Slavery

[AdamSmith]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=s5X0HqBPcCQ

[stevenkesslar]

The line that resonated most for me:  "Slavery is an abomination ........ but neither I or any man have any immediate solution to the problem."

How's that for understatement?  Different century, but we're dealing with much of the same shit today.

I suspect that clip was a highly white-washed portrayal of some of those men.  We know about Jefferson and owning slaves.  I don't feel he was a particularly good guy.  

I am now completely rabid about getting rid of the slavery electoral college.  There's lots of scholars, especially Black ones, that can make a great argument that the electoral college is all about the ownership and blood of slaves.  And there are plenty of "originalist" sources to go to to connect the dots and show the intent of "the Founding fathers"  was to build institutions, like the electoral college, that were designed to support slavery.

It is the last of our immediate problems, I know.  And I also know we don't have the power to do anything about it right now.  Talk about STILL not having an immediate solution to the problem.  

But it infuriates me that Biden will win this election by up to 5 million votes.  And yet we have to go through this process of discussing whether the election was stolen from President Toxic.  In no other country that even pretends to be a democracy would this be happening.

To the extent that we're going to have noise, I'd rather have noise about how the electoral college is an institution built to support the ownership of Blacks as property.  As opposed to how people feel about whether poll watchers should be six feet away from ballot counters in the middle of a deadly pandemic.  Again, in no other democracy where someone just won by 5 million votes could this be happening.  It makes me feel even worse about the kind of people who actually support this nonsense.

There was an interesting discussion on CNN this week between Rep. Clyburn and Don Lemon.  As always, Lemon was not exactly being a detached journalist.  In fact, he was in tears, talking about how hearing Biden tell Blacks "You had my back, so I will have yours" made him cry as he heard it.  He is not the only Black that said that on TV.  The emotion and redemption in some of these moments and symbols this week was very deep and powerful.  That was clear.

Lemon was basically bitching as a Black man about how slow and difficult progress is.  And how frustrating it is to even try to be objective interviewing people who are racists who unabashedly support Trump's racist nonsense.  Clyburn got into this riff about his relationship with John Lewis and Elijah Cummings.  How they became fast friends when they met and formed SNCC in the 60's.  How close his religious and geographic roots with Cummings were.  The love and dignity of these men, two of whom are now dead, was palpable as Clyburn went on in his riff with Lemon.  But his basic point was what we would all guess.  Be patient.  Stay focused.  Keep your eyes on the prize. 

Clyburn just gave an epic - one might say Biblical - example of how that works in real time with what he did with Biden in 2020.  It has changed America for the good.  I was in tears yesterday, too.  I didn't know much about Clyburn until 2020.  I am now in awe of the man.  I feel America, and especially Democrats, are gifted with his wise and moral leadership.

That's a way to rewrite the scene portrayed in what you posted, Adam.  We still don't have any immediate solutions.  I would argue we just escaped a brush with the degradation or even death of democracy.  That might be going too far, since having maybe up to 150 million people vote in what was essentially a free election isn't exactly a bad example of democracy.  But it was very messy, like that discussion about slavery  in the clip you posted.  

One thing I feel good about is the discussion we just had wasn't one limited to or led by solely White men who own property, which in some cases is Black men.  The key players in this debate on my side were people like Biden, Clyburn, Harris, Pelosi, Schumer.  That's progress.  The moral grounding of what just happened was in fact based on the words and ideals of men like Jim Clyburn, John Lewis, Elijah Cummings.  

So I'll take this as proof that MLK was right.  We just saw the arc of the moral universe bend.  2020 is messy and sad.  But if we listen to the words of men like Clyburn, Lewis, and Cummings, America will do well.  That is truly a gift from God.

Edited November 8, 2020 by stevenkesslar

[Suckrates]

 

I believe the ONLY way to fight racism in this country is to let it fade away thru the generations.  It hasnt happened so far, but if THIS election is any indication, it's coming....

You cant pull that shit with today's youngins, even ones brought up in totally racist families.   Todays kids are WOKE and dont buy it.  Social media has made their generation the melting pot it should be, and furthers acceptance, diversity and inclusion....

All this talk about Trump or his spawn running again in 2024...  With what we know now, and the direction the country is headed, if Biden does it right,  the NEW generation wont let THAT happen again !   And as their forefathers become dust, the possibility for that is greater. 

But NOW is a time for celebration, and lets not allow anything to rain on our parade.  America got it RIGHT !  

