The Daily Signal - Why Juneteenth Is a Uniquely American Holiday

Episode Date: June 18, 2020

Friday marks the 155th anniversary of Juneteenth, the day that slaves in Texas found out that they were freed due to President Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation. Professor Lucas Morel, who is the head of the politics department at Washington and Lee University, joins the podcast to discuss the significance of this day, what all the Emancipation Proclamation accomplished, how he thinks it should be celebrated, and more. Listen to the podcast, or read the lightly edited transcript below. We also cover these stories: Senate Republicans introduced a police reform bill on Wednesday.  Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York had some critical words for Republican Sen. Tim Scott’s police reform bill which seeks to enact reform, accountability, and transparency within the police force. Texas Senator Ted Cruz is speaking out against Google’s treatment of The Federalist, a conservative media outlet. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This is the Daily Signal podcast for Thursday, June 18th. I'm Virginia Allen. And I'm Rachel Dahl Judis. Friday is June 10th, the day that slaves in Texas found out that they were freed from slavery due to President Abraham Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation. Professor Lucas Morel, who is the head of the politics department at Washington and Lee University, joins me on the Daily Signal podcast to discuss. Don't forget. If you're enjoying this podcast, please be sure to leave a review or a five-star rating on Apple Podcasts. and encourage others to subscribe. Now on to our top news. Senate Republicans introduced a police reform bill on Wednesday. The bill discourages police officers' use of chokeholds and no-knock warrants by withholding federal funding from police stations that continue such practices. The legislation also includes requirements for more extensive reporting and tracking of excessive use of force complaints against officers and provides further training for police officers on de-escalation tactics.

South Carolina Republican Senator Tim Scott is spearheading the legislation and spoke optimistically about the bill per the Hill. We believe that our policy positions are one that brings the communities of color into a position of stronger understanding and confidence in the institutions of authority. And we believe that it brings our law enforcement community to a place where they have the resources necessary to de-escalate some of these situations. And frankly, through James Langford's work on this package, we bring in the opportunity to hire more officers and have more training and have a better perspective on the history. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York

had some critical words for Republican Senator Tim Scott's police reform bill, which seeks to enact reform, accountability, and transparency within the police force. Schumer said Wednesday that the legislation does not rise to the moment, according to the Hill. Schumer also tweeted, The Senate Republican proposal is missing meaningful accountability for individual officers' misconduct. Without accountability measures, we are merely exhorting police departments to be better, crossing our fingers and hoping for the best. Texas Senator Ted Cruz is speaking out against Google's attempt to remove the Federalist, a conservative media outlet, from Google ads. Tuesday, NBC News reported that Google banned the Federalist and Zero Hedge, another conservative

site, from Google ads because of content that furthered misinformation about Black Lives Matter, per Fox News. Google says that the misinformation they were referring to on the Federalist website was in the public comment section of the platform. The Federalist has since removed the comments, and Google says no further action is needed. Google tweeted on Tuesday that, quote, the Federalist was never demonetized. In response to the situation, Cruz wrote a letter to Sundar Pichah, the CEO of Google on Wednesday accusing the search engine of censoring conservative content. Cruz wrote in the letter, quote, Google's decision to target the Federalist is transparently politically motivated. Numerous progressive media outlets allow comments.

Cruz went on to argue that progressive sites, just like conservative ones, no doubt have racist and misinformed user comments on their articles. And Cruz added that, quote, on any given day, there are thousands of profane, racist, and indefensible comments posted on YouTube, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Google. Missouri Republican Senator Josh Hawley introduced legislation Wednesday that will allow people to sue big tech companies if they censor political speech. Holly's legislation would remove immunity that companies, like Facebook, Twitter, and Google currently claim under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act,

which lays out intermediary liability protections for Internet companies, according to the Heritage Foundation's Clown Kitchen. In a recent podcast for the Daily Signal, Kitchen explained that as time has passed, companies including Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube have come about, and that Section 230 protections have been interpreted to include them such that they're able to make decisions about content that they will and will, and will not host. In a statement, Holly said, for too long, big tech companies like Twitter, Google, and Facebook have used their power to silence political speech from conservatives without any recourse for users. Section 230 has been stretched and rewritten by courts to give these companies outlandish power over speech without accountability. Congress should act to ensure bad actors are not given a free pass to censor and silence their opponents.

