(12-17-2014 01:04 PM)Don1946 Wrote:  I'm curious why so many posters who seem hostile to Lincoln's ideals and so eager to vindicate the Confederacy are drawn to this forum. Am I alone in finding this strange?

Don, kindly see my post from August of 2012 here. The goal of the forum is different from the now-defunct Friends of Lincoln Mailbag. It is open to all viewpoints. At times this leads to some very heated disagreements. No one loves Lincoln more than me, but people who think differently are welcome here and always have been since the forum's inception in 2012. The differences visible in this particular thread are not unlike differences we've had in many other threads over the past 2 1/2 years. Thank you for your understanding, if not your agreement, with the forum's purpose.

Poor Jesse James! No wonder he became a larcenous murderer. Those banks he and the others were robbing had the life savings of local Missouri people.

My question is, not why Jesse James became a terrorist thug, but why are we giving over this forum to defending the enemies of Lincoln and his party?

Well put Roger. This is a much varied group from all viewpoints. It is amazing that 150 years after the Civil War and Abraham Lincoln, that the people and the events can still bring out such intellectual and sometimes very emotional opinions and observations. I am one with a Southern-Centric point of view, however, I live in (usually) the 21st century and can objectively look at the past. As Shelby Foote so eloquently put it, the cause that the Confederacy fought for was one of the worst. But it is such a great American ideal that we can look back and be able to discuss the most important decade of our county's history, good, bad and ugly. I have been guilty of making a post that I regret, and I am fortunate that I can apologize, and move forward. As I have said to Roger in the past, the symposium is much like a privaet old English men's club that admits Ladies, and thank goodness. 99.9% of the time, we approach this symposium with great dignity and responsibility. Thank you Roger for such a great arena to express opinion, sentiment and intellect!

---

(12-17-2014 02:33 PM)Jim Garrett Wrote:  Well put Roger. This is a much varied group from all viewpoints. It is amazing that 150 years after the Civil War and Abraham Lincoln, that the people and the events can still bring out such intellectual and sometimes very emotional opinions and observations. I am one with a Southern-Centric point of view, however, I live in (usually) the 21st century and can objectively look at the past. As Shelby Foote so eloquently put it, the cause that the Confederacy fought for was one of the worst. But it is such a great American ideal that we can look back and be able to discuss the most important decade of our county's history, good, bad and ugly. I have been guilty of making a post that I regret, and I am fortunate that I can apologize, and move forward. As I have said to Roger in the past, the symposium is much like a privaet old English men's club that admits Ladies, and thank goodness. 99.9% of the time, we approach this symposium with great dignity and responsibility. Thank you Roger for such a great arena to express opinion, sentiment and intellect!

That being said, Ben Butler was indeed the devil incarnate.

(12-17-2014 02:09 PM)RJNorton Wrote:  

(12-17-2014 01:04 PM)Don1946 Wrote:  I'm curious why so many posters who seem hostile to Lincoln's ideals and so eager to vindicate the Confederacy are drawn to this forum. Am I alone in finding this strange?

Don, kindly see my post from August of 2012 here. The goal of the forum is different from the now-defunct Friends of Lincoln Mailbag. It is open to all viewpoints. At times this leads to some very heated disagreements. No one loves Lincoln more than me, but people who think differently are welcome here and always have been since the forum's inception in 2012. The differences visible in this particular thread are not unlike differences we've had in many other threads over the past 2 1/2 years. Thank you for your understanding, if not your agreement, with the forum's purpose.

This is a great statement and attitude. I believe in dialogue to understand (which doesn't mean agree on all viewpoints) and think discussion without different viewpoints is less "enlightening". I agree with Jim, and especially second this:

(12-17-2014 02:33 PM)Jim Garrett Wrote:  Thank you Roger for such a great arena to express opinion.

(12-17-2014 02:30 PM)Don1946 Wrote:  My question is, not why Jesse James became a terrorist thug, but why are we giving over this forum to defending the enemies of Lincoln and his party?

I'll pick on Wild Bill. He is obviously an intelligent, well educated person. I respect his opinion, he sometimes presents information in a way I hadn't thought of before, but there are times I don't agree with him. Same with you Don. I see people with strong feelings on both sides of the issue expressing themselves. An interesting aspect of Lincoln's life was defending his beliefs and those of his party, dealing with the horror's of war, being disappointed with political allies and military leaders. The very same things we re discussing now.

What we are talking about from a distance of 150 years, he was in the middle of. His cabinet meetings must have been really something. Can you imagine how frustrated everyone was. I see on a small scale, what Lincoln went through.