Edited November 8, 2020 by Suckrates

[stevenkesslar]

On 11/8/2020 at 8:55 AM, Suckrates said:

I believe the ONLY way to fight racism in this country is to let it fade away thru the generations.  It hasnt happened so far, but if THIS election is any indication, it's coming....

Sorry, sis.  But on this one I have to completely disagree.  It won't just fade away.

But don't ask me.  Smarter people than me have debated this for a long time.

I've posted a short version of this already on Daddy's but this slightly longer version is worth posting here.

That's the flip side of what Douglass was talking about.  There is a time for conflict.  And there is a time for reconciliation.

"Reconciliation" is the word that needs to be in the mind and heart of every American right now.

This is already starting.  One of the many images that brought me to tears this weekend was the spontaneous celebration near The White House in DC, in what I believe is now called Black Lives Matter plaza.  That was where we came close on one day this summer to looking like an authoritarian state, with the armed forces attacking peaceful US citizens who were described and treated by some as enemies of the people, as opposed to "the people".

This weekend it was so clear that so many people want reconciliation, and healing.  It's up to all of us now whether that can actually happen.

This is my new mantra.  Biden flipped the suburbs.  Trump won them 49/45 over Hillary in 2016.  Biden won them 51/48.  Trump won rural areas. But Biden cut Trump's win from 61/34 in 2016 to 54/45 in 2020.  So when he says he's the President of rural America, he's talking about places where maybe half the people actually voted for him.  They want help on COVID.  They want help on jobs.  They want help on health care.  They want a more civil debate.  So Biden being Biden, we really do have an opportunity for reconciliation and healing I believe.

It's sad that John Lewis was not here to see this.  But his spirit is with us.

Edited November 10, 2020 by stevenkesslar

[AdamSmith]

10 minutes ago, stevenkesslar said:

Sorry, sis.  But on this one I have to completely disagree.

But don't ask me.  Smarter people than me have debated this for a long time.

Agree. We will see if Uncle Joe & Kamala can fix some of this in a proactive way.

One gets the sense that a lot of the electorate, even on the right, have had enough.

[stevenkesslar]

54 minutes ago, AdamSmith said:

Agree. We will see if Uncle Joe & Kamala can fix some of this in a proactive way.

One gets the sense that a lot of the electorate, even on the right, have had enough.

Chris Cuomo has been clearly showing that even though he chose journalism rather than law and politics, he has the political instincts of his brother and father.  He's been saying what I have been thinking, which suggests that what I'm thinking is a sensible enough hope.

Everything goes through COVID.  It gets you to health care.  It gets you to schools.  It get you to jobs.  It gets you to wages (income inequality).  In theory, it could even get you to taxes:  whose income taxes go up to pay for this?  Who is getting the benefit of this crisis  (Answer:  Amazon).  That last part is a huge stretch.

Biden was right to claim a mandate for urgent action and cooperation.  Mitch knows this.  He's already being the Republican in the room saying we have to have another COVID relief package.

Reagan comes to mind.  Yes, he had a bigger mandate.  But he also had a much bigger obstacle.  Despite heavy losses in 1980, Democrats had a 243 to 192 majority in the US House.  Yet Reagan mostly got what he wanted.  He went to the grassroots in some of those House districts.  And of course he was way better at compromising than Trump was.  

Biden won the union vote nationwide 56 to 40.  15 % of voters in Wisconsin are union, and they voted for Biden 58/39.  It would be a stretch to say that Biden won a mandate to try to restore union manufacturing jobs in Wisconsin.  But I think he did.  In 2016 Trump won the one third of Georgians that make under $50,000 a year by one point, 48 to 47.  In 2020, Biden won that group - lots of whom are White - by a 14 point margin, 56/42.

Rich Mitch has to worry about that, just like Tip O'Neill had to worry about his much larger majority in 1981.  If Republicans are seen to be against cooperation to help the union factory workers of Wisconsin or the have nots of Georgia, they'll potentially have problems in Senate races in 2022.  Biden is wired to understand this in a way Obama wasn't.

Speaking of having enough.  We now know that Kentucky and Montana and Iowa are lost causes, at least for a while.  McGrath was a lost cause from Day One.  The size of Bullock's loss was a bit of a surprise.  As was the size of Ernst's victory.  It confirms the idea that it's the geography, stupid.  Where White men roam free and proud in places with lots of cows, small towns, and contentment, running a popular and centrist Governor like Bullock is a waste of time almost.  

