In today’s episode, Bob Enyart and his guest Jamie Schofield take a critical look at the Emancipation Proclamation and its historical significance. Celebrating its 150th anniversary, this document’s true essence is revealed through a meticulous examination of Lincoln’s objectives, the socio-political climate of the era, and its failure to accomplish immediate abolition. The conversation also draws powerful parallels between the fight against slavery and the modern-day pro-life movement, highlighting the persistence of moral compromise in political decision-making. Embark on this journey through history with us and gain insights that challenge popular narratives.
Colorado Right to Life needs your help. Make sure to visit their website at crtl.org. That stands for Colorado Right to Life, crtl.org.
SPEAKER 01 :
Greetings to the brightest audience in the country and welcome to Bob and Yart Live. I am Dominic and Yart. With yesterday, January 1st, being the anniversary of the Emancipation Proclamation, we are going back to a broadcast classic where Bob Enyart and guest Jamie Schofield analyzed the meaning and actual intent of that sad document. This was no abolitionist policy, but an example of moral compromise that ended in failure. Before we jump into that, today is our first show of the new year. And with that, we are excited to announce The Plot by Bob Enyart is now available for purchase on the KGov store. Just before Bob’s passing, he managed to wrap up 15 years worth of improvement into the second edition of his manuscript, The Plot. Now anyone can get their hands on a copy. Make sure to check that out, kgov.com, and click on the store, and the second edition of the plot by Bob Enyart is available for purchase. Apparent contradictions plague many Bible students. The plot demonstrates how hundreds of such contradictions disappear when the reader applies the big picture of the Bible to its details. Tunnel vision focuses so narrowly on a problem where the solution often lies just out of view. Pastor Bob Enyart of Denver Bible Church, through the plot, teaches Christians how to use the whole counsel of God to understand the narrative of the Bible and solve biblical mysteries. So make sure to check out kgov.com, click on the store, and get your copy. And with that said, let’s jump straight into today’s broadcast of the painful truth behind the Emancipation Proclamation.
SPEAKER 04 :
Greetings to the brightest audience in the country. I am Bob Enyart, the pastor of Denver Bible Church. Welcome to 2013. January 1st, 2013, the 150th anniversary of Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation. In studio to help us talk through this and see what we can learn from this part of American history is Denver Bible Church member Jamie Schofield. Jamie, welcome to Bob and Your Life. Hi, Bob. I’m blessed to be here. Welcome back. It’s great to have you back in studio. So, Jamie, this is going to be some show because not only have you brought the Emancipation Proclamation with key excerpts, but you brought the history, the pre-proclamation from 100 days earlier, the two go together, and a front page quote from the Rocky Mountain News on the day the Emancipation took effect. And it’s all just stunning. And it’s very relevant to the whole pro-life personhood battle.
SPEAKER 03 :
Yes, I recently got a book that showed and talked about the front pages of many issues of the Rocky Mountain News over the course of its whole history. One of the pages that really stood out to me was the Rocky Mountain News coverage of the Emancipation Proclamation that had been issued on January 1st of that year. They had a very interesting quote about it, which I’ll get to later. What I quickly realized was that there were some huge misconceptions about the nature of the Emancipation Proclamation and what it did, what it didn’t do, and what its purpose actually was. Because I think most people today completely miss the expressed intended purpose of the Emancipation Proclamation.
SPEAKER 04 :
And that purpose, I think we could go ahead and we’ll have to give a spoiler alert, but we might as well explain what the purpose is in our own words before we actually read the excerpts. Sure. So how would you explain it?
SPEAKER 03 :
Well, I’ll preface that by saying that there were actually two halves to this proclamation. And the first half was the preliminary proclamation, which was in September of 1862. It was 100 days prior. And they really can’t be separated. They’re actually one policy. One is basically stating the deadline and the other is basically enacting it or activating it in a sense. So the purpose of the Emancipation Proclamation was to give a deadline to the Confederate states. And the message was this. The states that wanted to secede. Yeah, right. The states that the Union was at war with. And the message was, stop rebelling against the Union and keep your slaves.
SPEAKER 04 :
Huh? I thought the Emancipation Proclamation was saying that the slaves are free. Actually, I know that’s not the case, but that’s the general perception. Right. But what you just said is this emancipation proclamation was really a proclamation to the states saying if you will not continue the fight against the North.
SPEAKER 03 :
against the Union, then you could keep your slaves. That’s correct, at least for the time being. It didn’t say anything about making slavery illegal or anything like that. But Lincoln, at this time, actually just a couple weeks before the preliminary proclamation, he stated, and I quote, my paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union and is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it. What? Come on now. And that is exactly what is reflected in the Emancipation Proclamation.
