Did William Coggeshall Save Lincoln's Life?

[RJNorton]

(09-09-2016 09:44 AM)John Fazio Wrote:  Roger, et al.:

You have heard me say before that we should not reject tradition, nor denigrate evidence, too quickly or easily. Both usually have their genesis in historical truth. Did Judas betray Jesus? We may be nearly certain he did, because reference to the betrayal is contained in the very earliest Christian writings and is never contradicted or altered.

As for Coggeshall's saving of Lincoln, we need to place it in its proper context. The President-Elect was on his journey to Washington from Springfield. His life was in danger from the moment he was nominated and especially after he was elected. Most if not all the food sent to him in Springfield was found to be poisoned. Before the train passed from Illinois into Indiana a condition was found in the track which might have resulted in derailment. The train was thereafter preceded by a pilot engine. Near Cincinnati, a small time bomb concealed in a carpetbag was found in Lincoln's car. And then, of course, there was the infamous Baltimore Plot, foiled by Pinkerton and his agents (among them, one of my favorites--Kate Warne), Frederick Seward and General Winfield Scott's agents in Baltimore. All of this, of course, was merely an outward manifestation of an inward torrent of vilification of Lincoln in the press and in the corridors of power. And I haven't even said anything about the dozen or so later plots and attempts on his life, one of which was successful. Should we then be surprised that there was an attempt on his life in Harrisburg on his way to his Inauguration and that it took the form that it did? Hand grenade? Time bomb? Let's settle on "explosive device". How much difference does that detail make?

The provenance of the story--a letter written by Coggeshall's widow to a daughter, Prockie, on February 25, 1908, reprinted in part in Freda Postle Koch's book, Colonel Coggeshall--the Man Who Saved Lincoln (1985)--is as good as many other sources that pass without criticism. What motivation did the widow have to fabricate a story in 1908 about something that allegedly happened 47 years earlier? And to her own daughter no less. How did either of them benefit from it? How many really cared about something that happened 47 years earlier? How does Freda Postle Koch benefit by publicizing the letter, except to sell a handful of books.

Everything else in the story is verifiable--Coggeshall's position (the governor's secretary and State Librarian), Lincoln's passage through Columbus on his way to Washington, etc. I like, too, the fact that the widow recorded Lincoln's saying to Coggeshall, after the President-Elect addressed the Ohio Legislature and the people: "Come with me to Washington and I shall go safely", which fits nicely with Lincoln's remark to Coggeshall, after the near-miss in Harrisburg: "Did I not tell I should go safely if you went with me".

Bottom line: I accept the story as historical.

John

John, Coggeshall did not include this story of saving Lincoln in his own book: Lincoln Memorial. The Journeys of Abraham Lincoln. All we have is the 1908 word of his wife. If the Harrisburg grenade story really happened, why would he not include it in the "journey to Washington" section of the book?

If the story were true, I would think Hay, Nicolay, and Lamon would have known about it, but none of them included it in their books.

[Wild Bill]

John,

I was just about to thumb back the hammer on my ole .44 when I read your second paragraph and realized that we will be arguing until the Devil’s domain freezes over.

The real argument that brought on the Civil War was not over slavery, but the expansion of slavery into the western territories. This is a political question, not a moral one. It generally was referred to as the Slave Power Conspiracy in the North. Slaves were counted as 3/5 of a citizen but with none of the rights of citizenship as ruled in the Dred Scott case.

The slave Power Conspiracy worked this way: Before the Civil War the white male population. i.e., potential voters, of the North outnumbered those of the South by about 2 to 1. Yet Southerners controlled fully half of all cabinet and diplomatic appointments and had 22 extra representative in the lower house of Congress from counting 3/5 of its slaves, The Old South, more or less, according to this theory, unfairly and disproportionately, ran the whole nation.

Not counting numerous clerkships, secretaries, sergeants at arms, and pages in every executive and congressional department of the Federal government, which, in that age of difficult and expensive travel, frequently went to local Washingtonians, Marylanders, and Virginians (who backed the institution of slavery if they were not slaveowners themselves ), individual presidential administrations were eve more lopsided in their appointment policies. Andrew Jackson, e.g., appointed 57% of his subordinates from the South.

