To Change the Future, Children Need History

[Christine]

I saw this in one of our local papers, and thought it had so many insights into why we teach our children not just the nation's history, but our family histories as well.

My mother was a pro at that, and as a child I did not appreciate the endless hours on vacation spent in old dusty living rooms listening to my mom talk to old dusty relatives. I was raised about 25 hours away from where she and my dad were born and raised and where all the relatives lived - so our vacations consisted of hours in the car to get to all those relatives every summer! I was jealous of friends who got to go to the Bahamas or cool places for vacations! But learning about those family stories taught me so many lessons about our family and gave me a confidence to 'do hard things' as they had done. I learned about their strengths, their weaknesses, their challenges, and their blessings. I wish I had listened better, and asked my parents more questions before they died.

At our family camping trip last week I followed my mom's lead and made ancestor playing cards and we played 'go fish' with our relatives, and laughed as we looked at the pictures on the cards and tried to see who we looked like (or didn't look like!) and felt a connection to the generations before us and hopefully helped the generations after us forge a deeper connection, too.

"The same can be true when we learn of our national heritage. A study of history deepens our sense of connection and identity because it requires us to acknowledge our dependence on the work, sacrifices and devotion of others. As David McCullough said, “the laws we live by, the freedoms we enjoy, the institutions that we take for granted — are all the work of other people who went before us … How can we not want to know about the people who have made it possible for us to live as we live, to have the freedoms we have? It’s not just a birthright, it is something that others struggled for, often suffered for, often were defeated for and died for — for us, for the next generation.” Knowing who they were and what they gave not only teaches us who we are, but what we must do to ensure that what we were given continues on for those who follow us.

"A study of history strengthens our resilience. We learn of times that were harder and darker than our own, when “division and fear” were tearing us apart, when the fight to protect freedom and human dignity appeared desperate. We witness how hope, courage, and faith in the right saw our nation through the darkness, and in John Mecham’s words, “Lincoln’s better angels found a way to prevail,” over and over again."

"A study of history gives us hope for ourselves. We find that imperfect human beings with weaknesses, failings and flaws, “rose to the occasion,” exhibiting character, strength and vision in the midst of difficulty. And because they did, a free nation could live. Inspired by what they show us of courage, patience, determination, truth, virtue, charity and loyalty, we feel hope that we can do the same, that our lives too can enable others to live, and to live better."

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/9000...ation.html

[Gene C]

Very nice Christine, thanks for sharing.

[L Verge]

Agreed. I passed it on to other museum directors that I work with as well as my volunteers.

I have to admit that, as a child, I was bored silly talking about family history -- and we did a lot of walking through cemeteries. I could never figure out why I had to spend so much time in a cemetery when I was doomed to spend eternity there! Little did I know that cemeteries and their records would be part of my earning a living.

[LincolnMan]

Well said!

[LincolnMan]

"A study of history gives us hope for ourselves. We find that imperfect human beings with weaknesses, failings and flaws, “rose to the occasion,” exhibiting character, strength and vision in the midst of difficulty. And because they did, a free nation could live. Inspired by what they show us of courage, patience, determination, truth, virtue, charity and loyalty, we feel hope that we can do the same, that our lives too can enable others to live, and to live better."

Little did we know how this quote would resonate to our present hour when statues of our founding fathers and others are being torn down while dismissing their importance to history and freedom.

[AussieMick]

This week's VP debate contained a reference to Lincoln and history. We saw it on TV here, live, at midday. The Australian newspaper article "Who Won The Pence-Harris VP Debate" had comments from readers ('Douglas' and 'Gosling') which may be of interest ...

