Restricted Lincoln Emancipation Monument

Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
That it paid for by ex slaves and dedicated by Frederick Douglas, yes. That's it's a copy of one in Washington, yes.

But my last comment is the one that strikes me, if it had been paid for and dedicated by whites......people would imply the pose is "lost cause" but because it was blacks it's pose is merely inappropriate today.....

Isn't that in itself racist? If people change the motives assigned to it, on the race who erected it.....
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
That it paid for by ex slaves and dedicated by Frederick Douglas, yes. That's it's a copy of one in Washington, yes.

But my last comment is the one that strikes me, if it had been paid for and dedicated by whites......people would imply the pose is "lost cause" but because it was blacks it's pose is merely inappropriate today.....

Isn't that in itself racist? If people change the motives assigned to it, on the race who erected it.....

I thought there was a more extensive history concerning this monument.

I'll look it up for myself.

Speculation is just not too satisfying for me personally.
 

DanSBHawk

1st Lieutenant
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
I thought there was a more extensive history concerning this monument.

I'll look it up for myself.

Speculation is just not too satisfying for me personally.
I read recently that Frederick Douglas criticized this statue at the dedication, because it portrayed the freed slave kneeling at Lincolns feet. Douglas felt it was too submissive and should have been a more "manly" pose.
 

DanSBHawk

1st Lieutenant
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
Odd, it's not in his dedication speech that I see, though it is a bit long winded........
It wasn't in the prepared speech. Once he saw the statue, Douglass had some additional words:

Mr. John W. Cromwell writes to me as follows: "I have before me the oration of Mr. Douglass on the occasion of the unveiling of the monument in Lincoln Park, Washington, April 14, 1876. "I find, however, no criticism of the group in the published address; evidently it was an extempore utterance brought out by the occasion and the environment. He did, however, make the criticism and I was about fifteen feet — not more — from him during the entire address. He was very clear and emphatic in saying that he did not like the attitude; it showed the Negro on his knees, when a more manly attitude would have been more indicative of freedom."​
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
So it's an unsubstantiated second hand account..............ok.........there's lots of those sort of things...........we generally don't hear of them as there's no way to establish reliability........

The good old I heard from someone else....

Yet, there are those giving credence to this account, hence the reason said statue is coming under observation.

Who ya' gonna believe?
 

PapaReb

First Sergeant
Joined
Feb 9, 2020
Location
Arkansas CSA occupied
Facts don’t matter, context doesn’t matter just do whatever “feels” appropriate to you and the crowd surrounding you. I can at least understand the reasoning behind removal of Confederate statues (though I disapprove of it) but the extent of the hate and wanton destruction and removal of so many historical remembrances is completely inexplicable to me.
 

DanSBHawk

1st Lieutenant
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
So it's an unsubstantiated second hand account..............ok.........there's lots of those sort of things...........we generally don't hear of them as there's no way to establish reliability........

The good old I heard from someone else....
Actually, it's a first-hand account. It's Cromwell's words.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
Actually, it's a first-hand account. It's Cromwell's words.
Actually no it's someone else's account of what Cromwell supposedly wrote them, but besides that rather obvious fact, that it is a second hand account of someone.....there's also no collaborating accounts to back Cromwell......or even whoever claims Cromwell wrote them......

Now what Frederick said in the dedication has been preserved, and it makes no mention of any such thing..........
 
Last edited:

DanSBHawk

1st Lieutenant
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
Actually no it's someone else's account of what Cromwell supposedly wrote them, but besides that rather obvious fact, that it is a second hand account of someone.....there's also no collaborating accounts to back Cromwell......
It's Cromwells words. That's what the quotation marks mean.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
Yet, there are those giving credence to this account, hence the reason said statue is coming under observation.

Who ya' gonna believe?
There's people who give credence to bigfoot, UFO's and countless conspiracy theories also, doesn't mean one gives them credence if it's based on flimsy evidence, such as unsubstantiated hear say.

Though I have noticed some have changing standards of evidence if it supports their view today......such as here where there is no apparent standard of confirmation or accountability at all.

Because I supposedly heard from someone who wrote me.....that they supposedly heard.........is nothing more then unsubstantiated hear say
 
Last edited:
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
It's Cromwells words. That's what the quotation marks mean.
According to whoever added the quotations......which again we have no idea the reliability of his account as its not substantiated by anyone at all.......

So in reality we have no idea if its actually Cromwell's words at all, or even if Cromwell is relating an accurate account as well.......

It is in essence a I supposedly heard from someone else, who who also supposedly heard Douglas say with no confirmation of either supposed account............
 
Last edited:

DanSBHawk

1st Lieutenant
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
According to whoever added the quotations......which again we have no idea the reliability of his account as its not substantiated by anyone at all.......

So in reality we have no idea if its actually Cromwell's words at all, or even if Cromwell is relating an accurate account as well.......

It is in essence a I supposedly heard from someone else, who who also supposedly heard Douglas say with no confirmation of either supposed account............
Cromwell also wrote the introduction to the book, and apparently gave the author input. Cromwell was a noted black lawyer.

The article I linked makes it clear this statue was always controversial. Even at the beginning of the 20th century.

Let the community decide whether to take it down.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
And it's still a lone unsubstantiated account, being black neither enhances or reduces it's being unsubstantiated, it's odd his race is even mentioned.

As race has nothing to do with an account being unsubstantiated...........
 

DanSBHawk

1st Lieutenant
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
And it's still a lone unsubstantiated account, being black neither enhances or reduces it's being unsubstantiated, it's odd his race is even mentioned.

As race has nothing to do with an account being unsubstantiated...........
Why would it be odd? It's a monument to emancipation.
 
Top