In the 62 years between 1789 and 1850 slaveowners controlled the presidency 50 of those years, and only they served 2 terms. In the 1850s even the Northerners elected to the presidency were sympathetic to the South.

In addition, the Speakers of the House were Southerners for 51 of those years. During the same period, 18 of 31 Supreme Court justice were from the Old South, while the 2 most important Chief Justices were Southerners.

So slavery was important, John, just not in the way you posited.

[Eva Elisabeth]

(09-11-2016 09:13 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  

(09-09-2016 09:44 AM)John Fazio Wrote:  Roger, et al.:

You have heard me say before that we should not reject tradition, nor denigrate evidence, too quickly or easily. Both usually have their genesis in historical truth. Did Judas betray Jesus? We may be nearly certain he did, because reference to the betrayal is contained in the very earliest Christian writings and is never contradicted or altered.

As for Coggeshall's saving of Lincoln, we need to place it in its proper context. The President-Elect was on his journey to Washington from Springfield. His life was in danger from the moment he was nominated and especially after he was elected. Most if not all the food sent to him in Springfield was found to be poisoned. Before the train passed from Illinois into Indiana a condition was found in the track which might have resulted in derailment. The train was thereafter preceded by a pilot engine. Near Cincinnati, a small time bomb concealed in a carpetbag was found in Lincoln's car. And then, of course, there was the infamous Baltimore Plot, foiled by Pinkerton and his agents (among them, one of my favorites--Kate Warne), Frederick Seward and General Winfield Scott's agents in Baltimore. All of this, of course, was merely an outward manifestation of an inward torrent of vilification of Lincoln in the press and in the corridors of power. And I haven't even said anything about the dozen or so later plots and attempts on his life, one of which was successful. Should we then be surprised that there was an attempt on his life in Harrisburg on his way to his Inauguration and that it took the form that it did? Hand grenade? Time bomb? Let's settle on "explosive device". How much difference does that detail make?

The provenance of the story--a letter written by Coggeshall's widow to a daughter, Prockie, on February 25, 1908, reprinted in part in Freda Postle Koch's book, Colonel Coggeshall--the Man Who Saved Lincoln (1985)--is as good as many other sources that pass without criticism. What motivation did the widow have to fabricate a story in 1908 about something that allegedly happened 47 years earlier? And to her own daughter no less. How did either of them benefit from it? How many really cared about something that happened 47 years earlier? How does Freda Postle Koch benefit by publicizing the letter, except to sell a handful of books.

Everything else in the story is verifiable--Coggeshall's position (the governor's secretary and State Librarian), Lincoln's passage through Columbus on his way to Washington, etc. I like, too, the fact that the widow recorded Lincoln's saying to Coggeshall, after the President-Elect addressed the Ohio Legislature and the people: "Come with me to Washington and I shall go safely", which fits nicely with Lincoln's remark to Coggeshall, after the near-miss in Harrisburg: "Did I not tell I should go safely if you went with me".

Bottom line: I accept the story as historical.

John

John, Coggeshall did not include this story of saving Lincoln in his own book: Lincoln Memorial. The Journeys of Abraham Lincoln. All we have is the 1908 word of his wife. If the Harrisburg grenade story really happened, why would he not include it in the "journey to Washington" section of the book?

If the story were true, I would think Hay, Nicolay, and Lamon would have known about it, but none of them included it in their books.

I, too, think especially Lamon would not have held this back in his book.

[John Fazio]

(09-11-2016 09:13 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  

(09-09-2016 09:44 AM)John Fazio Wrote:  Roger, et al.:

You have heard me say before that we should not reject tradition, nor denigrate evidence, too quickly or easily. Both usually have their genesis in historical truth. Did Judas betray Jesus? We may be nearly certain he did, because reference to the betrayal is contained in the very earliest Christian writings and is never contradicted or altered.

