Talk:Emancipation Proclamation/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

The canard that the Emancipation Proclamation did not immediately free a single slave

There are reverts going on around the line "It is common to encounter a claim that the Emancipation Proclamation did not immediately free a single slave." This probably does need some cites, but the mistaken belief that nobody was freed immediately is so pervasive that there is no reason to start by erasing it. (Even Cliff Notes gets it wrong: "Did Abraham Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation actually free any slaves?") Tagging it for cites needed would have been the appropriate action. This might even benefit from some rewording depending on how cites are structured. Dispelling common myths would seem to be a proper role of an encyclopedia. Red Harvest (talk) 01:36, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Another example Repeating incorrect statement on History.com news page. Red Harvest (talk) 01:42, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

And online in the National Archives. NARA repetition of the claim Red Harvest (talk) 01:44, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

And of course the National Park Service website..."Although his famous proclamation did not immediately free a single slave".

I think even that cursory examination of online cites that pretty well settles the matter of it being a common statement, while the later wording and cites in the paragraph illustrate that it is false. A similar search will turn up cites tying the two together (avoiding synthesis accusations). Discussion of such an article can be found at http://cwmemory.com/2013/01/01/where-slaves-were-immediately-freed-by-the-emancipation-proclamation/ Red Harvest (talk) 02:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Citation needed tags, 9 times out of 10, don't get looked at. Not only was the claim uncited, but was strangely written and confused the prose - like I said in my original summary, why are you telling me something that isn't true? Better to remove it until it's properly expressed and cited. Thanks for doing the legwork and fixing it. Popcornduff (talk) 10:34, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

The "African Americans and the Gettysburg Campaign" didn't actually persuade me that the EP immediately freed any slaves. A fugitive slave from the CSA escapes to the USA, and is in the USA when the when the EP was signed, so she was immediately freed? That doesn't really count. If the vast majority of sources say the EP didn't free any slaves then I think WP should stick with that. Brianbleakley (talk) 20:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, there is a common myth, typically expressed in one or two sentences with no footnotes or scholarly apparatus, to the effect that the EPA did not immediately free the slaves--Or even to the effect that EP didn't free the slaves at all! What wiki uses are the reliable sources And in this case they have to provide suitable documentation. in my reading the RS are strongly in favor of the proposition that the EP freed the slaves, starting with tens of thousands on day one. It was an order to the U.S. Army to treat slaves is free, and every day the Army advanced, it treated slaves as free people. Rjensen (talk) 00:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

In the case of Port Royal and the Sea Islands, two of the five examples currently cited in the text, although the Afro-Americans living there might have undergone a theoretical change in legal status, it would be difficult to argue that they were enslaved until 1863. Since the Confederate landowners had long since fled, they were mostly farming on their own. The Emancipation Proclamation did perhaps legalize their military participation in the war. Rjensen, where do you locate these "tens of thousands"? And how are you defining "freed"? shalom, groupuscule (talk) 05:39, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

We often casually use the terms "slavery" and "freedom" in an informal sense. However here we are talking about a legal sense, as enforced by the US Government. "slavery" and "freedom" are legal statuses, which were changed on 1 January, 1863 and every day afterwards, in territory controlled by the U.S. government. Historically, an escaped slave remained legally a slave and could be recaptured and returned to his owner. This did happen early in the war. As far as I know, no historian has counted how many escaped slaves were thereby given their freedom -- but most historians think quite a few. Rjensen (talk) 06:06, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

It is disappointing that editors still cling to the silly absolute statement that not a single slave was immediately freed by the EP. Just looking at the map and comparing it to the restrictions it is obvious that the claim is bullocks. There are contemporary sources and secondary sources that disprove the notion, revealing it as a myth--a myth (spin) often perpetuated by those hostile to Lincoln's use of the EP. Hint: when you see an absolute stated like that, become skeptical, there is a high probability that it is incorrect even if innocently so. (This is something I taught and illustrated to my kids when they were still in elementary school.) While it is correct that the vast majority of the slaves were not freed immediately by the EP, it is folly to claim that none were. Red Harvest (talk) 07:33, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

It is not just folly, it is incorrect polemic - there is no reason for this article be in the business of polemic - In America, slaves were slaves until they died or were freed by the one with the claim to free them (escaped slaves were so disgusted and fearful at still being slaves they even fled the nation in which they were slaves). Lincoln made that claim and they were freed - as eye-witness accounts attest, and as people around the world reacted in horror, derision, or in awe. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:53, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Stroke of a pen?

