Abraham Lincoln statues

[Mylye2222]

(10-13-2020 06:19 AM)LincolnMan Wrote:  That is correct. So they spread their own false narrative to the uninformed and the low-information voters.

OT but we have the same kind in France. Those who justify the beheading of an history and civics teacher two days ago.

[LincolnMan]

That is just awful!

[David Lockmiller]

(10-17-2020 10:41 AM)Rob Wick Wrote:  David,

However, without looking I would ask you, who has won the Pulitzer Prize in any category over the past five years? This argument is a whole bunch of nothing.

Best
Rob

I know one Pulitzer Prize winner from more than five years ago. McPherson. I have quoted from his Pulitzer Prize winning work more than once on the Lincoln Discussion Symposium. The following is my introduction to a McPherson quotation from a June 21, 2018 Post:

"Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era" is a Pulitzer Prize-winning work on the American Civil War, published in 1988, by James M. McPherson. In 2003, in his book "The Illustrated Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era," McPherson wrote the following paragraph at pages 136-137:

I have a request to make of you, Rob. I would sincerely like to know what specific objections you have to the criticisms, written independently by the Pulitzer Prize winning Lincoln scholar James McPherson and Sean Wilentz, Professor of history at Princeton University (your personal favorite "Lincoln" author), of the published work that won for Nikole Hannah-Jones the 2020 Pulitzer Prize for Commentary.

[Rob Wick]

David,

First, I'm not really sure where you get the idea that Wilentz (or McPherson, for that matter) is my "favorite Lincoln author." I've never said that. I don't know that I have a favorite.

As to your request, I also have never said I had an objection to their criticism of the 1619 Project. My whole objection to any of this is that it is a tempest in a teapot. With a pandemic killing thousands every day and infecting millions more, people (myself included) being out of work for months, an economy in shambles and a would-be Mussolini in the White House, the 1619 Project isn't even on my radar right now. The only criticism I have ever had of Wilentz is that he sometimes is overly critical of popular historians, although he certainly isn't the only academic who has that problem.

I respect the fact that you have strong feelings about it. That's certainly your prerogative. In another day and age this might actually cause me to care about it. I don't.

Best
Rob

P.S. My whole point about the Pulitzers is that even people who read a lot have no earthly idea who wins them. No one in the general public is going to look at Nikole Hannah-Jones and say "well, I would have questioned her, but she won the Pulitzer, so she must know what she's talking about.'

[Gene C]

You both have some good points.
At a time when we have other serious concerns about health, economy and a political environment which seems to be fueled by hate as much as anything else, it is easier to let this 1619 Project not get the attention it deserves.

Like David, I can see the negative consequences of an inaccurate, openly biased, negative, rewriting of history. The fact that many public school systems are considering or have implemented this into the school curriculum is not good. In my opinion this type of thinking has already invaded the main street media. It's always been there to some extent, but seems to be getting worse.
I blame a lot of it on a lack of respect.

[Rob Wick]

The problem, Gene, is that it's been openly biased in the other direction for decades, yet no one questions that. History is not an exercise in making one feel good, although it can have that effect. It's an attempt to tell what happened as truthfully as possible. That some don't agree with one side or the other doesn't make either side right or wrong. Only the facts, and the evidence, can do that.

By the way, what about the Fourth Street media? (Sorry, I'm a smart aleck and couldn't resist that).

Best
Rob

[David Lockmiller]

Bret Stephens wrote in part:

An early sign that the project was in trouble came in an interview last November with James McPherson, the Pulitzer Prize-winning author of “Battle Cry of Freedom” and a past president of the American Historical Association. He was withering: “Almost from the outset,” McPherson told the World Socialist Web Site, “I was disturbed by what seemed like a very unbalanced, one-sided account, which lacked context and perspective.”

In particular, McPherson objected to Hannah-Jones’s suggestion that the struggle against slavery and racism and for civil rights and democracy was, if not exclusively then mostly, a Black one. As she wrote in her essay: “The truth is that as much democracy as this nation has today, it has been borne on the backs of Black resistance.”

McPherson demurs: “From the Quakers in the 18th century, on through the abolitionists in the antebellum, to the Radical Republicans in the Civil War and Reconstruction, to the N.A.A.C.P., which was an interracial organization founded in 1909, down through the civil rights movements of the 1950s and 1960s, there have been a lot of whites who have fought against slavery and racial discrimination, and against racism,” he said. “And that’s what’s missing from this perspective.”