As for Coggeshall's saving of Lincoln, we need to place it in its proper context. The President-Elect was on his journey to Washington from Springfield. His life was in danger from the moment he was nominated and especially after he was elected. Most if not all the food sent to him in Springfield was found to be poisoned. Before the train passed from Illinois into Indiana a condition was found in the track which might have resulted in derailment. The train was thereafter preceded by a pilot engine. Near Cincinnati, a small time bomb concealed in a carpetbag was found in Lincoln's car. And then, of course, there was the infamous Baltimore Plot, foiled by Pinkerton and his agents (among them, one of my favorites--Kate Warne), Frederick Seward and General Winfield Scott's agents in Baltimore. All of this, of course, was merely an outward manifestation of an inward torrent of vilification of Lincoln in the press and in the corridors of power. And I haven't even said anything about the dozen or so later plots and attempts on his life, one of which was successful. Should we then be surprised that there was an attempt on his life in Harrisburg on his way to his Inauguration and that it took the form that it did? Hand grenade? Time bomb? Let's settle on "explosive device". How much difference does that detail make?

The provenance of the story--a letter written by Coggeshall's widow to a daughter, Prockie, on February 25, 1908, reprinted in part in Freda Postle Koch's book, Colonel Coggeshall--the Man Who Saved Lincoln (1985)--is as good as many other sources that pass without criticism. What motivation did the widow have to fabricate a story in 1908 about something that allegedly happened 47 years earlier? And to her own daughter no less. How did either of them benefit from it? How many really cared about something that happened 47 years earlier? How does Freda Postle Koch benefit by publicizing the letter, except to sell a handful of books.

Everything else in the story is verifiable--Coggeshall's position (the governor's secretary and State Librarian), Lincoln's passage through Columbus on his way to Washington, etc. I like, too, the fact that the widow recorded Lincoln's saying to Coggeshall, after the President-Elect addressed the Ohio Legislature and the people: "Come with me to Washington and I shall go safely", which fits nicely with Lincoln's remark to Coggeshall, after the near-miss in Harrisburg: "Did I not tell I should go safely if you went with me".

Bottom line: I accept the story as historical.

John

John, Coggeshall did not include this story of saving Lincoln in his own book: Lincoln Memorial. The Journeys of Abraham Lincoln. All we have is the 1908 word of his wife. If the Harrisburg grenade story really happened, why would he not include it in the "journey to Washington" section of the book?

If the story were true, I would think Hay, Nicolay, and Lamon would have known about it, but none of them included it in their books.

Roger, et al.:

The author states, expressly, in the Introduction to her book, that immediately after the incident, Coggeshall, who was Lincoln's bodyguard on the journey to Washington, not just a traveling companion, swore Lincoln to secrecy about the incident. Apparently he was a modest man who disliked publicity, notoriety, self-advertising, etc. Such types are not uncommon. He looks like a modest man. Further, the fact that Lincoln was attracted to him (enough to ask him to accompany him to Washington as his bodyguard and later to attend cabinet meetings) suggests that he was a modest man. We know that Lincoln disliked ostentation, pomposity and braggadocio. It seems safe to assume that Lincoln respected his bodyguard's wish. That would account for the author's failure to mention the incident in his own book (he could not very well swear Lincoln to secrecy and then reveal it to the world in his book). As for Hay and Nicolay, what evidence is there that they were traveling with Lincoln at the time and in close proximity? According to Mary's telling, the incident occurred when Coggeshall and Lincoln transferred from the Harrisburg car to the Baltimore car where they were to be "by themselves". The description suggests strongly that the two men were alone at the time and that Coggeshall's action took no more than a couple of seconds, after which he jumped aboard the Baltimore car "where the president awaited him". It would appear that Hay, Nicolay and Lamon would have had to get their information about the incident from either Coggeshall or Lincoln, neither of whom wanted it known, which is why the three men say nothing about it in their writings. I see nothing implausible about it.

John

[RJNorton]

John, I am afraid we'll have to agree to disagree on Coggeshall. I agree with Eva - this incident would be in Lamon's book if it really occurred. I checked Judd's notes - nothing. Also, nothing from Pinkerton.

