So what you're really saying is as long as you don't idolize the person whose name is being taken off the school, the students have the right to petition for change. However, make it someone whom you idolize beyond all reason, and it's wrong.

Nice lesson to teach the youth of San Francisco.

Best
Rob

(03-11-2021 04:19 PM)Rob Wick Wrote:  So what you're really saying is as long as you don't idolize the person whose name is being taken off the school, the students have the right to petition for change. However, make it someone whom you idolize beyond all reason, and it's wrong.

Nice lesson to teach the youth of San Francisco.

Best
Rob

Rob, why didn't you just write a Reply to my actual email which I now quote:

No, I am saying that they are the ones who should have the right to change the name of a school if it doesn't reflect their values . . . unless they have a hidden agenda as do the elected members of the San Francisco Board of Education. For good cause stated - yes; for bad cause not stated - no.

Let me be clear, Rob. I am against the actions of the San Francisco School Board in authorizing the renaming of Abraham Lincoln High School in San Francisco on the basis of President Abraham Lincoln's role in the execution of the "Dakota 38," the largest mass execution of Native Americans in the history of the United States. And, if the "students who attend this school" petitioned the School Board to rename Abraham Lincoln High School for this same reason, I would be against that petition, as well.

If you think your statement describing my statement are the same thing, I disagree. Where do you mention the "Dakota 38" issue?

Nice lesson to teach the youth of San Francisco, Rob.

---

For all of those, such as Rob, who would be interested in reading much more about the Brown Act violations in the Renaming of San Francisco schools, including Abraham Lincoln High School, I would suggest reading both the entire seven-page letter sent by attorney Paul Scott to San Francisco Mayor London Breed plus my Letter to Editor published in the Richmond Review. I quote from both sources immediately below.

LAW OFFICES OF PAUL D. SCOTT

February 1, 2021

BY EMAIL AND FIRST-CLASS MAIL

Re: Renaming of San Francisco Schools

Dear Mayor Breed:

First paragraph: I write concerning the recent announcement by the SFUSD Board of Education that it plans to change the names of 44 public schools in San Francisco. Like many San Francisco residents, I have appreciated your thoughtful comments in response to the School Board’s pronouncements on this subject. As numerous residents share your common-sense concerns, my firm has spent some time reviewing the process by which the Board arrived at its stated intention to change the names of the schools, and our conclusion is that the School Board’s decision violated the Brown Act and also fails from a due process standpoint. Accordingly, as litigation regarding the Board’s determination may otherwise ensue by legitimately frustrated San Francisco residents, I would respectfully request that the City Attorney be asked to review the points set forth in this letter and issue an opinion, so the School Board will have an opportunity, if appropriate, to reconsider its course of action.

Last paragraph: It is evident the School Board failed to provide adequate notice of what would be decided at its January 26, 2021 hearing and has begun to take action beyond the scope of the resolution that it passed there. For these reasons, its actions are unlawful. If the School Board wishes to consider the renaming of schools, at the appropriate time, it should do so with adequate notice and due process. The proposed action involves 44 individual schools, with different issues and numerous stakeholders as to each. As a purely practical matter, consideration of renaming should thus proceed on a school-by-school basis, at the appropriate time, with adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard by all those who would be affected by each individual decision. Overall, the School Board is engaged in an effort at profound change. The rigor of the proceedings by which they undertake that effort must therefore be commensurate to the task in order to arrive at a just and fully informed result.

Sincerely yours,
Paul D. Scott

CC: City Attorney Dennis Herrera San Francisco School Board

The following is from my Letter to Editor of the Richmond Review published online on December 9, 2019:

Editor:

I think that you should write an expose in the next issue of the Richmond Review on the machinations by San Francisco School Board with regard to the renaming of several San Francisco schools for unjust causes.

Herein anticipated actions by the elected School Board members would constitute a clear violation of the Brown Act by committing $10 million of public funds without an adequate public hearing on the basis for such expenditures. The apparent Board plan utilizes a so-called “blue-ribbon” panel to determine by consensus the adequate basis for renaming several schools in San Francisco as a result of individual panel members’ detailed historical research into dozens of historical figures previously so honored. The Board appointed panel included Mr. Sanchez, President of the Board, who attended only the first meeting of the panel on January 30, 2020, and thereafter, participated in none of the several subsequent public Zoom meetings of the panel.

