Ford's Theatre Advertisement - April 14, 1865

January 1, 1863

The Emancipation Proclamation, issued on January 1, 1863, lacked Lincoln's usual poetic flourish. The proclamation was a war measure - aimed at hastening the end of the rebellion. Still, it changed the meaning of the war and added to the Union cause by putting emancipation on the table.

Below is the text of the document. I believe it makes for good reading on this first day of 2013.

By the President of the United States of America:

A Proclamation.

Whereas, on the twenty-second day of September, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-two, a proclamation was issued by the President of the United States, containing, among other things, the following, to wit:

"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 parts of States, if any, in which the people thereof, respectively, shall then be in rebellion against the United States; and the fact that any State, or the people thereof, shall on that day be, in good faith, represented in the Congress of the United States by members chosen thereto at elections wherein a majority of the qualified voters of such State shall have participated, shall, in the absence of strong countervailing testimony, be deemed conclusive evidence that such State, and the people thereof, are not then in rebellion against the United States."

Now, therefore I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, by virtue of the power in me vested as Commander-in-Chief, of the Army and Navy of the United States in time of actual armed rebellion against the authority and government of the United States, and as a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said rebellion, do, on this first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and in accordance with my purpose so to do publicly proclaimed for the full period of one hundred days, from the day first above mentioned, order and designate as the States and parts of States wherein the people thereof respectively, are this day in rebellion against the United States, the following, to wit:

Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, (except the Parishes of St. Bernard, Plaquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James Ascension, Assumption, Terrebonne, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including the City of New Orleans) Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia, (except the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkley, Accomac, Northampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Ann, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth[)], and which excepted parts, are for the present, left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued.

And by virtue of the power, and for the purpose aforesaid, I do order and declare that all persons held as slaves within said designated States, and parts of States, are, and henceforward shall be free; and that the Executive government of the United States, including the military and naval authorities thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of said persons.

And I hereby enjoin upon the people so declared to be free to abstain from all violence, unless in necessary self-defence; and I recommend to them that, in all cases when allowed, they labor faithfully for reasonable wages.

And I further declare and make known, that such persons of suitable condition, will be received into the armed service of the United States to garrison forts, positions, stations, and other places, and to man vessels of all sorts in said service.

And upon this act, sincerely believed to be an act of justice, warranted by the Constitution, upon military necessity, I invoke the considerate judgment of mankind, and the gracious favor of Almighty God.

In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.

Done at the City of Washington, this first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty three, and of the Independence of the United States of America the eighty-seventh.

By the President: ABRAHAM LINCOLN
WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State.

Happy New Year from Cosmic America!

Death of Abraham Lincoln

Why, if the old Greeks had had this man, what trilogies of plays - what epics - would have been made out of him! How the rhapsodies would have recited him! How quickly that quaint tall form would have enter'd into the region where men vitalize gods, and gods divinify men! But Lincoln, his times, his death - great as any, any age - belong altogether to our own.

Walt Whitman - 1879

Too Soon?

In the spirit of levity, I submit for your comments, Lincoln, from Saturday Night Live season 38, episode 6 starring Louis C.K.

K

Another Whiskey, Mr. Johnson?

On inauguration day, 1865, Americans heard what Frederick Douglass deemed more akin to a sermon than a speech. He was referring, of course, to Abraham Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address - the main attraction. The opening act was something of a flop.

Andrew Johnson, having recently arrived in Washington City a bit under the weather, had earlier that day consumed several glasses of whiskey (he was from Tennessee, after all) to clear his head and steady his nerves.

Red faced and quite obviously intoxicated, he delivered - after his inauguration as vice president - a rambling and incoherent speech that meandered around glory and democracy until Hannibal Hamlin (Lincoln's first VP) had to cut him off.

Lincoln, incensed, instructed his cabinet to keep an eye on him for the rest of the day.  But he came to his defense nevertheless, stating "I have known Andy Johnson for many years; he made a bad slip the other day, but you need not be scared; Andy ain't a drunkard."

Even so, poor Andy never shook the "drunken tailor" image. And that was just the beginning of his problems.

