The Emancipation Proclamation: Eric Foner and Julie Golia in Conversation
Vložit
- čas přidán 25. 01. 2016
- Pulitzer Prize-winning historian, Eric Foner and Julie Golia, Director of Public History at Brooklyn Historical Society, speak about Abraham Lincoln and the Emancipation Proclamation.
This public program took place on Wednesday, December 4, 2013, at Brooklyn Historical Society, 128 Pierrepont Street in Brooklyn, NY. Visit our website to learn more: brooklynhistory.org/.
Wonderful top shelf.
This is fantastic.
Very interesting
A democracy can win a war without public support. But it must be an easy war comprised of mostly professional soldiers. Easy wars are hard to come by. More importantly, you never know you had an easy war until both sides agree that their war is over. Even then war isn’t over. War is never over.
Elohim halleluyah is in control over everything
Needs to address West Virginia.
Lincoln had humility: he didn't want to be right, he wanted to do right.
155 years later and the Yankee propaganda remains remarkably effective.
He had a thick skin. He was a Stoic!
Not Manifest Destiny. Oppose Mexican-American War-Imperialism. Gave diplomatic recognition to Haiti. Exchanged ambassadors. 😊😉😏
Never a member of a church! 😊
I'm pretty sure violating the constitution wasn't doing right.
We migrated to the United Staes in 1980 legally, none of our family were here before the 1960s
Salers/building/agreed'ment
"Many people freed the slaves." 😊
Newspapers then were MORE partisan then, then now!
Liberia=Colonization. Few Blacks immigrated to Liberia. Jefferson, Jackson. Lincoln colonization pre emancipation. After , not so much. Slaves were worth more than all banks, railroads and factories put together. 😣
@@owlnyc666 You're joking right?
@@davidwebb8217 About what in particilar?
@@owlnyc666 Surely you don't think newspapers are non partisan?
The only thing that is not questionable in school is math and grammar everything els is questionable
I am sorry but the slavery system in Brazil was two to three times bigger than the one in the United States. Brazil alone has received something from 70-80% of all slaves coming from Africa from the early 1600s onwards.
I don't care about Brazil.
@@SandfordSmythe Do you care about Egypt. Slavery existed in Pharaonic Egypt. Libya. In 2016, 1.130% of the Libyan population lived in modern slavery. Greece , West Africa, England , Central America , China , Netherlands & New Zealand all had slaves. By the way, the northern states ran the slave trade and sailed the slave ships. One more thing....slavery still exists to this day.
@@davidwebb8217 Northern trade in slave importation ended in 1808.
@@SandfordSmythe No it didn't. It was just illegal.
@@davidwebb8217 So was it the Northern States that did it, or some criminals that broke the law?
Slavery is a well- supported idea in the Holy Bible! In fact, it allows (Old Testament) a slave owner to whip a slave 40 lashes. If the slave dies the owner is blood innocent! If the slave dies because the count of the lash stroke was mistaken, then the owner was blood guilty! So, the thing was to only lash a slave 39 strokes, just in case! The Bible in the day of Slavery, was well supported by any churches of the day. Slavery was popular in the Colonies too. Most of the so- called Fathers of this nation owned many slaves themselves, Washington, Jefferson etc. Slavery was not an issue; it was State rights! As pointed out in this lecture!
In the Bible it is not said that only the black people to slaves.There were slaves all over Europe.Some of your grandparents who came once were slaves. Learn western history with open mind not with attitude.
*Perhaps indentured servitude for thieves who could not repay back what they stole should NEVER have been repealed or abolished.* Indentured servitude is color-blind and not race based at all. At least it should not be raced based. Thieves should suffer by paying back what they stole multiplied by two. It makes far more sense than throwing thieves in jail with rapists and murderers!
Esau and Jacob twin nation's
Wonderful event. But I don't agree with the idea that colonisation is a racist idea. Not in the case of Lincoln, maybe in the case of jefferson. Lincoln was aware of long racial prejudice and maybe for black people would be better to come back to África. I even still think that is a current possibility
Well, if you want to see what Lincoln really thought of the Blacks, you're welcome to read the Lincoln-Douglass debate transcripts. The "Great Emancipator" was pretty unenlightened even by the low standard of his day.
As for Jefferson, at least he tried to get slavery abolished during the Constitution's ratification process. He failed, but it was still a damn sight more than Lincoln willingly did for the cause.
@@andrewfusco8580 i know Lincoln was not a racist. But above of all he hated slavery.
@@andrewfusco8580 If we understand Lincoln and Jefferson as politicians first, idealists a distant third which one is Bill Clinton?
Pride is the cause of all sin in all the world in all human beings. The freed slaves who returned to Africa thought themselves to be better than the people in Africa. Carnage ensued.
@@Luvurenemy sorry for the late response. All I can say about Jefferson and Clinton is that both men are profoundly similar: Southern, white American men who rocketed to prominence on a profoundly unjust system. Both identified as Democrats. One founded the University of Virginia, the other was a Rhodes Scholar.
Although Jefferson, in his defense, defied the Constitution and rammed through the Louisiana Purchase; whereas Bill Clinton...well, he bombed the crap out of Serbia to side with Kosovoar organ thieves.
Actually, come to think of it, Jefferson was a far more noble creature than Clinton.
there where white slaves from ireland as well that are rarely mentioned
Indentured servants. Not the same as slaves. They could have stayed in Ireland if they chose to. Slaves have no choices whatsoever.
Sssh! The cretins believe that Blacks are the only race ever subjected to slavery. Don't confuse them!
@@andrewfusco8580 In the American South, planters used the whip to torture ever higher cotton yields out of slaves. Enslaved women could raped with impunity because their children by their masters were legally their masters' property. Slaves' marriages had no real legal standing, with couples and their families being broken up by individuals being sold without notice. Why don't you research what happened rather than seek shallow and dishonest confirmation bias on social media? Indentured servants from Europe were required to work off the cost of their journey to America. Any abuses of indentured servants which occurred were not part of a enormous systematic process to squeeze every last dollar out of them, as occurred in the South. There you go, you can go back to your social studies teacher who dismissed you as an idiot, and tell them you learned something today!
They could gain there freedom lol how can you even compare people who were subjected to slavery for decades to a group of people that had contracts? And all that land the slaves were promised were taken by immigrants so blacks had no way to gain wealth and for the most part stayed on those plantations until the Second World War how can you even compare?
fek off
helmaWtT/serviced=agreement's/wrighttS=agreemenT //nd.D
Salers/building/agreed'ment //nd.D
pen-CiLe/collorge/?stincii'lde/key=honda(blue)01 //nd.D
pen-CiLe/collorge/?stincii'lde/key=honda