Coggeshall is not mentioned a single time in Lincoln Day By Day. He is not in The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln. Regarding meeting with Cabinet members, he is not mentioned in Welles' diary.

I am sorry - I just do not believe Coggeshall's stories about being Lincoln's bodyguard. Koch's book says, “Coggeshall declined the post (head of Secret Service of Government) but agreed to continue to work in the Secret Service. He would commute among Washington, Columbus, and Springfield, Ohio, on secret assignments for Lincoln for what Mary Coggeshall later called three full and busy years."

There was not even a Secret Service under Lincoln – that came later after the assassination.

Offhand, I cannot think of a single Lincoln scholar who includes accounts of a friendship/relationship/meetings/ between Lincoln and Coggeshall in his/her book. There is not a single mention of Coggeshall in Hay's dairy or letters.

Certainly if Coggeshall were really a bodyguard to Lincoln it would be in Lamon's book. It's not. I also checked Fred Hatch's Protecting President Lincoln: The Security Effort, the Thwarted Plots and the Disaster at Ford's Theatre and cannot find any mention of Coggeshall.

IMO all of this was created. There is simply no evidence for any of it IMO.

[Eva Elisabeth]

(09-16-2016 04:06 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  John, I am afraid we'll have to agree to disagree on Coggeshall. I agree with Eva - this incident would be in Lamon's book if it really occurred. I checked Judd's notes - nothing. Also, nothing from Pinkerton.

Coggeshall is not mentioned a single time in Lincoln Day By Day. He is not in The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln. Regarding meeting with Cabinet members, he is not mentioned in Welles' diary.

I am sorry - I just do not believe Coggeshall's stories about being Lincoln's bodyguard. Koch's book says, “Coggeshall declined the post (head of Secret Service of Government) but agreed to continue to work in the Secret Service. He would commute among Washington, Columbus, and Springfield, Ohio, on secret assignments for Lincoln for what Mary Coggeshall later called three full and busy years."

There was not even a Secret Service under Lincoln – that came later after the assassination.

Offhand, I cannot think of a single Lincoln scholar who includes accounts of a friendship/relationship/meetings/ between Lincoln and Coggeshall in his/her book. There is not a single mention of Coggeshall in Hay's dairy or letters.

Certainly if Coggeshall were really a bodyguard to Lincoln it would be in Lamon's book. It's not. I also checked Fred Hatch's Protecting President Lincoln: The Security Effort, the Thwarted Plots and the Disaster at Ford's Theatre and cannot find any mention of Coggeshall.

IMO all of this was created. There is simply no evidence for any of it IMO.

Can't agree more.

Re.: "According to Mary's telling, the incident occurred when Coggeshall and Lincoln transferred from the Harrisburg car to the Baltimore car where they were to be 'by themselves'" - I quote from Mary's account:

"Near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, the presidential party was to change railroad cars and the train would be switched off to proceed to Baltimore. Lincoln and Coggeshall were the last to go out to the other car. 'As they neared the door, they heard a hissing sound and discovered a Hand Grenade just ready to explode. As Mr. Lincoln reached the door, Mr. Coggeshall grasped the shell and hurled it through the open window where it [had] been dropped into the car. As it struck beyond the tracks and exploded, no one was hurt.'"

An exploding granade unheard by anyone? Trains weren't fast in those days, so the distance couldn't have been much, and I'd think an exploding granade would even drown out a steam engine, plus be visible, and catch attention.

[John Fazio]

(09-16-2016 04:06 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  John, I am afraid we'll have to agree to disagree on Coggeshall. I agree with Eva - this incident would be in Lamon's book if it really occurred. I checked Judd's notes - nothing. Also, nothing from Pinkerton.

Coggeshall is not mentioned a single time in Lincoln Day By Day. He is not in The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln. Regarding meeting with Cabinet members, he is not mentioned in Welles' diary.