K

 

The Great Emancipator in Mosaic

This image is part of a series of mosaics at Forest Lawn Cemetery in Los Angeles. These days, it seems that Abraham Lincoln, once deified as a "Great Emancipator," has fallen from such elevated graces. What do you think? Does this image strike you as an accurate depiction of the 16th president?

Way Out West in '58

I have been working these days on trying to get a sense of which way the wind was blowing - so to speak - in Los Angeles immediately before the Civil War. I know that plenty of the small 1850s population tended to lean in a southerly direction and I am always on the lookout for first-hand accounts.

From my own library, as it turns out, I had a look in Almira Russell Hancock's 1887 publication of Reminiscences of Winfield Scott Hancock. Winfield, a career Army officer who would rise to fame as commander of the II Corps of the Army of the Potomac during the Civil War, found himself stationed in Los Angeles in November 1858, where he would remain until the outbreak of hostilities in '61. Allie wrote a wonderfully descriptive account of their time in Southern California noting many of the terrain features, wildlife, and population of the pueblo:

The Los Angeles of 1858-59 was not the Los Angeles of to-day; now it contains 25,000 inhabitants, then it boasted of 4,000. Its main street was lined on both sides with adobe houses of true Spanish type, and not very many of them; but the surrounding country, with its beautiful hills and valleys, its snow-capped mountains and variegated fields, was unsurpassably charming. The population consisted principally of Spaniards, a few rough American adventurers, and many Indians of a low order, who were treacherous and required watching, and were at times very disorderly.

As tensions reached a near breaking point in the East, Allie Hancock noted the rebellious sentiments both within the ranks of the Army as well as the general population and pointed to the uneasiness felt by her husband:

The presidential election was impending, and excitement ran high. In Mr. Hancock's opinion the situation was pregnant with danger in the event of Mr. Lincoln's success. This conviction caused him much uneasiness, which he did not hesitate to express, but few believed it possible that the South had the intention of actually seceding from the Union. Portentous rumblings came from the East, and from the utterances of those around him, a majority of whom were Southern sympathizers, Mr. Hancock concluded that rebellion was imminent. The reckless character of the large portion of the population composing the Disunionists, most of them adventurers, willingly participating in any movement which presented opportunity to themselves, made the situation very hazardous.

She then continued to connect previous efforts to form an independent Bear Flag Republic in California and noted how the Spaniards were entirely sympathetic to this cause - or really any cause promoting independence.

And for the record (for those of you who have seen the film, Gettysburg), nowhere in the text does she refer to her husband as "Old Winnie Boy." In fact, I have never seen that sobriquet used in any contemporary writing. And I don't recall if Shaara used it in Killer Angels. If not, I guess Ron Maxwell just needed a catchy nickname to go over well with the movie-going public.

K

 

Los Angeles and the Election of 1860

Los Angeles didn't look like much in 1860 - there really wasn't a lot there. A small military outpost, a few ranchos, some burros, a couple of dusty streets, and not much else. But there were voters and a growing population, and since California had achieved statehood in 1850, many good Angelenos with a sense of civic responsibility made their way to the polls to cast their vote in the 1860 presidential election.

Statewide, Lincoln barely edged out Stephen Douglas, with a popular vote of 38,733 to Douglas's 37,999. John C. Brekinridge, the Southern Democrat, managed to come in a close 3rd with 33,969 and John Bell, the Constitutional Unionist got 9,111. So by the narrowest of margins, Lincoln got to add California's 4 electoral votes to the Republican column.

These results say quite a bit about the Golden State's political diversity. From what I understand, northern Californians tended to go with Lincoln while southern Californians sided with his opponents. There was one bilingual paper in Los Angeles at the time that fervently supported Douglas Democrats  - The Los Angeles Star - and once the shooting started was so critical of the federal government that the paper's editor was accused of treason and his publication was banned from the mail. Wonderful information to have indeed. But I need the numbers form 1860.

I am on the lookout for a city by city report on the returns for the election in an effort to gauge support for the various issues unfolding in the East. If you have the numbers - please pass them along. I will be forever grateful!

K

Trailer for Spielberg's Lincoln

Okay - I am certainly on board with this film. But I always imagined Lincoln emphasizing the object of the preposition in the Gettysburg Address in this fashion:  "of the people, by the people, for the people" as opposed to the preposition itself as in "of the people, by the people, for the people."

