Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

J. Beckert · 08-27-2015, 11:59 AM

(08-27-2015 10:13 AM)Pamela Wrote: In reality, he and his wife believed they'd lose the house anyway and would be wiser to wait in case they won the war and were offered more and with union money.

That's a very strong statement, Pamela. What do you base that on?

Gene C · 08-27-2015, 12:29 PM

(08-27-2015 11:47 AM)Rick Smith Wrote: As a Southerner, I feel that I should be offended by most of the above statement, but since I am not a Liberal, I do not think I am allowed to be offended.

I must be missing something, what's to be offended at? She was just repeating some of the things in the newspaper, from Roger's post # 178

Pamela · (This post was last modified: 08-27-2015 01:21 PM by Pamela.)

I thought I made it very clear in my post that I was referencing the newspaper provided by Betty and linked by Roger. The entire newspaper front page is packed with interesting reporting.

Rick Smith · 08-27-2015, 01:22 PM

(08-27-2015 12:29 PM)Gene C Wrote:
(08-27-2015 11:47 AM)Rick Smith Wrote: As a Southerner, I feel that I should be offended by most of the above statement, but since I am not a Liberal, I do not think I am allowed to be offended.

I must be missing something, what's to be offended at? She was just repeating some of the things in the newspaper, from Roger's post # 178

You are indeed missing something, Gene; you are missing my use of irony in making a point. I am not truly offended.

By your logic, if I posted some of the rather interesting statements made by Mr. Lincoln concerning his views of black people, or one of his many off color jokes, it would not be offensive, since I was only posting something written long ago by someone else.

The source, then, by your words, determines whether something is offensive or not.

J. Beckert · 08-27-2015, 01:26 PM

(08-27-2015 01:13 PM)Pamela Wrote: I thought I made it very clear in my post that I was referencing the newspaper provided by Betty and linked by Roger. The entire newspaper front page is packed with interesting reporting.

So your quote I replied to in post 181 was in that article?

Pamela · 08-27-2015, 02:58 PM

(08-27-2015 01:26 PM)J. Beckert Wrote:
(08-27-2015 01:13 PM)Pamela Wrote: I thought I made it very clear in my post that I was referencing the newspaper provided by Betty and linked by Roger. The entire newspaper front page is packed with interesting reporting.

So your quote I replied to in post 181 was in that article?

I didn't quote, I paraphrased and why not read the paper for yourself? But, yes, the story is from that paper, and, of course reporter's stories must always be taken with a grain of salt. The paper is fun to read; it makes you feel as though you are back in that time, with the news from Senate debates.

J. Beckert · 08-27-2015, 03:13 PM

I could barely make it out on my phone earlier, but I did just get a better look at it. The trouble is, while you paraphrased it, you paraphrased the opinions of a northern newspaperman. I don't think that's historically fair to Gen. Lee (or any other figure) for someone to speculate what their thoughts and motives might have been. It clearly shows bias and an agenda.

The pompous writer also was very biased with his opinion of "heartless Jews".

Not much historical value in that piece, in my opinion. It has too much of a slant to.it.

Gene C · 08-27-2015, 03:19 PM

(08-27-2015 01:22 PM)Rick Smith Wrote: You are indeed missing something, Gene; you are missing my use of irony in making a point. I am not truly offended.

Sorry, and thanks for clarifying.

Regarding offensive material, for me a significant factor in what I consider someone being offensive is determined by the intent of the speaker or writer. When confronted are they apologetic or combative. The opposite is also true, is the reader or listener looking for a reason to be offended.

Pamela · 08-27-2015, 06:40 PM

(08-27-2015 03:13 PM)J. Beckert Wrote: I could barely make it out on my phone earlier, but I did just get a better look at it. The trouble is, while you paraphrased it, you paraphrased the opinions of a northern newspaperman. I don't think that's historically fair to Gen. Lee (or any other figure) for someone to speculate what their thoughts and motives might have been. It clearly shows bias and an agenda.

The pompous writer also was very biased with his opinion of "heartless Jews".

