Frederick Douglass delivered Lincoln reality check at Emancipation Memorial

[Steve Whitlock]

(07-03-2020 10:29 AM)David Lockmiller Wrote:  

(06-30-2020 01:55 PM)David Lockmiller Wrote:  The little part in italics that cannot be read: "that I have ever retreated from it."

Today, in reviewing my post #8 on this thread, I realized that it might have been difficult to find the beginning of that sentence within the reprinted newspaper article. Accordingly, the complete little section with the missing Lincoln words is as follows:

"Mr. Douglass, I have been charged with being tardy, and the like," and he went on admitted that it might seem so, but he said "I am charged with vacillating; but, Mr. Douglass, I do not think that charge can be sustained; I think it cannot be shown that, once I have taken a position that I have ever retreated from it." [Applause to Mr. Douglass's speech at this point.]

You might also say that I "cherry picked" this section to the benefit of both men.

That was nice of you to provide the complete sentence in the article I posted. I should have done that! As for the "cherry pick" writer I mentioned, that refers to Stephanie Ramirez in the article I also posted. Everyone takes excerpts for sources, but I felt such excerpts in the Ramirez article may have unduly influenced readers who may not have read the Douglass oration.

And yes, the complete quote was to the benefit of both men. Thank you.

[David Lockmiller]

I found some additional noteworthy information in a publication called the HillRag:

Monday Emancipation Day Celebration in Lincoln Park
'Douglass' and 'Grant' Star in Recreation of ‘Emancipation Memorial’ Dedication Ceremony
By Elizabeth O'Gorek -April 17, 2018

In remarks delivered prior to the ceremony, National Park Service Ranger Vince Vaise noted that the funding drive for the statue was initiated by a five-dollar donation from a former slave named Charlotte Scott, then living in a refugee camp in Wisconsin. According to the plaque affixed to the statue, the “Freedmen Statue,” was funded entirely by African-Americans, many of them Union Veterans.

The statue has been the subject of controversy virtually since it was unveiled. While attending the ceremony, Douglass was reported as saying that the statue “showed the Negro on his knee when a more manly attitude would have been indicative of freedom.” Although the figure represents a freed slave, he is depicted shackled to the base of the statue. An alternative pose, where the African-American held a rifle, was considered and rejected.

The D.C. Compensated Emancipation Act of 1862 that ended slavery in Washington DC freed 3,100 individuals, reimbursed those who had legally owned them and offered the newly freed women and men money to emigrate. The legislation and the courage and struggle of those who fought to make it a reality is commemorated every April 16 on DC Emancipation Day. In the late nineteenth century, the celebration often took place on the date of the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, April 14, as did the statue’s dedication in 1876.

[Steve Whitlock]

(07-03-2020 02:49 PM)David Lockmiller Wrote:  I found some additional noteworthy information in a publication called the HillRag:

Monday Emancipation Day Celebration in Lincoln Park
'Douglass' and 'Grant' Star in Recreation of ‘Emancipation Memorial’ Dedication Ceremony
By Elizabeth O'Gorek -April 17, 2018

In remarks delivered prior to the ceremony, National Park Service Ranger Vince Vaise noted that the funding drive for the statue was initiated by a five-dollar donation from a former slave named Charlotte Scott, then living in a refugee camp in Wisconsin. According to the plaque affixed to the statue, the “Freedmen Statue,” was funded entirely by African-Americans, many of them Union Veterans.

The statue has been the subject of controversy virtually since it was unveiled. While attending the ceremony, Douglass was reported as saying that the statue “showed the Negro on his knee when a more manly attitude would have been indicative of freedom.” Although the figure represents a freed slave, he is depicted shackled to the base of the statue. An alternative pose, where the African-American held a rifle, was considered and rejected.

The D.C. Compensated Emancipation Act of 1862 that ended slavery in Washington DC freed 3,100 individuals, reimbursed those who had legally owned them and offered the newly freed women and men money to emigrate. The legislation and the courage and struggle of those who fought to make it a reality is commemorated every April 16 on DC Emancipation Day. In the late nineteenth century, the celebration often took place on the date of the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, April 14, as did the statue’s dedication in 1876.

