Search Results for: Emancipation Proclamation

Lincoln and McClellan’s Fatigued Horses

Tired and Fatigued horsesI have just read your dispatch about sore tongued and fatigued horses. Will you pardon me for asking what the horses of your army have done since the battle of Antietam that fatigue anything? A. LINCOLN

General George B. McClellan was at it again. Or not at it, in a sense. McClellan had a habit of overestimating the enemy troop numbers and underestimating his own ability to attack. Lincoln was constantly frustrated.

In September 1862, Confederate General Robert E. Lee led his Army of Northern Virginia into western Maryland. Following their victory at a second battle of Bull Run, Lee moved his army north to a point near Sharpsburg, alongside Antietam Creek, where they took up defensive positions. With surprising aggressiveness, McClellan’s Army of the Potomac attacked Lee’s forces on September 17. The first assault came from Union General Joseph Hooker on Lee’s left flank, while General Ambrose Burnside later attacked the right. A surprise counterattack from Confederate General A.P. Hill helped push back Union forces. Eventually, Lee’s troops withdrew from the battlefield first. He moved his remaining army back across the Potomac into the safety of Virginia.

Always overly cautious, McClellan made no effort to follow. Lee had committed all of his 55,000 men, while McClellan only ordered a portion of his larger 87,000-man force into the fray. This numerical imbalance allowed Lee to create and exploit tactical advantages he should not have had. When questioned by Lincoln about his failure to pursue Lee, McClellan complained that his army and horses were sore-tongued and fatigued, and thus required rest. Lincoln responded tersely by telegram:

Will you pardon me for asking what the horses of your army have done since the battle of Antietam that fatigue anything?

Antietam was destined to be the single bloodiest day of battle in American history. The casualties for both armies totaled a staggering 22,717 dead, wounded, or missing.

Despite Lincoln’s frustration, Antietam stood out as an important battle in the fight for freedom. Although essentially a draw, the fact that Lee withdrew from the battlefield first allowed the North to record Antietam as a victory, something that Lincoln had been needing for some time. A few days later, Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation.

[Adapted from Lincoln: The Man Who Saved America]

David J. Kent is an avid science traveler and the author of Lincoln: The Man Who Saved America, in Barnes and Noble stores now. His previous books include Tesla: The Wizard of Electricity and Edison: The Inventor of the Modern World and two specialty e-books: Nikola Tesla: Renewable Energy Ahead of Its Time and Abraham Lincoln and Nikola Tesla: Connected by Fate.

Check out my Goodreads author page. While you’re at it, “Like” my Facebook author page for more updates!

Lincoln and Me Tour Harpers Ferry

Harpers FerryPresident Lincoln took a special train to Harpers Ferry on October 1, 1862. I drove my car to the National Park Service visitors center on October 1, 2021. Lincoln reviewed the troops on Bolivar Heights. I climbed to the overlook on Maryland Heights. One hundred and fifty-nine years separated us, but I still felt his presence.

Lincoln was anxious about his commanding general, George McClellan. McClellan had brought a military success, of sorts, near Antietam creek just a few weeks before. More of a draw than a clear-cut victory despite McClellan’s staff finding Confederate General Lee’s plans wrapped around three cigars, it had been enough for Lincoln to issue his Emancipation Proclamation on September 22nd. Lincoln was not pleased with McClellan’s overall performance. McClellan complained incessantly that the enemy had decisively more troops, even when it was McClellan with the distinct numerical advantage. So Lincoln was coming to talk to McClellan in person.

Around 6 a.m. on the first day of October, Lincoln and entourage left Washington on a special train. Joining him were General McClernand, Ward Hill Lamon, Ozias Hatch, John Garrett (president of the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad) and others. Arriving at Harpers Ferry at noon, Lincoln meets with General Sumners until General McClellan finally arrives in the early afternoon. McClellan and Lincoln visit the troops at Bolivar Heights. That night, Lincoln spends the night in Harpers Ferry. The next morning he visits more troops on the Maryland Heights and moves to McClellan’s headquarters for a strategic discussion and critical job review. While there, several iconic photos are taken by Alexander Gardner. A month later, Lincoln would finally relieve McClellan from command, permanently this time.

My visit began around 8 a.m. for a drive of just over an hour. The day was about as perfect as could be, with no clouds and a high temperature in the low 70s. A fog enveloped the valley as we approached, but quickly disappeared once I arrived in the lower town of Harpers Ferry. John Brown’s Fort was getting a paint job as I headed for the Maryland Heights trailhead. Not only is Harpers Ferry the intersection between Maryland, West Virginia, and Virginia, it’s also where three trails intersect – Maryland Heights,  the C & O Canal Towpath, and the Appalachian Trail. The railroad and foot bridges over the Potomac River (with the Shenandoah River sliding in from the right) lead into the gaping maw of the tunnel under the heights. A short walk up the towpath brought us to the trailhead. A constant uphill hike of about 1200 feet elevation gain brought us to the Heights overlook, where we snacked and replenished electrolytes before hiking back down to the town. A delightful lunch on the patio of the Coach House Grill capped a perfect visit.

A week earlier I had toured Williamsport and Falling Water, another area not far away that had hackled Lincoln. After the decisive Union victory in Gettysburg, Lincoln was displeased with General George Meade for his failure to attack and destroy Lee’s army, giving it time to cross the Potomac River upstream from Harpers Ferry. Lincoln wrote a blistering letter berating Meade, his failure prolonging the war another two years instead of ending it in late 1863. Lincoln never sent the letter. Having spewed his anger onto the page, he rethought the wisdom of chewing his arguably one of his better generals. Luckily for us, he saved it for posterity “never signed, never sent.”

Eventually Lincoln would find likeminded generals in Ulysses S. Grant, William T. Sherman, and Philip Henry Sheridan, along with Meade, who would be key to closing out the rest of the war. But his trip to Harpers Ferry and Antietam was to reassess his commander. McClellan was found wanting, and Lincoln fired him.

Unlike Lincoln, my trip to Harpers Ferry was a total success, and despite the sore muscles afterward, a wonderful experience.

[David J. Kent has been “Chasing Abraham Lincoln” for the last several years, with the COVID pandemic putting much of it on hold. With most responsible people now vaccinated, David will be doing more road trips on the trail of Lincoln. Stay tuned.]

David J. Kent is an avid science traveler and the author of Lincoln: The Man Who Saved America, in Barnes and Noble stores now. His previous books include Tesla: The Wizard of Electricity and Edison: The Inventor of the Modern World and two specialty e-books: Nikola Tesla: Renewable Energy Ahead of Its Time and Abraham Lincoln and Nikola Tesla: Connected by Fate.

Check out my Goodreads author page. While you’re at it, “Like” my Facebook author page for more updates!

