As we celebrate the "mighty act" of Emancipation Proclamation, signed this day one hundred fifty years ago, why is it, as Professor Eric Foner notes, "the most misunderstood of the documents that have shaped American history?"




(See Foner's opinion column in the NYTimes: "The Emancipation of Abe Lincoln.")

Thanks, Reignette. Here is the link to Foner's article.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/01/opinio....html?_r=0

There is another opinion article in yesterday's New York Times titled "How Many Slaves Work for You?" that addresses what President Obama calls modern-day slavery.

"In a speech delivered in September at the Clinton Global Initiative, President Obama declared that the time had come to call human trafficking by its rightful name: modern slavery. “The bitter truth is that trafficking also goes on right here, in the United States,” he declared. “It’s the migrant worker unable to pay off the debt to his trafficker. The man, lured here with the promise of a job, his documents then taken, and forced to work endless hours in a kitchen. The teenage girl, beaten, forced to walk the streets. This should not be happening in the United States of America.”

The article includes a link to Slavery Footprint where you can take their quiz, "How many slaves work for you?"

http://slaveryfootprint.org/

I didn't see very much coverage from the media about the anniversary of the E.P.-but attention has been largely given to the fiscal cliff issue. And yes, it is still a very misunderstood document today. "It didn't free anyone" -I hear people say. Well, there's so much that could be said about what the document meant to slavery and freedom-but I'm tired (I didn't say hungover!). Suffice it to say that the E.P. was a strong nail in the coffin of slavery paving the way for the 13th Amendment (that would kill it forever).

Bill,

NBC ran an interesting piece about the E.P. on its Tuesday evening newscast. It featured an interview with Doris Kearns Goodwin, who shared a story about Lincoln spending the earlier part of the day - January 1, 1863 - greeting guests at a White House reception. Thereafter, when he sat to sign the E.P., Lincoln put his pen down and paused. Because the president had been shaking hands all morning, he feared his signature would reflect that of a trembling hand. So he massaged his hands until he felt he could firmly sign the document.

I could listen to Ms. Goodwin all day! She has the wonderful gift of storytelling.

---

(01-01-2013 06:52 PM)LincolnMan Wrote:  I didn't see very much coverage from the media about the anniversary of the E.P.-but attention has been largely given to the fiscal cliff issue. And yes, it is still a very misunderstood document today. "It didn't free anyone" -I hear people say. Well, there's so much that could be said about what the document meant to slavery and freedom-but I'm tired (I didn't say hungover!). Suffice it to say that the E.P. was a strong nail in the coffin of slavery paving the way for the 13th Amendment (that would kill it forever).

"The Emancipation Proclamation was a strong nail in the coffin of slavery paving the way for the 13th Amendment (that would kill it forever)."

Thank you, Bill, for the succinct interpretation of this "mighty act."

I have been blessed to actually view on of the copies of the E.P. that Lincoln signed. I have also viewed the inkwell that was used by him for the signing. I don't remember (as we get old we forget more than we remember) if I ever saw the actual writing instrument that Lincoln used? Is it on display with the inkwell? Does anyone know where it is?

At least Lincoln didn't use an automachine to sign the Proclamation!

The National Archives had the original on display for a few days. The document is very fragile and faded. It can only be displayed for a very brief time. They now have a original copy on display at the Library of Congress.

(01-01-2013 11:28 AM)Linda Anderson Wrote:  Thanks, Reignette. Here is the link to Foner's article.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/01/opinio....html?_r=0

There is another opinion article in yesterday's New York Times titled "How Many Slaves Work for You?" that addresses what President Obama calls modern-day slavery.

"In a speech delivered in September at the Clinton Global Initiative, President Obama declared that the time had come to call human trafficking by its rightful name: modern slavery. “The bitter truth is that trafficking also goes on right here, in the United States,” he declared. “It’s the migrant worker unable to pay off the debt to his trafficker. The man, lured here with the promise of a job, his documents then taken, and forced to work endless hours in a kitchen. The teenage girl, beaten, forced to walk the streets. This should not be happening in the United States of America.”

The article includes a link to Slavery Footprint where you can take their quiz, "How many slaves work for you?"

http://slaveryfootprint.org/

Thank you, Linda, for providing the link to the quiz. "Knowing about the problem is the first step."