Furthermore, there was no public discussion in any of the Zoom meetings posted online regarding the basis for dishonoring individual historic names, especially that of President Abraham Lincoln – there were only public “consensus votes” condemning important historical figures so-honored in the past by the citizens of San Francisco. I believe that the full Board will simply approve, with little or no discussion, the “blue-ribbon” panel’s carefully researched recommendations for individual school name changes, and then commit by a vote of the elected San Francisco School Board members to appropriate the expenditure of $10 million of public funds, and thereby, unjustly and unfairly dishonor the character and reputation of men such as President Abraham Lincoln and President George Washington by renaming San Francisco public schools named in their honor.

David Lockmiller

P.S.: Professor Michael Burlingame was the winner of the 2010 Lincoln Prize for his two-volume work on Lincoln, titled “Abraham Lincoln: A Life.” Professor Burlingame devoted five pages of his scholarly work to the 1862 Dakota Sioux Indian uprising and the subsequent actions taken by President Lincoln, titled “Magnanimity: Dealing the Minnesota Sioux Uprising.” (“Abraham Lincoln: A Life,” Vol. Two, pages 480-84.)

The introductory first paragraph contains the following important historical fact: “They (the Dakota Sioux Indians) killed hundreds and drove over 30,000 from their homes. It was the bloodiest massacre of American civilians on U.S. soil prior to September 11, 2001.”

I would be willing to bet one “Abraham Lincoln” (i.e., a $5 bill) that there is not a single member of the Renaming of Schools Panel, appointed by authority of the elected San Francisco School Board, that is aware of this important historical fact regarding President Abraham Lincoln’s actions in consequence of the 1862 Dakota Sioux Indian uprising.

Quote:Rob, why didn't you just write a Reply to my actual email which I now quote:

I did. That you can't see it is your problem.

You know David, Ida Tarbell constantly preached against your kind of thought. She warned that turning Lincoln into a plaster saint would remove him, and more important, the lessons he could teach future generations, from the national dialogue. There is nothing wrong with admiration and attempting to show students exactly how nuance should affect our views of historical figures, but your contention that students who approach renaming a school might have a "hidden agenda" just shows that you need a lesson in nuance as well.

Most people in this country see the San Fransisco board's actions for what they are--a joke. The bad publicity that the board has received from the national and international press shows just how serious one should take their efforts. That you're making this into a holy crusade gives it a sheen of seriousness that it doesn't deserve. You are doing your cause more harm than good.

Best
Rob

(03-11-2021 07:07 PM)Rob Wick Wrote:  "[Ida Tarbell] warned that turning Lincoln into a plaster saint would remove him, and more important, the lessons he could teach future generations, from the national dialogue."

Best
Rob

Can you provide an example of that statement made in her words, not yours? And, please provide the citation.

David

In celebration of the centennial of Lincoln's birth, Tarbell was invited to speak at the University of Michigan. In her remarks she said (quoting from my own article on Tarbell's development of Lincoln's views of democracy while in Indiana) "Tarbell warned her listeners not to make Lincoln out to be a demi-god. To do so would rob him of his connection to the masses. 'He ceases to be one of us and becomes a fabulous personage that you cannot sit down comfortably with and study on something like an equal footing, He is eminently more valuable to this people if understood, and studied, as a man like the rest of us. A man of high qualities, no doubt, but of qualities common in some degree to all of us.” (Tarbell speech to the University of Michigan, February 12, 1909. Entire speech is available on the Internet Archive and quoted in Robert G. Wick, "'He Was A Friend of Us Poor Men' Ida M. Tarbell and Abraham Lincoln's View of Democracy," Indiana Magazine of History, Vol. 114, No. 4, December 2018)

On February 25, 1921, a woman by the name of Frances M. Morehouse wrote Tarbell from England where Morehouse was a guest lecturer in American History at the University of Manchester. While I won't quote the whole letter (I will link to it) Morehouse asked Tarbell her thoughts on a lecture topic exploring what she called "the Lincoln Cult."

"I can find nothing better than an account of the growth in popular regard for Lincoln; the appreciation of his actual service, the accretions of legend and tradition, the tendency to regard him as a prophet and an infallible seer--all the phases of hero-worship which just now seem to be about at their probable height," Morehouse wrote.

Tarbell didn't respond until April, as she was on a speaking tour in the western U.S. Again, I won't quote the entire letter, but two main points will suffice Tarbell noted that after the Civil War, that generation viewed Lincoln as a hero, but Tarbell noted "I believe their worship is being replaced by a growing feeling of admiration and respect for the man, very solidly based. Our people are much devoted to what they consider the American type with its characteristics of common sense, directness, humor, and a bull-dog grip--and Lincoln had all of these things." Tarbell questioned whether Lincoln was worshiped as much as George Washington, Noting, "There has never been so large a hlao around Lincoln as around Washington, and I doubt if there ever will be, because of the detailed study that the country gives to the man." (emphasis added).