Abraham Lincoln Meets with Frederick Douglass

Lincoln Douglass DebateOn August 10, 1863, Abraham Lincoln met with Frederick Douglass in the White House. Douglass had arrived unannounced, accompanied by Kansas Senator Samuel Pomeroy. They found the waiting room filled with people seeking an audience with the president, so Douglass, dressed in a dark suit on this sweltering August morning, assumed he would have a long wait. Instead, Lincoln’s secretary John Hay came quickly out to greet him and usher him into the inner sanctum.

Douglass described the meeting in his memoir:

“I entered [the room] with a moderate estimate of my own consequence, and yet there I was to talk with, and even to advise, the head man of a great nation. Happily for me, there was no vine pomp and ceremony about him. I never was so quickly or more completely put at ease in the presence of a great man, than in that of Abraham Lincoln….The room bore the marks of business, and the persons in it, the president included, appeared to be much overworked and tired.”

After describing the “long lines of care” already “deeply written on Mr. Lincoln’s brow,” Douglass writes that:

“As I approached and was introduced to him, he rose and extended his hand, and bade me welcome. I at once felt myself in the presence of an honest man – one whom I could love, honor, and trust without reserve or doubt.”

Douglass then told him of the object of his visit, which was to assist in the raising of African American troops for the war effort, an option now available after the Emancipation Proclamation went into effect on January 1, 1863. Douglass reported that Lincoln “listened with patience and silence to all that I had to say.” He asked pertinent questions and answered Douglass’s complaints with respect and honesty.

John Hay notes the meeting in his diary, adding that Douglass “intends to go south and help the recruiting among his people.” Later that day, Lincoln endorsed the idea as set forth in a letter signed by Secretary of the Interior and Senator Pomeroy indicated that Douglass is “a loyal, free, man, and is, hence, entitled to travel, unmolested. We trust he will be recognized everywhere, as a free man, and a gentleman.” The trip fell through for lack of a commission and intransigence among military leaders, but three of Douglass’s sons served in the Union army.

Douglass would visit Lincoln twice more in the White House. The final time was on the day of Lincoln’s second inaugural speech, which Douglass professed to be “a sacred effort.”

David J. Kent is an avid science traveler and the author of Lincoln: The Man Who Saved America, in Barnes and Noble stores now. His previous books include Tesla: The Wizard of Electricity and Edison: The Inventor of the Modern World and two specialty e-books: Nikola Tesla: Renewable Energy Ahead of Its Time and Abraham Lincoln and Nikola Tesla: Connected by Fate.

Check out my Goodreads author page. While you’re at it, “Like” my Facebook author page for more updates!

Lincoln Fires General-in-Chief George B. McClellan, But Keeps Him Anyway

George B. McClellanOn March 11, 1862, everyone was thinking about George B. McClellan. Lincoln’s cabinet met and groused about their chronic dissatisfaction with the General. Frustrated with McClellan’s “slows,” Lincoln issued War Order No. 3, which fired McClellan as General-in-Chief but retained him as commander of the Army of the Potomac. He spent the rest of the day explaining his decision. War Order No. 3 stated:

Major-General McClellan, having personally taken the field, at the head of the Army of the Potomac, until otherwise ordered, he is relieved from the command of the other military departments, he is retaining command of the Department of the Potomac.

 

Ordered further: That the two departments now under the respective commands of Generals Halleck and Hunter, together with so much of that under General Buell as lies west of a north and south line indefinitely drawn through Knoxville, Tennessee, be consolidated and designated the Department of the Mississippi; and that, until otherwise ordered, Major-General Halleck have command of said department.

McClellan had been an irritant from the beginning. The embarrassing loss at the first Battle of Bull Run sent Winfield Scott to retirement and left Lincoln desperately searching for a military leader. With few options, he turned to a young George B. McClellan for his next General-in-Chief. The Ohio-born McClellan had exhibited strong leadership in two small skirmishes in western Virginia, and he came highly recommended by Ohio Governor William Dennison and Ohio native Treasury Secretary Salmon P. Chase.

McClellan masterfully outfitted and drilled his raw recruits into a skilled Army of the Potomac, yet he consistently refused to put them into action. He repeatedly claimed the Confederates vastly outnumbered him, even though he had up to twice as many troops at his disposal. His soldiers loved him, but McClellan’s overabundance of caution led to Lincoln’s significant frustration. Adding insult, McClellan arrogantly considered himself vastly superior to the President, referring to Lincoln in letters home to his wife as “nothing more than a well-meaning baboon” and “a gorilla.”

Peninsula Campaign

Despite his position as General-in-Chief, McClellan rarely communicated his strategy or progress. His insubordination included ignoring the President and retiring to bed after Lincoln had sat patiently in McClellan’s parlor for an hour waiting for him to return from an evening out. Continuing to press his generals to fight, Lincoln suggested that the well-trained army make a frontal assault on Confederate forces between Washington and Richmond. McClellan disagreed, eventually counter-proposing a complicated plan to take the Confederate capital of Richmond from the South, which was in direct opposition to Lincoln’s strategy to defeat armies, not take territory.

After several months of obsessive planning, in March 1862 McClellan began shipping troops down the Potomac River to the Virginia peninsula between the James and York Rivers. The size of the troop movement was unprecedented, with more than 120,000 men, a dozen artillery batteries, and tons of equipment all ferried into place at the base of the peninsula. To Lincoln’s chagrin, further overland movement toward Richmond was painfully slow because of bad weather, mud, and McClellan’s exaggerated opinion of enemy troop strength. The Union forces negated the advantage of surprise, and by the time they advanced toward Richmond the more mobile Confederate army had positioned itself to defend the southern capital. Meanwhile, McClellan, against Lincoln’s wishes, had left the Union capital woefully unprotected.

By any measurement, the Peninsula Campaign was a disaster. The Union survived its critical blunder only because of Lincoln’s strategic decision-making. McClellan, of course, blamed Lincoln for supposedly meddling. A frustrated Lincoln demoted McClellan. This left the president once again in desperate need of a military leader. Generals Henry Halleck, Ambrose Burnside (whose trademark facial hair was the inspiration for the term “sideburns”), Joseph Hooker, John C. Fremont, John McClernand, John Pope, George Meade, and others were all considered by Lincoln but ultimately found wanting. Sitting in the wings were Ulysses S. Grant and William T. Sherman, western generals who had not yet captured the president’s eye.

McClellan’s demotion was short-lived. In utter desperation and after several disastrous Union losses in the summer of 1862, Lincoln once again turned to McClellan as his General-in-Chief.

At the time, Lincoln was experiencing personal heartbreak in addition to the pressure of mounting Union soldier casualties. In February, Mary Lincoln had planned a grand open house to show off the dramatic and expensive improvements she had made to the aging and neglected White House. By the night of the party, however, Lincoln’s two youngest sons had become severely ill. While guests gathered downstairs, Lincoln and Mary repeatedly slipped upstairs to check on their ailing children. Diagnosed with what was likely typhoid fever, Willie progressively worsened. On February 20, 1862, he died. Tad recovered, but never really understood the sudden loss of his older brother and constant playmate.