---

(01-04-2013 06:53 AM)Jim Garrett Wrote:  The National Archives had the original on display for a few days. The document is very fragile and faded. It can only be displayed for a very brief time. They now have a original copy on display at the Library of Congress.

Jim,

The January 3, 1938, "Lincoln Lore" publication marked the seventy-fifth anniversary of Emancipation Proclamation with a note about what became of a copy that was donated to the Chicago Sanitary Fair (Nov/Dec 1863).

The Fair's committee wrote to A.L. asking that he donate the manuscript. Although Lincoln consented to the donation, he was nevertheless reluctant as evidenced by his letter of October 26, 1863:

"I had some desire to retain the paper; but if is shall contribute to the relief or comfort of the soldiers, that will be better."

Per the editor, Thomas B. Bryan paid $3000 for the E.P. and donated it to the Chicago's Soldier Home. He had the copy lithographed and sold reprints to benefit the Home.

Sadly, the document burned in the Chicago fire of 1871.

Quote:Sadly, the document burned in the Chicago fire of 1871.

Here is Samuel Stone's own account of his unsuccessful attempt to save the proclamation from the fire:

"I immediately hastened down to the reception-room to get. the record book, and the Lincoln proclamation, which had been deposited there for safekeeping by the Soldiers' Home, to whom it belonged. Not finding the record, I attempted to break the frame of the proclamation and take it out. But the frame was so stout it was not easily done, and just as I was making the attempt, there came another blast of fire and smoke, filling the whole heavens, and frightfully dashing firebrands against the reception-room window. I heard at the same time a chinking sound overhead, probably from the breaking in of the window or falling of the roof. Believing that a minute more in trying to save the proclamation would make it too late for my escape, I made for the basement- door, stamped out the fire from two bundles, pulled away the trunk, and attempted to go out, but the suffocating smoke outside prevented. I tore open a third smoldering bundle, snatched from it a shawl — a camel's hair it was — covered my head, and sprang out with as much speed as possible. Glancing around, I could see the steps overhead, the sidewalks, front fences, Mr. Girard's cottage, and every building south, one mass of flames, while firebrands were flying in every direction. My only way of escape was by the rear of Mr. Girard's cottage. I had no time for the gate, but with a bound sprang over the low picket-fence into North-Dearborn Street."

(01-05-2013 05:34 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  

Quote:Sadly, the document burned in the Chicago fire of 1871.

Here is Samuel Stone's own account of his unsuccessful attempt to save the proclamation from the fire:

"I immediately hastened down to the reception-room to get. the record book, and the Lincoln proclamation, which had been deposited there for safekeeping by the Soldiers' Home, to whom it belonged. Not finding the record, I attempted to break the frame of the proclamation and take it out. But the frame was so stout it was not easily done, and just as I was making the attempt, there came another blast of fire and smoke, filling the whole heavens, and frightfully dashing firebrands against the reception-room window. I heard at the same time a chinking sound overhead, probably from the breaking in of the window or falling of the roof. Believing that a minute more in trying to save the proclamation would make it too late for my escape, I made for the basement- door, stamped out the fire from two bundles, pulled away the trunk, and attempted to go out, but the suffocating smoke outside prevented. I tore open a third smoldering bundle, snatched from it a shawl — a camel's hair it was — covered my head, and sprang out with as much speed as possible. Glancing around, I could see the steps overhead, the sidewalks, front fences, Mr. Girard's cottage, and every building south, one mass of flames, while firebrands were flying in every direction. My only way of escape was by the rear of Mr. Girard's cottage. I had no time for the gate, but with a bound sprang over the low picket-fence into North-Dearborn Street."

Thanks, Roger, for the story about this tragic event. At least Mr. Stone made it out safely.

---

In response to the "poor document, but a mighty act" theme that was the name of this thread- I was reading the excellent book President Lincoln: The Duty of a Statesman by William Lee Miller, who comments on the Emancipation Proclamation:

"The Emancipation Proclamation sounds like a legal document because it is a legal document. It does not have the lift of a moral argument because it is not making a moral argument. Lincoln was not making an argument at all; he was making law. He was not giving inspiration; he was giving an order."