Holly's legislation would let users sue these companies for breach of contract and impose a $5,000 and above legal fees to the companies, according to a press release from Holly's office. New York Governor Andrew Cuomo has declared he will make Juneteenth a state holiday, tweeting on Wednesday, quote, Today I will sign an executive order recognizing hashtag Juneteenth as a holiday for state employees. I will advance legislation to make it an official state holiday next year. Juneteenth or June 19th is the day that marks the emancipation of slaves in America. The anniversary has long been recognized as an important day in America's history,

but given the events following the death of George Floyd, Cuomo, and other state leaders have determined to elevate the historic day. Virginia Governor Ralph Northam also announced on Tuesday that he plans to make Juneteenth a state holiday. The pancake syrup brand Antrimima will be removing the image of Antrimima from its products. Quaker, the parent company of Aunt Jemima, said in an announcement on Wednesday that Aunt Jemima's origins are based on a racial stereotype and that the products will be getting a new name and artwork. For 130 years, the product has featured a black woman called Aunt Jemima on its packaging. In a statement, Kristen Crople, the vice president and chief marketing officer of Quaker Foods North America said, We recognize Aunt Jemiman's origins are based on a racial stereotype.

As we work to make progress toward racial equality through several initiatives, we must also take a hard look at our portfolio of brands and ensure they reflect our values and meet our customers' expectations. Now stay tuned for my conversation with Professor Lucas Morrell on Juneteenth. It's our priority at the Daily Signal to keep you informed during the coronavirus pandemic. Here's an important message from the White House Coronavirus Task Force. Taking care of your mental health is critically important as we stay indoors more often. It's important that people get enough sleep because we know sleep promotes mental health. It's important that you get exercise when you can while still engaging in proper social distancing.

And most importantly, seek help if you need it. Telehealth services are available and call a friend if you just need someone to talk to. Now more than ever, we want you to pay attention to your mental health. I am joined on the Daily Signal podcast by Professor Lucas Morel, who is the head of the politics department at Washington and Lee University. Professor Morel, it's great to have you on the Daily Signal podcast. Glad to be here. Well, it's great to have you with us. So Friday is the anniversary of the Emancipation Proclamation, which is known as Juneteenth.

So can you start off, Professor Morel, by speaking about the significance of this day? Sure. June 10th, as you can tell by the name, is a commemoration of emancipation, but it's a peculiar one, because as most people know, when Lincoln emancipated slaves and rebel-held territory in states, that was January 1st, 1863. Well, this Saturday is not January 1st. It's June 19th. And what happened is not in 1863, 64, but in June of 163. June 19th of 1865 is when slaves in Texas first heard that the president, Abraham Lincoln, had emancipated slaves two and a half years earlier. And so on June 19th, General Gordon Granger, who was the commanding general in the Texas district, he was in Galveston Bay and announced from his headquarters and had it announced

at other locations in the area, including black churches, he had it announced that slaves are all free, to put it simply. And so it was, I say, it's peculiar because, yes, it commemorates the emancipation of slaves in the United States, but these slaves in particular heard about it two and a half years later. So better late than never, that's for sure. And the lateness, I should hasten to add was because there weren't many union soldiers, there weren't many union troops in the latter part of the war in Texas. That was the furthest, not that's not the furthest, but one of the furthest reaches for the war effort. And so word just simply didn't get to them. So for those who might need a refresher, obviously the Emancipation Proclamation was all about the freeing of the