I am sorry - I just do not believe Coggeshall's stories about being Lincoln's bodyguard. Koch's book says, “Coggeshall declined the post (head of Secret Service of Government) but agreed to continue to work in the Secret Service. He would commute among Washington, Columbus, and Springfield, Ohio, on secret assignments for Lincoln for what Mary Coggeshall later called three full and busy years."

There was not even a Secret Service under Lincoln – that came later after the assassination.

Offhand, I cannot think of a single Lincoln scholar who includes accounts of a friendship/relationship/meetings/ between Lincoln and Coggeshall in his/her book. There is not a single mention of Coggeshall in Hay's dairy or letters.

Certainly if Coggeshall were really a bodyguard to Lincoln it would be in Lamon's book. It's not. I also checked Fred Hatch's Protecting President Lincoln: The Security Effort, the Thwarted Plots and the Disaster at Ford's Theatre and cannot find any mention of Coggeshall.

IMO all of this was created. There is simply no evidence for any of it IMO.

Roger:

You have made a strong case, I grant, but not, in my opinion, a convincing one.

If we accept Mary's account re the secrecy asked for by Coggeshall, there is no reason to suppose the incident would have been mentioned in Lamon's or Judd's writings, nor in Hay's or Nicolay's either, for that matter, nor in any of the other works you mention. Mary's account gains plausibility from the fact that nothing was said about the incident for 47 years.

Consider Whitman's observation that "The real war will never get in the books...Its interior history will never be written--its...minutia of deeds and passions will never even be suggested...Think how much, and of importance, will be--how much, civic and military, has already been buried in the grave, in eternal darkness." In this connection, consider, for example, the almost total silence in the literature about Charles Forbes, who would be a footnote in history, at most, but for the role he played in the assassination. Likewise, Silas T. Cobb. We could go on endlessly with such minor figures. In my opinion, Coggeshall was one of these--a relatively minor figure, a functionary whom Lincoln took a liking to, but whom no one else paid much attention to, not when there were titans all around to dominate conversation, attract notice and find their way into the history books because of their prominence. Further, the fact that he spent so much time in Columbus and Springfield, Ohio, on assignments for Lincoln, goes a long way toward telling us why he was largely an unknown in Washington.

As for his absence from Welles's diary, the likelihood is that he didn't attend too many cabinet meetings, wasn't regarded as a titan by and among titans and therefore didn't get much attention. Attendance at just a few meetings would have been enough for Mary to mention it, but not for Welles, who had more important people and things to think and write about. Freda Koch records that in the trove of writings that she was heir to were "...the Colonel's observations of cabinet members and Civil War generals, made in his diary while attending Lincoln cabinet meetings...vivid descriptions of the religious, the humorous, the human sides of Lincoln's character..." Shall we assume that she too is lying? Or that the writings are all fabrications of Coggeshall himself? So now we have Mary, William and Freda all lying, for no apparent purpose. Do you believe that? I don't.

It will not do to use the claim that Coggeshall was Lincoln's bodyguard to invest him with an importance that is otherwise unwarranted by the facts. Remember that he was only informally designated as such and then only for part of one year--1861.

There most certainly was a Secret Service during Lincoln's term (do you suppose the Federal government could carry on a war without an intelligence service?), but it was not known as the Secret Service then, but the National Detective Police--Lafayette C. Baker's fiefdom, which became the U.S. Secret Service shortly after the war. Baker wrote about it at great length in his 1867 book History of the United States Secret Service", which I found a fascinating read, if not always accurate or believable.

In my judgment, the issue is one about which reasonable minds can differ, but I believe the preponderance of the evidence favors authenticity.

John

[Eva Elisabeth]

Re.: "Freda Koch records that in the trove of writings that she was heir to were '...the Colonel's observations of cabinet members and Civil War generals, made in his diary while attending Lincoln cabinet meetings...vivid descriptions of the religious, the humorous, the human sides of Lincoln's character...' Shall we assume that she too is lying? Or that the writings are all fabrications of Coggeshall himself?"

Why should Coggeshall NOT have fabricated the granade incident while being reliable about others? He wouldn't be the only in the tale partly telling the truth and partly spinning seafarers' yarn.