Let the nitpicking begin.

K

Drunk History

Today I learned of the Internet sensation, Drunk History. The premise: a comedian, with an "understanding" of an historical event, offers a lesson while proceeding to get completely tanked.

In this episode, Jen Kirkman schools us on the relationship between Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass. By the second bottle of wine, the story gets....interesting.

I imagine that my painfully boring high school history class would have attracted a more attentive audience had the teacher knocked a few back before bell rang for 5th period.

But since that didn't happen to me or anyone else, and probably still does not - we historians may have to rely on these episodes to draw more to the discipline. You can enjoy the tale of Lincoln and Douglass by clicking HERE. Really, you should - it''s a story with an all-star cast that you won't want to miss.

K

 

Can Either Political Party Claim the Lincoln Legacy?

Who gets him? I am quite sure...certain really, that in our current two-party system, both political parties would like to claim Lincoln as one of their own, so to speak - and position themselves as the inheritors of the Lincoln legacy.

But that opens the door to a little interpretation. Lincoln was on board with things like internal improvements and tariffs - the hallmarks of a stronger central state. Those today who would support less government might have had a problem here. He was also, shall we say, progressive for his time.

We could always go the easy route and say his greater legacy was the spirit of unity. And thus we all get to be on his team. But don't get me started on how vague the term "unity" is. I am confident that Lincoln had an idea of the word's meaning - and I am equally confident that a whole bunch of people disagreed with him. Then and now.

Yes yes yes - I am really generalizing here. But I do so only to get you thinking. I have simply started the ball rolling with a few sweeping statements. I will let you fill in the details.

K (and happy election year)

Lincoln's Last Public Address

Two days after Lee's surrender and three days before he was murdered by John Wilkes Booth, Abraham Lincoln addressed a large crowd gathered outside the White House. His topic was reconstruction -especially in Louisiana. The president's policies had been quite lenient thus far - but in this speech he hints that he might be revising his position. We will never know precisely what he had in mind, but perhaps we can discern something from his words on April 11, 1865:

We meet this evening, not in sorrow, but in gladness of heart. The evacuation of Petersburg and Richmond, and the surrender of the principal insurgent army, give hope of a righteous and speedy peace whose joyous expression can not be restrained. In the midst of this, however, He from whom all blessings flow, must not be forgotten. A call for a national thanksgiving is being prepared, and will be duly promulgated. Nor must those whose harder part gives us the cause of rejoicing, be overlooked. Their honors must not be parcelled out with others. I myself was near the front, and had the high pleasure of transmitting much of the good news to you; but no part of the honor, for plan or execution, is mine. To Gen. Grant, his skilful officers, and brave men, all belongs. The gallant Navy stood ready, but was not in reach to take active part.

By these recent successes the re-inauguration of the national authority -- reconstruction -- which has had a large share of thought from the first, is pressed much more closely upon our attention. It is fraught with great difficulty. Unlike a case of a war between independent nations, there is no authorized organ for us to treat with. No one man has authority to give up the rebellion for any other man. We simply must begin with, and mould from, disorganized and discordant elements. Nor is it a small additional embarrassment that we, the loyal people, differ among ourselves as to the mode, manner, and means of reconstruction.