SPEAKER 04 :
Yeah. In fact, this comes from a letter of August 22nd, 1862 to Horace Greeley. Abraham Lincoln, the president, begins, If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. And then comes the quote that you stated, my paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union. It is not either to save or to destroy slavery. And you could imagine this being done in Germany in the 1930s and 40s with the state of Germany being torn to pieces because of its wickedness. and their lust for killing the Jews, and somebody saying, you know, my concern is for the fatherland. That’s my concern. If we could save the fatherland and kill all the Jews, fine. If we could save the fatherland and save the Jews, fine. I don’t care about the Jews. I care about the fatherland. In fact, there are quotes sort of like that from the time period from others who said, I couldn’t care less about all the Negroes in the whole land, all I care about is precious states’ rights.
SPEAKER 03 :
Right. And we even have a quote from someone who has imagined himself as being a judge in that era. I don’t know if this will sound familiar, but but this gentleman said that some people want to end abortion in all states. And I disagree with them. And some people want to keep abortion legal in all states. And I disagree with them as well. Does that sound familiar?
SPEAKER 04 :
It sounds like Antonin Scalia.
SPEAKER 03 :
Exactly.
SPEAKER 04 :
Who’s a Republican current U.S. Supreme Court justice who is supposed to be pro-life, but he’s not. And here’s the quote from Antonin Scalia. And this is at a prestigious forum, the Pew Forum from 2002. I will strike down Roe v. Wade, he writes. And that’s all the Republicans cheer. Yay! I will strike down Roe v. Wade, but I will also strike down a law that is the opposite of Roe v. Wade. You know, both sides in that debate want the Supreme Court to decide the matter for them. wants no state to be able to prohibit abortion, and the other one wants every state to have to prohibit abortion, and they’re both wrong.
SPEAKER 03 :
Right, and so he has a lot in common with Abraham Lincoln, who’s stating that a man-made process is more important to him than inalienable, God-given right to life and liberty. Wow.
SPEAKER 04 :
And so this is not a surprise for those who are in the pro-life battle because we see this all around us. It is this legal positivism and moral relativism that if a black man is going to be enslaved, kidnapped, God said that’s a capital crime. You kidnap and enslave someone, capital crime. If Jews are going to be killed, babies dismembered, we have conservative Christian leaders, even like James Dobson, have focused on the family, saying, well, you have to follow the process. And when a judge like Samuel Alito upheld partial birth abortion in New Jersey— Dr. Dobson said, well, that’s exactly what he should do because he’s following the law. And we’re thinking, huh? I thought Focus on the Family was trying to stop it. They took both sides of the same ruling. They condemned it and then they defended it because they found out this was a Republican judge and he was following the process.
SPEAKER 03 :
Right. And the hypocrisy is that would they have criticized Alito if he had ruled in favor of the partial birth abortion ban? No. Of course not.
SPEAKER 04 :
They were filing friend of the court briefs. They were asking the courts to stop partial birth abortion. And then when Alito says, well, the state of New Jersey, the legislature banned this, but I’m going to overturn that ban because, you know, the Supreme Court, I think, said that this should be allowed. And so then they defended him. So either way, it’s insanity.
SPEAKER 03 :
The compromised political leader in question can do no wrong. And that’s a kind of idol worship.
SPEAKER 04 :
Could you, before we get to the preliminary proclamation from September 22nd, 1862. Could you conclude that section in the letter, Abraham Lincoln’s letter to Horace Greeley? This reminds me of the current battle to save unborn children.
SPEAKER 03 :
Certainly. He went on to say that, and I quote, what I do about slavery and the colored race, I do because it helps to save the union. And what I forbear, what I put up with. What I accept. I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty, and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be freed.
SPEAKER 04 :
Okay, so Lincoln was personally pro-abolition. Right. But officially pro-choice. Right. And we hear that all the time, don’t we? We hear alleged conservative politicians saying that, well, I’m personally pro-life. As soon as they say I’m personally pro-life, that’s it. Don’t vote for them. They are poison. They are the enemy. Because when they say I’m personally pro-life, That means that they’re officially pro-child killing.
SPEAKER 03 :
Exactly.
SPEAKER 04 :
That’s what it means. Nobody ever says, well, I’m personally against rape. No. Nobody says that. I’m personally against kidnapping. It begs the question. Yeah, well, what’s your official position?
SPEAKER 03 :
I’m personally, I’m not a racist. Right. We don’t elect people to live their personal lives. We elect them to lead. Right. Officially. Exactly.