In a lengthier dissection, published in January in The Atlantic, the Princeton historian Sean Wilentz accused Hannah-Jones of making arguments “built on partial truths and misstatements of the facts.” The goal of educating Americans on slavery and its consequences, he added, was so important that it “cannot be forwarded through falsehoods (another word for "lie"), distortions and significant omissions.”

"Only the Civil War surpasses the Revolution in its importance to American history with respect to slavery and racism. Yet here again, particularly with regard to the ideas and actions of Abraham Lincoln, Hannah-Jones’s argument is built on partial truths and misstatements of the facts, which combine to impart a fundamentally misleading impression.

The essay chooses to examine Lincoln within the context of a meeting he called at the White House with five prominent black men from Washington, D.C., in August 1862, during which Lincoln told the visitors of his long-held support for the colonization of free black people, encouraging them voluntarily to participate in a tentative experimental colony."

And Gene wrote:

Like David, I can see the negative consequences of an inaccurate, openly biased, negative, rewriting of history. The fact that many public school systems are considering or have implemented this into the school curriculum is not good.

I agree with Gene. I also agree with Bret Stephens, New York Times columnist; James McPherson, the Pulitzer Prize-winning author of “Battle Cry of Freedom” and a past president of the American Historical Association; and Princeton historian Sean Wilentz. I agree with their assessments of the facts and the evidence.

[Gene C]

(10-19-2020 08:30 AM)David Lockmiller Wrote:  And Gene wrote:

Like David, I can see the negative consequences of an inaccurate, openly biased, negative, rewriting of history. The fact that many public school systems are considering or have implemented this into the school curriculum is not good.

I agree with Gene. I also agree with Bret Stephens, New York Times columnist; James McPherson, the Pulitzer Prize-winning author of “Battle Cry of Freedom” and a past president of the American Historical Association; and Princeton historian Sean Wilentz. I agree with their assessments of the facts and the evidence.

Thanks David, I appreciate that validation. Especially on a Monday.
Which reminds me of a song - Monday Monday

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h81Ojd3d2rY

[David Lockmiller]

(10-18-2020 12:02 PM)Rob Wick Wrote:  David,

No one in the general public is going to look at Nikole Hannah-Jones and say "well, I would have questioned her, but she won the Pulitzer, so she must know what she's talking about.'

Rob, are you serious? Nikole Hannah-Jones writes an essay that wins the 2020 Pulitzer Prize for Commentary. In large measure, she discusses therein the March 14, 1862 meeting in the White House with President Abraham Lincoln and a Committee of five prominent black free men on the subject of black colonization.

Whenever she is introduced as an authority on American history in a public meeting for the next ten years or so, she will be introduced as the winner of the 2020 Pulitzer Prize for Commentary. And, you actually believe now that: "No one in the general public is going to look at Nikole Hannah-Jones and say 'well, I would have questioned her [about President Abraham Lincoln], but she won the Pulitzer, so she must know what she's talking about.'"

I disagree.

[Rob Wick]

David,
I'm not going any further down this rabbit hole with you. I wish you well.

Best
Rob

[David Lockmiller]

(10-18-2020 12:02 PM)Rob Wick Wrote:  David,

First, I'm not really sure where you get the idea that Wilentz (or McPherson, for that matter) is my "favorite Lincoln author." I've never said that. I don't know that I have a favorite.

I got the idea because you wrote on your Post #27: "When Sean Wilentz, a historian that I deeply admire, raised his voice in protest about the 1619 project, that got my attention, because I think Wilentz is one of the greatest historians working."

[David Lockmiller]

The ultimate purpose of Nikole Hannah-Jones in creating the “1619 Project” is for reparations to be paid, in the thousands of dollars, to each and every descendant (man, woman, and child) of the four million slaves that were freed as a direct result of the American Civil War, the Emancipation Proclamation, and the “king’s cure” of the Thirteenth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution. President Abraham Lincoln played a crucial role in these three requisites to achieve the permanent freedom of all African-American slaves at the end of the American Civil War.

It disgusts me that specious attacks upon the character and reputation of President Abraham Lincoln have been made by Nikole Hannah-Jones in her 2020 Pulitzer Prize winning publication in pursuit of this goal.