As a general rule, I abstain from reading the reports of attacks upon myself, wishing not to be provoked by that to which I can not properly offer an answer. In spite of this precaution, however, it comes to my knowledge that I am much censured for some supposed agency in setting up, and seeking to sustain, the new State government of Louisiana. In this I have done just so much as, and no more than, the public knows. In the Annual Message of Dec. 1863 and accompanying Proclamation, I presented a plan of re-construction (as the phrase goes) which, I promised, if adopted by any State, should be acceptable to, and sustained by, the Executive government of the nation. I distinctly stated that this was not the only plan which might possibly be acceptable; and I also distinctly protested that the Executive claimed no right to say when, or whether members should be admitted to seats in Congress from such States. This plan was, in advance, submitted to the then Cabinet, and distinctly approved by every member of it. One of them suggested that I should then, and in that connection, apply the Emancipation Proclamation to the theretofore excepted parts of Virginia and Louisiana; that I should drop the suggestion about apprenticeship for freed-people, and that I should omit the protest against my own power, in regard to the admission of members to Congress; but even he approved every part and parcel of the plan which has since been employed or touched by the action of Louisiana. The new constitution of Louisiana, declaring emancipation for the whole State, practically applies the Proclamation to the part previously excepted. It does not adopt apprenticeship for freed-people; and it is silent, as it could not well be otherwise, about the admission of members to Congress. So that, as it applies to Louisiana, every member of the Cabinet fully approved the plan. The message went to Congress, and I received many commendations of the plan, written and verbal; and not a single objection to it, from any professed emancipationist, came to my knowledge, until after the news reached Washington that the people of Louisiana had begun to move in accordance with it. From about July 1862, I had corresponded with different persons, supposed to be interested, seeking a reconstruction of a State government for Louisiana. When the message of 1863, with the plan before mentioned, reached New-Orleans, Gen. Banks wrote me that he was confident the people, with his military co-operation, would reconstruct, substantially on that plan. I wrote him, and some of them to try it; they tried it, and the result is known. Such only has been my agency in getting up the Louisiana government. As to sustaining it, my promise is out, as before stated. But, as bad promises are better broken than kept, I shall treat this as a bad promise, and break it, whenever I shall be convinced that keeping it is adverse to the public interest. But I have not yet been so convinced.

I have been shown a letter on this subject, supposed to be an able one, in which the writer expresses regret that my mind has not seemed to be definitely fixed on the question whether the seceding States, so called, are in the Union or out of it. It would perhaps, add astonishment to his regret, were he to learn that since I have found professed Union men endeavoring to make that question, I have purposely forborne any public expression upon it. As appears to me that question has not been, nor yet is, a practically material one, and that any discussion of it, while it thus remains practically immaterial, could have no effect other than the mischievous one of dividing our friends. As yet, whatever it may hereafter become, that question is bad, as the basis of a controversy, and good for nothing at all--a merely pernicious abstraction.

We all agree that the seceded States, so called, are out of their proper relation with the Union; and that the sole object of the government, civil and military, in regard to those States is to again get them into that proper practical relation. I believe it is not only possible, but in fact, easier to do this, without deciding, or even considering, whether these States have ever been out of the Union, than with it. Finding themselves safely at home, it would be utterly immaterial whether they had ever been abroad. Let us all join in doing the acts necessary to restoring the proper practical relations between these States and the Union; and each forever after, innocently indulge his own opinion whether, in doing the acts, he brought the States from without, into the Union, or only gave them proper assistance, they never having been out of it.

The amount of constituency, so to speak, on which the new Louisiana government rests, would be more satisfactory to all, if it contained fifty, thirty, or even twenty thousand, instead of only about twelve thousand, as it does. It is also unsatisfactory to some that the elective franchise is not given to the colored man. I would myself prefer that it were now conferred on the very intelligent, and on those who serve our cause as soldiers. Still the question is not whether the Louisiana government, as it stands, is quite all that is desirable. The question is, "Will it be wiser to take it as it is, and help to improve it; or to reject, and disperse it?" "Can Louisiana be brought into proper practical relation with the Union sooner by sustaining, or by discarding her new State government?"

Some twelve thousand voters in the heretofore slave-state of Louisiana have sworn allegiance to the Union, assumed to be the rightful political power of the State, held elections, organized a State government, adopted a free-state constitution, giving the benefit of public schools equally to black and white, and empowering the Legislature to confer the elective franchise upon the colored man. Their Legislature has already voted to ratify the constitutional amendment recently passed by Congress, abolishing slavery throughout the nation. These twelve thousand persons are thus fully committed to the Union, and to perpetual freedom in the state--committed to the very things, and nearly all the things the nation wants--and they ask the nations recognition and it's assistance to make good their committal. Now, if we reject, and spurn them, we do our utmost to disorganize and disperse them. We in effect say to the white men "You are worthless, or worse--we will neither help you, nor be helped by you." To the blacks we say "This cup of liberty which these, your old masters, hold to your lips, we will dash from you, and leave you to the chances of gathering the spilled and scattered contents in some vague and undefined when, where, and how." If this course, discouraging and paralyzing both white and black, has any tendency to bring Louisiana into proper practical relations with the Union, I have, so far, been unable to perceive it. If, on the contrary, we recognize, and sustain the new government of Louisiana the converse of all this is made true. We encourage the hearts, and nerve the arms of the twelve thousand to adhere to their work, and argue for it, and proselyte for it, and fight for it, and feed it, and grow it, and ripen it to a complete success. The colored man too, in seeing all united for him, is inspired with vigilance, and energy, and daring, to the same end. Grant that he desires the elective franchise, will he not attain it sooner by saving the already advanced steps toward it, than by running backward over them? Concede that the new government of Louisiana is only to what it should be as the egg is to the fowl, we shall sooner have the fowl by hatching the egg than by smashing it? Again, if we reject Louisiana, we also reject one vote in favor of the proposed amendment to the national Constitution. To meet this proposition, it has been argued that no more than three fourths of those States which have not attempted secession are necessary to validly ratify the amendment. I do not commit myself against this, further than to say that such a ratification would be questionable, and sure to be persistently questioned; while a ratification by three-fourths of all the States would be unquestioned and unquestionable.

