I think Kaus picked up on the better tidbit. Obama seems to think he's had as tough a road to hoe as Abe:
"In Lincoln's rise from poverty, his ultimate mastery of language and law, his capacity to overcome personal loss and remain determined in the face of repeated defeat - in all this, he reminded me not just of my own struggles ..."
As Kaus put it, "Not just of his own struggles. ... Good to see Obama retaining his essential modesty. The danger for someone in his position is that he might let it go to his head."
This is the first major screw up I have seen from Obama.
I think Obama's words stem from:
1) the Proclamation only applied to Confederate states
2) Lincoln didn't believe in things like mixed marriages
Now that doesn't mean Lincoln wasn't a great man, but I hardly see this as an Obama "screwup".
Gerry, interesting point; I haven't seen Kaus's take yet...Jojo, I agree, I don't think it's a screwup so much as just, well, interesting...
Link to Kaus (hmm, what happened to his permalinks? He had them for a while, but they appear to be gone again)
http://slate.msn.com/id/2121630/
Jojo,
The state is known as the Land of Lincoln. It is a mistake for a junior first term Senator to think he can take on a state icon and come out unscathed. If you can defend it or not is beside the point. It will hurt him politically, which is what makes it a mistake.
What it boils down to is this: Don't mess with Lincoln.
This is along the lines of: never get involved in a land war in Asia, and never go in with a Sicilian when death is on the line.
Actually, contrary to popular conception, there are a good number of people here who don't care for Lincoln. Sometimes, living in a place like this can have that effect... Rebellion against being entrenched in a mythology, especially when we get older and learn more about these topics, is not an uncommon reaction for many of us, especially those of us who believe in traditional conservative and 'republican' values...
Despite having campaigned hard against him in the last election, I would have to acknowledge that among those who spoke at the big Dedication Ceremony for the Museum opening (including President Bush and Sen. Durbin), Senator Obama's speech was the best. Why do I say that? Because of his statement about the Emancipation Proclamation!
http://www.indepundit.com/
archiv...l.html#comments
I just posted something similar to your update at the Rumbling 
Barack Obama may be a law professor, a civil rights lawyer and an African American but that doesn't make him a Civil War historian.
To historians the Emancipation Proclamation was simply the most radical document produced by 19th century America.
1. It changed the war aims of the U.S. in the middle of a civil war (that many thought it was losing, especially those sophisticates in Europe).
2. It sent the stage for the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments (which, by the way, were ratified only after the Union won.)
3. It implied that a major war aim of the United States could become the complete destruction of large sections of the southern economy and society.
4. It made European recognition and support of the Confederacy impossible.
The reason it only effected slaves in the Confederacy was because it was based on Lincoln's military power as president to make war and suppress rebellion. He believed he had no authority to effected loyal slave holders in the border states and, as a politican of the first order, he knew he'd need their support until the war was over.
The true measure of the Proclaimation's worth is to be found in what its friends and enemies in 1862 thought, not how we would have improved on it. In other words, we should ask if Jefferson Davis thought it was immaterial and ineffective. Or if Frederick Douglass was indifferent to its enactment. Not did Lincoln hold the civil rights views of a 21st century politican. You know, things change in 150 years.
Good stuff from all...you've forced me to update the post to direct people to the comments...
The Emancipation Proclamation was the only of those documents mentioned above (including the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments) put into place during Lincoln's lifetime. The 13th Amendment was proposed a little less than 3 months before Lincoln's death, but it wasn't ratified until almost eight months after his death. And the 14th and 15th Amendments weren't passed until 3 and 5 years later, respectively.
The Emancipation Proclamation may have set the stage for those documents, but I don't see anything wrong with Obama's historical view, which was that the Emancipation Proclamation was more a military call for the preservation of the union, with slavery used as the pretext for that call. It set the stage for the abolition of slavery, but it wasn't in itself the abolition of slavery.
Fred, spot on. Really nothing to add there.
Fargus, I think the way Obama said it was somewhat disingenius, in that he didn't frame the context in which the EP was laid out. Factually true in an urban legend way that Lincoln didn't "care" about Blacks. This is red meat for the liberal revision of the historical facts.
Sort of like the way Iraq vis a vis WMD & Oil is viewed nowadays.
The following were the real aims of the "Emancipation Proclamation":
1) To prevent Britain and France from recognizing the Confederacy, which could have resulted in a Union loss in the war.
2) To retrospectively attach a moral justifaction for a war that was viewed as a war of brutal and unconstitutional agression.
[Abolishing slavery was not one of them.]
Abraham Lincoln made clear, throughout his political career, that he opposed the abolitionists' viewpoint. His position was like many of the "pro-choice" people of today... They claim to oppose an atrocious institution on principle, but believe that it should remain legal, and an available option for those who wish to use it.
If the War Between the States had ended after the First Battle of Bull Run (as Lincoln and the Union had greatly wanted), then the rebellion would have been quickly crushed, and...
slavery would have continued.
Commenting by HaloScan