Douglas ---

“ I’m so glad we had a little history.....” said Kamala Harris.
She then lectured Pence about “Honest Abe” Lincoln and his non appointment of a Supreme Court Chief Justice in 1864, to contrast with Trump nominating before the election.
She was completely wrong in her “history lesson”!
Lincoln did not send a recommendation to the Senate in October 1864 because it was not sitting.
It only reconvened in December 1864 after the November election when Lincoln was re-elected.
The official historical record can be seen at lincolncottage.com.
All histories are in accord with this.
As an astute politician, Lincoln used the nomination as a bargaining chip to get the support of Salmon Chase and others in his re-election campaign.
All Lincoln cared about was winning the election and the Civil War.
He had no intention of surrendering the nomination to the electors.
After winning re-election, he nominated Chase as Chief Justice on 6 December 1864, on day one of the reconvened Senate.
So much for the “ history lesson”.
Likethumb_up11

Gosling --

So she was right then
Likethumb_up3


Douglas ---
No, Gosling.
She was comprehensively wrong.
Lincoln nominated the candidate that he selected at a time of his choosing.
If it had suited his purpose he would have done so before the election.
Likedthumb_up6

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/world/w...9188f04002

My thoughts (as an Australian onlooker) ... The position that was open to Lincoln to fill was that of Taney the Chief Justice who died on 12 Oct 1864.... less than 3 weeks before the Presidential election. Ruth Ginsberg was an Associate Justice ... and I assume that is not the equivalent of the Chief Justice. She died September 18th.
So the two issues are only slightly similar. And whilst Lincoln was indeed a man of high integrity, he was also a very astute politician with a very determined agenda for what he wanted for his nation (no doubt, similar to Trump and Biden. Pence and Harris).

I'd disagree with "Douglas" when he says "All Lincoln cared about was winning the election and the Civil War." I think Lincoln was very much aware of the need to prepare for the post-Civil War. Ensuring he had Chase's support pre-election was important, even though Lincoln wanted him as Chief of the Supreme Court ... a gamble on leaving it to December was risky but meant Lincoln was above reproach and Chase's position was unassailable in 1865. A cynical person might also suggest that Lincoln could , in October 1864, dangle the promise of the position in front of several others (who really had no hope of getting it).

[Rob Wick]

Mike,

There is obviously a difference in rank between Chief Justice and Associate Justice, but I would add that at this point that is a distinction without a difference. A vacancy is a vacancy is a vacancy. I honestly don't think Harris was intentionally lying about Lincoln, but rather used it like Lincoln has been used for centuries by BOTH parties. The GOP is using a non-existent "tradition" as an excuse when it is nothing but rank hypocrisy. However, that's the thing about power. Only a fool would have it and not use it. The Democrats problem is that they still think the GOP is a rational party with rational leaders. It's far from that.

Best
Rob

[AussieMick]

(10-08-2020 09:42 PM)Rob Wick Wrote:  Mike,

There is obviously a difference in rank between Chief Justice and Associate Justice, but I would add that at this point that is a distinction without a difference. A vacancy is a vacancy is a vacancy. I honestly don't think Harris was intentionally lying about Lincoln, but rather used it like Lincoln has been used for centuries by BOTH parties. The GOP is using a non-existent "tradition" as an excuse when it is nothing but rank hypocrisy. However, that's the thing about power. Only a fool would have it and not use it. The Democrats problem is that they still think the GOP is a rational party with rational leaders. It's far from that.

Best
Rob

Yes, Rob, Agree (mostly). Although I wasnt suggesting that Harris was lying ... maybe more painting the historical situation to suit her purposes ... and why not? Its been done before and will be again. And a mention of Lincoln wins brownie points every time.

I dont agree that a 'vacancy is a vacancy is a vacancy'. My point is that the Chief Justice is more powerful that an Associate ... I read in Wikipedia that 'the Constitution designates the chief justice to preside during presidential impeachment trials in the Senate;' ... So the Taney situation was a bit like filling the vacancy of the CEO of a company , whilst Ginsberg's was like the vacancy of the company Secretary.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_Just...ted_States

As for the issue of calling something a "tradition" just to get your own way ... dont get me started.

Oh, well ... you did. Australia has Compulsory Voting ... and people that I debate on the topic argue that it is an Australian 'tradition' !!! (There , you got me started)

[Rob Wick]

Mike,

But the Chief Justice isn't more powerful. His vote is but one of nine on the court. He can assign an associate justice to write the court's majority decision, but that doesn't stop an associate from filing a dissent. More power implies control, which is not the case here.