slaves, but are there any other things about that that you would like to draw out that's maybe less talked about. Well, what I actually like about Juneteenth is it's a very American holiday, if you will. And what makes it American is like our, if you will, first emancipation proclamation, which was not January 1st, 1863, but July 4th, 1776, we declared something to be true, manifestly true. All men are created equal, that they're endowed. by their creator with certain in in in in inable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We declared that to be a self-evident truth on July 4th, 1776, but we had to fight,

fight not just for days or months, but for several years. In fact, until the surrender at Yorktown in 1781 and then formally ending the war in late 1783 with the Treaty of Paris, that was when we finally got to secure in practice a freedom declared many years earlier. And so in a way, Juneteenth replicated what the founding of this country actually did earlier, many years earlier, during the Revolutionary War. So when I say it's distinctively American, it's a way of saying that there are things that are true, true by nature, but in terms of their actual practice and exercise and enjoyment, these things, shall we say, are secured by fits and starts. And so like the July 4th, which we celebrate is our Independence Day,

we may have declared all men created equal that day, but nobody in America was actually enjoying their freedom on July 4th or July 5th. It took a war to secure that and then to establish not the principles, but the structures of government, government by consent. And the practices of self-government in order to make that truth, a practical reality. So what about Juneteenth? Do you think that is especially relevant that Americans should keep in mind today on Friday when people celebrate? Yeah, I think it is worth commemorating. I don't know that it should, it certainly shouldn't replace July 4th for any American,

black or white. I think every American should be taught both holidays, both the reasons for both occasions and the similarities between them. But what I wouldn't want happen is to have Juneteenth be a holiday that is equated with July 4th or somehow held in reserve for only black American citizens. The last thing we need right now in this country in 2020 for crying out loud is more occasions for division, separation, distinctions of some groups of citizens over and against others. I mean, that's a fundamental contradiction to the self-evident truth that all men are created equal. We need to do more to emphasize what we have in common, not these superficial things that we have that are different. And so unless we understand Juneteenth,

I guess I would say in short, unless we understand Juneteenth as directly connected to July 4th, understood within the context and background of making the promise of July 4th a reality for all Americans, I don't think it would be especially productive. That's my take on it. So in the past, Professor Morrell, how has Juneteens been traditionally celebrated and how would you encourage people today to celebrate? Yeah, well, one thing to think about is how did the holiday get started? Black Americans needed nobody's permission. The newly freed enslaved men and women,

they didn't ask anybody to determine what day of the year they should celebrate, whom they should honor, what they should revere. They made those judgments for themselves because they were human beings, equally entitled to do these sorts of things as anybody else. And so ever since, Nottie, in fact, I was about to say, ever since January 1, 1863. But in fact, as early as September 22nd of 1862, when Lincoln preliminarily announced in 100 days,

he was going to emancipate slaves in territory that was still held by, he's still in rebellion. We can go back even further to April of 1862 when slaves were finally freed in the District of Columbia. Ever since those moments and episodes of freedom and progressive freedom occurred, Black Americans have been commemorating their freedom and emancipation in this country. And so what you have across American history starting, as I say, as early as 1862, in various months. And certainly after January 1st and then June 19th, 65,

a couple years later, you have had among blacks in certain cities and eventually in certain states in this country really trying to figure out what is the best day to commemorate the abolition of slavery in this country? Was it when it happened in D.C.? Was it when it happened in all the territories? In fact, June 19th of 1862. Was it when Lincoln first announced he was going to emancipate slaves? September 22nd, 1862. Was it on the day of Jubilee, January 1, 1863?

And so what we call Juneteenth over time commemorated not simply the emancipation announced on June 19th, 1865 in Galveston, Bay, Texas. June 19th also commemorated January 1st when Lincoln freed slaves in rebel-held territories. And so throughout American history, to bring this full circle, black Americans, and then joined by their white fellow citizens and neighbors, they have been celebrating emancipation on various days of the calendar, which I would say is all to the good. Well, Professor Merle, we can't talk about Juneteenth without mentioning a book you just released called Lincoln and the American Founding.

