It never fails to surprise me how supposedly educated people, with a purported knowledge in history and law, get the Emancipation Proclamation wrong.
For example, this week on the Clay Travis and Buck Sexton show, Clay Travis credited Abraham Lincoln for freeing slaves in the Civil War in 1863. Though he didn’t reference the Emancipation Proclamation issued by Abraham Lincoln on January 1, 1863, that presumably was what he was referencing.
Clay Travis not only earned bachelor’s degree from Vanderbilt University in Tennessee, but also a law degree, has been a practicing attorney, hosts a major radio talk show and has written several books. Not a slouch.
And he isn’t Confederaphobic. He actually objected to Vanderbilt’s efforts to rename Confederate Memorial hall… and was punished for it. He owns a coffee company honoring Davy Crockett, a defender of the Alamo and a Tennessean who owned slaves. So, he obviously isn’t shy of true history.
One doesn’t have to do more than read the Emancipation Proclamation once, word for word, to see that it is the biggest legal loophole of the 19th century–not one single slave was freed in any State in “rebellion”, meaning every Confederate State.
Simply and plainly, once you get past all the formalities, the President of the United States had no power to free enslaved people in an independent nation state. And, where he, arguably, might have had the power to do so, he feed none.
So, the beat goes on…people think they know things when they really don’t know, but have no problem espousing their opinion, anyway.
Some readers’ parents may have admonished them, as did mine: “It’s better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt”. Free speech grants the right to be wrong, but it is our responsibility not to take everything we hear or read as “the Gospel.” Just because you read it or hear it, doesn’t mean it is true.
And it isn’t a bias to northern Republicans, unless it came from teachers along the way, who he trusted. So as we begin 2025, it is time to redouble efforts to fact check educational materials of your children and grandchildren’s schools to make sure THEY learn the TRUTH.
Americans, even some Southerners, know so much that isn’t so about Lincoln, the war, secession, slavery, Jim Crow, segregation and more. We have the Yankees to ‘thank’ for that.
The anti-South bias existed since colonial times. The most important battle of the Revolutionary War occurred in the South yet they are barely mentioned in history texts. The Civil War never should have happened. There were zero Union casualties at the Battle of Fort Sumter. It should not have been justification for going to war, but Lincoln chose to respond with force.
Point well made.
I believe many “conservatives” know the truths of the emancipation proclamation….but they don’t want to present it because they lack the intestinal fortitude. For some, it’s a simple as they don’t want to be cancelled and lose their jobs. Conservatives on air know full well to tell the whole story to a broad national audience will take them down a route they aren’t comfortable with or capable of handling.
Then again, not many would even consider the southern view…..some “conservatives” like Levin, Hannity, Kilmeade and Beck are Lincoln myth purveyors ad nauseam – I can’t listen to any of them.
The lies around Lincoln, whether it’s the emancipation proclamation or anything else, have been so well infused into school teaching that even the most “conservative” students rely on, possess and believe the skewed versions.
It’s seen as safer and more expedient for conservatives to just say “Lincoln, good, Slavery/south, bad”….and they just sum up a brutal 4-year war that killed a million people with that intellectually lazy dart. Few things bother me more than to hear “we’re the party of Lincoln” from today’s conservatives. It’s like Linus’ safety blanket they pull out when needed so they’ll be seen in some favorable light and maybe liked by people who do not and will never align with them politically at all. It’s weak and gratuitous.
I do believe some progress has been made though. There are people out there now who most likely in 1861 wouldn’t have stood with the south, but they’ve figured out that Lincoln wasn’t the saint he is professed to be, especially as they delve into treatment of “native Americans”. If no original sympathy for southerners, they have some for the Indians. I’ve seen some of this in writings and other media, so it’s encouraging that at least people are finally asking questions.
If all goes well, they will continue to follow the breadcrumbs, and next thing you know they discover that Lincoln was responsible for the mass hanging of 39 Indians during the war. The reasons around that mass hanging were interesting and it will reveal that some northern states were not in alignment with Lincoln’s war on the south. It was another political tool he used to curry favor.
Let’s hope people will then ask why. And, then maybe they’ll discover that the Indians overwhelmingly supported the south. That should open some eyes.
When they follow more breadcrumbs, it will not take long to see behind Lincoln’s trickery (some will call it continued brilliant politics) prior to and during the war and his employment of men like the war criminal Sherman who used brutal tactics on southern civilians…. and SLAVES.
Maybe then some will understand why we southerners still remember our ancestors and the bloody sacrifice they made and why we defend their place in history, their monuments and markers.