Best
Rob

[David Lockmiller]

The Tenth Circuit Act of 1863 (12 Stat. 794) was a federal statute which increased the size of the Supreme Court of the United States from nine justices to ten, and which also reorganized the circuit courts of the federal judiciary. The newly created Tenth Circuit consisted of California and Oregon, and addressed the judicial needs of the newly-created western states. The Act became effective on March 3, 1863, during the Lincoln administration.

The Judiciary Act of 1869 was the last piece of legislation which altered the size of the Supreme Court. Pursuant to the Tenth Circuit 1863 Act, Stephen Johnson Field was installed in the newly created Associate Justice seat. Shortly thereafter, Salmon P. Chase replaced Roger B. Taney as Chief Justice of the United States, and in 1865 Associate Justice John Catron died; Catron's vacancy would never be refilled as a consequence of the Judicial Circuits Act of 1866. Later Supreme Court vacancies in the coming years would be addressed by the 1869 Act, which permanently fixed the size of the Supreme Court at nine.
(Source: Wikipedia on the subject of “Tenth Circuit Act of 1863”)

“Lincoln appointed five justices in just four years and five weeks as president.”
(Source: “Kamala Harris’s ‘little history lesson’ about Lincoln’s Supreme Court vacancy wasn’t exactly true” – Washington Post, October 9, 2020.)

[mbgross]

Did anybody catch Senator Harris's remarks, concerning Lincoln, during the recent VP debate? Is what she said historically correct? Thanks!

[David Lockmiller]

(10-09-2020 08:57 AM)mbgross Wrote:  Did anybody catch Senator Harris's remarks, concerning Lincoln, during the recent VP debate? Is what she said historically correct? Thanks!

Kamala Harris’s ‘little history lesson’ about Lincoln’s Supreme Court vacancy wasn’t exactly true -- Washington Post, 10/9/2020.

Kamala Harris:

“I’m so glad we went through a little history lesson. Let’s do that a little more,” Harris responded. “In 1864 … Abraham Lincoln was up for reelection. And it was 27 days before the election. And a seat became open on the United States Supreme Court. Abraham Lincoln’s party was in charge not only of the White House but the Senate. But Honest Abe said, ‘It’s not the right thing to do. The American people deserve to make the decision about who will be the next president of the United States, and then that person will be able to select who will serve on the highest court of the land.’”

So, is that true?

Harris is correct that a seat became available 27 days before the election. And that Lincoln didn’t nominate anyone until after he won. But there is no evidence he thought the seat should be filled by the winner of the election. In fact, he had other motives for the delay.

On Oct. 12, 1864, Chief Justice Roger B. Taney died at the age of 87. He had been chief justice for nearly 30 years but will always be best-known — or rather, notorious — for writing the majority opinion in the Dred Scott v. Sandford case, in which he declared that Black people were inferior and “had no rights which the White man was bound to respect.” (The House voted to remove a bust of Taney from the U.S. Capitol over the summer amid the George Floyd protests.)

Lincoln was preoccupied with both his campaign and the Civil War — Sherman’s troops had just captured Atlanta and would soon march to the sea. He told his aides he wouldn’t nominate anyone immediately, because he was “waiting to receive expressions of public opinion from the country,” according to historian Michael Burlingame in “Lincoln: A Life.”

But that didn’t mean he was waiting for ballots so much as the mail. Letters flooded in from all over the country.

The overarching effect of the delay is that it held Lincoln’s broad but shaky coalition of conservative and radical Republicans together. And it kept rivals like Chase in line. Chase, who had often been critical of Lincoln in the past, immediately began stumping for the president across the Midwest . . . .

Congress was in recess until early December, so there would have been no point in naming a man before the election anyway. Lincoln shrewdly used that to his advantage. If he had lost the election, there is no evidence he wouldn’t have filled the spot in the lame-duck session.

Lincoln was, of course, reelected. And the day after the Senate was back in session, he nominated Chase for chief justice. He hoped the august appointment would “neutralize” Chase’s designs on the presidency. (It didn’t.)

So Harris is mistaken about Lincoln’s motivations in this regard.

But there’s one thing Lincoln definitely supported that Harris has yet to weigh in on: court-packing. In 1863, he and Republicans in Congress passed a law to create a 10th Supreme Court seat for largely partisan reasons.

[End of Washington Post story.]