In what I feel is the most relevant passage, Tarbell noted, "Again, you ask if there is not danger that 'popular adulation and an aura of mythical supermanliness will jeopardize the sober evaluation of Lincoln's true and inestimable worth.' Not to any great extent. The people on the whole, have him about right His place with us depends upon the conviction of the people that he was a man, and not that he was a superman. (emphasis added). It is likeness to themselves, the fact that they understand the words he uses and the arguments-they understand, too, the struggle that he went through, it is like their own."

https://dspace.allegheny.edu/handle/1045...Frances+M.

Best
Rob

Rob wrote: “Tarbell warned her listeners not to make Lincoln out to be a demi-god.”

A demi-god is a mortal raised to divine rank.

I wondered: Why would anyone who wanted to honestly describe the character and reputation of President Abraham Lincoln want to ever describe Abraham Lincoln as a demi-god?

This is what I found in your post quoting Ida Tarbell:

1. “A man of high qualities, no doubt, but of qualities common in some degree to all of us.”

I made a birthday post this year in honor of President Abraham Lincoln:

Happy Birthday, President Abraham Lincoln!

Today, February 12, 2021, is the anniversary of President Abraham Lincoln’s birthday (212 years ago; on 2-12-1809).

Tolstoy said of President Abraham Lincoln in 1908: “We are still too near to his greatness, 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.” (Doris Kearns Goodwin’s source in Team of Rivals: Leo Tolstoy, quoted in The World, New York, February 7, 1908.)

I believe that is the closest that I have come to describing Abraham Lincoln as a demi-god and I used Tolstoy’s words. But I agree whole-heartedly with Tolstoy’s description. I recently described Lincoln as “a man of his word” in a post or private message.

2. Tarbell noted "I believe their worship is being replaced by a growing feeling of admiration and respect for the man, very solidly based. Our people are much devoted to what they consider the American type with its characteristics of common sense, directness, humor, and a bull-dog grip--and Lincoln had all of these things."

3. Tarbell noted, "Again, you ask if there is not danger that 'popular adulation and an aura of mythical supermanliness will jeopardize the sober evaluation of Lincoln's true and inestimable worth.' Not to any great extent. The people on the whole, have him about right. His place with us depends upon the conviction of the people that he was a man, and not that he was a superman. It is likeness to themselves, the fact that they understand the words he uses and the arguments-they understand, too, the struggle that he went through, it is like their own."

Many thanks, Rob. That was a great post!!!!

Glad you enjoyed it.

Best
Rob

There may be some people who are illogically concerned about President Lincoln becoming a cult figure like the lady from England who wrote repeatedly to Ida Tarbell about these concerns.

To which, Ida Tarbell responded:

"Again, you ask if there is not danger that 'popular adulation and an aura of mythical supermanliness will jeopardize the sober evaluation of Lincoln's true and inestimable worth.' Not to any great extent. The people on the whole, have him about right. His place with us depends upon the conviction of the people that he was a man, and not that he was a superman. It is likeness to themselves, the fact that they understand the words he uses and the arguments-they understand, too, the struggle that he went through, it is like their own."

My concern is about the uninformed and misled people who now consider President Abraham Lincoln to be a historical figure who should be reviled.

Quote:My concern is about the uninformed and misled people who now consider President Abraham Lincoln to be a historical figure who should be reviled.

Is the number of people who hold this view rising exponentially? Hardly. Just because one misguided board of education made a decision you disagree with (and the majority of people in the country find as a joke) doesn't mean Lincoln's reputation is in danger. And I have news for you. Lincoln has been reviled by people from the moment he became president.

Your contention that Lincoln is receiving a raw deal because of the Dakota 38 is your opinion. There are legitimate historians (a minority, to be sure) who disagree with you. They are entitled to urge policies be made that coincide with their viewpoint, and if they can find a governmental body amenable, to get legislation passed that mirrors that view. To do so doesn't endanger the reputation of a man who has weathered numerous storms while alive and long after his death.

This whole thing, David, is much ado about nothing.

Best
Rob

(03-14-2021 01:46 PM)Rob Wick Wrote:  

Quote:My concern is about the uninformed and misled people who now consider President Abraham Lincoln to be a historical figure who should be reviled.

Your contention that Lincoln is receiving a raw deal because of the Dakota 38 is your opinion. There are legitimate historians (a minority, to be sure) who disagree with you.

Best
Rob

Name one such "legitimate historian" and cite your specific source of corroborating information, please.