Can you just tell us a little bit about it? Sure. Yeah, this is a short introduction, but a scholarly introduction to what I believe, is Lincoln's most formative influence on his political thinking, his rhetoric, and his actions as a citizen and engaged citizen and as a president. Everybody knows that Lincoln loves Shakespeare, the poetry of Robert Burns. He knew the Bible inside and out. Even though he wasn't a conventional Christian, he didn't pledge membership at any church. He did faithfully attend and actually rented a pew for his family when they lived in Springfield, Illinois. We know all of these various

influences and see them in his writings, especially the Gettysburg Address and the second inaugural address, you know, the K2 and Mount Everest of his speeches. But I would say if I had to put my finger on one formative influence in Lincoln's political thinking, it would have to be the ideas of the American founding. And so what I did in my book is I took a chapter on key aspects of the founding and showed how they directly influenced Lincoln's thinking and practice. I have a chapter on George Washington, the indispensable man. He is the founder of founders. So to what extent did Washington's example and words shape Lincoln's thinking about American politics? Then I turn to the sum and bonum for Lincoln, which is the Declaration of Independence, starting in the 1850s and through the rest of

his public career, there is no document. There are no words that he quotes, and refers to more frequently than the Declaration of Independence, especially the second sentence. We hold these truths to be self-evident, and you guys know the rest. Then I have a chapter on the Constitution. So if the Declaration of Independence spells out the aims or ends, the purposes for which America exists, the Constitution represents its means,

the structures in operations politically of a free people. What did Lincoln learn about and appreciate about the Constitution? Now, as soon as I bring up the Constitution, especially in this day and age, people think of, huh, that wasn't written by one guy. It was written by a bunch of guys, just like the Declaration of Independence. But it required much more significant compromises. And in particular, a compromise with what I call our preexisting condition, the existence of slavery, both north and south of the Mason-Dixon line. So I have an entire chapter devoted not just to Washington, not just to the Declaration, not just to the Constitution, but to slavery. What did Lincoln learn from the founders about slavery? How did they deal with slavery in the

Constitution? What did Lincoln understand about that? What did he actually value and appreciate about that? What prudence did he see in the way they dealt with slavery at the time as they were trying to get their sea legs, as it were, as a free people? How did they address the issue of slavery, which was the massive fundamental contradiction to their small R Republican way of life. They understood it was a contradiction. How did they address it? Lincoln thought, you know what? We can learn from this and address it in our day in the mid to late 50s when whites,

not just south, but north of the Mason-Dixon line, were being tempted not to go out and buy slaves themselves, but to become indifferent about the future of slavery in the country, especially in the federal territory. And so Lincoln says, hey, I think the founders were right about seeing how wrong slavery was, why they didn't think they could get rid of it right away, but what were the structures and what were the ideas that they thought over time would allow us to wean ourselves off of this peculiar institution. And so a very important chapter of this book is this chapter that deals with Lincoln, the founders, and slavery.

And then I have a concluding chapter that deals with this concept that is very much in the news today, which some people refer to as original intent. It became front page news during the impeachment of President Trump, when all of a sudden not just conservatives but political liberals were deciding, hmm, maybe the founders do have some important things to tell us about impeachment. All of a sudden we became students of the Constitution, students of the debates over the Constitution, what did they mean and what were their discussions, and how did they vote, and how did they define high crimes and misdemeanors,

and all that sort of stuff. What was Lincoln's view of original intent? If we understand what the founders did, does that mean we have to follow them? How do we know whether it's worthy of following? Ultimately, I conclude that Lincoln thought, we don't follow the founders because they were first, after all, if they were first and were wrong, for example,

if we were talking about a different constitution, say the Confederate Constitution, would we say, well, you know, that's the Constitution and black people are supposed to be ruled by white people. I'm like, no, that's wrong. How about we reject that idea and erect and follow a good one? Lincoln looked to our past and grabbed onto. He held onto the things that he thought were worthy of holding onto.

