Charlottesville

[Rick Smith]

(08-21-2017 05:45 PM)My Name Is Kate Wrote:  What in the world does Heather Heyer's death have to do with any links on this forum? When Steve Scalise came within an eyelash of being murdered by a madman with mainstream media-fueled hatred, and several others were injured at a peaceful, charity baseball game, where was the outrage on the part of some people?

I have not seen anyone on this forum savaging the boothiebarn article or its author, unless by "savaging" you mean "disagreeing with".

I don't have strong feelings about the Confederate statues. If they are removed after being put to a vote by the constituents of the areas where the statues are, that is fine with me.

Well said.

What is so "courageous" in posting personal political views and then blocking all responses?

No one on this forum is going to "savage" Dave Taylor, or be "inflamed" by words and then driven to kill anyone.

In this case, "savaging" must mean "disagreeing with."

Maybe the blocking of responses is a form of censorship.

[ELCore]

Thanks, Roger and David, for the sources.

[Eva Elisabeth]

One feature of democracy is tolerating different opinions and freedom of speech.
I personally think banning opinions more dangerous than dealing openly with them.The more you know the better, also as for others' views.

[L Verge]

We are all supposedly students of Lincoln studies in some form or the other on this forum. Perhaps we need to remember what, to me, is his most memorable statement that applies to us all - even 150+ years after his death:

With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds...

Closing one's mind to the opinions of others, censoring opposing views, and finally taking one's marbles and going home instead of trying to be constructive is not what Mr. Lincoln meant, in my opinion.

[David Lockmiller]

(08-21-2017 04:02 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  Additionally, Michael Burlingame includes the quote in Abraham Lincoln: A Life. Burlingame's footnote reads:

"Reminiscences of John W. Forney in a lecture delivered in November 1865 before the Ladies’ Soldiers’ Aid Society of Weldon, Pennsylvania, New York Evening Post, 30 November 1865."

Roger, I think that Abraham Lincoln's public words in support of John W. Forney regarding General "Stonewall" Jackson may also be a sort of "return of favor" done in kind.

Michael Burlingame’s “Abraham Lincoln: A Life,” Volume II, pages 224-225 (text differs slightly because it is copied from unedited final-book version on Knox College website).

A prolonged negotiation no longer seemed possible after December 19, when Lord Lyons informally showed Seward the dispatch from Lord Russell insisting on the release of Mason and Slidell and demanding a response within one week. Four days later, the British envoy officially submitted Russell’s document, giving the administration until December 30 to reply. On December 18, Seward and Lincoln visited the Navy Yard to see Commander John A. Dahlgren, whom the president regarded highly and in whom he confided. (Lincoln told a friend, “I like to see Dahlgren. The drive to the Navy Yard is one of my greatest pleasures. I learn something of the preparation for defence, and I get from him consolation and courage.”) Dahlgren noted in his diary that “I never saw the President or Mr. Seward more quiet or grave. The British affair seems to weigh on them.”

That same day, at Lincoln’s urging, John W. Forney, editor of the Philadelphia Press, published a dispatch arguing that war with the British would be catastrophic and that therefore “the Administration may be compelled to concede the demands of England, and, perhaps, release Messrs. Mason and Slidell. God forbid! – but in a crisis like this we must adapt ourselves to stern circumstances, and yield every feeling of pride to maintain our existence.”237 The president had told Forney: “I want you to sit down and write one of your most careful articles, preparing the American people for the release of Mason and Slidell. I know this is much to ask of you, but it shows my confidence in you, my friend, when I tell you that this course is forced upon us by our peculiar position; and that the good Queen of England is moderating her own angry people, who are as bitter against us as our people are against them. I need say no more.”238

Two days later, the president and Seward conferred about the crisis. No record of their meeting remains, though it seems likely that Seward explained the British position. The following day, Lincoln confessed that he “feared trouble.” He now confronted a dilemma: if the Confederate envoys were released, it would outrage public opinion in the North; if he did not, Britain might declare war and break the blockade.

237 Washington correspondence, by “Occasional,” 18 December, Philadelphia Press, 19 December 1861. Forney made similar arguments in later dispatches dated 29 and 30 December. Ibid., 30 and 31 December 1861.