The facts of history will reveal itself if people remove the blinders, the preconceived notions, and earnestly pursue it.
Understanding the emancipation proclamation is a good place to start since its widely misunderstood and presented inaccurately on a regular basis.
Spot on, Billy. Bravo!!
“Lincoln Idolatry is a Disease”
And I fear, an insidious and incurable one that is only terminated by the inevitable passing of the ‘infected’ one but that regrettably is usually transmitted to others with a weak intellectual immunity before that end.
“For example, this week on the Clay Travis and Buck Sexton show, Clay Travis credited Abraham Lincoln for freeing slaves in the Civil War in 1863. Though he didn’t reference the Emancipation Proclamation issued by Abraham Lincoln on January 1, 1863, that presumably was what he was referencing.
Clay Travis not only earned bachelor’s degree from Vanderbilt University in Tennessee, but also a law degree, has been a practicing attorney, hosts a major radio talk show and has written several books. Not a slouch.”
Travis is, sadly, typical of many Southerners who have compromised on history. He (and they) is afraid of losing his profitable talk show enterprise.
These fellows are what I call the Limbaugh Yahoos.
I think Rush Limbaugh was an honest enough guy but he was, himself, brought into history as a “Santa Clause” student i.e. you wake up on “Freedom Morning” and see that the single state of the UNITED STATES was brought to us by defeating the evil King of England and leaving a handful of “Founders” who gave us our rights.
Then a late comer to the Founders, a guy named Lincoln, came along and finished the job by freeing the negroes from the foolish and childish Southerners. And everything became GLORY HALLELUJAH except for a few unreconstructed Southern negro hating rednecks.
This is pretty much their thinking.
I do believe that if Limbaugh were still living he would be the type of a guy who would be willing to listen to readers and writers of spots like “The Abbeville Institute.” Maybe even teenage mentalities like Brian Kilmeade and Sean Hannity would be willing to listen and learn.
But the real hard cases are the foolish, ill read, and self appointed “conservative” soldiers like Mark Levin, Bill Oreilly, Gary Bauer, Tom Rose, et (several more). You can only shake your head at these guys and walk away. They know very little of what’s true and very much of what is not. And they DO NOT care!
I’m certain – without a doubt – Rush Limbaugh wasn’t reflexively a Lincoln fan. Rush’s “excellence” was due largely to his gift of assimilation and understanding of information from manifold sources all at once; he was smart. Another reason, seldom considered, was his practice of leaving things out, saying nothing. I remember Limbaugh’s mentions of Lincoln being in the context of defending Republicans against charges of racism by turning the Left’s favorite go-to against them – “but, but a Republican president freed the slaves”. He also occasionally mentioned, without apology, his ancestors were Southerners, again leaving it to the listener to supply context from their imaginations.
There have been instances that I’ve caused myself trouble for the observation that Robert E. Lee wasn’t a saint and I’ll say now if John Wilkes Booth had stuck to acting most of these conversations wouldn’t be happening. As loathsome as Lincoln, his Party and his policies of Total War were, he fully intended to let the Southern States back into the Union without decades under its boot heel. There is evidence of just that in various conversations including with US Grant near the end of the War followed by Grant’s magnanimity at Appomattox and even Sherman’s near Greensboro.
With everything Limbaugh thought and said over thirty plus years, he seldom included Lincoln in the pantheon of John Winthrop and the Founders. If occasional mentions without acrimony brand us Lincolnites, I’m in good company. The rest of them, Levin, Kilmeade – you didn’t mention Victor Davis Hanson, the Oracle – I seldom hear. You’re right – their message is, Let us blame your ancestors for everything and everything else will be just great.
Rush doesn’t need defending, I just liked the guy.
“Lincoln…his…Total War…fully intended to let the Southern States back into the Union without decades under its boot heel.”
Right, that is what is said.
But, that is strange, bizarre. Was the South, what was left of it, the Southerner, what was left of them, suppose to be grateful for that, for Lincoln being nice? The North had just absolutely crushed the South. The South had already been a part of the Union, and more than they wanted. They wanted to leave. Lincoln would have been nice if he just let them go.
But, it is said he was nice because he was going to allow the South back into the Union after demolishing them? It seems, if he wasn’t assassinated, he would have remained consistent in his character if he just ruled the South like the Reconstruction ended up doing anyway.
This isn’t personal. As I stated, this is what we’re told, but I think about it and it just strikes me as very bizarre. And, I don’t condone and am not recommending bitterness and resentment. But, that’s what happened way back. That was a tough one, the war, to get over, if everyone even ever did.