I'm not trying to one-up you here, but to add to the narrative for the Emancipation Monument, and the donation by Charlotte Scott that you mentioned, here is more information from my notes for the unveiling ceremony documentation. I guess I should have included these attached notes with the oration post.

[David Lockmiller]

(07-03-2020 12:12 PM)Steve Whitlock Wrote:  As for the "cherry pick" writer I mentioned, that refers to Stephanie Ramirez in the article I also posted. Everyone takes excerpts for sources, but I felt such excerpts in the Ramirez article may have unduly influenced readers who may not have read the Douglass oration.

I apologize, Steve; I did think that you might be referring to my post of the major latter portion of the Frederick Douglass speech.

It was almost as if Frederick Douglass were delivering a speech on the same subject to two different audiences, describing two different President Abraham Lincoln's.

My first post on this thread reads in part:

"In the era of the "1619 Project," is this article considered to be accurate and truthful reporting of American Civil War history and President Abraham Lincoln, in particular?

"Frederick Douglass delivered a Lincoln reality check at Emancipation Memorial unveiling" (story headline)

In the first part of the story, the reporter writes:

"Douglass, who had met Lincoln on several occasions at the White House, said that Lincoln was not a president for black people and that Lincoln’s motivation above all was to save the union, even if it meant keeping black people in bondage."

What is said with these words is true; however, what is not said with this sentence standing alone and concluding that President Lincoln was not "a president for black people" is the deceiving part.

Thank you, Roger, for your post #2 in response:

"In my opinion, on an overall basis, there is more positive in the speech than negative. This is especially true in the second half of the speech. David, I think the article you cited concentrates too much on the negative and generally ignores all the positive and praiseworthy things Douglass had to say about Abraham Lincoln."

I read the Frederick Douglass "second speech" made that same day (which I copied at post #3) and was amazed. Frederick Douglass corrected this distortion of truth in his "second speech" that same day to the same audience.

In my opinion, this "second speech" regarding the character and reputation of President Abraham Lincoln is the most commendable that I have ever read.

I prefaced my post #3 with the following statement:

The following is the second half of the Frederick Douglass speech on April 14, 1876 to which Roger makes reference. I agree with what Roger has said and I am also of the opinion that the following should have been Douglass's entire speech that day.

In short, those who support the "1619 Project" version of American history will only "cherry pick" quote from the first part Frederick Douglass's narration of April 14, 1876. The full truth regarding President Abraham Lincoln will not be told by the "Nikole Hannah-Jones" of this world; and even added perverse lies regarding the character and reputation of President Lincoln will be told as a means to an end.

[Steve Whitlock]

(07-04-2020 09:23 AM)David Lockmiller Wrote:  

(07-03-2020 12:12 PM)Steve Whitlock Wrote:  As for the "cherry pick" writer I mentioned, that refers to Stephanie Ramirez in the article I also posted. Everyone takes excerpts for sources, but I felt such excerpts in the Ramirez article may have unduly influenced readers who may not have read the Douglass oration.

I apologize, Steve; I did think that you might be referring to my post of the major latter portion of the Frederick Douglass speech.

It was almost as if Frederick Douglass were delivering a speech on the same subject to two different audiences, describing two different President Abraham Lincoln's.

My first post on this thread reads in part:

"In the era of the "1619 Project," is this article considered to be accurate and truthful reporting of American Civil War history and President Abraham Lincoln, in particular?

"Frederick Douglass delivered a Lincoln reality check at Emancipation Memorial unveiling" (story headline)

In the first part of the story, the reporter writes:

"Douglass, who had met Lincoln on several occasions at the White House, said that Lincoln was not a president for black people and that Lincoln’s motivation above all was to save the union, even if it meant keeping black people in bondage."

What is said with these words is true; however, what is not said with this sentence standing alone and concluding that President Lincoln was not "a president for black people" is the deceiving part.