This sounds cruel.  But if people in Montana or Kentucky truly embrace the idea that lockdowns are a threat to liberty, and the only people who wear masks are Marxists, we know where this goes.  Fauci is saying it could go to 250,000 infections a day.  Seniors will die on stretchers in hospitals in Montana and Kentucky, if they even get to the hospital.  Because there is no room in the ICU.  I said this will sound cruel.  I think of it as those people being cruel to themselves, and their neighbors.  They have every right to see it differently.  But if that happens, which is nowhere near the worst case scenario, it helps Biden when he says we need to cooperate and act now.

Edited November 10, 2020 by stevenkesslar

[AdamSmith]

1 hour ago, stevenkesslar said:

Chris Cuomo has been clearly showing that even though he chose journalism rather than law and politics, he has the political instincts of his brother and father.  He's been saying what I have been thinking, which suggests that what I'm thinking is a sensible enough hope.

Everything goes through COVID.  It gets you to health care.  It gets you to schools.  It get you to jobs.  It gets you to wages (income inequality).  In theory, it could even get you to taxes:  whose income taxes go up to pay for this?  Who is getting the benefit of this crisis  (Answer:  Amazon).  That last part is a huge stretch.

Biden was right to claim a mandate for urgent action and cooperation.  Mitch knows this.  He's already being the Republican in the room saying we have to have another COVID relief package.

Reagan comes to mind.  Yes, he had a bigger mandate.  But he also had a much bigger obstacle.  Despite heavy losses in 1980, Democrats had a 243 to 192 majority in the US House.  Yet Reagan mostly got what he wanted.  He went to the grassroots in some of those House districts.  And of course he was way better at compromising than Trump was. 

Odd how today’s politics make one reevaluate some past pols. Before going into politics Reagan was a business lobbyist/ negotiator, and a good one. (A Democrat at that, originally, before Nancy hijacked his brain  )

So he knew how to horse-trade with Tip O’Neil to get stuff done.

[TotallyOz]

We know that racists normally don't change and often their children turn out to be racists. Like some, I thought it would die off as I grew up in Alabama and my cousins did not feel the same as my uncles. Until Trump. Now, they spew racist shit all the time. I do tend to believe that today's generation is WOKE. But, depending on where they are and what environment they live in. There is a reason that higher education changes people. But, that said, I'd love to see the polls that show what percentage voted for Trump had degrees. I know many who did who are not stupid as they are doctors and lawyers, and shit. I just can't see things clearly when trying to explain American to anyone oversees.

[JKane]

 

 

 

 

 

 

[stevenkesslar]

On 11/10/2020 at 3:15 AM, TotallyOz said:

There is a reason that higher education changes people. But, that said, I'd love to see the polls that show what percentage voted for Trump had degrees. I know many who did who are not stupid as they are doctors and lawyers, and shit. I just can't see things clearly when trying to explain American to anyone oversees.

 

Understanding The 2020 Electorate: AP VoteCast Survey

CNN Exit Polls

 

There ya go.  The first link is to the AP VoteCast, the second to the CNN exit polls.  We all know now to take polls with a gain of salt.  Which is partly why I included two different ones.  That said, I think the results are in the ballpark.  We know Blacks overwhelmingly supported Biden.  Whether it's 90 % (AP) or 87 % (CNN) makes a difference.  A close election could turn on that.  But it does tell you about 9 out of 10 Blacks supported Biden.  The cool thing about the CNN polls is that you can toggle through various state exit polls from swing states, as well.  

On education, there are no surprises.  Both AP and CNN show Trump overwhelmingly won the White non-college vote.  Biden won the White college vote.  How that shakes out in various states helped determine the outcome.  The Blue Wall states are important because Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania  (plus Ohio, which is now solid red) have a treasure trove of White non college voters.  Georgia had just enough college Whites to add to non-Whites to produce a razor thin Biden win.

AP started their data base in 2018.  But with CNN you can compare 2020 to the state-level CNN polls from 2016.  It indicates that both non college White men and women shifted back to Democrats a bit in 2020.  We've heard a lot about suburban women and working class White women fed up with Trump.  The state polls suggest that the shift among White suburban and working class men may have been just as important in getting Biden enough votes to win the electoral college as well as a 5 million + popular vote lead.

AP says Trump won White non college men 64/34, and White non college women 60/39.  Trump also won White college men 52/46, but Biden won White college women 59/39.  Net it out, and Trump won White America.  Biden offset it with Black, Latino, Asian, etc. voters.