12-04-2013, 06:39 PM Post: #37
David Lockmiller Online
Forum Master
*****
Posts: 904
Joined: Feb 2013
Warning Level: 0%

RE: My "150th Anniversary of the Gettysburg Address"

When Lincoln was on his way to the National Cemetery at Gettysburg, an old gentleman told him that his only son fell on Little Round Top at Gettysburg, and he was going to look at the spot.

Mr. Lincoln replied:

"You have been called on to make a terrible sacrifice for the Union, and a visit to that spot, I fear, will open your wounds afresh.

"But, oh, my dear sir, if we had reached the end of such sacrifices, and had nothing left for us to do but to place garlands on the graves of those who have already fallen, we could give thanks even amidst our tears; but when I think of the sacrifices of life yet to be offered, and the hearts and homes yet to be made desolate, before this dreadful war is over, my heart is like lead within me, and I feel at times like hiding in deep darkness."

--E. W. Andrews in "Reminiscences of Abraham Lincoln" at pages 510-11.

Don E. Fehrenbacher's negative opinion entry for this author reads as follows:

"Edward W. Andrews (1825 - ?) Lawyer and former Congregational minister who entered the Army as a Captain of Volunteers and later transferred to the Adjutant General's staff. Lincoln's words, as Andrews recalls them, do not ring true."

I reread this morning the Chapter XXIX (Pages 501 - 518) by E. W. Andrews in the book "Reminiscences of Abraham Lincoln by Distinguished Men of His Time," collected and edited by Allen Thorndike Rice, Editor of the North American Review, (1888). I disagree with Professor Fehrenbacher's assessment of all three quotations from the E. W. Andrews publication. His words in all three quotation examples cited by Professor Fehrenbacher ring true for me.

For example:

Mr. Andrews "drew up a paper addressed to the President, concisely stating the case [for the mother], and asking a parole for the boy [her son.] She signed it; the surgeon certified it. She was advised to call on the President, and given directions how and when to get an interview.

"After an absence of three days, she returned to Fort McHenry. As she approached the desk of the officer commanding, tears glistened in her eyes, but they were tears of gratitude. Her whole countenance was luminous with joy. Handing to me the same official envelope which had enclosed the document prepared for her to present to the President, she pointed to an order written in pencil upon it, and exclaimed with deep emotion:

"My boy is free! Thank God for such a President! He is the soul of goodness and honor!"

I asked her how the President received her when she met him?

"With the kindness of a brother," she replied. "When I was ushered into his presence he was alone. He immediately arose, and, pointing to a chair by his side, said: "'Take this seat, madam, and then tell me what I can do for you.'

"I took the envelope, and asked him if he would read the enclosures."

"'Certainly,' he said, and proceeded to read the statements I had signed very deliberately. When he had finished reading it he turned to me, and, with emotion, he said:

"'Are you, madam, the unhappy mother of this wounded and imprisoned son?'

"'I am,' I said.

"'And do you believe he will honor his parole if I permit him to take it and go with you?'

"'I am ready, Mr. President, to peril my personal liberty upon it,' I replied.

"'You shall have your boy, my dear madam,' he said. 'to take him from the ranks of rebellion and give him to a loyal mother is a better investment for this government than to give him up to its deadly enemies.'

Then, taking the envelope, he wrote with his own pencil the order which you see upon it. As he handed it to me he said:

"'There! Give that to the commanding officer of Fort McHenry, and you will be permitted to take your son with you where you will; and God grant he may prove a great blessing to you and an honor to his country.'"

It need hardly be added, that the young prisoner was soon removed from the garrison; and, under the tender nursing of this heroic and devoted mother, was able, after a few months, to resume his studies in one of our Northern colleges. A beautiful and most touching letter, subsequently received at Fort McHenry from Mrs. Winston, expressed, in touching terms, her gratitude and that of her son to all who had rendered her aid in that hour of her great trial.

Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln. Volume 6. Lincoln, Abraham, 1809-1865.

To William W. Morris [1]

Executive Mansion,
To the Commandant at Fort McHenry: March 13, 1863.

General:--- You will deliver to the bearer, Mrs. Winston, her son, now held a prisoner of war in Fort McHenry, and permit her to take him where she will, upon his taking the proper parole never again to take up arms against the United States.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN.

