History in Five: Abraham Lincoln and the Emancipation Proclamation

Поділитися
Вставка
  • Опубліковано 8 вер 2014
  • Learn more about The Lincoln's Gamble at books.simonandschuster.com/Lin... Todd Brewster, author of Lincoln’s Gamble: The Tumultuous Six Months That Gave America The Emancipation Proclamation and Changed the Course of the Civil War, tells us five things about the complicated 180 days leading up to the signing of the Emancipation Proclamation.
  • Розваги

КОМЕНТАРІ • 88

  • @benmcnally1894
    @benmcnally1894 3 роки тому +11

    Lincoln was a Hero and a true American

    • @normanspurgeon5324
      @normanspurgeon5324 2 роки тому +1

      Spectacular hero and visionary. Great politician and humanitarian. Look what happened in his absence.

  • @stephenwright8824
    @stephenwright8824 2 роки тому +5

    Massachusetts man here. Lifelong resident. "Give 'em hell, fifty-four." A reference to the first fully-organised and fully-armed black regiment in the Union Army which, while decimated at the battle for Fort Walker, distinguished itself in later battles to receive numerous US Army and Mass. National Guard commendations.
    See the movie _Glory_ (1987) with Matthew Broderick, Morgan Freeman, Cary Elwes and Denzel Washington for a very dramatised account.

  • @corbinmcnabb
    @corbinmcnabb 5 років тому +9

    One other issue. The Europeans were licking their chops at taking advantage of our division and taking some or all of the US. They had also outlawed slavery. The IP meant if England (for example) wanted to help the South, they would be seen as fighting FOR slavery. The Immancipation Proclamation made it politically untenable.

  • @squadboys3299
    @squadboys3299 8 років тому +2

    Love this video!!!

  • @mikhailshinkar7163
    @mikhailshinkar7163 6 років тому +2

    Thank you so much

  • @AlexTraxxas
    @AlexTraxxas 9 років тому +3

    Great video.

  • @2136thenatureboy1
    @2136thenatureboy1 9 років тому +9

    Very nice & informative. Neatly done!

  • @nickmoran81
    @nickmoran81 6 років тому +6

    Thankyou for the info of the emancipation proclimation, you have a hardcore adams apple

    • @shyryTsr2k
      @shyryTsr2k 5 років тому

      It looks weird af

    • @princevladracul
      @princevladracul 3 роки тому

      Thios was educationnal though slightly different vie points than i was taught in college. I graduated d U of zalabama in 1957. greenbo Al as here i was raised

  • @Mcollins808
    @Mcollins808 9 років тому +30

    The captions call this mastubation proclimation. Good thing I turned them off before showing to my students!!

    • @barbiehayes1551
      @barbiehayes1551 9 років тому

      George Washington TV. Jokes

    • @Newspin
      @Newspin 9 років тому +8

      Michelle Collins Thank god.... Those poor students should not be allowed to ever read this... filthy, disgusting term! Thank the Lord you risked ever lasting damnation by pre-checking the auto-captions yourself. Only he knows what would have happened had you not protected your students.For shame Google! For shame!!!

    • @Mcollins808
      @Mcollins808 9 років тому +8

      Wow, sarcasm. I thought that the producers of the video might like to know. I don't know what you are trying to accomplish here with your hellfire and damnation crap. You must not be a teacher. One showing of this would have led to students giggling and not paying attention to the content and then giggling about the thing every time the Emancipation Proclimation subject was reviewed. Yeah, I want to deal with that.

    • @Newspin
      @Newspin 9 років тому +4

      I can imagine that happening when students are always “protected“ from this kind sexual vocabulary. As a matter of fact, I am a teacher, and after a mandatory 2 second giggle, all would have been fine in my classroom.

    • @crypticfrenz
      @crypticfrenz 6 років тому +16

      well well well if it isn't 2 teachers arguing, a shame.

  • @monataylor5195
    @monataylor5195 7 років тому +2

    ur good thx for da help for meh

  • @Numbers-qb7qw
    @Numbers-qb7qw 9 років тому +11

    He started talking and his voice is white Neil D. Tyson.

  • @m.e.altman33
    @m.e.altman33 8 років тому +2

    hey yall its paula deen

  • @HotrodHud
    @HotrodHud 3 роки тому

    cool

  • @patrickramsey2321
    @patrickramsey2321 4 роки тому +2

    Remember January 1, 1863

  • @theninjaraccoon7843
    @theninjaraccoon7843 2 роки тому

    Here for Miss Pulliam's class

  • @katybeck8635
    @katybeck8635 3 роки тому +1

    Nuts. Video

  • @squadboys3299
    @squadboys3299 8 років тому +1

    Woooooooo

  • @davidwebb8217
    @davidwebb8217 2 роки тому

    His EP was a war effort. Nothing more , nothing less.

