(11-10-2020 12:41 PM)Rob Wick Wrote:  What exactly does all that prove? So there are at least 21 people in a nation of over 300,000,000 that agree with you. I honestly don't get your obsession with this. You disagree with it. That's fine. That's your right. But you seem to be afraid of what will happen to Lincoln's reputation among Americans if some misguided people are allowed to tear down a statue or change the name of a high school. I have more faith in Lincoln, and in my fellow countrymen, to worry about that.

Best
Rob

The importance to this "nation of over 300,000,000" is this:

“The duplicity of attempting to alter the historical record in a manner intended to deceive the public is as serious an infraction against professional ethics as a journalist can commit.”

And, when this duplicity is rewarded with a Pulitzer Prize, it provides the cover of authoritative "presumed truth" for many of the 300,000,000 citizens of the United States.

Some people don't care; I do.

(11-10-2020 12:41 PM)Rob Wick Wrote:  What exactly does all that prove? So there are at least 21 people in a nation of over 300,000,000 that agree with you.

Make that 22


It's not just Lincoln's reputation.
It's not just tearing down a statue or changing the name of a school. It's deeper and much more serious than that.

It's a lack of respect for history, people and community, and law. It's the destruction of public and private property that has caused millions of dollars of damage and ruined communities.
It's about standing up for what is right and worthwhile.

Quote:“The duplicity of attempting to alter the historical record in a manner intended to deceive the public is as serious an infraction against professional ethics as a journalist can commit.”

Which is a matter of opinion. Even if you were able to convince the entire American Historical Association that this was a correct interpretation, it still is nothing more than opinion.

Plus, while I'm no lawyer, to accuse someone of trying to deceive the public could be considered, at least in my mind, as libelous or slanderous.

Quote:And, when this duplicity is rewarded with a Pulitzer Prize, it provides the cover of authoritative "presumed truth" for many of the 300,000,000 citizens of the United States.

Nonsense. When you can show me how many of those 300,000,000 even know who won the prize this year then I'll concede your point.

Quote:Some people don't care; I do.

That's the first thing you've said that I agree with.

Best
Rob

(11-10-2020 02:30 PM)Rob Wick Wrote:  

Quote:“The duplicity of attempting to alter the historical record in a manner intended to deceive the public is as serious an infraction against professional ethics as a journalist can commit.”

Which is a matter of opinion. Even if you were able to convince the entire American Historical Association that this was a correct interpretation, it still is nothing more than opinion.

Plus, while I'm no lawyer, to accuse someone of trying to deceive the public could be considered, at least in my mind, as libelous or slanderous.

Quote:And, when this duplicity is rewarded with a Pulitzer Prize, it provides the cover of authoritative "presumed truth" for many of the 300,000,000 citizens of the United States.

Nonsense. When you can show me how many of those 300,000,000 even know who won the prize this year then I'll concede your point.

Quote:Some people don't care; I do.

That's the first thing you've said that I agree with.

Best
Rob

One out of three is a good percentage in baseball. But when it comes to President Abraham Lincoln, I want to hear and read the truth 100 percent of the time.

What percentage of the time would you prefer to hear and read the truth about President Abraham Lincoln?

Your question is specious. Who would be willing to accept 90 percent of the truth? What you should be asking is how do you determine what is true and what is prejudice? What it boils down to, from the various posts you've made here, is my belief (opinion, not fact or truth) that you worship a plaster saint and want everyone else to do so. You believe that by removing Lincoln's name from a high school, whether right or wrong, it is an affront to his memory. I believe that if you're going to require that no name be taken off of a school named for Lincoln, you better be ready for those who hold the same view about Robert E. Lee. You can't be in favor of one and not allow the other. If a government body such as a city council or a school board determines that a majority of its constituents want that action to take place, that's what we call democracy. You are free to question that action and to vote against those who take it, but if you don't succeed in removing them from office, that is pretty much prima facie evidence that the move was accepted and popular.

As for the 1619 Project and the awarding of the Pulitzer, go someplace where you can put up a table and circulate a petition to urge the New York Times to disassociate itself with the series. However, before they can sign, they must give you a detailed account of what it says and how it's wrong. I expect you'll come out with a very bright white piece of paper.

Best
Rob

(11-10-2020 06:09 PM)Rob Wick Wrote:  Your question is specious. . . . I believe that if you're going to require that no name be taken off of a school named for Lincoln, you better be ready for those who hold the same view about Robert E. Lee. You can't be in favor of one and not allow the other.