Mary was devastated, and for the rest of her time as First Lady (a term she coined to refer to her position) she wore nothing but black. Relying even more on her trusted confidante, former slave Elizabeth Keckley, Mary became an even greater burden on household staff and the growing list of Washington insiders who despised her. Lincoln mourned as well, coping by throwing himself more deeply into the continued struggle to save the Union. One part of that struggle was the hugely important battle of Antietam.

Antietam

In September 1862, Confederate General Robert E. Lee led his Army of Northern Virginia into western Maryland. Following their victory at a second battle of Bull Run, Lee moved his army north to a point near Sharpsburg, alongside Antietam Creek, where they took up defensive positions. With surprising aggressiveness, McClellan’s Army of the Potomac attacked Lee’s forces on September 17. The first assault came from Union General Joseph Hooker on Lee’s left flank, while General Ambrose Burnside later attacked the right. A surprise counterattack from Confederate General A.P. Hill helped push back Union forces. Eventually, Lee’s troops withdrew from the battlefield first. He moved his remaining army back across the Potomac into the safety of Virginia.

Always overly cautious, McClellan made no effort to follow. Lee had committed all of his 55,000 men, while McClellan only ordered a portion of his larger 87,000-man force into the fray. This numerical imbalance allowed Lee to create and exploit tactical advantages he should not have had. When questioned by Lincoln about his failure to pursue Lee, McClellan complained that his army and horses were sore-tongued and fatigued, and thus required rest. Lincoln responded tersely by telegram:

Will you pardon me for asking what the horses of your army have done since the battle of Antietam that fatigue anything?

Antietam was destined to be the single bloodiest day of battle in American history. The casualties for both armies totaled a staggering 22,717 dead, wounded, or missing.

Despite Lincoln’s frustration, Antietam stood out as an important battle in the fight for freedom. Although essentially a draw, the fact that Lee withdrew from the battlefield first allowed the North to record Antietam as a victory, something that Lincoln had been needing for some time.

He issued the Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation a few days later.

[Adapted from my book, Lincoln: The Man Who Saved America]

[Image Credit: U.S. Signal Corps/National Archives, Washington, D.C.]

David J. Kent is the author of Lincoln: The Man Who Saved America. His previous books include Tesla: The Wizard of Electricity and Edison: The Inventor of the Modern World and two specialty e-books: Nikola Tesla: Renewable Energy Ahead of Its Time and Abraham Lincoln and Nikola Tesla: Connected by Fate.

Follow me for updates on my Facebook author page and Goodreads.

The Misguided Idea of Targeting Abraham Lincoln and Other Statues

Abraham Lincoln ChicagoSan Francisco targets Abraham Lincoln schools for renaming. Chicago targets Abraham Lincoln and other statues for possible removal. DC Congressional Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton introduces a bill to remove the Emancipation Memorial statue in Washington, D.C. These efforts are severely misguided, based on political expediency rather than an informed discussion of Lincoln and other past American leaders.

I’ve been addressing the issues surrounding removal, and consideration of removal, of Confederate statues across the nation. There is a rational case for removing Confederate statues. There is no rational case for removing Abraham Lincoln statues.

The motives are understandable and I strongly encourage an open and honest discussion of problematic statues. In my “rational case” post I explained that there are three time periods reflected by, and must be considered, for every statue: the subject, the motive and timing of erection, and the present. Norton’s bill to remove the Emancipation Memorial statue is based almost entirely on the present perspective. While many believe that present perspective overrides the two earlier perspectives, proponents of removing the statue are obligated to make that case in a public forum, not by arbitrarily passing a bill by politicians without any interest in the discussion or the outcome, i.e., 99%+ of the House Representatives and Senators who would vote on the bill. Norton would better serve her constituents by using her power to garner news coverage, input from the city, from the National Park Service (who owns the statue, hence the need for a law before it can be removed or augmented), and a much needed discussion of the larger issues beyond the presence of the statue. This last point is critical and I’ll return to it shortly.

While the Emancipation Memorial is controversial because of its inherent design elements (Boston removed its copy of the statue for this reason), the actions by San Francisco and Chicago have no such controversies stimulating their actions. Instead, they are acting based on misrepresentation of Lincoln’s attitudes and actions.

San Francisco has every right to name, or rename, schools within their jurisdiction. Their far-ranging list of names they want to move away from includes several U.S. Presidents, the current California Senator (who was once Mayor of San Francisco), environmentalist John Muir, and many others. While some of the reasons are potentially persuasive, others border on the ridiculous.

Regarding Abraham Lincoln, the chair of the renaming committee argued that “Lincoln, like the presidents before him and most after, did not show through policy or rhetoric that black lives ever mattered to them outside of human capital and as casualties of wealth building.” This comment is simply absurd. Lincoln was literally murdered because his assassin listened to Lincoln argue for black voting rights. Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, which freed enslaved people and brought African Americans into the armed forces, which played a large role in why the Union won the Civil War. As the Spielberg movie Lincoln dramatically documented, Lincoln acted aggressively to ensure passage of the 13th Amendment ending slavery. African American leaders like Frederick Douglass recounted their personal experiences with Lincoln, all saying that he treated them like any other American. As historian Jonathan White explains in Smithsonian, Lincoln most certainly believed black lives mattered.

The spreadsheet outlining the reasons for renaming noted that Lincoln was “not seen as a hero” among Native Americans “as the majority of his policies proved to be detrimental to them.” By this standard, every American president before Lincoln – and since Lincoln – would not be acceptable for naming schools, including Ronald Reagan. The country has a long history of maltreatment of Native populations; Lincoln neither enlarged it nor shrunk it during his time in office. Given he was faced with the most critical existential crisis of our nation’s history, the Civil War, which did not end until the time he was assassinated, it is unrealistic to expect that he would have to time to reverse long-standing attitudes and policies that virtually no one in the country was acting to change. And yet in his last two annual messages to Congress he did call for a reevaluation of the government’s treatment of Native Americans, something he had planned to deal with in his second term after the war was over if he had lived to do so.

Chicago, yes, even Chicago, has also recently called for the reevaluation of 41 statues and monuments within the city as part of their “racial healing and historical reckoning project.” Again, the focus of the Lincoln statues is because the committee “determined Native Americans were mistreated during his administration.” The points made above apply to Chicago’s actions as well. Part of this idea is a misunderstanding of Lincoln’s role in the “Dakota 38,” which resulted the hanging of 38 Dakota Native Americans in Minnesota in 1862. I’ve discussed this misunderstanding in depth here.

Which gets me back to the idea for a much needed discussion of the larger issues beyond the presence of the statue. Removing these statues and renaming schools does not make these larger issues – white supremacy, systemic racism, continuing disadvantaging of BiPOC individuals suddenly disappear. In some ways it may exacerbate them, especially when the reasons presented for removal are based on misrepresentation and misunderstanding of history, along with unrealistic expectations of perfection in our past leaders. These are not Confederates who literally chose to divide America, they are leaders who fought hard to create, protect, and bring America closer to the ideal of a more perfect Union. They were human, like all of us, and should be treated as human, not as some idealistic “god” of humanity who aren’t allowed not be perfect.