(12-17-2014 01:04 PM)Don1946 Wrote:  

(12-15-2014 03:37 PM)Rick Smith Wrote:  Robert James, father of Frank & Jesse, died in California around 1850 and Gene is correct, he was a highly educated Baptist minister.

The white supremacist tag is an easy one to assign to Southerners when feelings run high, but there was plenty to go around from Northerners and Union people as well. Some of Mr. Lincoln's comments regarding blacks could be tagged as racist or supremacist.

A little thoughtfulness is called for, I think, on the issue.

Rick, I gather you concede that Jesse James was a violent murderer and robber? But you are concerned that he is unfairly branded as a pro-slavery white supremacist? I don't think there is any debate over which side he was on, is there? According to Stiles, who was cited earlier as an authority, he and his gang were aligned with the Klan, wore hoods, repudiated emancipation, shot blacks on sight. Lincoln's views on race, James's father's piety, or northern attitudes on race are completely irrelevant to this matter.

Do you really want to defend Jesse James?!

I'm curious why so many posters who seem hostile to Lincoln's ideals and so eager to vindicate the Confederacy are drawn to this forum. Am I alone in finding this strange?

Don,

I am not here to defend Jesse James, but only take exception to your use of a modern phrase and looking at the 19th century through a 21st century lens.

As to Mr. Lincoln's politics; I would not attempt to defend those either.

Rick

Funny, Don 1946, I and several others have always thought this forum dedicated to vindicating the Yankee side of the war.

I guess we are all befuddled by PhD's and other false gods, to use the phrase of commentator Dennis Praeger

The Gresham's Law of internet discussion in action, Roger.
Good luck.

Don, you completely misread the whole meaning of my post.

(12-17-2014 03:32 PM)Wild Bill Wrote:  Funny, Don 1946, I and several others have always thought this forum dedicated to vindicating the Yankee side of the war.

I guess we are all befuddled by PhD's and other false gods, to use the phrase of commentator Dennis Praeger

Careful, Wild Bill - remember that you hold a PhD also!

Dr. Doyle - "I've spent a lot of time with Mr. Lincoln these last few years and am looking forward to meeting others who are fascinated by the man, his times, and his meaning for the world then and now."

I believe that I have accurately quoted what you have posted on your profile for this forum. It is almost the exact reason why I joined this forum and the former Friends of Lincoln Mailbag, and have learned so much from Roger Norton's wonderful research site on Abraham Lincoln (have you been there?)

I also believe that the difference between your interest in Lincoln and mine is that we both may be fascinated by Mr. Lincoln, but I do not idolize him. I see both good and bad in him - just as I do many of the historical figures related to the crucial years from 1830 to 1880. In fact, I think one of the prime duties of any good historian is to judge people from all sides. I think that's how Lincoln saw life also.

And, I just bet that he would love to be a vocal part of our forum in order to express his opinions on his contemporaries, their true roles in our country's history, what was achieved or lost by our Civil War, and other topics. I don't approve of things that Lincoln did - especially in my home state of Maryland - but I understand why he did some of the things, just as I understand some of the actions of those you choose to condemn on the Confederate side.

Those are just my thoughts, and they have been burnished because of a severe beating that I took on another similar forum a number of years ago merely because I am director of Surratt House Museum. Those who idolized Lincoln to the extreme (and there were only a few) made life miserable for me, even though our museum's mission is to tell both sides of the story.

I just have one question out of curiosity: I understand that you are a professor at the University of South Carolina. Do you allow both sides of the Civil War to be discussed in your classes? Do you put down those students who attempt to do so?

Now, Laurie, I fully realize that I am tainted by the PhD, for which I apologize.

All I really want to know who is the cheap money that drives the good from the marketplace? Me or Don1946?

After all, I am just an ole cowboy. . .

Say, that reminds me of a song......sorry Wild Bill, I couldn't resit

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RePtDvh4Yq4

No offense

(12-17-2014 04:08 PM)L Verge Wrote:  I just have one question out of curiosity: I understand that you are a professor at the University of South Carolina. Do you allow both sides of the Civil War to be discussed in your classes? Do you put down those students who attempt to do so?

I wonder if Dr. Doyle will use this thread in his classroom.

I had students at the college and adult level,[Rochester,NY in the Civil War]who refused to sit near each other-one side for the North and one side for the South.When it got so bad, that I asked the dean to step in and try to solve this problem.That college is in the North,and so,I thought the Civil War was over! Never Again] will I teach at that level.