I have something in common with my vicarious friend, Rush Limbaugh, given my contention his Excellence in Broadcasting was due in part to leaving things out. I’m not as artful.
No, Lincoln was not being nice and Southerners had no obligation to be grateful for magnanimity shown Lee and Johnston. The 13th and 14th amendments were inevitable, as were carpetbaggers but I’m certain Lincoln had no plans to deny suffrage for white men in favor of black men, among other measures inflicted on the South. That I know of, he signaled no such thing. Lincoln was famously dismissive of blacks’ ability to assimilate into society. There is some disagreement about the target of his “root hog or die” comment and I believe it was intended for black and white Southerners alike.
Lincoln was a reactionary. As far as I know, again, Lincoln had no domestic wartime plans for dissenting Northern citizens until the contingencies were met, the suspension of writs of habeas corpus, jailing Copperhead editors, etc to follow. The same for the South at War’s end – he got what he wanted and he wasn’t going to exact further retribution from Southerners. If there is evidence to the contrary about Lincoln’s intentions, post war, I want to know. I’m not a’scared.
As devastated as the South was, the only thing spared may have been enduring bitterness and suspicion. I AM bitter. I was long before thugs in Mayors’ offices began taking down statues.
Thanks.
Lincolns’s supposed kind attitude near the end of the war, is paradoxical, to me. It seems he would have remained in character and policy if he had been like Masala. Masala, without pity, told Ben-Hur, “You’re a conquered people!” It seems his supposed “kind” actions and words near and at the end of the war reveals regret at what happened in the last 4 years. I’m not defending him, it’s still so bizarre to me after what just happened. It seems like he should have just said to the South, “You’re done now, you will do what we say, or else we’ll really take you off the map than you already are!”
But, all of a sudden, Lincoln wanted to be “nice.” Sorry, I’m not arguing with you or anybody else. There’s just something about this is not making sense to me, and I’m not new to the study of the War between the States.
Well, Lincoln was assassinated, and then other’s after him certainly put a heavy boot on the South’s neck, if Lincoln wasn’t going to be so heavy footed about it.
I can understand any bitterness, I live in Virginia; I’ve seen what they’ve done. They removed remembrances of Jefferson Davis at nearby Ft. Monroe, and his name off a school in Newport News. Magruder Blvd is now Neil Armstrong Pkwy. They removed the memorial to the Confederate soldier in Tappahannock.
However, assuming you’re a Christian, you know what Ephesians 4:31 says. And, I remind myself that in the end, some day soon, this whole world is going to be repossessed by the Lord. It’s His to begin with. The “United States,” the “North and South,” as it was, or as it is, may not even be among the Gentile nations. Or it might be a different one entirely. Rush would say about himself, “Talent on loan from God.” I think we can say, all the nations since Acts ch. 7 have been on loan from God. The whole world has been in a parentheses for some 2K years.
I liked the guy as well. I also think he had an honest and reasonable intellect. I think both his brother and father were of the same cut. I just believe that the Republican party is not to be worshiped as it seems he did. JMO
We differ very little. Rush’s point of reference was the ’60’s, ’70’s and ’80’s, I imagine. Many of us figured out since GWBush that Republicans are not what they were – the point of departure, in my opinion, the moment Reagan left the White House on Marine One. Nothing but wars since. Rush certainly defended Cheney since Bush but he was also clearly a Trump supporter. It would have been interesting to see how he navigated the waters between the two sides. No way, I believe, would he have been anything but MAGA.
Love your comment. Re: Kilmeade, Hannity, Levin & O’Reilly. IMO, Kilmeade is the bratty, mouthy, teacher’s pet 7th grader that scurried around annoying everyone constantly and ran to the teacher for protection when the normal guys were on the verge of giving him a well deserved beat down. Hannity is a guy with an IQ just above average – maybe by one point – who stumbled into a good thing and by being persistent, and pushy succeeded, but he’s basically a dolt and never gets beyond his endlessly repeated schtick. Now his ego is swollen. He hates Tucker C. because Tucker eclipsed him in ratings and Tucker finally woke up – to an extent – and started using his brain. Hannity is not a deep thinker, nor can he be. Levin is mentally unbalanced IMO, and a virulent anti-Southern bigot. He is a product of PA publik skools. O’Reilly is just a typical NY @$$hole.