I repeat the question, "Can Louisiana be brought into proper practical relation with the Union sooner by sustaining or by discarding her new State Government?

What has been said of Louisiana will apply generally to other States. And yet so great peculiarities pertain to each state, and such important and sudden changes occur in the same state; and withal, so new and unprecedented is the whole case, that no exclusive, and inflexible plan can be safely prescribed as to details and colatterals. Such exclusive, and inflexible plan, would surely become a new entanglement. Important principles may, and must, be inflexible.

In the present "situation" as the phrase goes, it may be my duty to make some new announcement to the people of the South. I am considering, and shall not fail to act, when satisfied that action will be proper.

Your thoughts are welcome (as always).

Keith

Union, Emancipation, and the Observance of Lincoln's Birthday

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

There are those among us who persist in decrying Union veterans for whitewashing Civil War commemoration in the name of reconciliation. I have provided a number of examples to the contrary right here on Cosmic America - but from time to time feel the need to add another voice to illustrate what I have been arguing for some time: Union veterans commemorated emancipation right alongside Union as a virtuous cause.

Of course, they did so after the war - between 1861-65 Union was paramount, and the extrication of slavery helped in the effort to further this cause. So, as the war progressed, more and more soldiers agreed that destroying the institution was a good idea.

Does this mean that white soldiers embraced black people as equals? No it most certainly does not. Racism prevailed among nearly all white people in the nineteenth century. But to many, the war illustrated that the Union was on the right side of history - that despotism was on the way out (worldwide) and that freedoms promised by the "last best hope of earth" and secured by Union victory proved emancipation was the right move.

So was slavery and emancipation written out of Civil War memory? Not if the GAR could help it. Here is a short excerpt from a 1909 celebration of their commander-in-chief's 100th birthday:

He was inspired of God, as Moses was inspired; that was why he could see clear through the maze, and select the very means which would extricate slavery and division and renew union and prosperity. Knowing he was right, he never changed his principles or policies. The whole gigantic problem was solved exactly as he predicted. The house ceased to be divided; the Union was forever welded together, and the sign was lifted up high on the wall, which tells all usurpers what it will cost if one class ever attempts to enslave any portion of the American people. Lincoln made Liberty of the people immortal. Had Lincoln's foresight betrayed him, the autocrats of Europe would have become more despotic. The victory which Lincoln achieved for the people has marched on like 'John Brown's soul,' dimming every sceptre, undermining every throne. That victory of the people over oligarchy means eventually exile for all autocrats. Lincoln has nailed to the sky where all the world reads, 'The right of the people everywhere to govern themselves.'

Union and Emancipation dominated postwar commemoration in the North, despite racist attitudes.

Peace,

Keith

Was Lincoln's Plan for Reconstruction Too Lenient?

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

Well, a lot of Radical Republicans thought so. By 1863, with much of Louisiana, Arkansas, Tennessee, Mississippi, and parts of Virginia under Union control, Lincoln was working toward easing the southern states back into the Union.