Annotation
[1] Allen T. Rice, ed., Reminiscences of Abraham Lincoln, p. 507. As described by E. W. Andrews in his reminiscence, Lincoln's order was written on an envelope containing a letter from Andrews to Lincoln stating the case of Mrs. Winston's wounded son. Andrews does not give Mrs. Winston's full name, nor that of the son, but states that she resided near Nashville, Tennessee. For details see the source.

I would encourage anyone who has the book edited by Allen Thorndike Rice to read chapter XXIX and post their own opinion on this subject matter.

[David Lockmiller]

(10-20-2020 07:58 AM)David Lockmiller Wrote:  "'Are you, madam, the unhappy mother of this wounded and imprisoned son?'

"'I am,' I said.

By mistake, I left out the introductory paragraph detailing the circumstances of the mother's troubles as told to E. W. Andrews:

"She was a widow, she said, and resided near Nashville, Tennessee, but, although a native of that state, she had no sympathy with the rebellion. She had an only son. At the outbreak of the war he was a student in a Southern college. Without her knowledge or consent he enlisted in a rebel regiment, and was severely wounded at the battle of Nashville, taken prisoner, and carried North. The day after the battle, to her astonishment and grief, she first heard of these facts."

I should also like to point out that it was the letter written by one good lawyer to another that convinced President Lincoln of the need for justice in this case. And, President Lincoln responded as one might expect him to do in terms of justice, but with unexpected eloquence and meaning.

"'And do you believe he will honor his parole if I permit him to take it and go with you?'

"'I am ready, Mr. President, to peril my personal liberty upon it,' I replied.

"'You shall have your boy, my dear madam,' he said. 'to take him from the ranks of rebellion and give him to a loyal mother is a better investment for this government than to give him up to its deadly enemies.'

Then, taking the envelope, he wrote with his own pencil the order which you see upon it.

Note: I left out of my previous post the narrative of the prior disastrous meeting that the mother had with the Secretary of War on the same subject.

[David Lockmiller]

E. W. Andrews wrote in chapter XXIX of the book Reminiscences of Abraham Lincoln, (1888), at pages 509 & 514 - 516:

The National Cemetery at Gettysburg was dedicated on the 17th [s/b 19th] of November, 1863. Shortly before the dedication was to take place the President sent an invitation to my chief, General W. W. Morris [general in charge of the defenses of Baltimore], and his staff, to join him at Baltimore and accompany him on his special train to Gettysburg. General Morris was sick at the time, and requested me, as his chief of staff, to represent him on that occasion. The General was suffering from one of the troubles which tried the patience of Job.

On the day appointed, therefore, I presented myself, with two other members of the staff, to President Lincoln, on his arrival at Baltimore, and offered the apology of my chief for his absence.

After cordially greeting us and directing us to make ourselves comfortable, the President, with quizzical expression, turned to Montgomery Blair . . . . (Reminiscences, page 509.)

The ceremonies of the dedication were imposing and most interesting. The great procession, civic and military, the splendid music, the impressive religious exercises, the great oration by Edward Everett (the last public effort of his life), the dedication, of the ground chosen, in an address by President Lincoln, of beauty and pathos never surpassed – all amidst the scenes where thousands but recently had freely offered up their lives for the life of the Republic – made the day one to be remembered as long as our Union shall last.

Around the platform, on which the addresses were delivered, the military were formed in hollow square several ranks deep. Inside of this square, and but a few feet from the platform, I had my position, and thus enjoyed the best opportunities to see and hear.

At length, and in the name of the American Republic, the President came forward formally to dedicate the place, which had drank so freely of the life-blood of her sons, as their peaceful resting-place till time should be no more, pledging the fidelity and honor and power of the government to its preservation for this sacred purpose while that government should last.

A description of the President’s famous address is needless; it has already become a classic; it is impossible to conceive of anything more beautiful and appropriate for the occasion.

But I may say a word of the appearance of the orator.

President Lincoln was so put together physically that, to him, gracefulness of movement was an impossibility. But his awkwardness was lost sight of in the interest which the expression of his face and what he said awakened.

On this occasion he came out before the vast assembly, and stepped slowly to the front of the platform, with his hands clasped before him, his natural sadness of expression deepened, his head bent forward, and his eyes cast to the ground.