I'll wait to hear from the experts.  But I'm pretty sure in Michigan Biden would have won if if he won ZERO more White votes, based on the increased turnout  from Blacks in Detroit alone.  The fact that he won back a lot of suburban Whites and at least a sliver of non college Whites helped him rack up a pretty decent win that fell a bit short of 4 %.  In Wisconsin White Berniecrats in Madison and Blacks in Milwaukee produced enough votes to turn a 20,000 loss in 2016 into a 20,000 vote win in 2020.  But small gains among Whites in the suburbs helped offset higher Trump margins in the core red meat rural areas.  In Pennsylvania I am almost certain that Biden absolutely needed to win more White suburban voters and a sliver of White working class voters to win.  Which he did.

That's one of my go-to charts that I post a lot, because I think it explains so many things.  It's already clear that Biden reversed the trend from Clinton's R + 39 wipeout with non college Whites in 2016.  I'm pretty sure that Biden did not quite get back to Obama's R +25 outcome in 2012.  My guess, or at least hope, is that we'll look back at 2020 as the peak of Trumpism - much like McCarthyism had a peak.  Trump had The White House.  He spent $1 billion or so (not his money) and four years building an army to legitimately overwhelm the field in one election on one day.  If true, Trump volunteers were knocking on 1 million doors a week while Biden volunteers knocked on zero doors.  So they put a lot of effort into this.  And they failed.  And at the end of the day Trump lost at least a sliver of his White non college base.  And his racist and mean antics alienated a treasure trove of suburban college Whites that delivered Arizona and Georgia to Biden.

Bill Clinton is the only Democrat to split the non-college White vote 50/50 - two times in a row.  And there's a rumor I heard that Barack Obama was actually Black.  Some people even describe Bill Clinton as "America's first Black President".  (Don't tell Trump.)  My point is I think you are right to not jump to conclusions about racism.  What we still don't know is how many of these non-college Whites are driven by these "cultural" drivers (racism, sexism, Gays, feeling like America is being lost).  Versus how many feel the Democrats betrayed them and their communities by either helping to give their jobs to robots or Chinese, or at least acquiescing to it on behalf of their corporate and Wall Street donors.  Trump obviously played on that in 2016. 

My guess, or at least my hope, is that with Trump gone or at least reduced to Trump TV there will be an opportunity to move some of those Whites back to the Democrats.  But that will depend on Biden persuading them that he got the message, Democrats got the message, and we are now doing specific and clear things to make it right.  That is a huge fight yet to be fought, I think.

 

Edited November 13, 2020 by stevenkesslar

[AdamSmith]

On 11/9/2020 at 11:02 PM, AdamSmith said:

Odd how today’s politics make one reevaluate some past pols. Before going into politics Reagan was a business lobbyist/ negotiator, and a good one. (A Democrat at that, originally, before Nancy hijacked his brain  )

So he knew how to horse-trade with Tip O’Neil to get stuff done.

Late follow-up thought.

When Reagan would send SecState James Baker III off to some foreign negotiation, he was known to say:

‘Just try to get 80% of what we want. Don’t go over the cliff with all flags flying.’

[AdamSmith]

On 11/9/2020 at 8:28 PM, stevenkesslar said:

Sorry, sis.  But on this one I have to completely disagree.  It won't just fade away.

But don't ask me.  Smarter people than me have debated this for a long time.

I've posted a short version of this already on Daddy's but this slightly longer version is worth posting here.

That's the flip side of what Douglass was talking about.  There is a time for conflict.  And there is a time for reconciliation.

"Reconciliation" is the word that needs to be in the mind and heart of every American right now.

This is already starting.  One of the many images that brought me to tears this weekend was the spontaneous celebration near The White House in DC, in what I believe is now called Black Lives Matter plaza.  That was where we came close on one day this summer to looking like an authoritarian state, with the armed forces attacking peaceful US citizens who were described and treated by some as enemies of the people, as opposed to "the people".

When Frederick Douglass after a long time was denied entry for being a ‘Negro’ finally was admitted entry into the White House on the afternoon after Lincoln’s second acceptance address, Lincoln clasped his hand and said, ‘Douglass! I have been waiting to see you. What did you think of my speech?’

...No egotistical question, but: ‘Did I get it right?’ Lincoln was asking.