And interestingly enough, to that extent, he's conservative because he's interested in conserving, holding onto an older way of thinking about human nature, rights, equality, but he's liberal in the sense that the things he's holding onto point to freedom. They are about liberation. They are about emancipation. They are about securing what everybody possesses by nature. And that's the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Well, thank you for sharing that. Speaking of slavery and President Lincoln, there's a statue right know in Boston, which depicts a Lincoln, freeing a slave, and it's a copy of the Emancipation Proclamation Statue in Washington, D.C. And right now the statue in Boston is a hot topic

of controversy. There's a petition for it to be taken down. What's your perspective on this whole situation? Yeah, that is a statue that, how to keep this brief, that is a statue that has been controversial since it was first erected. A lot of people, unfortunately, don't know that that statue exists because it's in Lincoln Park, which is 10 blocks behind the Supreme Court. So when people visit D.C., they think once they get to the Library of Congress and the Supreme Court and the Capitol building and the mall, and of course they've already done the Lincoln Memorial, good for them, they think they've seen everything or maybe go to some galleries. Ten blocks behind is a part that was set apart for this statue, a statue that was erected

and paid for completely by black Americans. And the pedestal was paid for by the U.S. Congress. When that statue was dedicated, no under, the most famous abolitionist next to William Lloyd Garrison was the keynote speaker, and that was Frederick Douglass. Frederick Douglass was heard to have said he did not like the posture of the slave because he was in a kneeling or crouching position. And Lincoln was almost like, you know, Father Abraham rendering his hand over this newly freed, slaved, represented by broken manacles on his wrists, almost like giving him a benediction. And it was a, Douglas was heard to have said, at least some stories have said, that he wanted the slave in a more manly posture, you know, have him erect and standing, rather than crouched almost like a sprinter at the blocks,

ready to leap into his freedom. Frederick Douglass wanted him, after all, it's 1876. He wanted him standing. But he didn't say that at the time in his speech. He gave one of his most rousing and in some respects controversial speeches because it's both a eulogy to Lincoln, 11 years after his assassination, but also contains a lot of criticism because Douglas gives this speech from the perspective of an abolitionist. And so suffice it to say that is a statute that has been controversial.

ever since it was erected. I don't know when they brought the one over to Boston. I don't know when that occurred, but it was April 1876. They actually declared a holiday for the District of Columbia, so federal employees could attend a ceremony where President Grant, members of the Supreme Court, members of the Senate and the House, and other federal employees, and of course citizens of the district and surrounding states were present. Very important day. So that statute has always had controversy. Now, the good news here at minimum is, as far as I know that statue in Boston has not been defaced, in other words, people haven't sprayed graffiti on it or thrown paint or tried to pull it down. At least in Boston, they're doing things the tried and true

American, the decent American way, which is let's have a conversation. Let's discuss it. Let's figure out if we don't want it in the square, where should we move it, or I don't even know if they're contemplating destroying it, but I think they just want to relocate it. But suffice it to say, at least in Boston, and hey, you know, the cost of Boston could again, interestingly enough, become the cause of America. The good news about Boston is they're showing the way they're leading the way in America about how we do things. This is one thing I hope people take away from my book, which is in the United States. It's not just what. It's how. It's not just what is the justice we want to secure. There are also American.

in ways of securing that justice. There are ways that actually reinforce the rule of law that we all benefit from. And there are ways that subvert and undermine and overturn the rule of law. Nobody wins in that environment. And so at least in Boston, even though I would disagree with the relocation

and the removal of it, I do agree with their method, if not their objective. So I presume that the follow-up question would be, well, if you agree with what Bostonians doing to determine whether they should relocate or even destroy that statue, the follow-up question would be, why would you disagree with a decision to remove that statue? And this is what I would say to that. We'd have to remember the history of the statue. And this goes back to Washington,