His plan was simple. His Proclamation of Amnesty and Reconstruction offered full pardons and restoration of all property except slaves to all of those who would swear allegiance to the United States and accept all laws and proclamations of the President and U.S. government concerning slavery and emancipation. Once 10% of the voting population of 1860 met these conditions, they could "reestablish" a recognized state government. Political and civil leaders as well as high ranking Confederate officers were excluded from this plan, but otherwise Lincoln's reconstruction policy was remarkably lenient - no punishment for treason.

Naturally, radicals in the republican party were incensed. Under Lincoln's pan, free black people were to be kept in a subservient state - landless laborers. Southern states were even allowed to enact labor laws restricting movement of freed people. Furthermore, traitors were let off the hook. Radicals in Congress insisted on harsh measures.

But what could they do? If, as Republicans had argued, the states could not, and thus had not seceded from the Union, then Congress had no authority to interpose any plan against state constitutions. Well, clever minds among the radicals in Congress came up with a couple of things. Thadeus Stevens viewed the southern states as "conquered provinces" and wanted to treat them accordingly. But that was too radical even for the radicals. So Charles Sumner came up with the idea of "state suicide." The states, by the act of secession, had essentially given up their statehood and reverted to territorial status, which meant that Congress had every right to step in and have their way. Still, many in the North thought this was too radical as well.

The debate raged on and on between the wings of the Republican Party. Bills were introduced (and vetoed), compromises reached (that fell apart) and just when Lincoln hinted that he might be moving toward a new plan for reconstruction, an assassin's bullet cut him down. We will never know what Lincoln had in mind

So when it comes to wartime reconstruction - what do you think? Do you think Lincoln should have come down harder?

Peace,

Keith

Compensated Emancipation and Colonization

What Do You Really Think of the President, General McClellan?

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

George B. McClellan was not a man without virtues. He was bright, ambitious, a snappy dresser, and charismatic. His men adored him and Mrs. McClellan thought he was charming at parties. He turned the army of the Potomac from a disorganized mess into a well-fed, well-clothed, well-disciplined fighting force the likes of which have never been equaled.

He had his faults as well. Mathematics was not his strong suit - he had a tendency to count 3 to every 1 Confederate in his front. His unwillingness to use the magnificent army he so meticulously built drove his commander-in-chief to distraction, and he had a hyper-inflated sense of self importance that rivaled some of the academics I know.

He thought his superior Winfield Scott was in the way and he referred to Lincoln as the "original gorilla" and "nothing more than a well-meaning baboon" in public. No one could tell Little Mac his business...as he informed the President, "he could do it all." My favorite anecdote revealing his ego-maniacal tendencies involves what may be one of the greatest snubs in presidential history. In November 1861, shortly after McClellan was promoted to general-in-chief of all United States forces, President Lincoln, secretary of state William Seward, and presidential secretary John Hay paid a visit to McClellan's house to discuss strategy. The presidential party was informed that the general was out and invited to wait. Within an hour, McClellan returned and was told by his porter that the president awaited. Without a word, he adjourned to his room. Another half hour transpired until at last McClellan sent word to the patient guests that he had gone to bed and that should they wish to speak with him, they could return another time.

Ouch.

It seems that McClellan forgot that he had a boss. Lincoln was not outwardly offended...putting etiquette and obnoxious behavior aside. Still, Lincoln never returned to speak with McClellan at home (he did visit him in the field) and eventually thought that he could not do it all, or anything really, and relieved him of command altogether. See how far a giant ego can get you?

Peace,

Keith

Robert Russa Moton and the Lincoln Memorial Dedication

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

In 1922, at the unveiling of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington D.C., President Warren G. Harding noted that Lincoln ended slavery only to save the Union, not to usher in a new period of racial equality. He further noted the reconciliatory symbolism of the memorial's site - directly across the Potomac from Virginia. The event itself, as one historian has argued, became a "microcosm for the strained race relations of the day, marked by the rhetoric of good intentions and the behavior of bigotry."

