Post Reply 
President Lincoln and the Homestead Act
04-23-2020, 02:01 PM
Post: #16
RE: President Lincoln and the Homestead Act
(04-22-2020 08:24 PM)David Lockmiller Wrote:  
(04-22-2020 05:23 PM)Steve Whitlock Wrote:  [quote='David Lockmiller' pid='80786' dateline='1587528845']
[quote='Amy L.' pid='80785' dateline='1587504620']
But Lincoln’s conception of “everyone” did not include everyone: The Homestead Act rested on the expropriation of Native American lands.

We the People of the United States elected Abraham Lincoln in November 1860. This is what were the expectations of the voters who elected him to be President of the United States.


You left out the actual voter "expectations" to which I made reference.

According to Doris Kearns Goodwin, a Lincoln historian that I highly respect, the answer is (see my post #1):

Lincoln knew this election would not be determined by a single issue. While opposition to slavery extension had led to the creation of the Republican Party and dominated the national debate, in many places other issues took precedence. In Pennsylvania, the leading iron producer in the nation, and in New Jersey, the desire for a protective tariff was stronger than hostility to slavery. In the West, especially among immigrant groups, multitudes hoped for homestead legislation providing free or cheap land to new settler, many of whom had been hard hit by the Panic of 1857. “Land for the Landless” was the battle cry. And when, in the mist of the campaign, President Buchanan vetoed a mild Homestead Act, many in Indiana and throughout the West turned to Lincoln. All of these issues had been carefully addressed in the Republican Party platform. Had the election been fought on the single issue of slavery, it is likely that Lincoln would have lost.

We the People of the United States elected Abraham Lincoln in November 1860. This is what were the expectations of the voters who elected him to be President of the United States.

How about the Palestinians who are having their native lands expropriated by war and legislation in much the same manner as the American Indians in the first half of the nineteenth century (BEFORE Abraham Lincoln became President)? Now, that's something that the Editorial Board of the New York Times could actually do something about right away, instead of unfairly criticizing President Abraham Lincoln - the man who saved the institution of democracy for the world.

Just another thought.

The Native American problems in this country began centuries before Lincoln was ever thought of. He is only relevant here because you mentioned the Homestead Act, and other actions relevant to Native Americans. that got a little close to home for me since my late first wife is a Coast Pomo of Northen CA, that is, a roll member of the Manchester-Pt. Arena Pomo at the Manchester Rancheria. So are my children, and grandchildren, but I am not part Native American, despite what my mother told me.

But that is beside the point, which seems to be your grievance with the
Editorial Board of the NY Times for viewing former President Lincoln in a negative light. The reality of politics is that everyone is subject to criticism, whether fair or not, and The NY Times gave Lincoln a gentle kiss on the lips and job well done compared to the hatchet jobs, vile, despicable commentary, etc from the newspapers of the North, abolitionists, members of his own party, religious leaders, et al, until he became a revered martyr.

The cartoon from "Lincoln as a frightened raccoon, Punch, January 11, 1862Library of Congress" suggests he be assassinated in 1862.

Are you suggesting the Palestinians are living on a reservation, which I suppose could be a reach, but indigenous people from islands where slaves were gathered all over the world, along with reservations in Canada and reservations and no contact zones in South America could qualify. But none to be found in Germany and Japan. It just seemed curious to me almost 50 years ago when I wrote it for my then wife. Her thought, my words.


Attached File(s) Thumbnail(s)
   

.doc  How Lincoln Was Dissed in His Day.doc (Size: 52 KB / Downloads: 3)
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-23-2020, 05:19 PM (This post was last modified: 04-23-2020 05:26 PM by David Lockmiller.)
Post: #17
RE: President Lincoln and the Homestead Act
(04-23-2020 02:01 PM)Steve Whitlock Wrote:  Are you suggesting the Palestinians are living on a reservation?

I am saying two things:

1) "the Palestinians are having their native lands expropriated by war and legislation in much the same manner as the American Indians in the first half of the nineteenth century."

2) "that's something that the Editorial Board of the New York Times could actually do something about right away, instead of unfairly criticizing President Abraham Lincoln - the man who saved the institution of democracy for the world."