D.C. And the original statue was funded almost entirely by Black Americans and the nation's representatives in Congress made their contribution as well to the pedestal and the setting apart of what became known as Lincoln Park. If we understand that history, we understand that the statue exists not to represent the full flowering of the manhood and womanhood of black Americans. It represents an expression of gratitude by black Americans for a white president at a time when racial prejudice existed throughout the country and who didn't care about that and decided to do what he thought was the right thing on behalf of this beleaguered racial minority. It was an expression of blacks for what a president, the highest political officer of the land, decided to do

in a very trying time, a time of war, to do the right thing by the enslaved black men and women of this country. And so to have Lincoln bestow this benediction, and I think in the left hand is a curled up copy of the Emancipation Proclamation, this benediction over a crouching slave. And if you look at the statute carefully, the slave is depicted with the sinews of his muscle. It's almost like a sprinter at the blocks. He is about to embark on his freedom. The only thing, if you will, that had been holding him back were these chains, and the chains are represented as broken chains. And so he is freed. And you can see on the face of, yes, a kneeling, crouching black man, you see on that face a determination to make good on his freedom.

I think that statue, even though Lincoln is not equally presented or depicted with the black man, one is crouching and one is standing. It's not supposed to represent equality in terms of the full exercise of rights in 1876. It's supposed to represent a particular episode, a significant pivotal episode in American history when the president of the United States finally said, we are not going to return escape slaves. In fact, we're going to protect them. We're going to secure their rights and we're going to do what we can.

as far as it is within the executive department's ability to secure the exercise of their rights. And for that, I think to remove that statute would actually be to reject the reason why the statute was installed in the first place, which was an expression of gratitude on behalf of Black America for what a significant white American did who had the power to do something and actually used it. Well, thank you for that, Professor Morel. And finally, what do you think Abraham Lincoln would say about the country if he were alive today? How much time do you have?

He would be sorely disappointed in so many ways. He would be disappointed that it is 2020. And still, we haven't been able to overcome the irrelevance of race in our politics and in our culture. He would be disappointed that politically we still have not treated all human beings, all American citizens as equal. He would be disappointed that we have lost apparently a common way of speaking about ourselves as fellow citizens. We have lost a common definition of justice, a common definition of rights, a common definition of equality. Some of the of us in this country are ironically enough in an attempt to get rid of racism, think that

accenting race and accenting this or that part of every individual's diverse identity is the key to securing one's rights when, in fact, in my opinion, it only leads to greater division, greater fracturing, and what some have called a cold civil war. We need to find a way to look at each other and notice our differences, male, female, black and white, you know, native-born and immigrant. We need to be able to not pretend we don't notice the differences, but recognize that those differences are irrelevant in terms of what every citizen should receive from their common government.

Color for Lincoln, just like for Frederick Douglass, it was not the criterion, should not be the criterion of anyone's rights under the Constitution. And so he would be disappointed that we have lost a way of speaking about and understanding ourselves as fellow American citizens. And part of that in great measure, I think, is because we have lost an accurate understanding of the American founding, what they actually believed and what they actually attempted to do and in certain respects failed to do with regards to making sure our practices live up to our professions. Well, Professor Morrell, thank you. so much for joining us on the Daily Signal podcast. We appreciate having you. Appreciate coming here.

And that will do it for today's episode. Thank you for listening to the Daily Signal podcast. We do appreciate your patience as we record remotely during these weeks. Please be sure to subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Google Play, or Spotify. And please leave us a review or rating on Apple Podcasts and give us your feedback. Stay healthy and we will be back with you all tomorrow. is brought to you by more than half a million members of the Heritage Foundation. It is executive produced by Kate Trinko and Rachel Del Judas. Sound designed by Lauren Evans, Mark Geinney, and John Pop.

For more information, visit DailySignal.com.