    • @normanspurgeon5324
      @normanspurgeon5324 2 роки тому

      Very untrue. As a politician, he had many disputing factions to unite. He struck at the right moment, with the EP. The war effort was a bone to throw to those Northerners who opposed freeing the slaves.

  • @jessegriego9973
    @jessegriego9973 6 років тому +1

    0:48 mid 19th century

    • @galenflynn398
      @galenflynn398 4 роки тому +1

      Yeah that's 1800's 🤣

    • @rapp0220
      @rapp0220 2 роки тому

      I mean he did sign the document in 1863 which is in the mid 19th century? What’s funny lol

  • @articulatedintelligence-cd4661

    so as it turns out, this actually never occurred either.

  • @allison_catherine
    @allison_catherine 4 роки тому +4

    I was watching this in my US History class and the kid next to me says “Yo this guy’s forehead looks like a golf ball.”

    • @harrisonmarkham5021
      @harrisonmarkham5021 2 роки тому +1

      oh na LMAO

    • @allison_catherine
      @allison_catherine 2 роки тому +1

      @@harrisonmarkham5021 damn wtf I forgot I commented this lmao. I was a junior in high school at the time and I’m in my first year of college. I miss the good old days of high school sometimes lol

  • @GPickle32
    @GPickle32 4 роки тому +2

    Bruhh

  • @MGTOWPaladin
    @MGTOWPaladin 2 роки тому +2

    When the US Congress issued the Crittenden-Johnson Resolution on 25 July 1861, it called the Union's military invasion of Ft Sumter from Ft Moultrie and the military invasion of Manassas, VA, after the States had legally seceded, "southern rebellion".
    It also stated that the reason for the war was to "preserve the Union" but they left off the word "Treasury"!
    The South had seceded taking its Southern cash crops, like COTTON, with it!. The same cash crops that were feeding the booming textile growth of the Industrial Revolution. Machinery now mage it possible for spinners and looms to operate around the clock putting out bolts of cloth from thin cloth for clothing to heavy canvas for sails and tents. The SOUTH was supplying 2/3 of the world's demand for COTTON on both sides of the Atlantic and thanks to secession those profits were no longer to the Union Treasury or as collateral to secure bank loans.

    • @nex-ex5100
      @nex-ex5100 Рік тому

      The south lost. Get over it.

    • @MGTOWPaladin
      @MGTOWPaladin Рік тому

      @nex-ex5100 Lincoln's Presidential Proclamation NO. 81, April 19 1861, just five days after the evacuation of Ft Sumter. (First Paragraph)
      "Whereas an insurrection against the Government of the United States has broken out in the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas, and the laws of the United States for the *COLLECTION OF THE REVENUE (TAX MONEY)* can not be effectually executed therein comformably to that provision of the Constitution which requires *DUTIES (REVENUE TAX MONEY)* to be uniform throughout the United States:...
      *NOTE:* President Abraham Lincoln blames the "insurrection" on the collection of REVENUE TAX MONEY. Not on States Rights, politics, slavery or any other reason. In none of these documents does the Union Executive or Legislature refer to the secession of States as unconstitutional or illegal! Lincoln KNOWS that secession IS A RIGHT but because of REVENUE TAX MONEY, he refuses to allow the South to secede peacefully.
      Lincoln's Presidential Proclamation NO. 82, April 27 1861, a week after the previous Proclamation as more States seceded from the Union.
      "Whereas for the reasons assigned in my Proclamation of the 19th instance., a blockade of the ports of the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas, was ordered to be established, and whereas, since that date, public property of the United States has been seized, *THE COLLECTION OF THE REVENUE (TAX MONEY) OBSTRUCTED,* and duly commissioned officers of the United States, while engaged in executing the orders of their superiors have been arrested and held in custody as prisoners, or have been impeded in the discharge of their official duties, without due legal process, by persons claiming to act under authority of the States of Virginia and North Carolina. An efficient blockade of the ports of those States will therefore also be established. In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand, and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.
      Done at the city of Washington, this 27th day of April, A.D. 1861, and of the Independence of the United States the eighty-fifth."
      ABRAHAM LINCOLN, By the President:
      WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State.
      Lincoln's Presidential Proclamation NO. 89, May 19, 1862
      'Proclamation 89-Termination of Blockade of Beaufort, North Carolina, Port Royal, South Carolina, and New Orleans, Louisiana
      May 12, 1862
      By the President of the United States of America
      "Whereas by my proclamation of the 19th of April, 1861, it was declared that the ports of certain States, including those of Beaufort, in the State of North Carolina; Port Royal, in the State of South Carolina; and New Orleans, in the State of Louisiana, were, for reasons therein set forth, intended to be placed under blockade; and
      Whereas the said ports of Beaufort, Port Royal, and New Orleans have since been blockaded; but as the blockade of the same ports may now be safely relaxed with advantage to the interests of commerce:
      Now, therefore, be it known that I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, pursuant to the authority in me vested by the fifth section of the act of Congress approved on the 13th of July last, entitled "An act further *TO PROVIDE FOR THE COLLECTION OF DUTIES (REVENUE TAX MONEY) ON IMPORTS,* and for other purposes," do hereby declare that the blockade of the said ports of Beaufort, Port Royal, and New Orleans shall so far cease and determine, from and after the 1st day of June next, that commercial intercourse with those ports, except as to persons, things, and information contraband of war, may from that time be carried on subject to the laws of the United States and to the limitations and in pursuance of the regulations which are prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury in his order of this date, which is appended to this proclamation.
      In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.
      Done at the city of Washington, this 12th day of May, A. D. 1862, and of the Independence of the United States the eighty-sixth."
      ABRAHAM LINCOLN. By the President:
      WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State.
      Crittenden-Johnson Resolution issued by the US House of Representatives, 25 July, 1861 four days after the defeat of the invading US Army at Manassas, VA (Bull Run). CHECK OUT SECTION IN BRACKETS [-].
      "Resolved by the House of Representatives of the Congress of the United States, That the present deplorable _civil war_ has been _forced_ upon the country by the _disunionists_ of the Southern States now _in revolt_ against the constitutional Government and in arms around the capital; that in this _national emergency_ Congress, banishing all feelings of mere passion or resentment, *WILL RECOLLECT **_ONLY_** ITS DUTY (REVENUE TAX MONEY) TO THE WHOLE COUNTRY;* that [this war is not waged upon our part in any spirit of oppression, nor for any purpose of conquest or subjugation, nor purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or _ESTABLISHED INSTITUTIONS_ (slavery) of those States,] but to defend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution and to *PRESERVE THE UNION (TREASURY TAX MONEY),* with all the dignity, equality, and rights of the several States unimpaired; *and that as soon as these **_objects are accomplished_** the war ought to cease.*