Victor Davis hanson is another self proclaimed sage, ignorant of 19th Century history
Hanson is at the front of the firing line when it comes to describing Southerners as (negro) racists. But he has never read anything or recalls anything, it seems, written by Leland STANFORD and his Chinese racism.
The oath of office military officers swore to uphold was changed in 1862. From 1830 until 1862, it required academy graduates to “defend the United States and protect them from their enemies”. This was changed in the second year of the war to, “defend the Constitution of the US”…this was the yankees changing the United States from a Republic of Sovereign States into a nation.
No Confederate victory forced this change in the oath…this was the yankees, realizing “them” and “their” did not imply one nation.
Lincolon hailed from a Illinois, a State that had changed its Constitution in @ 1853 to prevent any blacks from settling there.
Read lincolon’s quotes on capital and labor…straight out of The Communist Manifesto.
Excellent piece by Lola and many wonderful replies. Most all of those Republican voting TV, radio, and Podcasters pundits, who call themselves conservatives are really Nationalist. Sure, they talk about patriotism, assimilation, and protect the border however, you never hear them mention words or phrases like kith & kin or hearth & home, federalism, or States Rights. Once you start with Lincoln, then every thing else that follows is wrong.
Not only did the Emancipation Proclamation not free any slaves but Lincoln didn’t even want to give the address. However, his advisors convinced him to do so.
In addition, in those Confederate states which had become occupied by Union Forces thus de-facto freeing the slaves there, a number of Union generals were not very welcoming. In fact, I believe it was a General Butler in the western theater who refused to acknowledge the freedom of the slaves within his region of occupation…
When Lincoln met with the weak chinned weak kneed Josef Medill in 1863 his reaction to Medill’s plea to cut Chicago’s draft requirements was striking. His face turned black and he said to Medill “It was the Northwest, and Boston, more than anywhere else who have brought War upon the South. It is you, who have made the blood run as it has. You wanted war, I gave you War. You wanted emancipation, I gave it to you. And now you want me to relieve you of your obligation to fight?!”
And sent him packing. I’m in Chicago. But I don’t take a knee to Lincoln
This was interesting tho, when a political faction drives a sick, violent agenda.
I’ve probably posted this before 🙁
Linkun…I can hardly type the name..the most hated president of his time. He travel to Washington in the night by train with no stops after he won the rigged election. The riots in the North and his plain dismantling attempts at the Constitution illustrated the man he was; yet that story was not going to be told. There were six historians commissioned after his death to “create this man” and make him a hero. There is how it started and after many had passed …in 1910 commenced the indoctrination in our schools. As an educator, I have my ways of bypassing “cancel culture”. When you are clearly defining your assignments, you know that students will have to come across some of the topics that challenge the narrative. Ooops! The kids come back with all kinds of excitement having found something. “Did you know?” No, tell me. Something about finding information yourself, you hold close verses just following blindly. My favorite is the Liberia connection and “he” deporting freed slaves. Yeah, they don’t hide it, they just don’t teach it. He is as fabricated as the penny and five dollar bill which are designed so we don’t forget. Believe me, I’ll never forget along with the kids that found the truth.
You can’t forget Lincoln’s plans to not allow anyone of color to settle across the Mississippi. He didn’t want any freed slaves there because that was going to be the better “states” of the union. This is not told in classrooms but if you dig through the Archives and other documents from Lincoln you will find it.
Wouldn’t it have been interesting if, in the days following the famous proclamation, that all slave owners complied with it? Perhaps Lincoln should simply have penned a Cessation of Hostilities Proclamation, and all Confederates would have laid down their arms and returned to their homes and families. Obviously neither response happened, nor would it, for the same reasons our present laws are not enforceable in Mexico or Canada. At the time of the publication of the proclamation, it was moot for the simple fact that the Confederacy was not states in rebellion, but a new nation at war with the United States, a war which it ultimately lost, with the former States subsequently readmitted to the union.
No slaves were freed by the proclamation. They were not freed by the North winning the war. They were freed by the Thirteenth Amendment. The Thirteenth Amendment did not make them citizens. That took the (I think flawed) Fourteenth Amendment to accomplish. And beyond that, it required the Fifteenth Amendment to confer citizenship to the former slaves. So even after the hostilities ended, the former slaves, though freed by the Thirteenth Amendment, still did not enjoy the full benefits of citizenship.
OOPS! I meant to say the Fifteenth Amendment conferred upon former slaves the right to vote.
he gives his not so well informed opinion as empirical truth. he said George Floyd was murder by the police etc, etc. Bill Oriley and Hannity also worship at the trough of Lincoln.