So rather than simply remove statues by edict for political expediency, current day leaders should take advantage of the opportunity our more recent awareness affords us and lead public discussions across America. Rather than pass a resolution to rename schools on misinformation, use the school names as a focal point for deep public education. Neither San Francisco, nor Chicago, nor Washington, D.C. involved historians in their debates. How is that even possible? Historians expert on each of the historical figures are happy to participate in discussions with school boards or monument commissions. They, we, are happy to sit down with the public and policy-makers to help everyone better understand the relevant history. That’s what we do.

Ultimately, it is up to those responsible communities to decide how they will proceed. Undoubtedly there are some historical figures that we will, and should, choose no longer to honor. But that discussion should be done in the open. Beyond that, the discussion must include the larger issues that remain even after statues and school names are removed. Leaders have an opportunity to lead; they must embrace this opportunity, not hide from it by making arbitrary decisions.

David J. Kent is an avid science traveler and the author of Lincoln: The Man Who Saved America. His previous books include Tesla: The Wizard of Electricity and Edison: The Inventor of the Modern World and two specialty e-books: Nikola Tesla: Renewable Energy Ahead of Its Time and Abraham Lincoln and Nikola Tesla: Connected by Fate.

Follow me for updates on my Facebook author page and Goodreads.

Can We Add Context to Confederate Monuments?

Confederate monument exampleAs I continue to explore “The Rational Case for Removing Confederate Monuments,” a key question has arisen: Can we add context to Confederate monuments and keep them in place? [Note: Also see my post: Do we ‘erase history’ by removing confederate monuments?]

Most of the existing Confederate monuments (statues, as well as school, army base, and street names) remain standing in the locations in which they were placed over the last century. A small number have been removed, although removals are still occurring as local and state communities grapple with the question. A tiny number were pulled down during the racial justice protests in 2020. Little has been done to the remaining monuments, but there have been calls to leave them in place and add additional context.

A good illustration of the difficulties of adding context comes from a statue of Abraham Lincoln that had been targeted for forcible removal during the summer of 2020. The Emancipation Memorial, also called the Freedman’s Memorial, is not a Confederate statue. It was erected as a commemoration of Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation and freedom for enslaved African Americans. The funds for the statue were raised entirely from freed slaves and Frederick Douglass gave the keynote address at its dedication in 1876. The black male figure is modeled after a specific freed slave named Archer Alexander. This history would seem to make the statue immune to attack. However, the design includes a standing Lincoln with a crouched African American man breaking his chains and apparently rising to freedom. This “superior” positioning of a white male versus “inferior” positioning of a black male was controversial from the beginning (the funders had no say in the statue design). In our current time, the third time period reflected by all statues, many believe the design to be inappropriate. Historians and the public alike have debated what to do with the statue, if anything.

As with Confederate statues, some have suggested that the Emancipation Memorial can be augmented with additional context. So what context might be added?

Emancipation Memorial

Within a week after dedicating the Emancipation Memorial, Frederick Douglass expressed in a newspaper advertisement that the design had some problematic elements. He suggested that additional bronze figures might be added around the statue to complement, and more fully contextualize, the main Lincoln/Alexander artwork. Nothing was done at the time and today there is a legal problem in doing so. The statue is owned and maintained by the National Park Service, which is barred by law from removing – or adding – any additional statues. Given today’s congressional trend toward inaction, the idea of Congress passing a law to allow additional figures seems remote. [DC delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton introduced a bill in the summer of 2020 to have the Emancipation Memorial removed, but as of this writing no further action has occurred.]

Forgetting this logistical roadblock, historians and the public have offered various options for adding statues to provide a fuller picture. They include turning the statue again so that the Archer Alexander figure is looking across the park to the Mary McLeod Bethune statue. [The entire Emancipation Memorial statue had been turned 180 degrees in the 1970s to face the newly installed Bethune statue; Bethune was a black educator and civil rights activist] Others have suggested statues of Frederick Douglass, Sojourner Truth, and/or Harriet Tubman be added. There is also a suggestion that the statue be replaced by one featuring Lincoln and Douglass standing together, eye-to-eye, shaking hands, which would show them as equal statesmen. As noted, however, the idea of adding statuary seems a losing battle on NPS land.

Another suggestion is to add signage with additional context. Again, the Emancipation Memorial shows the difficulty and apparent ineffectiveness of this option. During two “teach-ins” conducted in the summer of 2020 at the Emancipation Memorial, including one where protest activists expressed their contempt for the statue and attempted to arouse the gathered crowd to pull it down, many attendees said they were unaware of the history noted above (Funding by former slaves, Frederick Douglass dedication, Archer Alexander figure). And yet, the Memorial itself contains a large (3 foot x 5 foot) plaque on the side of the pedestal explaining the funding process, including that Charlotte Scott, a former slave, had contributed the first $5. People don’t read, or don’t remember, plaques. Howard University Lincoln scholar Edna Greene Medford recently noted that statues are built to be seen, not read. Given historical patterns, virtually no one would see, or retain, any additional context signage added to existing monuments.

Costs and logistics would also seem to be prohibitive. Any additional context signage would have to be permanent; paper or temporary billboard signage wouldn’t last long enough to be meaningful. This means that additional context would need to be included on permanent, probably bronze, plaques installed on or near the statues. It’s unclear that NPS limitations would allow even this change. Bronze (or marble or any other permanent material) is expensive. The cost and time to design, fund, get permissions, and build permanent addendums would require considerable time. It seems unlikely that 99% of existing monuments would ever see additional permanent contextual elements added.

When it comes to Confederate monuments the difficulties of context become even more acute. What additional context could be added to a statue of Nathan Bedford Forrest, for example? As I noted in response to a comment on the initial Confederate Monument post, Nathan Bedford Forrest’s historical context would obviously have to include his Confederate Army service, as well as his roles in the murders of black Union troops (USCT) at Ft. Pillow and elsewhere, as well as his role as grand dragon of the KKK. In all cases, the full story would need to be told. Would those wanting to preserve Confederate heritage want that story? Robert E. Lee’s story might include his service in the United States Army prior to rejecting the Union and fighting for the Confederacy to protect and expand slavery. His time after the war as president of Washington College (renamed Washington and Lee after his death) might be relevant if any of his actions were relevant to his standing. Similarly, Jefferson Davis forsook his United States citizenship and his prior service as U.S. Secretary of War and U.S. Senator to become president of the Confederacy with the swore belief in white supremacy, slavery, and rejection of the U.S. Constitution. Again, what additional context would improve the historical position of Confederate leaders and generals in today’s society?