Thank you, Roger, for your post #2 in response:

"In my opinion, on an overall basis, there is more positive in the speech than negative. This is especially true in the second half of the speech. David, I think the article you cited concentrates too much on the negative and generally ignores all the positive and praiseworthy things Douglass had to say about Abraham Lincoln."

I read the Frederick Douglass "second speech" made that same day (which I copied at post #3) and was amazed. Frederick Douglass corrected this distortion of truth in his "second speech" that same day to the same audience.

In my opinion, this "second speech" regarding the character and reputation of President Abraham Lincoln is the most commendable that I have ever read.

I prefaced my post #3 with the following statement:

The following is the second half of the Frederick Douglass speech on April 14, 1876 to which Roger makes reference. I agree with what Roger has said and I am also of the opinion that the following should have been Douglass's entire speech that day.

In short, those who support the "1619 Project" version of American history will only "cherry pick" quote from the first part Frederick Douglass's narration of April 14, 1876. The full truth regarding President Abraham Lincoln will not be told by the "Nikole Hannah-Jones" of this world; and even added perverse lies regarding the character and reputation of President Lincoln will be told as a means to an end.

Shame on me! I never thought of your using the "cherry pick" term, which may have influenced my sudden inspiration for it in the same thread. I'm so impressed with your writing skills that I now unwittingly plagiarize your talent. Any apology should be from me to you.

I will also sincerely apologize for my post that Roger, I presume, edited for a stupid remark I made. In 1999 I had a heart attack at work, but refused to go to the doctor. In the middle of the night I finally relented and went to the hospital, where I was quickly admitted, and a few hours later had another heart attack. The results of that led to a 5-way bypass, a new valve, removal of a blockage, and functional loss of over 30% for my heart. Five years later, now with an enlarged, barely functioning heart, I went on a heart transplant list. In 2006 I received the transplant. Then came 2015 and my wife died, from a heart attack.

Why I would ever use the term "heart attack" even in jest, is inexcusable. I do humbly apologize for that stupidity.

[My Name Is Kate]

Lincoln must have seemed almost like God to the freed slaves, and the Emancipation Memorial could be interpreted as suggesting that sentiment, with Lincoln towering over the kneeling slave, and his arm extended over him in a blessing-like gesture. But Lincoln was not God...not even close, and Lincoln alone did not free the slaves. Many lives were lost and families shattered in accomplishing that goal. Of course that would be more difficult to depict in a sculpture, and it was easier to use Lincoln alone as the symbol of emancipation. But having the text of the Thirteenth Amendment in the background, may have been a better substitute for Lincoln. (Not that it would make one iota of difference in appeasing the mob hellbent on tearing down statues.)

[David Lockmiller]

(07-05-2020 09:16 AM)My Name Is Kate Wrote:  Many lives were lost and families shattered in accomplishing that goal.

That's one amazing fact that is virtually ignored by protesters. I read in one of the published stories on the monument history that 310,000 white Union soldiers and 40,000 black Union soldiers died in the Civil War.

The initial purpose was to save the Union and the institution of democracy for the world. The following is from post #15 of the referenced thread:

RE: Why Is the G.O.P. Fighting to Preserve Monuments to Traitors in the Capitol?

Lieutenant-Colonel William McCullough of the 4th Illinois Voluntary Calvary was a longtime friend of attorney Abraham Lincoln. McCullough had served many years as sheriff and clerk of the court for McLean County. When the Illinois Eighth Circuit Court traveled to Bloomington, Lincoln would sometimes stay with the McCullough family.

When the American Civil War came, William McCullough, an excellent horseman, volunteered to serve in the military but was rejected because of his age (48) and physical disabilities (loss of an arm in a farming accident and loss of an eye in a shooting accident). McCullough petitioned President Lincoln directly for permission to serve. Lincoln granted the petition and commissioned McCullough as Lieutenant-Colonel of the Fourth Illinois Calvary, which McCullough helped to organize; he was well-respected by his comrades.