SPEAKER 04 :
So, Jamie Schofield, we’re now back at the preliminary proclamation, September 22nd. 1862. Can you sum it up, the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation? What was its goal? Certainly.
SPEAKER 03 :
And it’s important to know that this is the other half of the proclamation that most people overlook. They really can’t be separated, the preliminary and the The actual proclamation on January 1st, they’re a consistent single policy. So, in effect, the preliminary proclamation was saying, we’d rather that you kept your slaves and stopped rebelling against the Union. But if you keep rebelling, we will declare that your slaves are free. Oh. That was the message of the preliminary proclamation.
SPEAKER 04 :
Okay, so that if the proclamation had succeeded. Right. Now, by its own standard, the proclamation failed. When you came to me a while back and you said, Bob, have you read the Emancipation Proclamation recently? I said, well, not since like the 60s. No, I haven’t. Long time ago, like 50 years ago. So, no, I haven’t. And you said, well, do you remember the part where it says if any state will lay down their arms, stop fighting the union, then they could keep their slaves? Yes. And I said, well, Jamie, from the pro-life movement, I could predict that that will completely fail. Not one state would take up that offer because when you say like you could say to people, hey, is it OK if you wait 24 hours? Then you could have your precious abortion. If you sign this paper. Then you could have your precious abortion. Look, if you want to kill the baby, don’t do a partial birth abortion. Just give them a poison that kills them. It’s not as barbaric. They become enraged. Whenever you bring up people’s sin, they become enraged.
SPEAKER 03 :
They don’t become more compliant. Right. They just become enraged. Their sin is inviolable. If you trespass one inch into that area, they become enraged, right? And that’s what we see today. You’re correct. Your prediction was accurate.
SPEAKER 04 :
Not a single state… 150 years after the fact prediction, but still.
SPEAKER 03 :
Certainly. Based on… Not a single state took them up on that offer. And in fact, all it did was basically infuriate the Confederate states in rebellion.
SPEAKER 04 :
So by its own standard… the proclamation was a failure.
SPEAKER 03 :
A complete 100% failure. It had a 0% success rate for its expressed intent and purpose. Right.
SPEAKER 04 :
Which is predictable if you knew human nature, that was predictable. Now… Jamie, could you quote for us from Section 10? Because this really crystallizes what’s going on in the proclamation. Sure.
SPEAKER 03 :
In both halves of the Emancipation Proclamation, this policy was fundamentally flawed and immoral. As we’ve already pointed out, it authorized… keeping slaves in bondage, and it actually listed the specific geographical areas, the states and even the counties, in which slaves would remain in bondage. In fact, in a little bit, I’d like us to read some of those because it drives it home. And the other compromise was that it ordered slaves, in some cases, to be returned to their masters, runaway slaves.
SPEAKER 04 :
And you would think, I know Dred Scott was issued, what, about five years earlier, and that was such an evil ruling, a grave injustice. against humanity. And American Right to Life has a tremendous assessment, has a tremendous article on the Dred Scott ruling. Just go to AmericanRightToLife.org slash DRED, D-R-E-D, and you’ll get right to it. And it’s a stunning read. This idea that if a slave ends up in a free state, then you think, hey, he’s escaped, he’s free. But no, the U.S. Supreme Court said, nope, return him to his master. So Abraham Lincoln, in the Emancipation Proclamation, continues that policy.
SPEAKER 03 :
Right. This section says that, and I quote, no slave escaping into any state, territory, or the District of Columbia from any other state shall be delivered up, which is to mean… Returned. Returned. To the master. Unless… And I’m going to paraphrase first because it’s kind of legalese. Unless the slave owner shows up and gives an oath that, number one, I am the lawful owner of the slave. And number two, I’ve never borne arms against the union. He doesn’t even have to show evidence. Just give an oath. Whoa. And here’s your slave.
SPEAKER 04 :
So it says no slave escaping into any territory or D.C. District of Columbia from any other state.
SPEAKER 03 :
shall be returned unless… Unless the person claiming that fugitive shall first make an oath that he is the lawful owner of that person and has not borne arms against the United States in the present rebellion. Wow. That’s all he has to do. Here’s your slave back.
SPEAKER 04 :
Right. The thought that the Emancipation Proclamation is based on principle, that it’s a principle document, that it says blacks are human beings, they are persons, they have the God-given right to life, as the Declaration of Independence said, that we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness. And so this is nothing like that. Now, slavery was ended in countries around the world. It didn’t only come to an end in America. No. So the fact that it eventually ended does not mean, and this is where the abortion regulators get confused, I think. We point out all the immoral things that were done by those who said they were against slavery. How immoral and how they should have agreed with the abolitionists like William Lloyd Garrison. And they say, yeah, but we ended slavery. We did. Yeah, pretty late compared to most other people. Pretty late. And after how many… How many were killed? Do you remember in the Civil War? Over half a million.