Not much historical value in that piece, in my opinion. It has too much of a slant to.it.

Then I guess you shouldn' t read any historical paper, north or south since they all had a bias. As for me, I think it's it's fun to wade through all kinds of documents, books, newspapers, etc., keeping in mind the biases and filters of the various authors--it's just part of the humanity of it all. I'm sure there were plenty of vices on both sides, antisemitism, misogeny, people who hated kittens and flowers, whatever.

L Verge · 08-27-2015, 07:00 PM

In any case, thank you Betty for finding and posting that page for the original intent of addressing the proposition that there may not have been a kidnap plot against Lincoln (at least on the part of Booth). This clearly shows that Union-government media channels were picking up vibes that there were some very extensive abduction plans.

As for the rhetoric against the Southern cause, I had visions as I read it of the same type of propaganda that Tokyo Rose was famous for. She had the benefits of the air waves to deliver messages intended to break the Allied spirit. This 1864 newspaper correspondent(s) - note that no name is given - was set on bolstering the Union by downgrading the "enemy." At least he was an equal opportunity bigot, evidenced by his religious comment.

Rick Smith · (This post was last modified: 08-27-2015 08:09 PM by Rick Smith.)

(08-27-2015 06:40 PM)Pamela Wrote:
(08-27-2015 03:13 PM)J. Beckert Wrote: I could barely make it out on my phone earlier, but I did just get a better look at it. The trouble is, while you paraphrased it, you paraphrased the opinions of a northern newspaperman. I don't think that's historically fair to Gen. Lee (or any other figure) for someone to speculate what their thoughts and motives might have been. It clearly shows bias and an agenda.

The pompous writer also was very biased with his opinion of "heartless Jews".

Not much historical value in that piece, in my opinion. It has too much of a slant to.it.

Then I guess you shouldn' t read any historical paper, north or south since they all had a bias. As for me, I think it's it's fun to wade through all kinds of documents, books, newspapers, etc., keeping in mind the biases and filters of the various authors--it's just part of the humanity of it all. I'm sure there were plenty of vices on both sides, antisemitism, misogeny, people who hated kittens and flowers, whatever.

What Joe takes exception to, as do I, is that you obviously enjoyed reading of an article in which General Lee ". . . was sarcastically referred to as the great patriot and hero . . ." then you go on to surmise that Lee and his wife were holding out for a good price on the sale of their home. If you believe this, you obviously know nothing of General Lee, who, after the war, turned down an offer of $15,000 per annum from The Knickerbocker Life Insurance Company {a northern co.} who wanted to use his name to advance their business. From before 1864, they had no home. His wife lived with friends in Richmond, since their residence, Arlington, had been confiscated and turned into a cemetery, the sole purpose of which was to prevent the Lees from ever returning there to live.

Interesting that the coward who wrote the article forgot to add his name.

J. Beckert · (This post was last modified: 08-27-2015 10:13 PM by J. Beckert.)

(08-27-2015 06:40 PM)Pamela Wrote: Then I guess you shouldn' t read any historical paper, north or south since they all had a bias.

No, I can read them and take them for what they're worth, but if I paraphrased from one with such an obvious bias, I wouldn't do so by starting out with the words "In reality". It's twisting things to fit your agenda.

Rick summed up my thoughts exactly. This article, which disparaged a man Lincoln himself called "brave and noble" is the snarky opinion of a man who most likely spent the war behind a desk.

Pamela · 08-27-2015, 10:39 PM

(08-27-2015 08:08 PM)Rick Smith Wrote:
(08-27-2015 06:40 PM)Pamela Wrote:
(08-27-2015 03:13 PM)J. Beckert Wrote: I could barely make it out on my phone earlier, but I did just get a better look at it. The trouble is, while you paraphrased it, you paraphrased the opinions of a northern newspaperman. I don't think that's historically fair to Gen. Lee (or any other figure) for someone to speculate what their thoughts and motives might have been. It clearly shows bias and an agenda.

The pompous writer also was very biased with his opinion of "heartless Jews".

Not much historical value in that piece, in my opinion. It has too much of a slant to.it.