[AdamSmith]

On 11/18/2020 at 9:25 PM, AdamSmith said:

When Frederick Douglass after a long time was denied entry for being a ‘Negro’ finally was admitted entry into the White House on the afternoon after Lincoln’s second acceptance address, Lincoln clasped his hand and said, ‘Douglass! I have been waiting to see you. What did you think of my speech?’

...No egotistical question, but: ‘Did I get it right?’ Lincoln was asking.

Interesting. From WaPo; the link will not copy for some reason.

Frederick Douglass delivered a Lincoln reality check at Emancipation Memorial unveiling

 

By DeNeen L. Brown

June 27, 2020 at 7:30 AM EDT

On April 14, 1876, Frederick Douglass arrived at the unveiling ceremony for the Emancipation Memorial, the statue now under attack by some protesters in Washington’s Lincoln Park.

A crowd of 25,000, many of them African American, had gathered to hear Douglass speak on the 11th anniversary of President Abraham Lincoln’s assassination.

Support our journalism. Subscribe today.

By all accounts, Douglass, the great orator and abolitionist, was not pleased with the monument, which depicted Lincoln holding a copy of the Emancipation Proclamation while towering over a kneeling black man who had broken his chains.

Douglass, who commanded audiences across the world with his dignified poise and intellect, extended polite platitudes in the speech about the beauty of the monument, which had been designed and sculpted by Thomas Ball and had been financed mostly by donations from formerly enslaved people.

 

Then Douglass, a tall man with a nearly white crown of hair, launched into a 32-minute rapid-fire discourse on the conflicted legacy of Lincoln, who issued the Emancipation Proclamation on Jan. 1, 1863, as the country moved into the third year of the Civil War. Lincoln’s proclamation had declared “that all persons held as slaves” within the rebellious states “are, and henceforward shall be free.”

As great as the proclamation was, Douglass explained, Lincoln had issued the document of freedom reluctantly.

Lincoln’s motivation was to save the union. According to the Library of Congress, in response to a challenge in the New York Tribune by the journalist Horace Greeley that he take a clear stance on abolition, Lincoln had provided a response stating, “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.”

 

In his speech at the 1876 statue unveiling, Douglass exposed Lincoln’s legacy. “Truth compels me to admit, even here in the presence of the monument we have erected to his memory,” Douglass said, “Abraham Lincoln was not, in the fullest sense of the word, either our man or our model. In his interests, in his associations, in his habits of thought, and in his prejudices, he was a white man.”

Slave-owning presidents become targets of protesters

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.

“He was preeminently the white man’s president, entirely devoted to the welfare of white men,” Douglass said, according to the speech stored at the Library of Congress. “He was ready and willing at any time during the first years of his administration to deny, postpone, and sacrifice the rights of humanity in the colored people to promote the welfare of the white people of this country.”

Frederick Douglass in 1876. (George Kendall Warren/National Portrait Gallery/Smithsonian Institution/Reuters)

More than 144 years later, the controversy surrounding Lincoln’s legacy and the “Emancipation Monument” has erupted again. This week, protesters demanded the removal of the monument, which is also called the Freedmen’s Monument. Police built barriers around the monument to protect it after some protesters threatened to tear it down. On Thursday, D.C. Mayor Muriel E. Bowser (D) announced that the city should debate the removal of the statue, and “not have a mob decide they want to pull it down.”

Arguments break out by statue of Abraham Lincoln in D.C. park

Historians say the threats offer an opportunity to explain Lincoln’s complicated legacy to general audiences that know only the simplistic view of Lincoln as the president who freed the slaves.

 

C.R. Gibbs, a historian and author of “Black, Copper & Bright: The District of Columbia’s Black Civil War Regiment,”explained that the kneeling slave depicted in the Emancipation Monument was most likely inspired by an old abolitionist image used to fight for freedom for enslaved black people. “It was probable that the white sculptor was influenced by the poster with the words, ‘Am I Not a Man and Brother’ over a kneeling slave,” Gibbs said.

At the time of the monument’s commissioning, Harriet Hosmer, who was considered one of the first female professional sculptors, designed an alternative sculpture that would have depicted several figures, including a black Union soldier.

“Some scholars and historians believe that would have been too revolutionary,” Gibbs said, “and perhaps too expensive. But it was an opportunity missed.”

 

Douglass used his speech at the unveiling, Gibbs said, "to clean up and clarify exactly what Lincoln’s contributions were with respect to black people.”