[Copied from User talk:Rjensen page - section "What are RS that use this language?"]
Please provide citations for embolden phrase In a single stroke. Claiming RS says so, then not provide RS is dubious work. Mitchumch (talk) 14:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

ok: 2) Doris Kearns Goodwin - Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln (2006) - Page 464 "In a single stroke, it superseded legislation on slavery and property rights that had guided policy in eleven states"; 3) Harold Holzer - Lincoln seen and heard (2000) Page 91: "With a single stroke of his pen, Lincoln expanded the parameters"; 4) Joshua Zeitz - Lincoln's Boys: John Hay, John Nicolay, and the War (2014)"The nature and stakes of the war had changed with the single stroke of a pen." 5) Allen C. Guelzo - Abraham Lincoln: Redeemer President (1999) Page 454 "He delivered, with the single stroke of the Emancipation Proclamation, a seismic shift in American social and economic relations" Rjensen (talk) 16:27, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Wrong date

Hello, this article has a wrong date in the introduction.

On September 19, 2006, Lincoln had issued a preliminary proclamation warning that he would order the emancipation of all slaves in any state that did not end its rebellion against the Union by January 1, 1863

SInce I have never done this , I am sorry if this is not the way to do it... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.187.23.250 (talk) 18:16, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Emancipation Proclamation. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.civil-war-tribute.com/us-grant-letter-to-lincoln-08231863.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:06, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Who wrote it

Abraham Lincoln wrte it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.3.224.121 (talk) 20:55, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

The Frémont Emancipation

Someone needs to ad this, it probably forced lincoln's hand.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lordcheez (talk • contribs) 23:38, December 6, 2010 (UTC)

i dont think so
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:6E71:2F60:9585:D9EC:2F01:6B09 (talk) 23:18, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Emancipation Proclamation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://old.nationalreview.com/books/owens200403251139.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090210000843/http://abrahamlincoln200.org:80/for-kids/lincoln-coloring-book.aspx to http://www.abrahamlincoln200.org/for-kids/lincoln-coloring-book.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:57, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Introduction may be plagiarized

I just noticed this intro matches very closely to the page on the Emancipation Proclamation in The American People: Creating a Nation and a Society by Nash. If it is plagiarized, it should probably be rewritten.

02:09, 3 November 2016 (UTC) A Concerned Citizen of the Internet — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.2.99.192 (talk) 02:09, November 3, 2016‎ (UTC)

I tagged the introductory section with a hatnote template indicating that this may be a copyright violation. Sorry that I have to leave the rest up to somebody else! Thanks in advance!

—User:Geekdiva (talk) 22:21, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Geekdiva: In your edit summary you said "all it caught"? What are you referring to and can you link it? Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:18, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

@Geekdiva: - fixing ping --Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:22, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I closely read the intro against the The American People: Creating a Nation and a Society by Nash. I found zero plagiarism--indeed very little overlap in content and zero instances of identical wording. The original complaint from 2016 gave zero examples of what they said "matches very closely to the page". the textbook is online free (to borrow for 2 weeks) at https://archive.org/details/americanpeoplecr05nash see pp 474-475 for Emancipation Proclamation. (This is the 5th edition which is identical in text to the 1st edition). Rjensen (talk) 18:38, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Emancipation Proclamation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120425132518/http://www.civilwaronthewesternborder.org/event/missouri-abolishes-slavery to http://www.civilwaronthewesternborder.org/event/missouri-abolishes-slavery
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://abrahamlincoln200.org/for-kids/lincoln-coloring-book.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928051545/http://www.articlemyriad.com/85.htm to http://www.articlemyriad.com/85.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:18, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Emancipation Proclamation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120329112921/http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/johnson/archives.hom/speeches.hom/630530.asp to http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/johnson/archives.hom/speeches.hom/630530.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131113044056/http://www.tvland.com/shows/andy-griffith-show/episode-guide/season-3 to http://www.tvland.com/shows/andy-griffith-show/episode-guide/season-3

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:50, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Article Image

The first image in this article is an artists rendition of a fictional character reading the proclamation, below is an actual image of the original document. Should this be changed? It doesn't seem that image has any meaningful importance to the Emancipation Proclamation aside from being inspired by it. Certainly not enough to be the main image for the article. --Dabluecaboose (talk) 21:05, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Balance at Forced into Glory

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see: Talk:Forced into Glory § Balance: Conflict between Lincoln critics like Bennett, and critics of those critics.