Then I guess you shouldn' t read any historical paper, north or south since they all had a bias. As for me, I think it's it's fun to wade through all kinds of documents, books, newspapers, etc., keeping in mind the biases and filters of the various authors--it's just part of the humanity of it all. I'm sure there were plenty of vices on both sides, antisemitism, misogeny, people who hated kittens and flowers, whatever.

What Joe takes exception to, as do I, is that you obviously enjoyed reading of an article in which General Lee ". . . was sarcastically referred to as the great patriot and hero . . ." then you go on to surmise that Lee and his wife were holding out for a good price on the sale of their home. If you believe this, you obviously know nothing of General Lee, who, after the war, turned down an offer of $15,000 per annum from The Knickerbocker Life Insurance Company {a northern co.} who wanted to use his name to advance their business. From before 1864, they had no home. His wife lived with friends in Richmond, since their residence, Arlington, had been confiscated and turned into a cemetery, the sole purpose of which was to prevent the Lees from ever returning there to live.

Interesting that the coward who wrote the article forgot to add his name.

I'm happy to know as little of Lee as possible. I know he took a vow of loyalty to the United States which he violated. It seems fair that his home is a cemetery from my point of view. As I said, I was paraphrasing the reporter's story and the use of the words "in reality" was part of that. I don't know why he turned down the business deal and don't care. Maybe he was bothered by the irony.

L Verge · 08-28-2015, 08:58 AM

It surprises me, Pamela, that you are not interested in understanding Robert E. Lee. He is such an integral part of U.S. history (especially the Civil War period) that one can get a much better perspective on the whole picture of our country at that time by knowing about Lee the man and military leader.

As an aside regarding his violation of his vow of loyalty to the U.S., I can only surmise that he - and millions of others - no longer considered the U.S. to be the same country that they had vowed to defend. They had lost faith in the principles as they were being interpreted by the new administration, just as I see many citizens today having lost faith in how government is being handled.

Back to the New York Daily Tribune: I knew that it was Horace Greeley's newspaper, but very little else about it. From its founding in 1842 until 1866, it was the political mouthpiece of the waning Whigs and the upcoming Republicans. Abolition was one of its driving forces. I was surprised to find out that it was anti-Lincoln, however, in the 1864 election. It had become the mouthpiece for the Radical Republicans. It was also anti-Irish. Karl Marx was also one of its contributors during the 1850s. Rick Brown may be able to fill us in on some more juicy details about this newspaper's history??

Jenny · (This post was last modified: 08-28-2015 09:59 AM by Jenny.)

(08-28-2015 08:58 AM)L Verge Wrote: It surprises me, Pamela, that you are not interested in understanding Robert E. Lee. He is such an integral part of U.S. history (especially the Civil War period) that one can get a much better perspective on the whole picture of our country at that time by knowing about Lee the man and military leader.

As an aside regarding his violation of his vow of loyalty to the U.S., I can only surmise that he - and millions of others - no longer considered the U.S. to be the same country that they had vowed to defend. They had lost faith in the principles as they were being interpreted by the new administration, just as I see many citizens today having lost faith in how government is being handled.

Amen.

I have a lot I could say along those lines too, but after rereading this entire thread to make sure I wanted to comment about this at all, I am pretty sure I would be wasting my breath. I will just say that to understand the Civil War, President Lincoln, and ultimately the president's assassination and those involved, I am also of the mind that you have to be open to learning about the entire picture of how it really was back before you're truly be able to form your own opinions and theories on whatever part or person interests you the most etc.

That's just *my* opinion, of course, but I think quite a few people would agree.

Your last paragraph regarding Lee and countless others is dead on, Ms. Verge.

I want to add that I am enjoying learning more about Weichmann on this thread. Much of what is recorded about him isn't very flattering regarding the assassination that I've read so far, but he IS an important figure regarding the trial, and I want to try and judge him with all the information there is on him. I don't want to jump on him and call "weasel" or whatever if I don't know about the man's life and history completely.

This thread has been wonderful because I don't know much about his life after the trial.