238 Forney’s Progress, 4 September 1884, typed copy, David Rankin Barbee Papers, Georgetown University.

---

[RJNorton]

Thanks for sharing, David. There is a good article about Forney here.

[L Verge]

(08-22-2017 01:38 PM)RJNorton Wrote:  Thanks for sharing, David. There is a good article about Forney here.

In that article on Forney, I especially liked the last paragraph where Forney assessed Mr. Lincoln:

"Forney wrote in his memoirs: 'In many respects Abraham Lincoln had few parallels. He was most considerate of the feelings and deservings of others.” Forney said: “If you visited Lincoln he never wearied you with dreary politics or heavy theories, or glorified himself or his doings. In every crisis he sought the advice, not of his enemies, but of his friends. To his convictions he was ever true, but his opinions were always subject to revision.'”

The last sentence is especially appropriate for the subject that opened this thread...

---

http://www.civilwarprofiles.com/monument...rate-dead/

Let's hope they don't try dismantling this one! Those stones are not held together by any type of cement or mortar.

[Thomas Thorne]

I am extremely concerned about the future of our country. There is a striking resemblance to the1850's where people talked past each other. Confirmation bias where we seek only information we agree with is all too easy.

I believe that conservatives such as myself must agree in order to preserve the unity of our country to discard many Confederate monuments. Statues to purely political figures such as Jefferson Davis and John C Calhoun were built to exalt the political ideas of the Confederacy which I have never shared.

Monuments built during the 2nd era of Reconstruction as symbols of defiance to civil rights should be discarded.

I believe that many of the purely martial monuments of the Confederacy should be preserved. The monuments in national parks and cemeteries are crucial parts of the narrative of the historical events that took place there.

The thing that attracted me to the Civil War was brave men fighting fiercely for what they believed,but going home and making peace with each other as inhabitants of the same country.

As we are certainly going to wage wars in the future, the martial qualities of the Civil War era should not be lost thru neglect.
Tom

.

[brtmchl]

A new article that was led off by writing, "In the wake of events in Charlottesville, VA ESPN decided to pull one of its announcers from calling a University of VA football game - because his name is Robert Lee."

Lee is an Asian-American sportscaster.

Last week ESPN apologized for its insensitivity for hosting its annual mock football fantasy draft because it "resembled" a slave auction.

[David Lockmiller]

(08-22-2017 01:38 PM)RJNorton Wrote:  Thanks for sharing, David. There is a good article about Forney here.

I read the article as suggested and copied some excerpts here:

Presidential aide John Hay wrote that after wandering around Gettysburg on November 18, 1863, he met up with Forney, also there for the cemetery dedication the next day:

We went out after a while following the music to hear the serenades. The President appeared at the door said half a dozen words meaning nothing & went in.

[Forney] had been drinking a good deal during the day. We went back to Forney’s room having picked up Nicolay and drank more whiskey. Nicolay sung his little song of the ‘Three Thieves’ and we then sung John Brown. At last we proposed that Forney should make a speech and two or three started out - Shannon and Behan and Nicolay - to get a band to serenade him. I staid with him.

The music sounded in the street and the fuglers came rushing up imploring him to come down. The crowd was large and clamorous. The fuglers stood by the door in an agony. The reporters squatted at a little stand in the entry. Forney stood on the Threshold, John Young & I by him. The crowd shouted as the door opened. Forney said: ‘My friends, these are the first hearty cheers I have heard tonight. You gave no such cheers to your President down the street. Do you know what you owe to that Great man? You owe your country – you owe your name as American citizens.’

Forney went on blackguarding the crowd for their apathy & then diverged to his own record saying he had been for Lincoln in his heart in 1860 – that open advocacy was not as effectual as the course he took – dividing the most corrupt organization that ever existed – the proslavery Dem. Party. He dwelt at length on this question and then went back to the eulogy of the President that great, wonderful mysterious inexplicable man: who holds in his single hands the reins of the republic: who keep his own counsels: who does his own purpose in his own way no matter what temporizing minister in his cabinet sets himself up in opposition to the progress of the age.

