(08-30-2013, 12:38 PM)Liz Rosenthal Wrote: Gene: You suggest that Lincoln took the Bible literally. I beg to differ. He was not a man consumed with fear of "sin." He was, in fact, among the most tolerant of human beings when it came to differences amongst people and their behaviors. He didn't judge alcoholics, he told off-color jokes (which prompted Lamon's collaborator Chauncey Black to ask Herndon if Lincoln had a "diseased" mind), he never claimed to know what God wanted or that one religion was superior to another. Yes, he took great comfort in the Bible, but there is no credible evidence that he used it to bring the hammer down on "sinners," either in words or deeds. For this reason, among others, he's one 19th century figure I think I could have a modern conversation with.

Anyway, there is more that we can probably learn about Lincoln's sex life and sexuality, but his sexual preference seems to have been thoroughly heterosexual and no prominent Lincoln scholars take seriously the idea that he might have been gay. "Not that there's anything wrong with that," as Jerry Seinfeld cautioned 20 years ago.

I agree with some of the things you've said, but we will just have to disagree on some other things Liz. I'm not sure what you meant by including the Jerry Seinfeld quote, but I give more credence to what God says in the bible abut homosexuality than I do to what Jerry Seinfeld says.

Just as slavery is wrong, there are other types of behavior that are wrong. The bible does teach people can be forgiven of their wrong behavior, if they are truly repentant. But getting back to Lincoln, I'm learning more about his religious beliefs, but there is too much I just don't know. I have read that Lincoln expressed concern that the civil war could be a consequence and God's punishment on the country's permissiveness regarding slavery. I am not sure if you would consider that "fear of sin".
No doubt in my mind he was a very forgiving person. The 2nd inaugural address is a great example of his character.

Mike,

I realize that breast-feeding is not in the normal sphere of any man's knowledge, but "wet nurses" were very prominent in earlier centuries because of the fragility of many women after childbirth (or even the death of the mothers during childbirth). 99% of the time, it was not the choice of the mother to employ the use of a wet nurse - it was a necessity. My own mother was sent to a wet nurse in the village when she was born in 1914. My grandmother was past forty when she was born and could not produce enough milk to provide for her newborn.

Needless to say, wet nurses had to be women who had recently given birth themselves and were lactating or were following the dictates of the time that children should be nursed for much longer periods of time than what most modern women will do today. Extended nursing of yours or anyone else's child meant extended lactating. I know, too much information...

I believe that there were formulas available around the Civil War period - courtesy of the Borden Company and their condensed milk.

I do have one question for Liz - why are you so obsessed with the issue of slavery that it has to be incorporated into nearly every one of your postings? I dare say that 99.9% of the people on this forum know that it was a "peculiar" and reprehensible institution -- from ancient civilizations to modern ones. Please stop beating the drum unless you can tell us something we don't already know.

(08-30-2013, 03:10 PM)L Verge Wrote: I do have one question for Liz - why are you so obsessed with the issue of slavery that it has to be incorporated into nearly every one of your postings? I dare say that 99.9% of the people on this forum know that it was a "peculiar" and reprehensible institution -- from ancient civilizations to modern ones. Please stop beating the drum unless you can tell us something we don't already know.

I'll answer your question with a question. How does one *not* bring up slavery on a forum dedicated to the memory of Abraham Lincoln, the man who freed the slaves? I'm sorry if it bothers you, but I won't stop posting about it. You can just skip over my slavery statements if you'd like.

Thanks Laurie, speaking for a lot of the guys on the forum, now I know everything that I wanted to know, and then some, about breast feeding during the civil war. (I didn't know they had formula back then). My day is complete

While some subjects we discuss may become tiresome, it usually happens that someone will say something I hadn't thought of. And it's nice to know that even when I disagree with someone, sooner or later they write something that I can agree with so I realize they're not totally nuts!

Liz,
I was speaking from a mindset of the present. I thought that people who were not trolling for an argument would have picked up on that. It wasn't even intended as a serious post. But, I do in todays world, even in the most liberal mindsets of " it takes a village " think it is strange and a little disturbing to breast feed another's child. I am not a woman so I can not speak on their behalf, I must admit to being wrong from time to time about as to what a woman may be thinking, even though I would bet that most might find it strange also. No, Liz, I never intended to imply that Mary Lincoln posted signs instructing sick mothers to bring thier hungry babies to suckle from her bosom for her own enjoyment.
Thank you for the history lesson, I completely overlooked the fact that there were no disposable bottles of similac in the mid nineteenth century.
I also have some family in West Virginia, I will make sure to ask them about " the good 'ol days " if their Great Grantparents forced slaves to nurture their past relatives, because Great Grandma couldn't put down her lemonade. After all, all Southerner's are racist and had to own slaves somewhere along their line.

Mike: My intention in bringing up slaves who performed duties as "wet nurses," the correct term that Laurie uses above, was simply to point out how prevalent breast feeding was in those days. It wasn't to accuse your ancestors of being bad people.

I found this about baby formula on wikipedia: "This trend was driven by cultural changes as well as increased sanitation measures,[13] and it continued throughout the 19th and much of the 20th century, with a notable increase after Elijah Pratt invented and patented the India-rubber nipple in 1845.[9][14] As early as 1846, scientists and nutritionists noted an increase in medical problems and infant mortality was associated with dry nursing.[11][15] In an attempt to improve the quality of manufactured baby foods, in 1867, Justus von Liebig developed the world's first commercial infant formula, Liebig's Soluble Food for Babies.[16] The success of this product quickly gave rise to competitors such as Mellin's Infant Food, Ridge's Food for Infants and Nestlé's Milk.[17]"

(08-30-2013, 03:21 PM)brtmchl Wrote: Liz,
I was speaking from a mindset of the present. I thought that people who were not trolling for an argument would have picked up on that. It wasn't even intended as a serious post. But, I do in todays world, even in the most liberal mindsets of " it takes a village " think it is strange and a little disturbing to breast feed another's child. I am not a woman so I can not speak on their behalf, I must admit to being wrong from time to time about as to what a woman may be thinking, even though I would bet that most might find it strange also. No, Liz, I never intended to imply that Mary Lincoln posted signs instructing sick mothers to bring thier hungry babies to suckle from her bosom for her own enjoyment.
Thank you for the history lesson, I completely overlooked the fact that there were no disposable bottles of similac in the mid nineteenth century.
I also have some family in West Virginia, I will make sure to ask them about " the good 'ol days " if their Great Grantparents forced slaves to nurture their past relatives, because Great Grandma couldn't put down her lemonade. After all, all Southerner's are racist and had to own slaves somewhere along their line.

Trust me, Liz, I will be ignoring any further comments that you make about the institution of slavery. Your obsession with the subject will not be the cause of my stroke...

Liz,
Your point was to argue. I am not offended or hurt that you were accusing my ancestors. I don't care even if you were. I was being sarcastic, since you clearly wanted to argue. I AM aggravated that you look to turn every topic into a slavery topic. I don't have a problem with having that discussion either. I agree, you can't have a discussion involving Lincoln without discussing slavery; but it doesn't need to be on every thread.
Start one about slavery and let everyone get it off their chest. That's fine.

Originally, I simply thanked you for a strange ( to me ) fact that I had never known, and made a simple comment that apparently you thought warranted an argument. That is all.

---

Gene, you got me. I should be honest and say ALL the time.