As we can see, there are significant roadblocks to adding context to Confederate monuments, both logistical and textual content.

The discussion above is primarily focused on adding contexts to statues in situ, that is where the statues are currently placed in public areas. Two other options have been suggested: One, to move statues into museums where context would be easier to add (e.g., they wouldn’t need to be as durable); the other is to move statues to battlefield locations or to special parks. I’ll address both of these ideas in future posts.

A reminder that this is a continuing series of posts addressing rational discussion of the fate of Confederate monuments. The initial post is: The Rational Case for Removing Confederate Monuments. This and follow up posts are appended at the end of that post.

[Emancipation Memorial photo credit: David J. Kent; Confederate monument photo source: Confederate Statues Come Down Around U.S., But Not Everywhere : NPR]

David J. Kent is an avid traveler, scientist, and Abraham Lincoln historian. He is the author of Lincoln: The Man Who Saved AmericaTesla: The Wizard of Electricity and Edison: The Inventor of the Modern World as well as two specialty e-books: Nikola Tesla: Renewable Energy Ahead of Its Time and Abraham Lincoln and Nikola Tesla: Connected by Fate.

Check out my Goodreads author page. While you’re at it, “Like” my Facebook author page for more updates!

Mis-Understanding Abraham Lincoln and the Dakota 38

Abraham LincolnThe recent pressure to remove Confederate statues has spilled over into monuments to other historical figures, most incredibly including Abraham Lincoln. As more and more of the country shifts “Columbus Day” to a more appropriate “Indigenous Peoples Day,” Lincoln has been targeted for his role in what is often referred to as “The Dakota 38.” The problem is that Lincoln’s role has been completely misunderstood and mischaracterized, which does poor service to the indigenous goal.

Dakota 38 refers to the 38 Dakota (sometimes called Sioux) Native Americans who were hanged in 1862 for crimes such as rape and murder in southwest Minnesota. The incident followed a short armed conflict in which several bands of Dakota rose up against repeated treaty violations during the 1850s that had led to increasing starvation and chronic hardship. Dakota fighters made extensive attacks on white settlers, resulting in an estimated 800 settler deaths. Hundreds of Dakota were captured by U.S. Army soldiers led by Major General John Pope. Military tribunals were held and 303 Dakota were found guilty and sentenced to death by hanging.

Mired in the ongoing Civil War and two weeks prior to issuing the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, Abraham Lincoln assigned Pope to go to Minnesota to end the violence. Lincoln was unaware of the specifics at the time and was only informed of the capture, trials, and sentences long after they had occurred when on November 10th he received a telegram from Pope. Realizing the gravity of the sentencing, Lincoln immediately responded to Pope:

Your despatch giving the names of three hundred Indians condemned to death, is received. Please forward, as soon as possible, the full and complete record of these convictions. And if the record does not indicate the more guilty and influential, of the culprits, please have a careful statement made on these points and forwarded to me. Please send all by mail. [Lincoln to Pope, November 10, 1862, Collected Works 5:493]

Once received, Lincoln spent several weeks reviewing the trial records. Many of the trials were perfunctory, lasting as little as 15 minutes. Lincoln struggled through his review with the twin goals of ensuring the fairness of the actions while also discouraging further violence. On December 11, 1862 he responded to the U.S. Senate, which as a body had requested Lincoln provide his findings. Lincoln informed them:

Anxious to not act with so much clemency as to encourage another outbreak on the one hand, nor with so much severity as to be real cruelty on the other, I caused a careful examination of the records of trials to be made, in view of first ordering the execution of such as had been proved guilty of violating females. Contrary to my expectations, only two of this class were found. I then directed a further examination, and a classification of all who were proven to have participated in massacres, as distinguished from participation in battles. This class numbered forty, and included the two convicted of female violation. One of the number is strongly recommended by the commission which tried them for commutation to ten years’ imprisonment. I have ordered the other thirty-nine to be executed on Friday, the 19th instant. [Lincoln to U.S. Senate, December 11, 1862, Collected Works 5:550]

One further Dakota sentence was later commuted when new information called into question his conviction. Thus, the final number executed on December 26, 1862 was 38, hence “The Dakota 38.”

So Lincoln’s role was actually to stop the execution of 264 Dakota men where he believed the trial records did not support the sentence. Each of the men executed had been found guilty of violating women (rape) or participating in a massacre (murder). The raids, capture, trials, and sentencing all occurred far away from Washington and without Lincoln’s direct knowledge until after the fact. When he found out, he personally reviewed the case records and commuted the sentences of nearly 90% of those convicted.

This, of course, does not change the horrendous treatment that the United States has imposed on Native Americans throughout our history. The arguments against honoring Columbus with a holiday include his unintentional (bringing disease) and intentional (murder) of indigenous peoples along his routes of conquest (which, ironically, never included what is now the United States). Legitimate arguments can also be made against U.S. government actions long before Lincoln took office, including forced relocation of Native Americans in the 1830s and the Trail of Tears. Likewise, “Indian wars” in the latter half of the 1800s continued the oppression and forced removal of Native Americans as white settlers moved west. When Lincoln took office he inherited a long-standing system of corruption in the Indian Bureau. He did little to reform it during his first term – after all he was fighting to save the Union – but had promised to deal with the situation in his second term once the war was over. His assassination made that impossible.

Efforts to destroy or vandalize Abraham Lincoln statues are therefore misguided. There are valid arguments for removing Confederate statues and even Columbus, but those arguments don’t support attacks on Lincoln. Other statues sometimes targeted, such as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson because they were slaveowners, are also misguided. Washington and Jefferson helped start this country on a path where “all men are created equal.” Lincoln ended slavery in the United States. Each of these men, and all men and women, are as flawed as all of us are today. These were men who lived in the realities of their times and yet found a way to transcend those times to nudge us toward a more perfect union. We obviously have a long way to go, and often we seem to be moving in the wrong direction. But to achieve the ideal goals of this nation we must be willing to act based on knowledge and understanding. We must be focused on adding to our history by including the roles of women and people of color, as well as fully understanding historical people and incidents of the past.

Misunderstanding Lincoln and his role in the Dakota 38 executions hinders rather than advances those ideal goals and the concerns of indigenous peoples. We can better understand our history if we focus on providing the accurate context of such incidents. In many cases, that will call into question some of the omissions of history, but our goal should be understanding the realities, not creating an inaccurate and false counter-history.

David J. Kent is an avid traveler, scientist, and Abraham Lincoln historian. He is the author of Lincoln: The Man Who Saved AmericaTesla: The Wizard of Electricity and Edison: The Inventor of the Modern World as well as two specialty e-books: Nikola Tesla: Renewable Energy Ahead of Its Time and Abraham Lincoln and Nikola Tesla: Connected by Fate.

Check out my Goodreads author page. While you’re at it, “Like” my Facebook author page for more updates!

