Tuesday, September 21, 2010

This Day in History - The Emancipation Proclamation

By the President of the United States of America:

A Proclamation.

Whereas, on the twentysecond 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. Johns, 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 fortyeight 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.


On September 22, 1862, President Lincoln changed the purpose of the Civil War. A battle that had been about preserving the unity of the United States became a crusade to free all of the slaves. . . mostly. The "border states" - slave states still loyal to the union - were exempt from this Proclamation, for fear of losing their vital support.

Lincoln is frequently criticized for not making the War about slavery to begin with, and maybe those critics are right. Some might compare his mid-bellum announcement to the shifting and not-always-clear reasons for America's invasion of Iraq (was it for the Taliban? Oil? WMDs?). When he did issue the Proclamation, why not risk the Border States' loyalty and make them Free states, too? Sure, it may have been tactically foolish, but at least he would have had a clear moral standing.

Lincoln wanted it to be about liberty from the beginning. He desired few things more than to abolish all slavery throughout his country. His purpose had to be delayed, hidden even, in order for it to happen at all. In a perfect world, he would have been able to take a stand on Slavery from the first. Then again, in a perfect world, Slavery would never have been a problem.

So, yes, the Proclamation seems like too little too late - it was halfway through the war, and what power did the Union president have over the Confederacy, anyway?

Nevertheless, that Declaration of Independence for the 3 million souls in slavery was more than symbolic. They knew they had an ally, someone fighting to free them from a bondage that seemed eternal. They had a savior. That in itself was powerful.

Friday, July 23, 2010

What is the Balance?

People who know me will probably attest to the fact that I am fascinated by various cultures. I own a sari, a kimono, a German folk costume, and so on. Mythologies, art, music and dance are beautiful expressions of the peoples of the world, and they capture my imagination.

That's probably a good thing, since we live in an environment that is becoming more and more multicultural. I am currently taking a class called "Cultural Diversity in the Classroom" for my teaching credentialing program, and quite a bit of our reading has to do with the harsh truths about the oppressive attitudes dominant American culture has imposed on minorities. We need to stay aware about both what has been done wrong, and what has been (and can be) done right.

People who know me will probably also attest to the fact that I'm a Christian. Anyone reading this blog has no doubt picked up on that. For the most part, the history of Christian missions has been sadly politicized. Wherever the monk went, there went a conquistador, too. In the name of Christ or the Church, countries were claimed and peoples were killed or enslaved. Even if violence was not prevalent, the work of spreading the Gospel frequently became confused with "civilizing" the natives. Civilizing generally meant excising all non-European customs, clothing, languages, and of course, religions.

Because of this mash-up of saving and sterilizing, almost all minorities (especially in the US of A) resent Christianity. Christianity represents the oppression of their people.

In a multicultural environment, we the people are trying to become more aware and more sensitive of those who may not belong to the "dominant" group. We have become careful not to offend through stereotypes or racist behavior. So far, so good.

Then, I read in an assigned text about how the American Indian peoples are angry because the Christian Church is the primary agency through which Indian children are "spirited away" and placed in American/Christian/non-Indian homes. And I pause. Society would have me decry that as a cruel and unnecessary practice, particularly if the Indian families are capable of providing for those children. Society would have me ask why we think it better that those children grow up away from the culture and religion of their ancestors. Society would have me say, Why must the Christian think himself so high and right, that he can destroy that culture without a second thought?

I have to admit a very awkward truth. Because we do think we're right. I don't think that the entire way of Indian life (or any culture, for that matter) should be destroyed - far from it. But I can't completely buy into the pluralism that says "it's all valid." I have to disagree with this author's premise. Yes, we want to destroy your religion. But only because we want you to live! to be truly free! How can I say that out loud, and not be labelled "racist"? Maybe I can't.