Caroliniana Society Annual Gifts Report - March 2014 University Libraries--University of South Carolina
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
University of South Carolina Scholar Commons University South Caroliniana Society - Annual South Caroliniana Library Report of Gifts 3-2014 Caroliniana Society Annual Gifts Report - March 2014 University Libraries--University of South Carolina Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/scs_anpgm Part of the Library and Information Science Commons Recommended Citation University of South Carolina, "University of South Carolina Libraries - Caroliniana Society Annual Gifts Report, March 2014". http://scholarcommons.sc.edu/scs_anpgm/5/ This Newsletter is brought to you by the South Caroliniana Library at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in University South Caroliniana Society - Annual Report of Gifts yb an authorized administrator of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The The South Carolina South Caroliniana College Library Library 1840 1940 THE UNIVERSITY SOUTH CAROLINIANA SOCIETY SEVENTY-EIGHTH ANNUAL MEETING UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA Saturday, March 29, 2014 Mr. Kenneth L. Childs, President, Presiding Reception and Exhibit .............................. 11:00 a.m. South Caroliniana Library Luncheon .......................................... 1:00 p.m. Capstone Campus Room Business Meeting Welcome Reports of the Executive Council .......... Mr. Kenneth L. Childs Address . Dr. Lacy K. Ford Senior Vice Provost and Dean of Graduate Studies and Professor of History, University of South Carolina PRESIDENTS THE UNIVERSITY SOUTH CAROLINIANA SOCIETY 1937–1943 .............................................................................M.L. Bonham 1944–1953 ................................................................... J. Heyward Gibbes 1954 ................................................................................ Samuel L. Prince 1954–1960 ........................................................ Caroline McKissick Belser 1960–1963 ................................................................. James H. Hammond 1963–1966 ................................................................. Robert H. Wienefeld 1966–1969 ....................................................................... Edwin H. Cooper 1969–1972 ..................................................................... Claude H. Neuffer 1972–1974 ..................................................................... Henry Savage, Jr. 1974–1978 ........................................................... William D. Workman, Jr. 1978–1981 .........................................................................Daniel W. Hollis 1981–1984 .......................................................................... Mary H. Taylor 1984–1987 .........................................................................Walter B. Edgar 1987–1990 ......................................................................... Flynn T. Harrell 1990–1993 ................................................................. Walton J. McLeod III 1993–1996 ............................................................................Jane C. Davis 1996–1999 .......................................................................... Harvey S. Teal 1999–2000 ................................................................ Harry M. Lightsey, Jr. 2001 .............................................................................. Ronald E. Bridwell 2002–2005 ........................................................................ John B. McLeod 2005–2008 ............................................................................. Steve Griffith 2008–2011 ................................................................. Robert K. Ackerman 2011– ............................................................................ Kenneth L. Childs 77TH ANNUAL MEETING ADDRESS BY DR. EDNA GREENE MEDFORD MEMORY AND THE MEANING OF THE EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION Noted poet and essayist Adrienne Rich once wrote, “Every journey into the past is complicated by delusions, false memories, and false namings of real events.” She could have added that the past is often interpreted by those who have something to gain from the way it is recalled. It should not be surprising, then, that history, or at least its interpretation, is shaped by myth, exaggeration, imagination, self-interest, and sometimes by a misguided sense of what it is in the public interest to remember. Historical memory of Lincoln’s proclaiming freedom for more than three million enslaved African Americans underscores this truth. One hundred and fifty years later, the proclamation and its author remain contested ground, recollected and valued differently by diverse groups of Americans. Lincoln himself bares partial responsibility for this divide. Most historians generally recognize the fact that his behavior was at times contradictory and ambiguous, even as they attempt to justify those inconsistencies. As a consequence, we are left to interpret him as we choose. How we remember him and the proclamation reflects our image of what the nation was and ought to be. Especially in this season for commemorating the birth of black freedom, we are confronted with competing Lincoln images. A plethora of new books and countless essays celebrate the president’s decree and embrace it almost as passionately as we do the nation’s founding documents. Popular culture—from movies such as Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter to the more serious Steven Spielberg movie, simply titled 2 Lincoln, to advertisements for luxury cars—reinforces the traditional view that the president was a flawless historical figure who rose above the commonplace to champion the cause of justice. Challenging these images are others that question Lincoln’s entitlement to the designation “the Great Emancipator” and his having earned the admiration of those whom he was credited with freeing. Consider, for instance, an essay that appeared in last fall’s New York Times, titled provocatively, “African Americans Had No Friend in Lincoln.” In this controversial piece, the author writes: Lincoln has been called the most significant friend African Americans have ever had. Perhaps he was the best ally. An ally may not like, respect, or care about you, but they can work effectively toward the same ends though motives may differ. Lincoln and his Proclamation are arguably the most significant allies Black people have had during our long experience on this continent. But Lincoln was no friend. And his Proclamation was no gift. In another essay titled “The Emancipation Proclamation Myth: Was Freedom the Goal?,” the author questions the extent to which the decree was a liberating document. “The Emancipation Proclamation didn’t even FREE most slaves,” she argues. [I]t was, essentially, a ‘paper’ document with little effectiveness on the institution of slavery itself. It would be much later, once the 13th Amendment was ratified in1865, that any impactful progress towards freedom for this nation’s enslaved citizens would occur; and much further down history’s road before the issues of equality and justice would be addressed.” And in her criticism of those who are inclined to overlook any ambiguities in Lincoln’s emancipation efforts, the author declares: “I do not buy into the saintly overcoat of ‘the Great Emancipator’ as the 16th president is memorialized in the granite monument that bears his name in Washington, D.C.” 3 Before one dismisses such articles as the ranting of some anti-Lincoln fringe element, you should know that both authors are respected members of their professions. And they are not alone in their more critical assessment of the “Great Emancipator” narrative. What is significant as well is that many of these critics are the descendants of those who were freed by the provisions of the proclamation, a fact that has confounded Lincoln admirers. Of course, even in Lincoln’s own time there was no consensus regarding the proclamation or his role in securing black freedom. In those days, sentiment in this regard tended to be shaped by political affiliation and philosophy and, of course, by self- interest. But even within such groups, opinion was not uniform. When the decree was first issued in 1863, Americans rushed to either applaud or assail it. The least surprising response came from the Confederacy, where it was roundly condemned, ironically, as an immoral and malicious document. In a statement that would put modern-day political spin doctors to shame, Jefferson Davis expressed confidence that the world would condemn such a “measure by which several millions of human beings of an inferior race, peaceful and contented laborers in their sphere, are doomed to extermination.” Davis was concerned that the proclamation encouraged enslaved people to kill those who, in his estimation, had treated them well. He doubted the sincerity of Lincoln’s instructions that the enslaved “abstain from violence unless in necessary self-defense.” Davis and others in the Confederacy saw this instead as an “insidious recommendation” for “servile insurrection.” In response to the perceived danger to southern society, he threatened to charge and punish Union officers for inciting revolt among the enslaved population. 4 The prediction of insurrection was a recurring theme among southern- ers and sympathetic northerners alike. Even Lincoln’s own free Illinois alluded to it in the state’s resolution condemning his actions. Shortly after the president issued the proclamation the Illinois legislature declared it “unwarranted in military as in civil law”