 

The Pre-Presidential Debates That Made Lincoln President

Lincoln Douglas DebatesIn 1858, Abraham Lincoln began following Douglas from town to town as they campaigned against each other for Douglas’s Senate seat. Challenging the incumbent Senator in a Democratic-dominated state, Lincoln had to coax Douglas to go against his own interests and formally debate. Whenever Douglas gave a major speech, Lincoln told the crowd he would respond that evening or the next day. After doing this for a while, and with the help of his influential friend Jesse Fell, Lincoln approached Douglas about holding a series of joint debates across the state. Reluctant at first, Douglas eventually agreed to one debate in each of the nine congressional districts in Illinois. They had both already spoken in Springfield and Chicago within a day of each other, so they agreed to seven additional joint debates in Ottawa, Freeport, Jonesboro, Charleston, Galesburg, Quincy, and Alton over the next two months. For each debate one candidate would speak for sixty minutes, followed by the other for ninety minutes, and the first would get a thirty-minute reply. They alternated who would speak first, with the incumbent Douglas getting the benefit of doing so in four of the seven debates.

The optics of the debates were almost comical. Lincoln was as tall and thin as Douglas was short and wide. Douglas tended toward inflammatory and racist language, while Lincoln was calmer and more logical in his arguments. Douglas had a reputation as a blatant liar; Lincoln as “Honest Abe.” Douglas often arrived in town on a special train accompanied by boisterous bands. Lincoln rode coach. Douglas was prone to histrionics, personal attacks, dogmatic exclamations, blatant negrophobic pandering to white superiority, and lying without remorse. Lincoln avoided sliding in the muck, focusing on making his key points clear to the often large crowds.

Because of the way Illinois was settled—the south moving up from slave states, the central from free states to the east, and the north from the upper states via the Great Lakes—each debate city offered a different range of public opinion. And while topics like banking were briefly mentioned, the main focus of all debates was the defining issue of the day—slavery.

Douglas and Lincoln explored several aspects of the slavery question, with Douglas largely sticking to his stump speech at each stop while Lincoln built on his arguments over time. One aspect was whether slavery was right or wrong. Lincoln argued that slavery was inherently wrong, both from a moral view and from a public policy perspective. Douglas asserted that he “cares not whether slavery is voted down or voted up.” To Douglas, each state could choose whether it wanted slavery, and the federal government had no right to dictate policy. Lincoln disagreed, noting again that the Founders had banned slavery from the territories that became Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and parts north. The Founders also banned the import of new slaves from Africa. As such, Lincoln argued, the federal government had every right to restrict slavery in the territories, and had done so repeatedly.

Sensing this was a difficult position, Douglas went on the attack. He accused Lincoln and all “Black Republicans” of being abolitionists, intent on removing slavery from all the southern states where it currently existed. Lincoln denied this, reminding people that he acknowledged the Constitution protected slavery where it existed. His goal was simply to stop it from expanding. Douglas took his attacks a step further, accusing Lincoln of being for the full equality of the races. This was a straw man used to play to the flagrant racism that permeated the North as well as the South. Douglas knew that if he could paint Lincoln as a “left wing radical,” it would help his campaign.

But Lincoln was hardly a radical. Today he might be considered a “prudent progressive.” True, he achieved great things, including the radical idea of emancipation, but he did so by sticking to authority constrained by the U.S. Constitution. Lincoln, and most Americans at the time, believed that while slavery was immoral (he once said, “If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong”), the acknowledgement of its existence in the Constitution meant the federal government did not have the authority to ban it in the states where it already existed. Each state must take action to remove slavery from within its borders, which is how each of the northern states had achieved their free status. As noted above, however, Lincoln believed that Congress did have the power to block slavery from entering the federal territories and the District of Columbia. He and Congress later took steps to ensure freedom from slavery in both of those.

Later, as President, Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, which did free enslaved people in those states in active rebellion against the Union. This actually remained consistent with the Constitution as it provided for special powers in case of insurrection, powers that would not have been available in the normal state of affairs. Lincoln used these powers as a military necessity. Acknowledging that the Proclamation would become legally moot once the war ended, Lincoln worked hard to have Congress pass the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, which permanently enshrined the freedom of all men and women regardless of race.

All of this was possible because of the Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858. In particular, during the second debate in Freeport, Lincoln posed a set of questions to Douglas. Always thinking ahead, Lincoln set a trap, and Douglas had no choice but to fall into what would become known as the Freeport Doctrine. Lincoln asked:

Can the people of a United States Territory, in any lawful way, against the wish of any citizen of the United States, exclude slavery from its limits prior to the formation of a State Constitution?

The question directly pit Douglas’s Popular Sovereignty against the Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision. Douglas was forced to choose between alienating those people he required to get reelected to the Illinois Senate or the Southerners he needed in his third run for the presidency two years later. He responded that people in a territory could keep out slavery despite the Dred Scott decision, which stated that federal and state governments had no authority to exclude slavery because it would deprive slaveholders of their “property” rights without due process.

Lincoln was ecstatic over Douglas’s response, although he did not show his hand. Southerners, who wanted the ability to expand slavery without limit, had grown concerned that states could choose to exclude slavery in accordance with Douglas’s Popular Sovereignty. They saw the Dred Scott decision as confirming their right to bring slaves wherever they wanted, and now Douglas was saying that was not true. This presented a long-term problem for slave-owning states. While they knew that most of the new territories were grossly inadequate for growing cotton, which was still the primary driver of the need for slaves, they recognized that every new slave state would increase their representation in Congress—and their continued power to dictate policy.

When the votes were counted, Lincoln had won the popular vote and the Republican Party picked up seats in the legislature. But the state legislature, which was majority Democratic, was still choosing Senators. Douglas retained his Senate seat. Lincoln likely realized his chances of winning the seat were close to nil because of the legislature’s makeup. When he was asked why he would give Douglas an advantage for Senate reelection, Lincoln replied that he had a longer view in mind: Douglas might win the Senate, but he would lose the presidency. The Freeport Doctrine would see to that.

The rest, as they say, is history.

[Adapted from Lincoln: The Man Who Saved America]

David J. Kent is an avid traveler, scientist, and Abraham Lincoln historian. He is the author of Lincoln: The Man Who Saved AmericaTesla: The Wizard of Electricity and Edison: The Inventor of the Modern World as well as two specialty e-books: Nikola Tesla: Renewable Energy Ahead of Its Time and Abraham Lincoln and Nikola Tesla: Connected by Fate.

Check out my Goodreads author page. While you’re at it, “Like” my Facebook author page for more updates!

Juneteenth and the Freedman’s Memorial

Emancipation MemorialOn June 19th, 1865, Union Major General Gordon Granger entered Galveston, Texas and discovered that somehow word had not previously been communicated to the enslaved people that they were free in accordance with Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation effective January 1, 1863. With Granger’s General Order No. 3, June the 19th came to represent the end of slavery in America, and as such became an African American holiday called Juneteenth.