Drunk or sober, Forney was a strong and vocal supporter of the President. Several weeks later on New Year’s Eve, 1863, Hay once again spent time with Forney, who was again leading a somewhat lubricated party. “Forney made several very ebrious [sic] little speeches. He talked a great deal about the President. . . . Forney added: “Lincoln is the most truly progressive man of the age because he always moves in conjunction with propitious circumstances, not waiting to be dragged by the force of events or wasting strength in premature struggles with them.”

Also, in this article, I learned of the unfortunate circumstances of Johnson’s drunken speech immediately prior to President Lincoln’s second inauguration ceremonies:

Forney’s social drinking led to a political scandal at Mr. Lincoln’s second inauguration. As Secretary of the Senate, Forney had a prominent role, but as host, he had spent the previous night drinking with new Vice President Andrew Johnson - [who]had taken a drink on the way to the Capitol to fortify himself against his flu. [Forney wrote:] “I can never forget President Lincoln’s face as he came into the Senate Chamber while Johnson was delivering his incoherent harangue. Lincoln had been detained signing the bills that had just passed the old Congress, and could not witness the regular opening of the new Senate till the ceremonies had fairly commenced. He took his seat facing the brilliant and surprised audience, and heard all that took place with unutterable sorrow.” (John W. Forney, Anecdotes of Public Men, p. 177.)

[My Name Is Kate]

Still waiting for answers to these questions posted earlier in this thread:

What was "savage" about any of the posts in this thread?
What does Heather Heyer's death have to do with any links on this forum?
Where was the outrage on the part of some people when Steve Scalise was shot at a peaceful charity baseball game?

Here is more proof of well-planned terrorist activist tactics designed to disrupt democracy:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/08/...halls.html

When will the statues of Robert Byrd, former KKK member and recruiter, and friend and mentor of Hillary Clinton, be torn down? When will the many bridges, highways, buildings, etc. named after him be renamed?

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/..._byrd.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pl...obert_Byrd

God forbid that any black person have a mind of his/her own and move beyond victim status:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/08/26/con...essor.html

And now, cotton itself is deemed racist:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/09/1...otton.html

Poverty among blacks is not a legacy of slavery:

http://dailysignal.com/2017/09/20/black-...t-slavery/

Proof that that Clinton/DNC incited violence at Trump rallies and at manufactured protests across the country:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IuJGHuIkzY

[RJNorton]

Vicki and I are going out for the evening and I am going to close this thread for now and reopen tomorrow morning. I feel this is the type of thread that I need to monitor. So far I think people have had a civil discussion on the matter. Seeing as how incredibly divisive the issue is, I am very happy with the exchange of ideas so far.

The one thing I would ask folks on this site is to avoid debating the specific topic of Dave's decision on his site. Whether we agree or disagree with Dave, it is his site, and he can do as he pleases. Dave began his site several months prior to this site's birth in 2012. Since then, the sites have grown "linked" to each other. If one goes back and reads the 63,000+ posts on this site you would find a ton of links to Dave's site (and much praise for all the work Dave does on his site). And if one were to read all of Dave's articles since 2012 you will find a ton of links to this site (and lots of positive comments by Dave himself concerning this site). The respect between the sites is very apparent.

Over the years I have closed several discussions on this site; Dave has never allowed a debate of my decisions on his site.

I think it is possible to debate the statues' question without specifically referencing Dave's decision. Dave is also a member here, and he sure has added much to the educational goal of this site over the past 5 years.

Let's leave his decision out of it. Thank you.

[Eva Elisabeth]

Thank you, Roger - so well said, for "my taste" you are spot on as for all you said.

[DanielC]

(08-23-2017 07:25 AM)brtmchl Wrote:  A new article that was led off by writing, "In the wake of events in Charlottesville, VA ESPN decided to pull one of its announcers from calling a University of VA football game - because his name is Robert Lee."

Lee is an Asian-American sportscaster.

Last week ESPN apologized for its insensitivity for hosting its annual mock football fantasy draft because it "resembled" a slave auction.

http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-usc-...story.html

[JMadonna]

I heard they wanted to ban the University of South Carolina's mascot a white horse named Traveler because of its name. Who knew a horse could be racist?