Was the granade incident in the Colonel's writings - or in whose writings?

Freda Koch was certainly not lying, yet it doesn't mean what she read was the truth. Same goes for Mary - not unusual to believe one's husband's words (as well not unusual to later proudly embellish his adventures).

[RJNorton]

(09-16-2016 09:48 AM)John Fazio Wrote:  There most certainly was a Secret Service during Lincoln's term (do you suppose the Federal government could carry on a war without an intelligence service?), but it was not known as the Secret Service then, but the National Detective Police--Lafayette C. Baker's fiefdom, which became the U.S. Secret Service shortly after the war. Baker wrote about it at great length in his 1867 book [i]History of the United States Secret Service", which I found a fascinating read, if not always accurate or believable.

I checked Baker's "History of the United States Secret Service." There is not a single mention of Coggeshall in the book that I can find.

If Coggeshall were really Lincoln's first choice ("the best man") to head the National Detective Police then why would he not be mentioned in Baker's book?

I have two books on the inaugural train...one written by Victor Searcher and the other by Scott Trostel. Coggeshall is not mentioned in the text of either of these books.

[Gene C]

(09-16-2016 09:48 AM)John Fazio Wrote:  If we accept Mary's account re the secrecy asked for by Coggeshall, there is no reason to suppose the incident would have been mentioned in Lamon's or Judd's writings, nor in Hay's or Nicolay's either, for that matter, nor in any of the other works you mention. Mary's account gains plausibility from the fact that nothing was said about the incident for 47 years.
John
[/i]

That's an awfully big "if" for me. And why would anyone comment on the incident and Mary's account of events if they never happened?
We are talking about the secret train ride for Lincoln to avoid potential assassins in Baltimore, aren't we?i
As for the hissing hand grenade. The last time I was on a train, the train made to much noise to hear anything hissing.
Plus, someone's got to be closely following Lincoln and carrying the grenade around with them waiting for just the right opportunity to strike when the whole train thing was very secretive. Surely others were close enough to Lincoln to have seen a hand grenade come flying through an open window of a slow moving train. This just stretches the plausibility of the whole scenario a bit too much for me.

That's OK, 'cause you probably don't agree with me all the time.

[John Fazio]

(09-11-2016 10:50 AM)Wild Bill Wrote:  John,

I was just about to thumb back the hammer on my ole .44 when I read your second paragraph and realized that we will be arguing until the Devil’s domain freezes over.

The real argument that brought on the Civil War was not over slavery, but the expansion of slavery into the western territories. This is a political question, not a moral one. It generally was referred to as the Slave Power Conspiracy in the North. Slaves were counted as 3/5 of a citizen but with none of the rights of citizenship as ruled in the Dred Scott case.

The slave Power Conspiracy worked this way: Before the Civil War the white male population. i.e., potential voters, of the North outnumbered those of the South by about 2 to 1. Yet Southerners controlled fully half of all cabinet and diplomatic appointments and had 22 extra representative in the lower house of Congress from counting 3/5 of its slaves, The Old South, more or less, according to this theory, unfairly and disproportionately, ran the whole nation.

Not counting numerous clerkships, secretaries, sergeants at arms, and pages in every executive and congressional department of the Federal government, which, in that age of difficult and expensive travel, frequently went to local Washingtonians, Marylanders, and Virginians (who backed the institution of slavery if they were not slaveowners themselves ), individual presidential administrations were eve more lopsided in their appointment policies. Andrew Jackson, e.g., appointed 57% of his subordinates from the South.

In the 62 years between 1789 and 1850 slaveowners controlled the presidency 50 of those years, and only they served 2 terms. In the 1850s even the Northerners elected to the presidency were sympathetic to the South.

In addition, the Speakers of the House were Southerners for 51 of those years. During the same period, 18 of 31 Supreme Court justice were from the Old South, while the 2 most important Chief Justices were Southerners.

So slavery was important, John, just not in the way you posited.

Wild Bill:

Sorry for not getting back to you until now; I have been away and I had a few other contributors to address.