The article (on a somewhat controversial biography of Abraham Lincoln) rarely has editors or even talk-page comments, so additional input is requested. PoV issues with our article have been pointed out since 2009, and the off-site academic controversy involving the book's notable author, Lerone Bennett Jr., and his views about Lincoln and the Emancipation Proclamation goes back to the 1960s.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:01, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Ten or eleven

" It proclaimed the freedom of all slaves in the ten states in rebellion." Shouldn't that be 11 or since part of Virginia remained with the Union Virginia is not counted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.59.95.185 (talk) 17:15, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are referring to. The ten states that are affected was South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Texas, Virginia, Arkansas, and North Carolina. Virginia is counted. Aqua6969 (talk) 21:55, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

In the lede, the sentence "It proclaimed the freedom of all slaves in the ten states in rebellion" is not correct.

It proclaimed the freedom of all slaves in only eight states (Arkansas, Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina) in which all the slaves in the entire state were freed. As is mentioned later in the article and in the Proclamation itself, it proclaimed the freedom of the slaves in only some parts of Louisiana and Virginia, not all the slaves in those two states. Although the article does clarify this eventually, it needs to be corrected in the lede.47.139.47.77 (talk) 18:45, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 March 2020

Change "It proclaimed the freedom of all slaves in the ten states in rebellion" to either

1. "It proclaimed the freedom of all slaves in eight states in rebellion and parts of two others" or
2. "It proclaimed the freedom of all slaves in the ten states or parts of states in rebellion" or
3. "It proclaimed the freedom of all slaves in eight states in rebellion and some slaves in two others".

(See my previous comment explaining why the current text in inaccurate. Choose any accurate text that sounds good and is not misleading. Keep in mind that there is more detail in the body of the article, so it isn't necessary to exhaustively cover the topic in the lede, but it does have to be factually correct, and "all ... in ten states" is not.)47.139.47.77 (talk) 18:50, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. {{SUBST:replyto|Can I Log In}}^{PLEASE copy and paste the code to reply}(Talk) 20:08, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Red link in the second paragraph

The second paragraph of this article starts with the line "With Congress' approval Lincoln in 1862, with partial compensation, ended slavery in the District of Columbia", with "slavery in the District of Columbia" being a red link. I believe the correct article it should be linking to is this article on the D.C. Compensated Emancipation Act. As the article is under semiprotection, I can not edit this page, and hence I am posting here.

FerrlockHolmes (talk) 12:08, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Actually, nevermind, I just realized there already was a link linking to that very page in the same line. My bad!

FerrlockHolmes (talk) 12:09, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Lead is too long

The lead of this article is FAR too long. See Manual_of_Style Lead_section Length. It looks like the lead should be 3-4 short paragraphs rather than the 7 long paragraphs the article presently has. (And I've learned it is "lead" rather than "lede"; the latter is a different thing it seems, e.g., the lede of a newspaper article.) As I read the lead, I got confused as to whether I was in the article or the lead; the lead paragraphs presently read like article discussion. The task is to cut and condense text already in the article, or move text to the appropriate section of the article. A long lead makes the article too intimidating for readers. Bdushaw (talk) 08:59, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Shortening the lead

For those looking to fix the overly long lead section: I noticed the 'coverage' section repeats a lot of things already mentioned in the lead. Someone should probably weed out all the repeated information. Omegastar (talk) 23:24, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Danish on the page?

Why is the Danish translation of “ The text of the Preliminary Emancipation Declaration,” near the top of the page? Bilgerat78 (talk) 04:09, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

@Bilgerat78:, the template for the infobox has a parameter called "longtitle" and if that parameter is blank it pulls the value from the Title parameter of the corresponding Wikidata item. Some process or person populated the Title in Wikidata with the translated title from the Danish Wikipedia, for reasons I won't pretend to understand, and that got imported into this infobox. I removed the Title item in Wikidata and added "[none]" for the infobox parameter value to prevent Wikidata nonsense from re-populating it here. Call it reason # 311,874,619 for "Why Wikipedia should not accept automatically populated information from other projects." Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:51, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Who the Hell is Kal Ashraf?