  • @tz9943
    @tz9943 Рік тому +1

    But the war was about slavery regardless ....that was the main reason for the south to leave the union upon Lincoln election.
    Freeing the slaves was a huge task for Lincoln, hence he's done it step by step

  • @JoefromNJ1
    @JoefromNJ1 5 років тому +4

    the emancipation proclamation was good and all, but the ratification of the 13th amendment was the far greater historical event.

  • @thebatmanover9000
    @thebatmanover9000 8 років тому +5

    I don't listen to hip-hop!

  • @user-es5mr8ps3k
    @user-es5mr8ps3k 6 місяців тому

    Lincoln looks like he is from Serbia russian warrior like the doc who poised his patients with mushrooms for twenty years

  • @monataylor5195
    @monataylor5195 7 років тому

    :D

  • @sjhtrueblue
    @sjhtrueblue 7 років тому

    Get your thyroid checked.

  • @mnpd3
    @mnpd3 2 роки тому +1

    False document.... simply read the entire thing; it's very long. Notice the gerrymandering of the lines where slaves on one side of the line were free, and those other side would remain enslaved. It becomes evident that the Proclamation did not free a single slave in the four slave-states that didn't succeed. Further, in states that DID succeed, any part of them occupied by the U.S. military would also remained enslaved. Basically, the document freed slaves that Lincoln could not free, while not freeing a one of those he could free. Net slaves freed --- 0. The purpose of the Proclamation was to keep England and France out of the American war by pretending that the War was being fought over a moral issue, and the Europeans detested slavery though it loved importing the products of slavery. I wish people could study real history instead of the PC-approved, latter day pseudo-history that has become the norm.

    • @SandfordSmythe
      @SandfordSmythe 2 роки тому +1

      There were many practical sides to the Proclamation, but I don't see England willing to spend the money necessary to achieve any total victory over the North. Wars are very expensive, especially with the formidable force the that the Union had. Lincoln had already formally notified England that any support for the South would be seen as a cause for war. The basic authority for the Proclamation was the Commander-in-chief's Martial Law authority in the war zone. He limits this power to those states "in rebellion". You can read that. The border states were not in rebellion, so I wonder why you are conjuring up more than what was there.

    • @thomaswayneward
      @thomaswayneward Рік тому

      @@SandfordSmythe But he never freed one slave during his life time, what do you think of that fact?

    • @SandfordSmythe
      @SandfordSmythe Рік тому

      @@thomaswayneward Just follow the path of the Union Army. The slaves ran off of the plantations to greet them.

    • @TheStapleGunKid
      @TheStapleGunKid Рік тому

      @@thomaswayneward There's nothing to think about because it's a lie, not a fact. Lincoln was freeing slaves long before the EP. He freed them in Washington DC, he freed them in the federal territories, and of course he freed them in the rebel states with the EP. He freed as many slaves as he could possibly free with his legal authority to free them.