Emancipation Proclamation at the Henry Ford Museum Free of Charge

[Pam]

Don't be silly. This event was INSIDE the museum.

I know that, but I didn't know if the line was.

Portable toilets were not necessary. Staff allowed visitors to exit the line and re-enter

That was nice of them.

[Jimaz]

It's encouraging that the event is so popular in a time when freedom is under attack from so many angles [[Patriot Act, United Citizens, TSA searches, etc.). The high attendance could be interpreted as a form of peaceful protest.

See it here: The Emancipation Proclamation.

[DetroitTeacher]

I didn't get a chance to get out to The Henry Ford to see it but I did see the original on a trip to DC when I was younger. Funny, I worked at the Henry Ford for years and nothing this special came through. The most exciting thing when I worked there was seeing Booger from Revenge of the Nerds and giving him a carriage tour!

[rb336]

rb, it's the historical factor that makes it so desirable to view. You might as well point to the Lincoln assassination chair that is also at the Henry Ford and just say, "it's just an old, moth-eaten rocker" and yawn.

Any time I'm close enough to touch history I get goose bumps. I'm sorry for you if you don't.

yes, it is history, bt it is also a very misrepresented document. View it for what it really was, not for what it is misleadingly characterized as. A more apt comparisson would be if the HFM had the chair next to the one in which lincoln was shot

[English]

yes, it is history, bt it is also a very misrepresented document. View it for what it really was, not for what it is misleadingly characterized as.

Wow. Just... wow.

It's not just what happened immediately after Lincoln signed it; it's about the repercussions of it years, decades, and more than a century later. Even if you don't think it mattered, those who lived during that time did. So did the international community. Many Southern sympathizers and alternate historians fantasize about the mighty imperial British navy joining the "Lost Cause." It's not an altogether unreasonable scenario. The Proclamation cast the War in very different terms for the benefit of the international community of the time.

[bailey]

Wow. Just... wow.

It's not just what happened immediately after Lincoln signed it; it's about the repercussions of it years, decades, and more than a century later. Even if you don't think it mattered, those who lived during that time did. So did the international community. Many Southern sympathizers and alternate historians fantasize about the mighty imperial British navy joining the "Lost Cause." It's not an altogether unreasonable scenario. The Proclamation cast the War in very different terms for the benefit of the international community of the time.

And I think you just helped him with his point that the EP was an interesting and very effective piece of propaganda that led to other things...but IT in and of itself didnt really do anything. I mean it freed all the slaves in the CSA. It did nothing to free those in Union border states. [[IIRC my jr high history class correctly). That came later. It seems this would be sort of like Obama issuing a proclamation to outlaw the Taliban in Afghanistan. All well and good, but if you don't invade the country and eradicate the Taliban, well, you really didn't do much.

I get why it's a part of the story, I just don't see how it's THE story and something folks would wait 9 hours to see. But it's not for me to tell them how to spend their time.

[English]

And I think you just helped him with his point that the EP was an interesting and very effective piece of propaganda that led to other things...but IT in and of itself didnt really do anything. I mean it freed all the slaves in the CSA. It did nothing to free those in Union border states. [[IIRC my jr high history class correctly). That came later. It seems this would be sort of like Obama issuing a proclamation to outlaw the Taliban in Afghanistan. All well and good, but if you don't invade the country and eradicate the Taliban, well, you really didn't do much.

I get why it's a part of the story, I just don't see how it's THE story and something folks would wait 9 hours to see. But it's not for me to tell them how to spend their time.

Actually, those junior high history classes are some of the reason why Americans believe what they do about the past. See, for example, Lies My Teacher Told Me:

http://www.amazon.com/Lies-My-Teache.../dp/0684818868

It explains why your history textbook contained the perspectives that it did. The story of the past 150 years in a nutshell is that the former Confederate states had compelling imperatives to recast their side of the Civil War in a better light. The North, for many reasons, let them.

One of my best friends from grad school is a Civil War scholar. This person is so frustrated by the narratives, myths, and legends popular discourse has constructed around the ACW until they refused my invitation to go to the exhibit [[actually, we've had some great conversations about the ways that the Henry Ford itself presents history). My friend is chomping at the bit over BOTH sides of the discussion -- "The EP freed the slaves" AND "The EP did nothing." If you guys would like to hear some yelling over the phone, I'll send along my buddy's cell number. You'll find out more than you'd like to know.

Some things are PC; other things can be attested to from primary source documents. The EP is one of those things. The Obama era analogy just doesn't work as a comparison.

[English]

Another great popular read is A People's History of the Civil War:

http://zinnedproject.org/posts/2925

Here are high-interest teaching materials being used today to teach about the ACW:

http://zinnedproject.org/posts/categ...riod/civilwar5

[rb336]

Wow. Just... wow.

It's not just what happened immediately after Lincoln signed it; it's about the repercussions of it years, decades, and more than a century later. Even if you don't think it mattered, those who lived during that time did. So did the international community. Many Southern sympathizers and alternate historians fantasize about the mighty imperial British navy joining the "Lost Cause." It's not an altogether unreasonable scenario. The Proclamation cast the War in very different terms for the benefit of the international community of the time.