Making sure sources of information or even opinion are legitimate and appropriate can be crucial on articles especially those of historical importance. In the Critique section on the article of the Emancipation Proclamation an editor has put there that "Kal Ashraf wrote:" followed by a brief quote.I like everyone else who read this part asked who is Kal Ashraf and a google search returned zero results. After more research I finally found the article at hand through Jstor. The piece quoted is a half page editorial/news letter. Kal Ashraf and his work on the Emancipation Proclamation are not in anyway up to standards in reliability or importance necessary for the subject or for the ethical dissemination of fact and information that Wikipedia stands for. Kal Ashraf name and statement which are featured on the article need to be removed and replaced with a more substantial and legitimate scholar on the subject. Wikieditwiki201 (talk) 07:24, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:17, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Any information on who Kal Ashraf is? He certainly isn’t a household name that does not need prefacing. Thriley (talk) 04:02, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Footnote 11 misuse implies Lost Cause

Footnote 11 is quoted as the EP is historic cuz it "would redefine the Civil War, turning it from a struggle to preserve the Union to one focused on ending slavery, and set a decisive course for how the nation would be reshaped after that historic conflict". This framing has two problems:

1. It doesn't mention that the source History.com article is referring to Lincoln's purpose in the Civil War.

My reply: The two sentences in the last paragraph of history.com are not clearly written. The second does not seem to follow from the first. The first is about Lincoln's purpose, but the second does not seem to be.

2. It obfuscates that the Union broke in the first place because the South was worried slavery was going to be curtailed, and some readers will assume the original break did not concern slavery because this Lost Cause alternative history is a common narrative even today.

My reply: It does not obfuscate that. Rather, it does not discuss why the South seceded; it is solely about the North. When it states, "Emancipation would redefine the Civil War, turning it from a struggle to preserve the Union to one focused on ending slavery," it means "Emancipation would redefine the Civil War, turning it, for the North, from a struggle to preserve the Union to one focused on ending slavery." I will edit it to insert the words "for the North" in brackets.

These is a deeper problem with the second sentence, however: It is false. The Civil War never stopped being, for the North, a struggle to preserve the Union. The sentence should say that emancipation turned the Civil War, for the North, from being solely a struggle to preserve the Union to being also a struggle to end slavery. To correct that will require eliminating the quotation and replacing it with an accurate statement. I'll work on that another time. Maurice Magnus (talk) 22:02, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I corrected the false statement without eliminating the quotation. Instead I inserted "solely" and "also" into the quotation, in brackets, of course. Maurice Magnus (talk) 22:06, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Two confused sentences

The sentences I refer to are these, in the third paragraph under "Coverage": "Some 20,000 to 50,000 slaves were freed the day it went into effect in parts of nine of the ten states to which it applied (Texas being the exception). In every Confederate state (except Tennessee and Texas), the Proclamation went into immediate effect in Union-occupied areas." I will number the questions these two sentences raise.

1. "20,000 to 50,000" must refer to slaves who were physically, not merely legally freed, because the introduction says that more than 3.5 million were legally freed. If I am correct, then we should say that they were physically freed. We should also say how it happened that 20,000 to 50,000 were physically freed, and why weren't any freed in Texas? Was it because 20,000 to 50,000 were in Union-occupied areas, so the slaves could flee to Union lines, and were there no Union-occupied areas in Texas?

2. Regarding "(except Tennessee and Texas)," footnote 6 explains that the EP did not apply in Tennessee because Tennessee was under Union control. But why not in Texas? The EP explicitly names Texas as one of the states where it applies, so Texas was not an exception.

3. The statement that "the Proclamation went into immediate effect in Union-occupied areas" does not make sense. I am assuming that "Union-occupied" means occupied by the Union army, whereas "Union-controlled" means that the state was politically controlled by the Union. Therefore, the statement that "the Proclamation went into immediate effect in Union-occupied areas" does not refer to Union-controlled areas, in which the EP did not apply. The EP went into immediate effect in all areas where it applied, Union-occupied or otherwise. If an area was Union-occupied, then slaves were able to enter Union lines and become physically free. But that is a separate matter from the EP's taking immediate effect. Should "the Proclamation went into immediate effect in Union-occupied areas" instead say that slaves became immediately free in Union-occupied areas? But we've already said, "Some 20,000 to 50,000 slaves were freed the day it went into effect in parts of nine of the ten states to which it applied."

This is a mess and is beyond my ability to clarify. Maurice Magnus (talk) 20:41, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I deleted the two confused sentences.Maurice Magnus (talk) 13:12, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Weren’t there former slaves in the Union Army before Emancipation Proclamation?

There were escaped slaves and freeman in the Union States before the Civil War, and they joined the Union Army at the start of the Civil War, so there were many in the Union Army before Emancipation Proclamation was made. 2601:647:4000:12E0:419F:F438:9F20:CB35 (talk) 15:53, 19 June 2023 (UTC)