That is quite a specious argument.

In his Second Inaugural Address, President Lincoln wrote: "Both parties deprecated war; but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive; and the other would accept war rather than let it perish. And the war came."

General Robert E. Lee is associated with the first part of the comparison: "One of them would make war rather than let the nation survive."

President Abraham Lincoln is associated with the second part of the comparison: "The other would accept war rather than let it perish."

My opinion is that the party who "would accept war rather than let [the nation] perish" is in much the superior moral position.

So then you get to determine who holds the moral high ground, huh? I must have missed that election.

Best
Rob

I didn't interpret David's comments that way.

I know what y'all are thinking.
While I don't write letters to newspapers and I haven't written any historical articles for newsletters or magazines, I have stayed at a Holiday Inn Express

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHCTaUFXpP8

(11-12-2020 06:29 AM)Gene C Wrote:  I didn't interpret David's comments that way.

I know what y'all are thinking.
While I don't write letters to newspapers and I haven't written any historical articles for newsletters or magazines, I have stayed at a Holiday Inn Express

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHCTaUFXpP8

Gene, can you now perform heart surgery?

Quote:I didn't interpret David's comments that way.

Quote:My opinion is that the party who "would accept war rather than let [the nation] perish" is in much the superior moral position.

I'm not sure exactly how else you can interpret that, Gene. The way I read it is that Lincoln, because of his opposition to slavery, and Lee, because he fought to establish a slaveholding republic, are poles apart in moral greatness. Therefire, those who support Lincoln are right and those who support Lee are wrong. That's the textbook definition of moral high ground.

Quote:It's not just Lincoln's reputation.
It's not just tearing down a statue or changing the name of a school. It's deeper and much more serious than that.

It's a lack of respect for history, people and community, and law. It's the destruction of public and private property that has caused millions of dollars of damage and ruined communities.
It's about standing up for what is right and worthwhile.

Gene, for some reason I didn't see this in my feed yesterday. I obviously looked over it.

In the first place, it is about reputation, a statue and a school.

History, in and of itself, is not something to be respected or disrespected. History is the serious attempt to tell what happened in a community or society using primary and secondary resources and attempting to tell the story without bias or prejudice. If you respect anything in this, it's the last part. Obviously, people have differing opinions on whether that happens or doesn't (hence David's obsession with the 1619 Project), but as long as one side puts out the information in good faith, they have a right to bring it out for discussion. No one, that I know of, believes that the 1619 Project should have never been published, but they question the conclusions it reaches. Also, rescinding the Pulitzer Prize that the series won will not magically make it disappear from public consciousness, although it would actually have to appear in public consciousness for that to even be possible.

I fail to see how any group who petitions a council or board to remove a statue is somehow showing disrespect for the people, community, or the law.

As for the tearing down of statues, vandalism is indeed against the law, but it's not on the same level as robbery, burglary, rape, or murder. It's generally a misdemeanor, and it is punished based on how a statute is written. What people fail to realize is that if someone's voice doesn't receive a respectful hearing by those in power, many times some will scream in order to be heard. While there are numerous ways to scream that fall within the boundaries of the law, when you don't believe the law protects you, one cannot be surprised that some will bypass that. Does it make it right? No, but it can be understood.

How many Lincoln statues have been torn down? As far as I can see, just one. Some will argue that this is one too many, but I don't see a huge wave of destruction where Lincoln is concerned. A community has the right to determine what its collective values are and present petitions to its civic leaders for attention. If a community wants to remove a statue of Lincoln, or whomever, and they can garner enough support to make that happen, then it will. If the people who oppose such a removal are able to mount an election challenge that removes those who made the decision, then it will have been proven to be the wrong move and those responsible are turned out of office.

Isn't that the textbook definition of democracy?

Best
Rob

By the way, you may not write letters to the editor or articles, but you do know where to find great pizza. That's worth more than either one of those other things in my book.

I make the following post regarding the anticipated actions in behalf of American Indians by President Abraham Lincoln to be taken following the close of the Civil War. The source of the citations is Professor Michael Burlingame in his Lincoln Prize winning (2010) book, Abraham Lincoln: A Life, Vol. TWO, (2008), at pages 483-484.