SPEAKER 03 :
I think over 600,000.
SPEAKER 04 :
The deadliest war percentage-wise. What was it, about 2% of the U.S. population was killed? When you compare that to the Vietnam War, every war is tragic, losing innocent lives and soldiers dying. The Vietnam War was like 1 20th of 1%. Of the population, even though even that was a great tragedy. World War Two was something like a third of one percent. But the civil war, civil wars are the bloodiest because we’re on both sides of the war. France, the only war they ever won was their civil war. But we lost so many so devastating and slavery was ended. in nation after nation around the world without a civil war so that the way we did it, it’s wrong to say, well, we can’t end abortion because the way they ended slavery was they had a war. That’s wrong because many other countries ended it without a war. And it’s wrong to say we got to do it the way they did it because they succeeded. That’s wrong also.
SPEAKER 03 :
Of course. And sometimes, as the old saying goes, even a blind squirrel finds an acorn now and then. Whoa. There was abolitionist criticism of the Emancipation Proclamation at the time, which is almost completely glossed over today as well. Lincoln’s secretary of state actually was an abolitionist and his name was William Seward. And he criticized this policy by saying, we show our sympathy with slavery. by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free.
SPEAKER 04 :
Now, this is the Secretary of State. Right. So, in his opinion, has been shared by many at the time by all the abolitionists. Now, the abolitionists were hated by most, especially by the anti-slavery crowd. They hated the abolitionists. We’re going to get to the quote you brought in from the Rocky Mountain News in a few minutes, and it shows that they really hated hated the abolitionists. It seems to me they hated them more than they hated the slave traders. That’s the way it seems. This Secretary of State expressed a view that has been repeated through the many decades, including today by people fighting the parallel battle of protecting unborn children from being killed. So he says, look, we’re sympathetic with slavery because we’re freeing the slaves where we can’t reach them in these states that are fighting against us.
SPEAKER 03 :
That the union does not currently control. We’re simply declaring them. And that’s why I emphasized that earlier. We are declaring them to be free. They’re not actually free. Right.
SPEAKER 04 :
We’re saying so the slaves where we cannot reach them, we’re saying they’re free and we are holding these men in bondage where we can set them free. So all the places where they had slaves that were not fighting the Union, Lincoln said, you guys could keep your slaves. That’s right. Imagine if Lincoln had succeeded. Imagine if all the states agreed They’d keep their slaves and they’d stop the fight.
SPEAKER 03 :
Then it would have delayed abolition, which I believe would have still come about through abolitionist uncompromising principle. Yeah.
SPEAKER 04 :
But there’s no way to predict how long it would have delayed it. But now all these states just got from this executive order. We can keep our slaves. And now Congress is going to consider what do we do with an amendment to ban slavery when we just ended the war? We don’t want to restart the war. We could have had this crime against humanity for decades longer if.
SPEAKER 03 :
That’s right. The Emancipation Proclamation on January 1st actually listed the areas in which slaves would remain in bondage and even down to the counties because, for example, parts of Louisiana, especially around New Orleans, they had removed themselves from the Confederacy, were not part of the rebellion. Mm-hmm. And they’re listed in the proclamation as along with areas of Virginia, which were ironically seceding from Virginia. So many counties were seceding from Virginia who was seceding, and they wanted to call themselves West Virginia. That’s how West Virginia eventually was born. And those counties are listed in the proclamation.
SPEAKER 04 :
Why don’t you give us a sense of some of them? We don’t have to read all of them. But the proclamation… explicitly authorized slavery to continue in these areas that were not fighting the Union. So why don’t you just share some of them with us?
SPEAKER 03 :
The states that it applied to included Arkansas, Texas, much of Louisiana, except for, and it lists, the parishes of St. Bernard, of Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James Ascension, Assumption, Terrebonne, La Force, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orléans, including the city of New Orleans. Mm-hmm.
SPEAKER 04 :
So and that, I think, added up to something like 30,000 slaves, which were later freed. The front page of the Rocky Mountain News. This is this is quite a quote because the Rocky Mountain News was pro-abortion. You know, this faux conservative voice in Colorado. And it’s been a morally bankrupt institution from its inception. But what did they write way back in 1863?