“For black people, Lincoln was neither our man nor our model,” Gibbs said, echoing Douglass. In his speech, Gibbs said, Douglass told the crowd that Lincoln “was important in the struggle and we honor that. But Douglass wanted Lincoln to emerge from the myth.”

In August 1862, Lincoln told a group of black leaders during a visit to the White House that they were to blame for the Civil War. “He said, ‘But for your presence amongst us, there would be no war.’ ”

“Basically, he was saying, ‘you all are the cause of the war,’ ” Gibbs said. “Lincoln had said he was not an abolitionist. When we say Lincoln freed the slaves, we leave out the agency and sacrifice of U.S. colored troops and those in the Navy who fought and died for this freedom.”

Frederick Douglass needed to see Lincoln. Would the president meet with a former slave?

According to the Library of Congress, “Lincoln honored Douglass with three invitations to the White House, including an invitation to Lincoln’s second inauguration. During his first visit, Douglass petitioned Lincoln to pay African American Union soldiers as much as their white counterparts. Lincoln answered that African American soldiers would get their fair wages when the time was right, which frustrated Douglass, although he came to understand Lincoln’s reasoning.”

In this image from the U.S. Library of Congress, U.S. President Abraham Lincoln sits for a portrait February 5, 1865. (Alexander Gardner/U.S. Library of Congress via Getty Images)

In the speech at the unveiling of the monument, Douglass gives the audience an idea of how complicated his relationship with Lincoln was.

 

“The name of Abraham Lincoln was near and dear to our hearts in the darkest and most perilous hours of the republic,” Douglass said. “We were no more ashamed of him when shrouded in clouds of darkness, of doubt, and defeat than when we saw him crowned with victory, honor, and glory. Our faith in him was often taxed and strained to the uttermost, but it never failed.”

Douglass criticized Lincoln as not moving fast enough to free thousands of enslaved black people:

When he tarried long in the mountain; when he strangely told us that we were the cause of the war; when he still more strangely told us that we were to leave the land in which we were born; when he refused to employ our arms in defense of the Union; when, after accepting our services as colored soldiers, he refused to retaliate our murder and torture as colored prisoners; when he told us he would save the Union if he could with slavery; when he revoked the Proclamation of Emancipation of General Fremont; when he refused to remove the popular commander of the Army of the Potomac, in the days of its inaction and defeat, who was more zealous in his efforts to protect slavery than to suppress rebellion; when we saw all this, and more, we were at times grieved, stunned, and greatly bewildered; but our hearts believed while they ached and bled.

Douglass also said that Lincoln’s slow pace was frustrating and bewildering. In short, Douglass said, Lincoln tried the patience of abolitionists who wanted a speedy end to slavery:

“Despite the mist and haze that surrounded him; despite the tumult, the hurry, and confusion of the hour, we were able to take a comprehensive view of Abraham Lincoln, and to make reasonable allowance for the circumstances of his position,” Douglass said. “We saw him, measured him, and estimated him; not by stray utterances to injudicious and tedious delegations, who often tried his patience; not by isolated facts torn from their connection; not by any partial and imperfect glimpses, caught at inopportune moments; but by a broad survey, in the light of the stern logic of great events, and in view of that divinity which shapes our ends, rough hew them how we will, we came to the conclusion that the hour and the man of our redemption had somehow met in the person of Abraham Lincoln.”

Douglass said abolitionists cared little about how Lincoln proclaimed emancipation.

“It was enough for us that Abraham Lincoln was at the head of a great movement, and was in living and earnest sympathy with that movement, which, in the nature of things, must go on until slavery should be utterly and forever abolished in the United States.”

 

In the speech, Douglass concluded that despite Lincoln’s failings, he should be remembered for the great accomplishment of freeing thousands of enslaved people.

“Though he loved Caesar less than Rome, though the union was more to him than our freedom or our future,” Douglass said, “under his wise and beneficent rule we saw ourselves gradually lifted from the depths of slavery to the heights of liberty and manhood.”

Then Douglass recalled the scenes of black people waiting for the emancipation to take effect.

“Can any colored man, or any white man friendly to the freedom of all men, ever forget the night which followed the first day of January, 1863, when the world was to see if Abraham Lincoln would prove to be as good as his word?” Douglass asked. “I shall never forget that memorable night, when in a distant city I waited and watched at a public meeting, with three thousand others not less anxious than myself, for the word of deliverance which we have heard read today. Nor shall I ever forget the outburst of joy and thanksgiving that rent the air when the lightning brought to us the emancipation proclamation.”