The president told a friend that [Episcopal Bishop Henry B.] Whipple “came here the other day and talked with me about the rascality of this Indian business until I felt it down to my boots.” In reply to Whipple’s appeal, Lincoln characteristically recounted a story: “Bishop, a man thought that monkeys could pick cotton better than negroes could because they were quicker and their fingers smaller. He turned a lot of them into his cotton field, but he found that it took two overseers to watch one monkey. It needs more than one honest man to watch one Indian agent.” He pledged that “if we get through this war, and if I live, this Indian system shall be reformed.” [82 – Henry B. Whipple, Light and Shadows of a Long Episcopate: Being Reminiscences and Recollections of the Right Reverend Henry Benjamin Whipple, (1899), pages 136-137.] Similarly, in the winter of 1863-1864, he told Joseph La Barge, a steam-boat captain who protested against corrupt government Indian agents, “wait until I get this Rebellion off my hands, and I will take up this question and see that justice is done the Indian.” [83 – Hiram M. Chittenden, History of Early Steamboat Navigation on the Missouri River: Life and Adventures of Joseph La Barge, (1903), page 342.] To Father John Beason, a noted Indian clergyman, he said “that as soon as the war was settled his attention should be given to the Indians and it should not cease until justice to their and my satisfaction was secured. [84 – John Beason to Henry W. Bellows, (1862), Bellow Papers, MHi.] In his 1862 annual message to Congress, Lincoln urged that it change the system. “With all my heart I thank you for your recommendation to have our whole Indian system reformed,” Whipple wrote the president. “It is a stupendous piece of wickedness and as we fear God ought to be changed.” Though Lincoln did not live to see this recommendation implemented, he gave a significant boost to the movement that eventually overthrew the corrupt system. [85 – Nichols, Lincoln and the Indians, page 145.]

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

[Note: Given the questionable source of all this information, I got the theoretical special permission of Laurie Verge to make this post in the interest of truth in history.]

RE: I’m not offended!

(07-07-2019 07:47 PM)L Verge Wrote: And then we have two politicians in my area over the past decade: One who was killed while driving intoxicated with a woman other than his wife -- and ended up having a school re-named for him (it used to be named Lord Baltimore for the founder of Maryland). And just recently, another local politician was driving while intoxicated and doing well over the speed limit until he crashed, jumped out of his government car, and ran. And, he got re-elected...

I tried to find the source of the Lincoln story told to Bishop Whipple that ended up with the president’s observation and conclusion: “It needs more than one honest man to watch one Indian agent.” I was unsuccessful in this endeavor.

However, I did find the following related statement made by President Lincoln to Congress:

In his 1862 annual message, even as Lincoln struggled with the issue of the executions, he asked Congress to reform the Indian system. “Many wise and good men have impressed me with the belief that this can be profitably done,” he said. Lincoln urged the Congress to give the matter its “especial consideration.”

(Source: Lincoln Looks West: From the Mississippi to the Pacific, by Richard Etulain, 2010, at page 222.)

(11-12-2020 10:47 AM)Rob Wick Wrote:  

Quote: Gene wrote: "It's not just Lincoln's reputation.

It's about standing up for what is right and worthwhile."

History is the serious attempt to tell what happened in a community or society using primary and secondary resources and attempting to tell the story without bias or prejudice. If you respect anything in this, it's the last part. Obviously, people have differing opinions on whether that happens or doesn't (hence David's obsession with the 1619 Project), but as long as one side puts out the information in good faith, they have a right to bring it out for discussion. No one, that I know of, believes that the 1619 Project should have never been published, but they question the conclusions it reaches. Also, rescinding the Pulitzer Prize that the series won will not magically make it disappear from public consciousness, although it would actually have to appear in public consciousness for that to even be possible.

I fail to see how any group who petitions a council or board to remove a statue is somehow showing disrespect for the people, community, or the law.

As for the tearing down of statues, vandalism is indeed against the law, but it's not on the same level as robbery, burglary, rape, or murder. It's generally a misdemeanor, and it is punished based on how a statute is written. What people fail to realize is that if someone's voice doesn't receive a respectful hearing by those in power, many times some will scream in order to be heard. While there are numerous ways to scream that fall within the boundaries of the law, when you don't believe the law protects you, one cannot be surprised that some will bypass that. Does it make it right? No, but it can be understood.

How many Lincoln statues have been torn down? As far as I can see, just one. Some will argue that this is one too many, but I don't see a huge wave of destruction where Lincoln is concerned. A community has the right to determine what its collective values are and present petitions to its civic leaders for attention. If a community wants to remove a statue of Lincoln, or whomever, and they can garner enough support to make that happen, then it will. If the people who oppose such a removal are able to mount an election challenge that removes those who made the decision, then it will have been proven to be the wrong move and those responsible are turned out of office.