Technically, the Emancipation Proclamation wasn’t a sufficient post-war protector of freedom and actual permanent freedom was only guaranteed by ratification of the 13th Amendment on December 6, 1865. But the date stuck because of its immediate meaning and has been celebrated by African Americans since that time, ebbing and flowing in response to societal suppression or promotion. Some local governments and states acknowledged the holiday, and more recently the trend is for more governments and companies have established the day as an official holiday or day off from work. Juneteenth is one element of a long history related to the attainment of equal rights for African Americans and all Americans, although our nation has also been plagued by historical and continuing systemic racism.

One aspect of that history that remains controversial today is the Freedman’s Memorial in Washington, DC. Often referred to as the “Emancipation Memorial” or “Freedom’s Memorial” or even “Lincoln and Emancipation,” the statue by sculptor Thomas Ball was erected in Lincoln Park east of the U.S. Capitol. It depicts Abraham Lincoln standing over an enslaved black man being released from his shackles and beginning the slow rise to equality. The face of the African American man represents that of a real person, Archer Alexander. Frederick Douglass was the keynote speaker at the 1876 dedication, which was also attended by President Ulysses S. Grant. Importantly, the funding of the statue was solely provided by freedmen (and women), with the first $5 donated by former slave Charlotte Scott of Virginia. While they didn’t have a say in the final design, the statue represents the efforts of African Americans to commemorate their emancipation from centuries of forced servitude.

Much of the controversy stems from the positioning of the figures, in particular the apparent subservient position of Archer Alexander. The original concept of Lincoln freeing the slaves and the depiction of now formerly enslaved men to rise seems to have been lost from current understanding. Another problem with today’s interpretation is the tendency to cherry pick from Frederick Douglass’s dedication speech, a wonderful oratory that delved into the complex relationships between Lincoln, Grant, former slaves, and the continuing struggle for equality. As the statue was being dedicated, so too was the Reconstruction period coming to an end. Whereas Reconstruction had guaranteed the rights of African Americans, the Jim Crow era that arose in response sought to destroy those rights. As W.E.B. Dubois said, “the slave went free; stood a brief moment in the sun; then moved back again toward slavery.” Alas, our long history of systemic racism continues to this day.

Emancipation Memorial

As we celebrate Juneteenth 2020 we are again faced with the realization that racism and inequality are not an artifact of the past; they are a fact of reality today. This again offers us an opportunity to better understand our history, and use that understanding to, as Lincoln said, save “our last best hope of earth.”

As an Abraham Lincoln scholar, I hope that everyone interested in this statue and its ultimate fate spend the time to learn about its history and meaning. Likewise, we have a unique opportunity to learn about the importance of Juneteenth, not just to African Americans, but to the history of all Americans.

Happy Juneteenth!

David J. Kent is an avid science traveler and the author of Lincoln: The Man Who Saved America, in Barnes and Noble stores now. His previous books include Tesla: The Wizard of Electricity and Edison: The Inventor of the Modern World and two specialty e-books: Nikola Tesla: Renewable Energy Ahead of Its Time and Abraham Lincoln and Nikola Tesla: Connected by Fate.

Check out my Goodreads author page. While you’re at it, “Like” my Facebook author page for more updates!

A Brief History of Systemic Racism in America

The Soiling of Old Glory by Stanley FormanEmmett Till, a 14-year-old African American falsely accused of flirting with a white woman, was lynched in 1955. George Floyd died under the knee of a police officer in 2020. Together, and with thousands of other examples and millions of cases, the long history of systemic racism continues in America. To provide some background, what follows is a brief outline of the history of systemic racism and discrimination in the United States.

White Lion, 1619: Jamestown, the first permanent settlement of white Europeans on the continent that would become America, was visited by a privateer sailing ship called the White Lion. On board were several dozen Africans stolen from a Spanish slave ship San Juan Bautista, headed for Veracruz, New Spain (now part of Mexico). Some of the Africans were traded by the White Lion crew for food at Virginia Colony’s Point Comfort. Slavery had come to America.

U.S. Declaration of Independence, 1776: When Thomas Jefferson drafted the Declaration of Independence, it originally had a clause attacking slavery as something forced on the American colonies by the British rulers and an antithesis to the Declaration’s concept of “all men are created equal.” The clause was removed during debate as southern slaveholding states in conjunction with their northern merchant partners refused to agree.

U.S. Constitution, 1789: After several years under the wholly ineffective Articles of Confederation, delegates began working on a new constitution in 1787. The U.S. Constitution was ratified in 1788 and took effect March 4, 1789 with George Washington as the nation’s first president. Delegates engaged in significant debate about slavery, again with South Carolina and other southern states working with northern merchants to void any sections that would have eliminated slavery. Forced to compromise to get all the existing states to agree, the Constitution tacitly acknowledges the presence of slavery, although they took great pains to avoid using the words “slave” or “slavery” in the text, relying on euphemisms like “all other persons.” Article 1, Section 2 allows slaveholding states to count “three fifths of all other persons” (i.e., enslaved people) for purposes of determining the number of representatives in Congress. Article 1, Section 9 prohibits Congress from banning the “migration or importation of such persons” (i.e., the international slave trade) for 20 years. Article 4, Section 2 dictates that any “person held to labour or service” (i.e. slaves) in one state that escapes to another still remains a slave and must be returned. Thus, the Constitution, while many members wanted to eliminate slavery, tacitly acknowledges its continued presence.

Abolition of International Slave Trade, 1808: As noted above, the Constitution did not allow the end of the international slave trade for twenty years after the Constitution was ratified. In 1807, Congress, including some southern slaveholding states, voted to abolish the slave trade, effective January 1, 1808. Congress had already banned slavery in the northwest territories via the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 (a few months prior to the Constitution). While slavery still existed, there were actions taken in an attempt to encourage its demise.

Antebellum Period, 1789-1860: Many of the founders believed that slavery was on a path to its “ultimate extinction.” The formal end of the international slave trade, the banning of slavery in the territories, and the gradual elimination of slavery in the northern states seemed to signal that end. However, Eli Whitney’s invention of the cotton gin made it more profitable to grow cotton in the South. As smaller farms were bought up by rich plantation owners, more acreage was planted, thus requiring more enslaved people for labor. In addition, the Louisiana Purchase in 1803 doubled the land area available for expansion. The Mexican War in 1847 again enlarged the nation by a third, now essentially making the United States a coast-to-coast nation. As these territories formed into states, they provided potential new plantations, but more importantly, new slaveholding power in Congress. A series of compromises attempted to deal with “the slavery question” inherent in this western expansion. All of these compromises provided continued power to slave states, which simultaneously threatened to secede if new power was not extended to them. As slavery expanded, it became more and more likely that a peaceful resolution of the slavery issue was not possible.