The following is my quote from my 04-21-2020 11:14 PM post:

How about the Palestinians who are having their native lands expropriated by war and legislation in much the same manner as the American Indians in the first half of the nineteenth century (BEFORE Abraham Lincoln became President)? Now, that's something that the Editorial Board of the New York Times could actually do something about right away, instead of unfairly criticizing President Abraham Lincoln - the man who saved the institution of democracy for the world.

You also said: "The NY Times gave Lincoln a gentle kiss on the lips."

You must be used to being "kissed on the lips" by freight trains.

"So very difficult a matter is it to trace and find out the truth of anything by history." -- Plutarch
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-23-2020, 07:53 PM
Post: #18
RE: President Lincoln and the Homestead Act
(04-23-2020 05:19 PM)David Lockmiller Wrote:  
(04-23-2020 02:01 PM)Steve Whitlock Wrote:  Are you suggesting the Palestinians are living on a reservation?

I am saying two things:

1) "the Palestinians are having their native lands expropriated by war and legislation in much the same manner as the American Indians in the first half of the nineteenth century."

2) "that's something that the Editorial Board of the New York Times could actually do something about right away, instead of unfairly criticizing President Abraham Lincoln - the man who saved the institution of democracy for the world."

The following is my quote from my 04-21-2020 11:14 PM post:

How about the Palestinians who are having their native lands expropriated by war and legislation in much the same manner as the American Indians in the first half of the nineteenth century (BEFORE Abraham Lincoln became President)? Now, that's something that the Editorial Board of the New York Times could actually do something about right away, instead of unfairly criticizing President Abraham Lincoln - the man who saved the institution of democracy for the world.

You also said: "The NY Times gave Lincoln a gentle kiss on the lips."

You must be used to being "kissed on the lips" by freight trains.

David,

You're cheating now by spinning what I said and only using a portion, so I'm not going to play anymore, after I answer your statement:

"You must be used to being "kissed on the lips" by freight trains."

You betcha! With the right woman at the throttle of that freight car hauler a kiss can be a powerful, and gentle, ride.

I'm done, you win.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-24-2020, 06:13 AM (This post was last modified: 04-24-2020 06:16 AM by Amy L..)
Post: #19
RE: President Lincoln and the Homestead Act
Thank you David, for posting a link to the April 9 New York Times editorial, and your commentary. I've learned a bit from reading this thread! Smile
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-24-2020, 01:13 PM (This post was last modified: 04-24-2020 01:16 PM by David Lockmiller.)
Post: #20
RE: President Lincoln and the Homestead Act
(04-24-2020 06:13 AM)Amy L. Wrote:  Thank you David, for posting a link to the April 9 New York Times editorial, and your commentary. I've learned a bit from reading this thread! Smile

Thank you, Amy. You are very kind to say so. I learned a lot myself in countering the erroneous conclusion of the New York Times. I tried to persuade the Editorial Board of the New York Times that they were wrong; I was simply ignored.

"So very difficult a matter is it to trace and find out the truth of anything by history." -- Plutarch
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-25-2020, 09:46 AM (This post was last modified: 04-25-2020 09:59 AM by David Lockmiller.)
Post: #21
RE: President Lincoln and the Homestead Act
RJNorton provided on another thread the following hyperlink:

http://www.hellenicaworld.com/USA/Litera...coln2.html

Roger, thanks very much for this hyperlink.

Lincoln and the Snow Brothers case:

In the spring term of the Tazewell County Court in 1847, which at that time was held in the village of Tremont, I was detained as a witness an entire week. Lincoln was employed in several suits, and among them was one of Case vs. Snow Bros. The Snow Bros., as appeared in evidence (who were both minors), had purchased from an old Mr. Case what was then called a "prairie team," consisting of two or three yoke of oxen and prairie plow, giving therefor their joint note for some two hundred dollars; but when pay-day came refused to pay, pleading the minor act.