And thus we have an example of an event designed for the  reconciliation minded that distanced the cause of Union from the cause of freedom. In fact there was only one speaker of color that day - Robert Russa Moton, Booker T. Washington's successor at the Tuskegee Institute. In a fashion that can only be characterized as patronizing, event coordinators had asked Moton to "speak for his race." But the final draft of his speech would have to pass the close scrutiny of those planning the event. And in the end, heavy editing of Moton's "controversial" material rendered the speech mostly benign. Here is what Moton wanted to say:

[caption id="attachment_2683" align="alignright" width="150" caption="Robert Russa Moton"][/caption]

So long as any group is denied the fullest privilege of a citizen to share both the making and the execution of the law which shapes its destiny - so long as any group does not enjoy every right and every privilege that belongs to every American citizen without regard to race, creed or color, the task for which the immortal Lincoln gave the last full measure of devotion - that task is still unfinished. 

Heated words for a racially charged decade to be sure...excised from Moton's speech. In many cases, national events such as these specifically designed to ease any sectional tensions were devoid of such troubling language - and I offer this one as an example. But I would like to remind my dear readers that such events were not typical of dedication ceremonies on the larger scale. In both the North and South, sectionally aligned events were more often than not laced with controversy.

Peace,

Keith

Charles Francis Adams, Jr. and the "Historical Keynote"

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

Charles Francis Adams, Jr. had two presidents in his lineage. His father was the United States minister to England. The younger Adams had attended Harvard and at the beginning of the war was practicing law. In December 1861, Adams was commissioned first lieutenant in the 1st Massachusetts Cavalry and eventually fought at Antietam and Gettysburg. In July 1864, Adams rose in rank to lieutenant colonel in the 5th Massachusetts Cavalry - an African American unit that fought at Petersburg and elsewhere.

On March 4, 1865, Adams found himself in Washington City - as the war drew to a close, he was eager to hear the president's second inaugural address. Writing to his father a few days later, he had this to say: "That rail splitting lawyer is one of the wonders of the day. Once at Gettysburg and now again on a greater occasion he has shown a capacity for rising to the demands of the hour ...This inaugural strikes me in its grand simplicity and directness as being for all time the historical keynote of this war."

I would certainly agree with Adams. What do you think?

Peace,

Keith

Yes, It Was Ford's Theater

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

Last weekend was the anniversary of the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. To see if people were paying attention, I posted this image on all of my usual media outlets: Facebook 1, Facebook 2, and Twitter, etc.

I promised that the first person to identify the building would get a shout out on Cosmic America - so congratulations Raina Gabrielle Kellerman. There were a lot of correct identifications, but yours was the first. Yes...it is Ford's theater. The building stands still. If you are ever in the D.C. area, it would be worth the price of admission to check it out.

Peace,
Keith

The Best Second Choice - Abraham Lincoln for President

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

Was Abraham Lincoln Republicans' shoe-in for their party's nomination in 1860. Not exactly. But he certainly made a great second choice. A favorite among Republican party hopefuls was New Yorker William H. Seward. A former Whig and dominant figure in the Republican party from its outset, Seward seemed like the obvious choice. But his abolitionist leanings cast him as a dangerous character were he to head the ticket in a general election. Even many who admired the career politician thought him too radical. and perceived radicalism would count Salmon P. Chase out as well. Like Seward, Chase was also a former Whig and prominent Republican, and like Seward, he was closely aligned with abolitionist sentiment (he also had issues with the Republicans' protective tariff plank). Edward Bates had the opposite problem - many thought this conservative former Whig was far too conservative to lead the Republican Party to victory in the fall.

Enter Abraham Lincoln. Not too radical...not too conservative. And he had great management. Lincoln had won national acclaim after a series of lectures in 1859 and 1860 - most notably the Cooper Union address. He was no longer the little known lawyer from Illinois, but a national figure....and it seems, a great second choice. He opposed the extension of slavery, but vowed not to touch it where it existed. Lincoln personally despised slavery, but was not an abolitionist. When it came time for the Republican nominating convention in May 1860, those who handled his campaign promoted him thus: if your candidate does not get the nod...cast your vote for Lincoln. And that is exactly what happened.

Lincoln himself did not seem particularly bothered by the second choice strategy. In March 1860, Lincoln wrote from Chicago, "If I have any chance, it consists mainly in the face that the whole opposition would vote for me if nominated (I don't mean to include the pro-slavery opposition of the South, of course). My name is new in the field, and I suppose I am not the first choice of a very great many. Our policy, then, is to give no offense to others - leave them in a mood to come to us, if they shall be compelled to give up their first love."

Peace,

Keith