And, then, we can talk about how exponential numbers start - sort of like a pandemic of misinformation spreading.

Yours truly,
David

I already linked to this article once before here David. Evidently you ignored it. Read it, and you will find that not all agree with you.

https://commons.lib.jmu.edu/mhr/vol13/iss1/6/

Like it or not, I would also place Nikole Hannah-Jones in the category of popular historian and the 1619 Project as popular history. Being flawed doesn't make it useless. Seems to me a man named Carl Sandburg proved that several years ago.

Best
Rob

(03-17-2021 04:58 PM)Rob Wick Wrote:  Like it or not, I would also place Nikole Hannah-Jones in the category of popular historian and the 1619 Project as popular history. Being flawed doesn't make it useless. Seems to me a man named Carl Sandburg proved that several years ago.

Best
Rob

Rob, I haven't followed this discussion of over 100 post as closely as I follow others on the forum, and I don't know as much about Nikole Hannah-Jones and the 1619 Project as you do.
What flaws do you see in the 1619 Project, what redeeming factors do you see with the 1619 Project, and how do you see it as being useful?

Gene,

Just off the top of my head, I would say the biggest flaw is that she didn't attempt to get voices that disagreed with her main thesis. There is no question that she is an ideologue, but to hold that against her, as some academic historians do, strikes me as hypocrisy, given that academic historians just as easily can (and sometimes do) succumb to ideology in their work. Some, such as Eugene Genovese, go from one extreme to the other. Genovese, who is considered on of the premier historians of American slavery, started out as a self-described Marxist and by the time of his death in 2012 was about as far right as one could get. Whether it comes from the New Left or Neo-Conservatism, there are plenty of academic historians who have an ax to grind in their work. In fact, I would argue that the divide between academic and popular history is as much based on ideology as it is, allegedly, on pedagogy.

The story of slavery and its role in the creation and sustenance of the United States, continues to evolve. There is no "right" answer out there; only what the available evidence currently shows. That evidence can be, and often is, superseded by new evidence or new interpretations of current evidence. As an example, the notion that African-Americans contributed to their own freedom has gained currency over the years. While I personally think some of it is accurate, and some less so, it remains an important discussion to have.

As for the usefulness of the 1619 Project, I think if it promotes discussion that justifies its existence enough.

This is in no way suggesting that there is no such thing as truth. What I am saying is that truth depends on the available evidence. When new evidence is offered, or old evidence is re-evaluated, it can change our understanding of an event or of a person. To view Lincoln as a marble man or plaster saint is two-dimensional childishness. It's a simplistic way to judge his contribution to American society. Accepting that Lincoln was a human being who approached situations only knowing what he knew, without special or mystical insight that he never had, and accepting that he was sometimes right, and sometimes wrong, is a more mature way to interpret it. That's also why I find the actions of the San Francisco Board of Education to be misguided. There is enough simple-mindedness to go around.

Best
Rob

(03-17-2021 04:58 PM)Rob Wick Wrote:  I already linked to this article once before here David. Evidently you ignored it. Read it, and you will find that not all agree with you.

https://commons.lib.jmu.edu/mhr/vol13/iss1/6/

Like it or not, I would also place Nikole Hannah-Jones in the category of popular historian and the 1619 Project as popular history. Being flawed doesn't make it useless. Seems to me a man named Carl Sandburg proved that several years ago.

Best
Rob

I followed your hyperlink. The following is from the first paragraph abstract:

"Seeking to balance a sense of justice against the public’s insistence for revenge, Lincoln examined the trial records of each of the defendants, and ultimately approved the death penalty for only those Indians who had participated in massacres rather than battles. Ultimately 38 Indians were hanged in what remains the largest mass execution in American history."

Here is what Professor Michael Burlingame wrote on the Dakota 38 at my request to present to the members of the San Francisco School Board:

After carefully reviewing the army trial records, the president authorized the execution of the thirty-seven Dakotas found guilty of murder and the two convicted of rape, thus sparing the lives of 264 condemned men.

Lincoln explained his reasoning to the U.S. Senate: “Anxious to not 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 ordered 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.” In dealing with the murder charges, he had sought to discriminate between those involved in massacres and those participating only in battles.

You may see a big difference, but I don't!

Regarding what Nikole Hannah-Jones has written on the subject of the "Dakota 38," I have no idea. Do you know? I would like to know. She's not stupid; but she is devious.

David,

Read the whole article. Mansch is not writing on his own viewpoint, but rather the historiography of the subject.

As for Hannah-Jones, I have no idea if she wrote anything on the Dakota 38. I was just talking about the 1619 Project and slavery,

Best
Rob