The note was placed in Lincoln's hands for collection. The suit was called and a jury impaneled. The Snow Bros, did not deny the note, but pleaded through their counsel that they were minors, and that Mr. Case knew they were at the time of the contract and conveyance. All this was admitted by Mr. Lincoln, with his peculiar phrase, "Yes, gentlemen, I reckon that's so." The minor act was read and its validity admitted in the same manner. The counsel of the defendants were permitted without question to state all these things to the jury, and to show by the statute that these minors could not be held responsible for their contract. By this time you may well suppose that I began to be uneasy. "What!" thought I, "this good old man, who confided in these boys, to be wronged in this way, and even his counsel, Mr. Lincoln, to submit in silence!" I looked at the court, Judge Treat, but could read nothing in his calm and dignified demeanor.

Just then, Mr. Lincoln slowly got up, and in his strange, half-erect attitude and clear, quiet accent began: "Gentlemen of the Jury, are you willing to allow these boys to begin life with this shame and disgrace attached to their character? If you are, I am not. The best judge of human character that ever wrote has left these immortal words for all of us to ponder":

"Good name in man or woman, dear my lord,
Is the immediate jewel of their souls:
Who steals my purse steals trash;'tis something, nothing;
'Twas mine,'tis his, and has been slave to thousands;
But he that filches from me my good name
Robs me of that which not enriches him
And makes me poor indeed."

Then rising to his full height, and looking upon the defendants with the compassion of a brother, his long right arm extended toward the opposing counsel, he continued: "Gentlemen of the jury, these poor innocent boys would never have attempted this low villainy had it not been for the advice of these lawyers." Then for a few minutes he showed how even the noble science of law may be prostituted. With a scathing rebuke to those who thus belittle their profession, he concluded: "And now, gentlemen, you have it in your power to set these boys right before the world."

He plead for the young men only; I think he did not mention his client's name. The jury, without leaving their seats, decided that the defendants must pay the debt; and the latter, after hearing Lincoln, were as willing to pay it as the jury were determined they should. I think the entire argument lasted not above five minutes.

—George W. Minier, statement, Apr. 10, 1882.

[Edited for clarity and easier reading.]

"So very difficult a matter is it to trace and find out the truth of anything by history." -- Plutarch

Roger wrote: As author David Mearns said of Lincoln, "If he belongs to the ages it is because he belonged to his own age, his own fellows, his own environment ... if we would honor him, recognise and understand him we must return to his [age]."

I did my best to go back to his own age to explain just how Native Americans were deprived of their lands -- by both war and legislation. Abraham Lincoln played no role, either as a common citizen or as President of the United States, in the expropriation of the lands of Native Americans.

In fact, in 1862, President Abraham Lincoln came to the rescue of hundreds of Sioux Native Americans. The following is my post #1 on the thread: "President Lincoln and the Sioux Indian uprising in Minnesota in 1862"

Last Sunday, April 14, I watched on PBS Bill Moyers interview with Sherman Alexie, poet and award-winning writer. In that interview, Mr. Alexie, a native American, vilified President Lincoln for permitting the execution of 37 of the 303 Sioux Indians convicted of war crimes in the Minnesota Indian uprising and sentenced to death. Today at 1PM ET, at the Book Club web site, Sherman Alexie will have a live chat and answer questions submitted by viewers in advance. An hour ago, I posted the following question:

If you, Sherman Alexie, had been President of the United States, instead of Abraham Lincoln, at the time of the war crimes convictions and sentences to death of 303 Sioux men, what would have been your response in detail?

Following this question, I included in my post the following abbreviated history of President Lincoln's response from "Abraham Lincoln: A Life” Volume II, pages 480-84, by Professor Michael Burlingame, 2008.

President Lincoln ordered General Pope to "forward, as soon as possible, the full and complete record of these convictions" and to prepare "a careful statement." As President Lincoln and two Interior Department lawyers scrutinized the record of the trials, they discovered that some had lasted only fifteen minutes, that hearsay evidence had been admitted, that due process had been ignored, and that counsel had not been provided the defendants.

President Lincoln authorized the execution of only 37 of the 303 condemned men (35 were found guilty of murder and 2 were convicted of rape). Lincoln explained his reasoning: "Anxious not to act with so much clemency as to encourage another outbreak on one hand, nor with so much severity as to be real cruelty on the other, I caused a careful examination of the records of the trials to be made, in view of first ordering the execution of such as had been proved guilty of violating females." He further sought to discriminate between those involved in massacres and those involved only in battles. At the last minute before the executions, President Lincoln pardoned Round Wind, who had helped some whites to escape.