This will be the only option if Biden is elected President, the Democrats gain control of the Senate, and the six-to-three Republican Supreme Court majority overturn Roe v. Wade and other Supreme Court precedents. If the situation were in reverse, I am certain that Senators McConnell and Graham would do the same, based on recent actual "political" precedent.

[mbgross]

(10-09-2020 12:21 PM)David Lockmiller Wrote:  

(10-09-2020 08:57 AM)mbgross Wrote:  Did anybody catch Senator Harris's remarks, concerning Lincoln, during the recent VP debate? Is what she said historically correct? Thanks!

Kamala Harris’s ‘little history lesson’ about Lincoln’s Supreme Court vacancy wasn’t exactly true -- Washington Post, 10/9/2020.

Kamala Harris:

“I’m so glad we went through a little history lesson. Let’s do that a little more,” Harris responded. “In 1864 … Abraham Lincoln was up for reelection. And it was 27 days before the election. And a seat became open on the United States Supreme Court. Abraham Lincoln’s party was in charge not only of the White House but the Senate. But Honest Abe said, ‘It’s not the right thing to do. The American people deserve to make the decision about who will be the next president of the United States, and then that person will be able to select who will serve on the highest court of the land.’”

So, is that true?

Harris is correct that a seat became available 27 days before the election. And that Lincoln didn’t nominate anyone until after he won. But there is no evidence he thought the seat should be filled by the winner of the election. In fact, he had other motives for the delay.

On Oct. 12, 1864, Chief Justice Roger B. Taney died at the age of 87. He had been chief justice for nearly 30 years but will always be best-known — or rather, notorious — for writing the majority opinion in the Dred Scott v. Sandford case, in which he declared that Black people were inferior and “had no rights which the White man was bound to respect.” (The House voted to remove a bust of Taney from the U.S. Capitol over the summer amid the George Floyd protests.)

Lincoln was preoccupied with both his campaign and the Civil War — Sherman’s troops had just captured Atlanta and would soon march to the sea. He told his aides he wouldn’t nominate anyone immediately, because he was “waiting to receive expressions of public opinion from the country,” according to historian Michael Burlingame in “Lincoln: A Life.”

But that didn’t mean he was waiting for ballots so much as the mail. Letters flooded in from all over the country.

The overarching effect of the delay is that it held Lincoln’s broad but shaky coalition of conservative and radical Republicans together. And it kept rivals like Chase in line. Chase, who had often been critical of Lincoln in the past, immediately began stumping for the president across the Midwest . . . .

Congress was in recess until early December, so there would have been no point in naming a man before the election anyway. Lincoln shrewdly used that to his advantage. If he had lost the election, there is no evidence he wouldn’t have filled the spot in the lame-duck session.

Lincoln was, of course, reelected. And the day after the Senate was back in session, he nominated Chase for chief justice. He hoped the august appointment would “neutralize” Chase’s designs on the presidency. (It didn’t.)

So Harris is mistaken about Lincoln’s motivations in this regard.

But there’s one thing Lincoln definitely supported that Harris has yet to weigh in on: court-packing. In 1863, he and Republicans in Congress passed a law to create a 10th Supreme Court seat for largely partisan reasons.

[End of Washington Post story.]

This will be the only option if Biden is elected President, the Democrats gain control of the Senate, and the six-to-three Republican Supreme Court majority overturn Roe v. Wade and other Supreme Court precedents. If the situation were in reverse, I am certain that Senators McConnell and Graham would do the same, based on recent actual "political" precedent.

THANKS!

[AussieMick]

I found this article to be interesting

"why-us-supreme-court-nine-justices"
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/histo...-justices/

In particular, that significant changes to the supreme court can result in significant public unrest.

There's always the potential for the "law" of unintended consequences to come into play. For example, a person that has until now always seemed to be , say, conservative might as an associate judge make some 'Left' wing decisions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ef9QnZVpVd8

[Rob Wick]

Mike,

You are 100 percent correct on that. When Eisenhower appointed Earl Warren to the court, Republicans believed they were getting a conservative justice. Later decisions supported by Warren (Brown v. Board of Education among others) showed how wrong they were. In California there were billboard signs that read "Impeach Earl Warren."

Best
Rob