Lieutenant-Colonel William McCullough of the Fourth Illinois Voluntary Calvary was killed in night warfare with Confederate forces at Coffeeville, Mississippi on December 5, 1862. After 22 year-old Fanny learned of her father’s death, according to her mother, she “neither ate nor slept since the tidings of his death, but shut herself in her room, in solitude, where she passed her time in pacing the floor in violent grief, or sitting in lethargic silence.” Recently-appointed Supreme Court Justice David Davis, a mutual friend of William McCullough, was informed of the family’s situation; he requested that President Lincoln write a letter of condolence.

Abraham Lincoln had suffered similar losses to that of the young Fanny McCullough. When Lincoln was only nine, his much loved mother called him to her side as she was dying from disease, saying to him: “I am going away from you, Abraham, and I shall not return.” Earlier in the year, on February 20, 1862, Lincoln’s own much loved 11 year-old son, Willie, died of disease at the White House, devastating President Lincoln.

Letter of condolence
Executive Mansion,
Washington, December 23, 1862.

[Steve Whitlock]

(07-05-2020 09:16 AM)My Name Is Kate Wrote:  Lincoln must have seemed almost like God to the freed slaves, and the Emancipation Memorial could be interpreted as suggesting that sentiment, with Lincoln towering over the kneeling slave, and his arm extended over him in a blessing-like gesture. But Lincoln was not God...not even close, and Lincoln alone did not free the slaves. Many lives were lost and families shattered in accomplishing that goal. Of course that would be more difficult to depict in a sculpture, and it was easier to use Lincoln alone as the symbol of emancipation. But having the text of the Thirteenth Amendment in the background, may have been a better substitute for Lincoln. (Not that it would make one iota of difference in appeasing the mob hellbent on tearing down statues.)

A more common view was that President Lincoln was seen as both Father Abraham and Moses for the slaves. Michael Burlingame in "Abraham Lincoln, A Life" mentions that, as well as many news clips I saw while perusing thousands for President Lincoln.

There was also a song written in 1865, after president Lincoln's death, which refers to him as Father Abraham Lincoln. I called one of the attachments the "Father Abraham Lincoln Song", but the real title was "On the Death of President Abraham Lincoln Song", which I have also attached due to the first attachment being a little hard to read.

All of this is fine for general discussion; however, it ignores the reason that the Emancipation Memorial has been attacked by protestors, and why a better understanding of the memorial might be beneficial for its survival.

[Gene C]

And it sounds like this ......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VU_M5Fa-N0

[My Name Is Kate]

(07-07-2020 10:40 PM)Steve Whitlock Wrote:  All of this is fine for general discussion; however, it ignores the reason that the Emancipation Memorial has been attacked by protestors, and why a better understanding of the memorial might be beneficial for its survival.

Protestors see the statue as demeaning black people and putting them in a subservient position; literally, on their knees. They don't want any statues depicting or even hinting at black people as slaves, or anything close to that. They are ashamed of their slave past, and if they are white protestors, they are ashamed of what white people did to black people. Blacks (the ones who want the statue removed) would like to believe that the slaves freed themselves, or at least had a significant role in freeing themselves. Better yet, they would like to erase (cancel) the past, as though it never happened. Some protestors want a statue of Harriett Tubman (Underground Railroad activist/leader), to replace the Emancipation Memorial, because that would be more "empowering" for blacks.

I can see why some people may not like the Emancipation Memorial statue (I am one of them). It is uncomfortable to look at from the perspective of someone who was once in an enslaved position, or had enslaved ancestors. But I don't agree at all with the desire to eradicate history. That is called being in denial. No one who is in denial has truly overcome their past.

The people who are the political and financial power behind the protests, likely have other reasons for wanting statues like the Emancipation Memorial removed.

[My Name Is Kate]

I want to make it clear that I am not in favor of tearing down any statues, including the Emancipation Memorial. That should be done only by popular vote, if it is done at all.

It is obvious to me that there is little respect or empathy, in these times, for what the slaves endured (and in fact, how hard life was for everyone who lived long ago). That lack of empathy or respect may include some who go around the country lecturing to anyone who will listen, how absolutely powerless and subservient the slaves were, never giving a thought to how that might be uncomfortable for those who have a more personal understanding of enslavement.