On December 26, 1862, the convicted rapists and killers died on the gallows while a peaceful crowd of more than 5,000 looked on. In 1864, Minnesota Governor Ramsey told President Lincoln that if he had executed all 303 Indians, he would have won more backing for his reelection bid. “I could not afford to hang men for votes," came the reply.

In 1864, Lincoln pardoned two dozen of the 264 Sioux who, after being spared the death penalty, had been incarcerated. The same year, he intervened to spare the life of Pocatello, chief of a Shoshoni band in Utah.

In response to Episcopal Bishop Henry Whipple, who lobbied the president to reform the corrupt Indian agency system, Lincoln pledged that "if we get through this war, and if I live, this Indian system shall be reformed." In his December, 1862 annual message to Congress, President Lincoln urged that Congress change the system.
***************************************************

Yet, the Editorial Board of the New York Times recently implied that President Abraham Lincoln was himself a hypocrite in signing the Homestead Act in 1862:

The purpose of the federal government, Lincoln wrote to Congress on July 4, 1861, was “to elevate the condition of men, to lift artificial burdens from all shoulders, and to give everyone an unfettered start and a fair chance in the race of life.” The Homestead Act in particular was a concrete step in that direction: 10 percent of all the land in the United States was ultimately distributed in 160-acre chunks. But Lincoln’s conception of “everyone” did not include everyone: The Homestead Act rested on the expropriation of Native American lands.

(See the “Editor’s letter” of its extended opinion titled “The American We Need” as published in the April 19, 2020 edition.)

For the Editorial Board of the New York Times to attack the character and reputation of President Abraham Lincoln in this insidious (meaning: "proceeding in a gradual, subtle way, but with harmful effects) manner is beyond my comprehension.

On February 6, 2020, the New York Times published an article with a title that speaks for itself: "The New York Times Tops 5 Million Subscriptions." That's a very big megaphone directed at its current readers.

In my opinion, the Editorial Board of the New York Times should be held to account when it chooses to "smear" the reputation of President Abraham Lincoln. The conclusion is "fair and just" in this instance.

"He that filches from me my good name
Robs me of that which not enriches him
And makes me poor indeed."

"So very difficult a matter is it to trace and find out the truth of anything by history." -- Plutarch
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-25-2020, 10:50 AM (This post was last modified: 04-25-2020 10:51 AM by Gene C.)
Post: #22
RE: President Lincoln and the Homestead Act
(04-25-2020 09:46 AM)David Lockmiller Wrote:  On February 6, 2020, the New York Times published an article with a title that speaks for itself: "The New York Times Tops 5 Million Subscriptions." That's a very big megaphone directed at its current readers.

Cheer up, not everyone actually reads the paper.
There are bird cages to line, puppies to house train, fish to wrap, paper mache crafts and art to make, and boxes to pack.

So when is this "Old Enough To Know Better" supposed to kick in?
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-25-2020, 11:07 AM
Post: #23
RE: President Lincoln and the Homestead Act
(04-25-2020 10:50 AM)Gene C Wrote:  
(04-25-2020 09:46 AM)David Lockmiller Wrote:  On February 6, 2020, the New York Times published an article with a title that speaks for itself: "The New York Times Tops 5 Million Subscriptions." That's a very big megaphone directed at its current readers.

Cheer up, not everyone actually reads the paper.
There are bird cages to line, puppies to house train, fish to wrap, paper mache crafts and art to make, and boxes to pack.

The majority of subscriptions are online. It's hard to line a bird cage with an email.

"So very difficult a matter is it to trace and find out the truth of anything by history." -- Plutarch
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-25-2020, 12:39 PM
Post: #24
RE: President Lincoln and the Homestead Act
(04-25-2020 11:07 AM)David Lockmiller Wrote:  The majority of subscriptions are online. It's hard to line a bird cage with an email.

Good point!
And I do appreciate your letters back to the Times.
You can learn a lot by your mistakes, if you are willing to look at it with the right attitude.

So when is this "Old Enough To Know Better" supposed to kick in?
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)