Civil War, 1861-1865: Led by South Carolina, the southern slaveholding states seceded from the Union, claiming that the election of “Black Republican” Abraham Lincoln was an attack on slavery despite Lincoln’s insistence (and the 1860 Republican platform) that no attempt would be made to ban slavery from those states in which it existed. In fact, Lincoln and most Republicans believed that the Constitution barred federal authorities from abolishing slavery. As had occurred with all the northern states that enacted state legislation to remove slavery, Lincoln and Congress knew that it was up to the individual southern states to choose to do the same. And yet the war came. In the midst of the war, Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation as a war measure, knowing that it had authority only during a time of insurrection and would become moot once the war ended. All of the southern states stated that slavery was the cause of their secession and the war, and that they believed that whites were superior to blacks, and that this was the natural order of things. John C. Calhoun had declared a decade earlier that the highest form of civilization was a chain of hierarchy from master to slave, and that slavery was “a positive good.” Alexander Stephens, former Congressman and newly elected as the Confederate Vice President, declared in his “Cornerstone” speech that the Confederacy was born of the belief that the nation’s “foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery – subordination to the superior race – is his natural and normal condition.” White supremacy and racism was officially codified.

13th, 14th, 15th Amendments, 1865-1870: Lincoln understood that the Emancipation Proclamation was a temporary measure and immediately began lobbying Congress to pass the 13th Amendment to the Constitution. As anyone who has seen Steven Spielberg’s Lincoln movie knows, Lincoln forcefully pushed for passage of an amendment to forever ban slavery from the United States. After his assassination, the 14th Amendment provided for citizenship and equal protection under the law to all persons born or naturalized in the United States. The 15th Amendment declared that no citizen shall be denied the right to vote “on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” These amendments were an attempt to protect the rights of formerly enslaved people, free blacks, and all American citizens.

Reconstruction, 1863-1877: Even before the war was over, Lincoln began the process of reconstructing the United States by defining the conditions under which the former Confederate states could be brought back into the Union. States that had been entirely or partially reclaimed by Union forces (e.g., Louisiana) were supported in their efforts to reestablish themselves. Following the war, states had to acknowledge the sovereignty of the federal authority and ratify the 13th amendment. Free and formerly enslaved African Americans were protected under the three reconstruction amendments, began work and education to allow them to exist as free men and women, eagerly embraced their right to vote, and ran for local, state, and national office. Unfortunately, over time the North lost interest in protecting their rights (the South showed no interest from the beginning) and those rights slowly eroded away. As W.E.B. Dubois put it, “the slave went free; stood a brief moment in the sun; then moved back again toward slavery.”

Jim Crow/Segregation/White Supremacy, 1877-1965: As the rights supposedly guaranteed under Reconstruction faded, white Americans began a system of blatant racism and white supremacy designed to keep black Americans from getting “too uppity.” As under the slave hierarchy, black men and women were treated by individuals, then groups, then by governments as inferior. Several supposedly “Christian” organizations, including the Ku Klux Klan, grew as a means of keeping the black population “in their place.” This was blatant white supremacy and systemic racism enforced through terrorist activities like cross burning and lynching, as well as by unfair “separate but equal” facilities. Black men like Emmett Till were summarily hanged without trial simply for the “crime” of not being subservient enough to white people. Local law enforcement and conservative politicians often were the leaders of the KKK and lynchings were codified into both practice, and in many cases, the law. Separate but equal, which needless to say wasn’t actually equal, became the law of the land, as had slavery once been.

Civil Rights Acts, 1964-1965Through the persistence of African American civil rights leaders like Martin Luther King, President John F. Kennedy proposed and Lyndon Johnson pushed through the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Civil Rights Act ended segregation in public places and banned employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The Voting Rights Act of 1865 sought to eliminate the barriers that state and local governments had erected to prevent African Americans from exercising their right to vote. One hundred years after emancipation and the right to freedom was established, African Americans were still attempting to be treated as equal under the law.

Shelby County v. Holder, 2013: In 2013, the Republican-controlled U.S. Supreme Court eliminated a key section of the Voting Rights Act that required states with a history of discrimination to get pre-clearance prior to making changes to their voting laws. This provision was necessary because many states (primarily what today we call “red states”) long had used Jim Crow and other laws to keep minorities from voting. Immediately after the Supreme Court eliminated the provision, supposedly because “it was no longer needed,” many states enacted laws that do exactly what the Court had suggested would not happen (which everyone, in fact, knew would happen). States began systematically putting up barriers to voting by minorities, including requiring special IDs while eliminating the local offices in which they could be obtained. Suddenly voting precincts in minority areas were eliminated, forcing voters to travel long distances and wait for many hours in long lines. Precincts in areas dominated by white and affluent voters were expanded. Hundreds of thousands of voters were summarily eliminated from voter rolls in minority-dominant areas. Gerrymandering was expanded to an extreme to ensure Republicans would win more seats even when receiving fewer votes. Systemic racism had joined forces with voter suppression.

Today: George Floyd is the most recent of many high profile cases in which black men and women have been killed as a result of either police action or racist hate crimes. The difference today is that everyone now carries a portable video camera in their smart phone. In many cases we see that the official police report falsely describes the incident, which begs the question as to how much systemic discrimination goes uncaptured on video. In many respects it appears that Jim Crow, segregation, and lynching have returned, and indeed are being encouraged, by the Trump administration. But it goes beyond these overt results of discrimination. African American men and women have been disproportionately imprisoned due to unequal laws, enforcement, and sentencing practices. Employment discrimination increases the risk of poverty. Systemic racism, poverty, and injustice has led to significantly higher risks of death and disease. The list goes on.

The brief history above is given to allow people a better understanding of today’s situation. Protests in the streets are not solely because of the death of one man, or even the many men and women who have died under questionable circumstances. The problem is that this has been going on in one form or another for the entire history of the United States, and before. Whether we admit it or not, racism and discrimination are built into our society. It’s systemic. The only way to fix it is to eliminate it from our societal construct. Redlining, voter suppression, politicians stoking fears of “the other”; all are systemic racism.

Given the attitudes and abuses of the Trump administration and Republican Party leadership, the only solution is to vote. Those protesting (and risking their lives given our current COVID pandemic) need to get to the polls. Voter suppression tactics will try to keep minorities, women, the poor, and others from voting, especially in an election where the coronavirus may limit the ability to vote in-person. All of us must vote. Only by eliminating those who encourage racism, both by individuals and the system, can we make the systemic changes that will ensure that all men and women are treated equally.

[Photo Credit: StanleyFormanPhotos.com; Called “The Soiling of Old Glory,” the photo won the 1977 Pulitzer Prize]

David J. Kent is an avid science traveler and the author of Lincoln: The Man Who Saved America, in Barnes and Noble stores now. His previous books include Tesla: The Wizard of Electricity and Edison: The Inventor of the Modern World and two specialty e-books: Nikola Tesla: Renewable Energy Ahead of Its Time and Abraham Lincoln and Nikola Tesla: Connected by Fate.

Check out my Goodreads author page. While you’re at it, “Like” my Facebook author page for more updates!