Never said it didn't have an impact. I said it was a political and propoganda tool, which it was. Did it legally change the status of slaves? no. I doubt the 13th wouldn't have passed if the EP wasn't issued.

[Hypestyles]

where's the next tour stop?

[bailey]

Actually, those junior high history classes are some of the reason why Americans believe what they do about the past. See, for example, Lies My Teacher Told Me:
http://www.amazon.com/Lies-My-Teache.../dp/0684818868
It explains why your history textbook contained the perspectives that it did. The story of the past 150 years in a nutshell is that the former Confederate states had compelling imperatives to recast their side of the Civil War in a better light. The North, for many reasons, let them.

Or see... WEB DuBois or James Baldwin...etc. but yeah. they were disinterested parties, looking to whitewash history.

There is nothing being recast when one points out the fact that EP freed no slaves in the territory in which Lincoln controlled at the time of its publishing. It was a major criticism of it by the abolitionists at the time and many commentors thereafter.

One of my best friends from grad school is a Civil War scholar. This person is so frustrated by the narratives, myths, and legends popular discourse has constructed around the ACW until they refused my invitation to go to the exhibit [[actually, we've had some great conversations about the ways that the Henry Ford itself presents history). My friend is chomping at the bit over BOTH sides of the discussion -- "The EP freed the slaves" AND "The EP did nothing." If you guys would like to hear some yelling over the phone, I'll send along my buddy's cell number. You'll find out more than you'd like to know.

This is not akin to a Holocaust denial here, it's an issue you acknowledge there is some debate over... why the crap about rewriting history and lies my teacher must have told me for me to be somewhat confused at the 9 hour lines?

Some things are PC; other things can be attested to from primary source documents. The EP is one of those things.

Uh.. who's being PC here? It seems to me the PC ones are the ones ignoring some pretty glaring exaggerations about the reach and intent of the EP vis a vis what EP actually did. Again, It did not "free all the slaves" as is the common misconception expressed by many when asked. it freed all the slaves in rebellious states. It freed whatever slaves may have been held in Union occupied areas of those rebellious states and it freed what slaves had made it north and were being held in the Union as seized property from the rebellious states. What is consistently and conveniently left out of the narrative is that Union States that had slaves the day before the EP had slaves the day after.

But, we can go to the the source....

“That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord [1863], 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.

.
So, no freeing of any slave in any state of the "Union" ..which of course were states in which Lincoln was recognized as president thereof. Reason? it likely would have been found unconstitutional should it have been applied to the non secessionist states, which is why it was never directed at anyone but them. Lincoln authority for the the executive order came from being CiC of the armed forces and in dealing with rebellion and martial law. Fine if you're talking about Georgia which had taken up arms ....not so much if it's Maryland, which had not.

It was propaganda that led to other things that accomplished the goal of eliminating slavery in the US while also lending moral authority to the "Union" side and tipping international opinion toward the Union. that is granted. wholly and without dispute. but again, i don't understand the 9 hour lines. if it were the Constitution...i'd get it. Dec of Independence...bill of rights...Magna Charta... sure.

[Novine]

Following your logic, we should dismiss the Declaration of Independence as a mere political statement. The Declaration didn't actually make anyone independent of British rule. It only "led to other things that accomplished the goal of" achieving American independence from the British. No big deal, right?

The power of the EP was that it transformed the war from one that was focused solely on preserving the Union to a broader moral mission to finally abolish the "peculiar institution" of slavery. Just as importantly is that it reach covered the millions of slaves living in Confederate states. I don't know how someone can dismiss that so quickly but to many Americans, and clearly from those who attended, that move means quite a lot.

[English]

Or see... WEB DuBois or James Baldwin...etc. but yeah. they were disinterested parties, looking to whitewash history.

Again, you're comparing two dissimilar paradigms. A small number of Americans have actually read DuBois or Baldwin's nonfiction essays. Almost all Americans initially learned about our nation's history from textbooks approved by the Texas State Board of Education, one of the most influential forces in shaping K-12 social studies course content during the 20th century.

There is nothing being recast when one points out the fact that EP freed no slaves in the territory in which Lincoln controlled at the time of its publishing. It was a major criticism of it by the abolitionists at the time and many commentors thereafter.

I don't dispute that. There were people still enslaved after the war ended, which is why the holiday "Juneteenth" exists. The EP, however, is one of the most influential documents of the 19th century. Contemporaries didn't dismiss it as meaningless. Historians don't dismiss it as meaningless.

Three books that anyone who wants to have any kind of conversation about the EP must read are the ones by John Hope Franklin, Adam Guelzo, and Eric Foner... especially the latter. There's just too much nuance between "The EP didn't free the slaves" and "The EP freed the slaves" for those of us working in related fields to dismiss.

This is not akin to a Holocaust denial here, it's an issue you acknowledge there is some debate over... why the crap about rewriting history and lies my teacher must have told me for me to be somewhat confused at the 9 hour lines?