Isn't that the textbook definition of democracy?

Best
Rob

This post to which I am responding has been pared down, with my interjections added as identified by the brackets.

History is the serious attempt to tell what happened . . . without bias or prejudice. If you respect anything in this, it's the last part. . . . No one, that I know of, believes that the 1619 Project should have never been published.

[I don’t think that 1619 Project should ever have been published and you know me. And, you also must know that many of this nation’s eminent historians and Lincoln scholars expressed their opinions beforehand that the 1619 Project should not have been published as is and specifically identified correctable problems with the text; they stated their opinion as a unanimous group. And, you must also know that most recently 21 members of the Society of Scholars, in a letter to the Pulitzer Prize Board, called for the 2020 Pulitzer Prize for Commentary to be rescinded for cause, and that cause being for serious factual history errors in the 1619 Project itself.]

Also, rescinding the Pulitzer Prize that the series won will not magically make it disappear from public consciousness . . . .

[I don’t want the Pulitzer Prize for the 1619 Project Commentary to disappear from public consciousness. I want the public to know exactly the reasons that it will be disappearing from accepted history because it is an untruthful history.]

I fail to see how any group who petitions a council or board to remove a statue is somehow showing disrespect for the people, community, or the law.

[These are the same members of this San Francisco Board of Education who wanted to whitewash (destroy) the Washington High School murals, as previously discussed on this forum, at a cost of $8 million, as I recall. And, many members of the public who had not been part of the Board’s decision-making process rose up in objection to the Board’s proposed action and forced the Board to reconsider its decision. If these members of the public had waited for an election to express their opposition, the murals would have been destroyed – a fait accompli.]

[This is the same San Francisco Board of Education that now wants to rename Abraham Lincoln High School for just cause. The evidence justifying this action has been researched by a committee of the Board and thereafter the evidence was evaluated by the full Board. The decision to make the change has been made already by the Board. The Board will vote for final approval of its decision in December, as I recall the situation.]

[In the Richmond district of San Francisco in which I live, a local newspaper titled the Richmond Review is published for free once a month. The paper contains a monthly commentary by a man named Quentin Kopp, who is a former San Francisco supervisor, state senator, member of the San Francisco Ethics Commission and retired judge. He wrote regarding the Board of Education’s decision to rename several San Francisco schools in the November 2020 issue as follows:

“Appalling is the word best descriptive of the Board of Education which, confronting a multi-million dollar deficit and virus impediments to classroom instruction, plans to change the names of 44 San Francisco public schools, including Washington, Lincoln, Lowell, Mission, Balboa, Presidio, Alamo, Clarendon, Commodore Sloat, Ulloa, Sutro, Sheridan, Sherman, Feinstein, Lakeshore, Jefferson, Noriega, and Garfield (don’t forget El Dorado!). A committee including one non-resident and four Native Americans has so recommended. The estimated renaming cost is $10 million.”]

[It would surprise me greatly to learn that any of the four Native Americans on the evaluation committee of the Board are aware of all, or even a major portion, of the information that I have posted on this thread regarding President Abraham Lincoln, the “Dakota 38,” and related issues.]

How many Lincoln statues have been torn down? As far as I can see, just one. Some will argue that this is one too many [I am in that group, no question.], but I don't see a huge wave of destruction where Lincoln is concerned. A community has the right to determine what its collective values are and present petitions to its civic leaders for attention. If a community [or, a Board of Education] wants to remove a statue of Lincoln [or, rename a school named in honor of President Abraham Lincoln], or whomever, and they can garner enough support to make that happen, then it will. If the people who oppose such a removal are able to mount an election challenge that removes those who made the decision, then it will have been proven to be the wrong move and those responsible are turned out of office.

Isn't that the textbook definition of democracy?

[No, this is not the textbook “definition of democracy.” President Abraham Lincoln defined democracy in his Gettysburg Address as that “government of the people, by the people, for the people.” There is no doubt that some of our elected or appointed government officials can get completely out of hand. And, even after an extremely important recent election in this democracy, at least one formerly-elected government official now refuses to be “turned out of office.” He probably hasn’t read your textbook on democracy. Maybe you should mail a copy to him. Good Luck!]

David,

Quote:And, you also must know that many of this nation’s eminent historians and Lincoln scholars expressed their opinions beforehand that the 1619 Project should not have been published as is and specifically identified correctable problems with the text; they stated their opinion as a unanimous group.