SPEAKER 03 :
Well, the Rocky Mountain News was covering the recent Emancipation Proclamation, and they basically approved of the fact that it was not an abolitionist policy. They were approving on the front page the fact that it continued to authorize slavery. They criticized abolitionists. The quote is this. They said the last mail brought scores of Eastern and Western papers with similar recommendations. The voice of the press is almost unanimous in its approval. In its approval of the proclamation. Right. That is a pretty correct index of popular opinion, and we may therefore set down that almost the entire loyal states endorsed the action of the president. OK, it must be expected that the ultra abolitionists will kick against it as too conservative. In other words, not going far enough for their radical views. Let them squirm. Honest Abe has shown that he will be no tool of theirs.
SPEAKER 04 :
So the Rocky Mountain News, the editors front page, they’re so thankful that the abolitionists and they were just abolitionists. They call them ultra abolitionists. It’s like National Right to Life calling us purists. Because we want to save every baby. As though it’s evil. As though it’s evil to want to be pure and to not support the killing of any child.
SPEAKER 03 :
I always ask them, are you taking the impure position? Is that what you call your position?
SPEAKER 04 :
We’re the purest. And so the abolitionists, they call them the ultra abolitionists. Cracks me up. People call me an ultra dispensationalist. Let them squirm, they said. Dispensationalist. Yeah, it must be expected that the ultra abolitionists will kick against it. And of course they did. They pointed out how corrupt it was. As too conservative for their radical views, let them squirm. So they’re mocking those who want to save every black man. Because what happens when you advocate for personhood, you make other people feel guilty. But they don’t want to admit that guilt. When you admit your guilt, when you are guilty, then God could help you. But when you deny the guilt, you get angry at those exposing the sin. And so that’s why the Rocky Mountain News. Why are they angry at the people trying to stop slavery? They hate those people. Of course. And just like the pro-lifers. The make-believe pro-lifer Republicans hate the personhood movement. They hate it because personhood exposes their sin that they advocate killing many children.
SPEAKER 03 :
And we cannot let that break our morale. We cannot give up simply because the world talks that way about us.
SPEAKER 04 :
Yeah. And the Rocky Mountain News has gone defunct. And it’s just a symbol of all those who rebel against God on the ash heap of history. They come to nothing. Jamie Schofield, thank you so much for being in studio. Glad to be here. It’s a real pleasure and honor. As we’re closing out, and for those in the audience, of course, this is January 1st, 2013, 150 years after Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation, and we today are fighting the battle that they were fighting then. Every age has its battle. Every age needs to look to God for his truth, for principles, for courage. And please stand with us as we stand for him and the innocent. Amen. May God bless you. Have you heard of the plot manuscript? It’s 330 pages, an overview of the entire Bible. People who have read it have said it’s helped them understand and enjoy the word of God. Hi, this is Bob Enyart. I wrote the plot years ago. We sell it at a money-back guarantee, $49.95 plus shipping and handling. And if you don’t feel that you really understand the Bible now, we want to give you your money back. So go online to order it at kgov.com or call us at 800-8-ENYART. That’s 1-800-836-9278.
SPEAKER 02 :
Hi, I’m Fred Williams, and if you enjoy Real Science Radio, please check out Colorado Right to Life. You can find them online at crtl.org. That’s c-r-t-l dot o-r-g. They’ve been fighting against abortion without compromise for the last 50 years. Now with the fall of Roe, they need your help more than ever. Join them in the fight against abortion right here in Colorado. That’s c-r-t-l dot o-r-g. Again, that’s c-r-t-l dot o-r-g.
SPEAKER 04 :
At Real Science Radio, we have a great science store. You can get great science materials from us, DVDs, debates, books, online, realscienceradio.com. Click on the store or by calling us 1-800-8N-YARH. DVDs from Illustra Media that we carry, The Privileged Planet, Unlocking the Mystery of Life, and Darwin’s Dilemma. And then there are the two fabulous DVDs from Dr. Carl Werner on Evolution, the Grand Experiment, Living Fossils, you’ll want to see those. And then Spike Pissarro, formerly with the U.S. Military Space Program, What You Aren’t Being Told About Astronomy. And then there’s the BEL Debates, Bob Debates an Evolutionist, Dr. Eugenie Scott on DVD, and a book, Does God Exist? Bob Enyart Debates Atheist Zeketh, a Psychologist, and then Mount St. Helens, the Explosive Evidence for Catastrophe. We also have our debate on the Age of the Earth, where I got to debate a mathematician from CU up in Boulder and a geophysicist on this MP3 CD called And finally, my favorite science book, In the Beginning, by Dr. Walt Brown. Just call us at 800-8N-YARTS, 800-836-9278, or check out our online store in the science department, either at kgov.com or realscienceradio.com.
