery. I think it myopic to assume that the Civil War (as prophesized by our founding fathers) was fought for any other reason. Every reference to states rights, and sovereignty can be traced directly to the question of slavery. To assume that Americans would kill each other in such numbers for anything besides a vast and irreconcilable difference of morality is both insulting, and ignorant.
To be sure, those supporting the institution of slavery used every possible avenue of distraction. Every conceivable issue was put forth as an excuse for secession. All of these put together do not even begin to equal the economic, social, and moral impacts of abolishing slavery. The South enjoyed all the benefits and riches that come from a parasitic relationship, and the war was, most assuredly, fought to end that relationship.
I think it very superficial to deduce what was in the mind of Lincoln by highlighting certain speeches and legislation. The poor man was walking the most perilous tightrope in American history, and as a unionist, he would sacrifice himself, his beliefs, his morals, and his brothers and sisters to protect it. This is often taken out of context, and used to belittle his abolitionist heart.
It is only in his personal letters and correspondence that his true feelings can be considered. What he did for the country has not always consistent with what he would have done personally if he were a king, and not a president. He made consissions to the South to save the Union only.
I donít believe in sound byte argument, but Iíll break that rule in this instance, as this Presidentís words have just as much meaning and relevance today, as the day he spoke them.

"Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, can not long retain it." - Letter To Henry L. Pierce and Others (April 6, 1859)

"As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy. Whatever differs from this, to the extent of the difference, is no democracy." - (August 1, 1858?)

"Let us have faith that right makes might, and in that faith, let us, to the end, dare to do our duty as we understand it." Lincoln's Cooper Institute Address, February 27, 1860.

"I leave you, hoping that the lamp of liberty will burn in your bosoms until there shall no longer be a doubt that all men are created free and equal." - Speech at Chicago, Illinois" (July 10, 1858)

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause." - Letter to Horace Greeley (August 22, 1862)

"In giving freedom to the slave, we assure freedom to the free - honorable alike in what we give, and what we preserve. We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best hope of earth. Other means may succeed; this could not fail. The way is plain, peaceful, generous, just - a way which, if followed, the world will forever applaud, and God must forever bless." Lincoln's Second Annual Message to Congress, December 1, 1862.
"Public sentiment is everything. With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without it nothing can succeed."

"Public sentiment is everything. With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without it nothing can succeed." - "Lincoln-Douglas debate at Ottawa" (August 21, 1858)

"Whenever I hear any one arguing for slavery I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally." - Speech to One Hundred Fortieth Indiana Regiment (March 17, 1865)

"I am not a Know-Nothing. That is certain. How could I be? How can any one who abhors the oppression of negroes, be in favor of degrading classes of white people? Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except Negroes." When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read "all men are created equal, except Negroes and foreigners and Catholics." When it comes to this, I shall prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretense of loving liberty - to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure and without the base alloy of hypocrisy." - Letter to Joshua F. Speed (August 24, 1855)

"Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether." 3
With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations. - Second Inaugural AddressSaturday, March 4, 1865

I think the professor is a revisionist, and has an agenda. There is only one history, and only one reality. Lincoln was a politician. He made compromises and betrayed his own feelings as such, but make no mistake, the Civil War was fought over slavery. Everything else was background noise. The Lincoln / Douglas debates were an exercise in oration, and Lincoln often played devilís advocate. One must consider his entire life to get a realistic appreciation of this great man.


18 posted on 06/25/2002 11:59:07 AM PDT by EvilRightWingCapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
I suppose one question I would like to ask Dr. Taylor is had the southern rebellion been successful then when does he think emancipation would have occured? Also, look at the names he mentions as people more deserving of praise than Abraham Lincoln. Henry Highland Garnet was tossed out of the Anti-Slave Society because he called upon slaves to murder their masters. David Walker advocated violent slave uprisings in order to end the institution. Nat Turner and Denmark Vesey both lead bloody slave revolts. Is that where Dr. Taylor thinks 'The Great Emancipator' would have come from in an independent confedercy, and is he disappointed that it didn't happen that way?

Was Lincoln perfect in every respect? By our lights, no he wasn't. But compare his positions and beliefs with any other leader of the period and he stands head and shoulders above them all.

19 posted on 06/25/2002 12:04:43 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
I don't generally jump into these North vs South excercises in futility, but I must tell this. A couple of years ago, my wife and I visited Ft. Jefferson off Key West on the Dry Tortugas. There was a large plaque proudly proclaiming how the Union army had finished the Fort using the same slave labor they started with SIX YEARS AFTER THE CIVIL WAR WAS OVER! We read the lines on the plaque out loud several times for many of the Yankee folks who had ridden the boat over with us. How could these wonderful folks, who had freed the slaves do such a horrible thing? Fool those poor slaves into working for 6 more years, as slaves on a project run by a battalion from New York, no less!! well, Irv and Rose were really upset, they and their friends finally determined that the plaque was a set up. Brought here, no doubt by some defeated southerner from Alabama! Of course, I am sure the only reason they ever kept them working in the first place was because "they were so much better off than where they came from".
20 posted on 06/25/2002 12:09:08 PM PDT by BigNate
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 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