The words "as is" and "their opinion" proves my point and lessens yours. My comment was that no historian said the series should not have been published AT ALL! While you may believe that (an opinion that I find distasteful having been a journalist myself) none of these sainted historians ever said that. Their main complaint was their belief that several factual inaccuracies existed and that the Times was not taking them seriously enough. It should be noted that even Sean Wilentz wrote "The letter has provoked considerable reaction, some of it from historians affirming our concerns about the 1619 Project’s inaccuracies, some from historians questioning our motives in pointing out those inaccuracies, and some from the Times itself. (emphasis added). So not all historians are marching in lock step with your preferred narrative.

Quote:I don’t want the Pulitzer Prize for the 1619 Project Commentary to disappear from public consciousness. I want the public to know exactly the reasons that it will be disappearing from accepted history because it is an untruthful history.

And you can keep tilting at that windmill for as long as you choose. I wish you luck.

Quote:And, many members of the public who had not been part of the Board’s decision-making process rose up in objection to the Board’s proposed action and forced the Board to reconsider its decision. If these members of the public had waited for an election to express their opposition, the murals would have been destroyed – a fait accompli.

I never suggested they wait for an election to object to the board's decision. I said they were well within their rights once they found out what the board was going to do, to protest. If their protests were not accepted or acted upon, THEN they would have the option of voting them out of office.

Quote:The evidence justifying this action has been researched by a committee of the Board and thereafter the evidence was evaluated by the full Board. The decision to make the change has been made already by the Board. The Board will vote for final approval of its decision in December, as I recall the situation.

Then you and those like you who find this decision wrong will be free to either turn them out of office or even run for the office yourself and attempt to rename the school. Why is this so hard for you to accept?

Quote:[No, this is not the textbook “definition of democracy.” President Abraham Lincoln defined democracy in his Gettysburg Address as that “government of the people, by the people, for the people.” There is no doubt that some of our elected or appointed government officials can get completely out of hand. And, even after an extremely important recent election in this democracy, at least one formerly-elected government official now refuses to be “turned out of office.” He probably hasn’t read your textbook on democracy. Maybe you should mail a copy to him. Good Luck!

Maybe I'm just stupid, but your point makes absolutely no sense to me. However, Lincoln's own definition of democracy was this: "“As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy. Whatever differs from this, to the extent of the difference, is no democracy."

I've already spent far more time on this discussion than it's worth. Therefore, I'm finished with this.

Best
Rob

Doris Kearns Goodwin refers to Leo Tolstoy in her book, Team of Rivals, at page 747, as “the greatest writer of the age.” On page 748 of her book, she quotes Leo Tolstoy’s opinion on the subject of President Abraham Lincoln’s greatness:

Tolstoy went on to observe, “This little incident proves how largely the name of Lincoln is worshipped throughout the world and how legendary his personality has become. Now, why was Lincoln so great that he over-shadows all other national heroes? He really was not a great general like Napoleon or Washington; he was not such a skillful statesman as Gladstone or Frederick the Great; but his supremacy expresses itself altogether in his peculiar moral power and in the greatness of his character.

“Washington was a typical American. Napoleon was a typical French-man, but Lincoln was a humanitarian as broad as the world. He was bigger than his country—bigger than all the Presidents together.

“We are still too near to his greatness,” Tolstoy concluded, “but after a few centuries more our posterity will find him considerably bigger than we do. His genius is still too strong and too powerful for the common understanding; just as the sun is too hot when its light beams directly on us.”

(Goodwin’s Source: Leo Tolstoy, quoted in The World, New York, February 7, 1908.)

I agree whole-heartedly with these words written by Leo Tolstoy.

So, when the Board of Education in the city where I live, San Francisco, makes the decision to dishonor the character and reputation of President Abraham Lincoln by renaming the high school that had been named in his honor, I am personally deeply offended.

And, when I then learn that this decision has been made on the basis of President Lincoln’s alleged misconduct in the “Dakota 38” Native Indians issue, I am genuinely perplexed as to how this possibly could have happened. Based upon the important relevant evidence to the contrary that I have already presented on this thread, such a decision that has already been made by the Board would be impossible to make in terms of fairness and justice.

That is all that know about the situation here in San Francisco at this point. My next step is discovery, if possible, of the relevant evidence presented to the Board on this particular subject in reaching their highly questionable decision.