In this attitude he stood for a few seconds, silent, as if communing with his own thoughts; and when he began to speak, and throughout his entire address, his manner indicated no consciousness of the presence of tens of thousands hanging on his lips, but rather of one who, like the prophet of old, was overmastered by some unseen spirit of the scene, and passively gave utterance to the memories, the feelings, the counsels and the prophecies with which he was inspired.

In his whole appearance, as well as in his wonderful utterances, there was such evidence of a wisdom and purity and benevolence and moral grandeur, higher and beyond the reach of ordinary men, that the great assembly listened almost awe-struck as to a voice from the divine oracle.

(Reminiscences, pages 514 -16.)

[David Lockmiller]

I have already posted on this thread much of what Mr. E. W. Andrews wrote about his train trip with President Lincoln to Gettysburg and events with which Mr. Andrews was associated at Gettysburg. I thought today that I might as well post a “poetic” short story that took place during the train trip and another highly informative “political” story personally involving Mr. Andrews and the President that took place almost a year later in September, 1864.

(Chapter XXIX (Pages 511 & 516 - 518) by E. W. Andrews in the book "Reminiscences of Abraham Lincoln by Distinguished Men of His Time," collected and edited by Allen Thorndike Rice, Editor of the North American Review, (1888).)

At one of the stopping-placing places of the train, a very beautiful little child, having a bouquet of rose-buds in her hand, was lifted up to an open window of the President’s car. With a childish lisp she said: “Flowrth for the President!”

The President stepped to the window, took the rose-buds, bent down and kissed the child, saying: “You’re a sweet little rose-bud yourself. I hope your life will open into perpetual beauty and goodness.”

(Reminiscences of Abraham Lincoln by Distinguished Men of His Time, page 511.)


[September, 1864]

I was still on duty in “the defenses of Baltimore” [as chief of staff to the commanding general], when the Presidential campaign of 1864 occurred. I had been a life-long Democrat, and I favored the election of General McClellan, the candidate of my party.

One evening in September, 1864, I was invited by a few friends to go with them to a Democratic meeting, and listen to a distinguished orator who was to advocate the claims of McClellan. As I could not well refuse, I agreed to go for a few minutes only. To my surprise and annoyance, I was called by the audience for a speech, and the calls were so persistent that I was placed in a most embarrassing position. Forced to say something, I contented myself with a brief expression of my high regard for McClellan as a soldier, and a statement of my intention to vote for him. I made no reference of Mr. Lincoln, and soon left the hall.

Next day an order came from Secretary Stanton directing me to be mustered out of the service. No reason was assigned, nor opportunity given for defense. As I was and had always been an unwavering Union man, as I had a brother and three sons in the military service of the Union, and as I had learned that my action at the meeting when reported to Secretary Stanton had made him very angry and caused him to utter severe threats against me, I determined to go, and did go, to Washington to know the reason of this attempt to disgrace me. As no other pretext could be given for such action, I resolved to appeal to the President.

I gave my papers setting forth these facts into the hands of a personal friend, a Republican member of Congress, with the request that he would ask Mr. Lincoln whether the revocation of my commission was by his order, knowledge or consent. He did so.

The President immediately replied: “I know nothing about it. Of course Stanton does a thousand things in his official character which I can know nothing about, and which it is not necessary that I should know anything about.”

Having heard the case, he then added: “Well, that’s no reason. Andrews has as good a right to hold on to his Democracy, if he chooses, as Stanton had to throw his overboard. If I should muster out all my generals who avow themselves Democrats there would be a sad thinning out of commanding officers in the army. No!” he continued, “when the military duties of a soldier are fully and faithfully performed, he can manage his politics in his own way; we’ve o more to do with them than with his religion. Tell this officer he can return to his post, and if there is no other or better reason for the order of Stanton than the one he suspects, it shall do him no harm; the commission he holds will remain as good as new. Supporting General McClellan for the Presidency is no violation of army regulations, and as a question of taste of choosing between him and me, well, I’m the longest, but he’s better looking.”

And so I resumed my service, and was never afterward molested by the Secretary of War.

E. W. ANDREWS

(Reminiscences of Abraham Lincoln by Distinguished Men of His Time, pages 516 - 18.)