Miller goes on to say:

"The lawyer's prose was not a literary or moral failure but a necessity. The document was at its core an act of law in wartime-a military order- an order to military commanders to liberate slaves in conquered territory, in the teeth of strong resistance. The tedious specificity was central to Lincoln's justification: as military chief he could command, on his own authority, the freeing of slaves in states in rebellion as a necessary military measure. He could not do that in states and areas that were not in rebellion, which included areas captured by U.S. forces."

Page 264.

On this day December 29, 1862, Lincoln read the Emancipation Proclamation to his cabinet for their consideration and suggestions.
Did they know about it beforehand?
Would have liked to have been a fly on the wall.

(12-29-2017 09:38 AM)LincolnMan Wrote:  On this day December 29, 1862, Lincoln read the Emancipation Proclamation to his cabinet for their consideration and suggestions.
Did they know about it beforehand?

Bill, I think so (unless I misunderstand what you are asking).

In the Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation (September 22, 1862) Lincoln had written:

"That on the first day of January in the year of our Lord, one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, 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; and the executive government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom.

That the executive will, on the first day of January aforesaid, by proclamation, designate the States, and part of States, if any, in which the people thereof respectively, shall then be in rebellion against the United States;"

I recently saw this comment in a comments section of a political article (I know, not the place to find wisdom, but I thought it was pretty good), which I posted below. The reason people can't understand it is because it seems to contain "irreconcilable" practicality and radicalism, futility and action, etc. But it is pretty easily reconcilable if you understand the history, conditions, and Lincoln's outlook, which most people are clueless about. I always knew that actually taking action to free the slaves and enforce it had to have been an extremely big deal, with seemingly insurmountable pushback despite its obvious moral rightness, but I never understood it until I educated myself. Most people have no curiosity about it and even actively resist understanding it -- in this particular case, people are very sensitive about "property," even though there are definitely times where concern for property takes a backseat to larger goals about humanity, and the Civil War was one of them. I'm not sure if I'm explaining myself clearly, but to me that's where much of the inspiration that comes from it lies. Much of the Cabinet was fighting like crazy for these ideals with no prospect of remuneration or even necessarily benefit for their family, losing children and fortunes. We always talk about th American Dream about being about your home, yard, and kids getting better opportunities, etc., but that's not what it meant to them - it was much deeper and less personal. Historians like Forner throw up their hands whenever they are interviewed on the latest "controversy," because people try to force it into some simplistic debate. I read his book recently and it was great.

"Lincoln was prudent, yes, but he was always capable of daring much and risking more if prudence demanded it. The Emancipation Proclamation was a prudent response to the Southern insurrection: take their slaves away from them, and you take away the South's capacity to simultaneously feed itself and field an army. But by the same token, he literally made illegal the single largest source of wealth in the nation. In 1860, the combined value of all the slaves in the South was greater than the entire combined value of every factory, every railroad, every farm, farmhouse, henhouse, outhouse and doghouse in the country, and he just up and said "Nope. Excluding Kentucky for purely practical reasons and until the end of the war, any slave that comes into our possession is now not property, you can't get it back, you get zero money for, and which we will arm and teach how to shoot and kill you and everyone you love at the first opportunity." If Obama had responded to the Great Recession by abolishing every stock and bond in the country, and then somehow taught those stocks to shoot dead any stockbroker or stockholder they found, it'd have been about a third of what Lincoln did with slavery.

And yet, Lincoln's decision was, again, the model of prudence. The Civil War was an unprecedented crisis, and in such circumstances, sometimes the prudent and sensible thing to do is also incredibly risky and daring."

(12-29-2017 09:38 AM)LincolnMan Wrote:  On this day December 29, 1862, Lincoln read the Emancipation Proclamation to his cabinet for their consideration and suggestions.
Did they know about it beforehand?
Would have liked to have been a fly on the wall.

According to Lincoln Day by Day, he spent Dec. 29th through Dec. 31st working with the cabinet on the final version of the Jan. 1st proclamation: The Lincoln Log.

Apparently, Lincoln's first discussion of the first draft of the document with his cabinet occurred on July 22, 1862.