Rethink your statement, bailey. Admit that perhaps you don't know everything. I freely admit the limits of my knowledge, which is why I'm all over educational threads with long posts, and say very little on threads about development, economics, and urban planning.

If you are confused, I wouldn't admit that proudly. It says more about your lack of understanding about the issue than the people standing in those long lines.

Uh.. who's being PC here? It seems to me the PC ones are the ones ignoring some pretty glaring exaggerations about the reach and intent of the EP vis a vis what EP actually did

It's not PC to ask for people to talk about the affordances and constraints of one of the greatest documents in American -- no, human history.

You seem to like equivalents. Here is one. Some might point out that the Magna Carta didn't immediately end feudalism, and that the Provisions of Oxford went much further. Others, that the Declaration did little to ensure that all people were created equal in its immediate aftermath, and that subsequent documents such as the Bill of Rights, Federalist Papers, and the Amendments to the Constitution did more to define American progress and liberty.

But these great documents are the artifacts of moments of kairos in the long march of history. It's like a pebble in a pond, or the effect of a butterfly's wing. I, like those at the Henry Ford, am in awe of seeing the evidence from those moments because they connect me to our collective past. That's just my particular personality bent.

Since you are so dismissive of people wanting to touch a piece of history that you believe is just propaganda, I'll turn the tables back on you. What do you find sacred?

[English]

Following your logic, we should dismiss the Declaration of Independence as a mere political statement. The Declaration didn't actually make anyone independent of British rule. It only "led to other things that accomplished the goal of" achieving American independence from the British. No big deal, right?

The power of the EP was that it transformed the war from one that was focused solely on preserving the Union to a broader moral mission to finally abolish the "peculiar institution" of slavery. Just as importantly is that it reach covered the millions of slaves living in Confederate states. I don't know how someone can dismiss that so quickly but to many Americans, and clearly from those who attended, that move means quite a lot.

Well said. The EP was also a major milestone in the development of the American presidency. I'd need to bone up on that particular aspect of ACW studies, but [[and I could be wrong) I do believe that it set a precedent for the scope of later executive orders, and expanded Presidential powers.

[detlump]

I am very impressed by all those who waited to see it. It says a lot and gives me some hope for the future. Seeing it is not the same as reading it on your kindle.

[Bagley]

Wow, folks sure are eager to argue the impact of the Emancipation Proclamation here. This was an important document for the blacks who knew about it and the barriers that sprung up for blacks as the Reconstruction transitioned to a restoration do not diminish the achievements which occurred in that short window of opportunity.

[bailey]

Since you are so dismissive of people wanting to touch a piece of history that you believe is just propaganda, I'll turn the tables back on you. What do you find sacred?

Well, again.. as this is a place where apparently nuance doesnt exist and I must be pissing on anyone who wanted to see it, let me be clear, I'm not begrudging someone's desire to touch history. I'm just wondering why THIS PARTICULAR PIECE of history it is such a touchstone when it did not do what most believe it did. Go ask 100 people on the street and 99 of them will say [[if the know what it is at all) it "freed all the slaves" which it did not.

To your other question I can not for the life of me think of any thing I would stand in line for 9 hours in the middle of the night just to see- not hold, not touch, not examine, just see...behind layers of glass...from 5 feet away. I'm sorry, I just don't get it. That does not mean I hold nothing sacred it simply means I don't find a need for self flaggiilation to prove to everyone how sacred I may hold it.

Following your logic, we should dismiss the Declaration of Independence as a mere political statement. The Declaration didn't actually make anyone independent of British rule. It only "led to other things that accomplished the goal of" achieving American independence from the British. No big deal, right?

no you clearly did not follow my logic. We'd been at war for over a year. The declaration of Independence was just that... A Declaration of Independence covering the entire 13 colonies, the signatories solidified their participation in leading the treason to the crown the moment they signed it, it listed the reasons for the rebellion and it was of immediate [[as close to immediate as existed then) effect. It was not a declaration to intend to one day declare independence. If you were following my logic, it would be something like revering the Articles of Confederation instead of the Declaration of Independence and celebrating "confederation day" instead of Independence day. The EP didn't end slavery, the 13th amendment did.

Just as importantly is that it reach covered the millions of slaves living in Confederate states. I don't know how someone can dismiss that so quickly but to many Americans, and clearly from those who attended, that move means quite a lot.

You're right, it freed alot of slaves, however, it only freed them if they were in Union occupied territory of the Confederate states. Further, it did NOTHING to free any slave in Maryland, Delaware, Missouri, Tennessee, what became West Virginia, and Kentucky. Which is usually brushed aside because it conflicts with the mythology.

I am very impressed by all those who waited to see it. It says a lot and gives me some hope for the future. Seeing it is not the same as reading it on your kindle.

I 'm curious how it was any different? I really am. Personally what would give me hope for the future was if more kids had access to a kindle and used it for 9 hours a week instead of waiting on line for 9 hours one day to see a faded piece of parchment with barely legible scribbles on it.