"My ole .44". Isn't that the same gun Gene Autry sang about when he was "back in the saddle again"? As you can see, my memories go back a long way.

Your distinction between slavery where it already existed and its expansion into the territories is a spurious one. You are into my territory: I have written and taught extensively about the causes of the war and therefore know that the underlying cause was slavery, both actual and threatened, and that this underlying cause had political, economic, social, cultural and moral dimensions. Its expansion cannot be separated from its Constitutional preservation and protection in the states where it already existed. Anti-slavery forces made no such distinction, except, in some cases, temporarily for tactical reasons.

Your description of the Slave Power and its pervasive and disproportionate influence on the government is essentially accurate and well known. Seward spoke about it at length in 1858, pointing out that 3.6% of the total population of the South (the slaveholding class) practically chose 30 of 62 members of the Senate, 90 of 235 members of the House and 105 of 295 electors of the President and Vice President. Edgerton, too, spoke about the phenomenon and acknowledged that the anti-slavery forces in Congress "deserved the burning taunt for (our) past subserviency" to the Slave Power. It was fear of the loss of this power that moved the Southern-controlled government, under Polk, to instigate the war with Mexico, i.e. for the express purpose of acquiring more territory, which, they believed, would enter the Union as slave states.

Again I say, read the ordinances of secession, the state declarations of their causes of secession and Stephens's Cornerstone Speech, wherein you will find nothing said about states rights, railroads, homesteading or tariffs, but only slavery, the rightness of it and the necessity for it in the Southern states, and the threat to it and, consequently, to the lifestyle, culture, prosperity, safety and purity of the white race, posed by the Republican Party and the election of Abraham Lincoln.

When facts are compelling and evidence overwhelming, it is time to man up to them and to put our biases, prejudices and self-interest aside. None of us should have the slightest hesitation about condemning what we did to Native Americans, a story well told by Helen Hunt Jackson (A Century of Dishonor), among others, nor should we hesitate to condemn human bondage and the misguided war that was fought to continue and expand it.

John

[L Verge]

Oh dear, John, I fear that you just irritated one of the best in the field (as well as having published numerous books) on the history of the Old South and its strong influences on the social, cultural, political - and whatever else you want to throw into the pot - growth of the United States. He can also talk you through the Reconstruction era so that it makes sense.

Bill's one of the smartest darn cow-pokes I have ever met, so be careful how hard you hit that hornet's nest that he carries around in the name of education. Even mules know to back off when the hive becomes active...

[Wild Bill]

Spurious, huh? Then we have nothing more to argue about

[John Fazio]

(09-17-2016 08:29 AM)L Verge Wrote:  Oh dear, John, I fear that you just irritated one of the best in the field (as well as having published numerous books) on the history of the Old South and its strong influences on the social, cultural, political - and whatever else you want to throw into the pot - growth of the United States. He can also talk you through the Reconstruction era so that it makes sense.

Bill's one of the smartest darn cow-pokes I have ever met, so be careful how hard you hit that hornet's nest that he carries around in the name of education. Even mules know to back off when the hive becomes active...

Laurie:

Well said, and please know that I have nothing but respect for the guy and his intellect. As I said, I have read his books. But even brilliant people have been known to be wrong about some things. Both Oscar Wilde (The Soul of Man Under Socialism) and Albert Einstein (Why Socialism) thought that socialism would work and was the wave of the future. Einstein also believed that nuclear power would never be obtainable. Ezra Pound praised Mussolini. Thomas Edison though direct current would win out over Tesla's alternating current. Newton believed in witches and demons, at least for a while. H.G. Wells thought that submarines were unworkable. And Lord Kelvin thought that heavier than air flying machines were impossible.

John

[Gene C]

The things you learn on this site!
I had always thought spurious was when you got a bunch of those grass spurs on your ass (rear end)
(that could hurt)

Seriously, I lean toward John F comments here, but I really enjoy reading Wild Bill's comments too. It helps me look at things from a different perspective, and Bill is so good and saying things clearly, so even I can understand
(or think I understand) You two are the rare teachers who make me want to listen to what you have to say, even if I might disagree.