+- Lincoln Discussion Symposium (https://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussionSymposium)
+-- Forum: Lincoln Discussion Symposium (/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: News and Announcements (/forum-7.html)
+--- Thread: Why Is the G.O.P. Fighting to Preserve Monuments to Traitors in the Capitol? (/thread-4346.html)
Pages: 1 2
Why Is the G.O.P. Fighting to Preserve Monuments to Traitors in the Capitol? - David Lockmiller - 06-20-2020 11:49 AM
Why Is the G.O.P. Fighting to Preserve Monuments to Traitors in the Capitol?
By The Editorial Board of the New York Times June 19, 2020
Portraits and statues venerating Confederate leaders are an insult to freedom and democracy.
The New York Times concluded its editorial with these words: "Is this really the hill that the Party of Lincoln wants to fight on in 2020? What an ignoble, lost cause."
I made multiple attempts to post the following comment to the New York Times Editorial published today without success:
Doris Kearns Goodwin’s book, Team of Rivals, at page 732:
The complexities of reestablishing law and order in the Southern states dominated the conversation . . . . Lincoln said that “he thought it providential that this great rebellion was crushed just as Congress had adjourned,” since he and the cabinet were more likely to “accomplish more without them than with them” regarding Reconstruction. He noted that “there were men in Congress who, if their motives were good, were nevertheless impracticable, and who possessed feelings of hate and vindictiveness in which he did not sympathize and could not participate. He hoped that there would be no persecution, no bloody work, after the war was over.”
As for rebel leaders, Lincoln reiterated his resolve to perpetrate no further violence. “None need expect he would take any part in hanging or killing those men, even the worst of them.” While their continued presence on American soil might prove troublesome, he preferred to “frighten them out of the country, open the gates, let down the bars, scare them off.” To illustrate his point, he shook “his hands as if scaring sheep,” and said, “Enough lives have been sacrificed. We must extinguish our resentments if we expect harmony and union.”
Stanton recalled, Lincoln “spoke very kindly of General Lee and others of the Confederacy,” exhibiting in marked degree the kindness and humanity of his disposition, and the tender and forgiving spirit that so eminently distinguished him.”
I kept getting the following message in response to my attempts to post my comment:
"An error has occurred and we cannot save your comment. Please copy what you have written and refresh the page to try again."
Why Is the G.O.P. Fighting to Preserve Monuments to Traitors in the Capitol?
RE: Why Is the G.O.P. Fighting to Preserve Monuments to Traitors in the Capitol? - RJNorton - 06-20-2020 12:54 PM
David, you might try posting your comment using a different browser. In other words, if you are using Internet Explorer, try posting it using Firefox, Chrome, or Edge. Possibly you won't get the error message. I think it's at least worth a try. If you do not have another browser on your device, then of course this idea will not work.
RE: Why Is the G.O.P. Fighting to Preserve Monuments to Traitors in the Capitol? - JMadonna - 06-20-2020 08:14 PM
"Portraits and statues venerating Confederate leaders are an insult to freedom and democracy."
Why didn't the NYT use the term 'Democrats' instead of 'Confederate Leaders' since that was their party?
RE: Why Is the G.O.P. Fighting to Preserve Monuments to Traitors in the Capitol? - RJNorton - 06-21-2020 08:25 AM
It's not just Confederate leaders. Statues of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Ulysses S. Grant, and Francis Scott Key have also now been toppled.
RE: Why Is the G.O.P. Fighting to Preserve Monuments to Traitors in the Capitol? - My Name Is Kate - 06-21-2020 10:57 AM
Lincoln's statue will be toppled/defaced/removed next (if it hasn't been already), and then maybe even fools will be able to see (but I'm not holding my breath) the true nature of the leftist/liberal/democrat party's goal of destroying the foundations of America and its constitution. After all, Lincoln did once entertain the idea of sending black people back to Africa, and he did say that his foremost goal was to keep the union together, not to free the slaves.
Why no push to rename all the places named after former Democrat Senator Robert C. Byrd, former KKK supporter (and great friend of the late Ted Kennedy, democrat's lion of the senate?)
RE: Why Is the G.O.P. Fighting to Preserve Monuments to Traitors in the Capitol? - Steve Whitlock - 06-21-2020 11:06 AM
(06-21-2020 08:25 AM)RJNorton Wrote: It's not just Confederate leaders. Statues of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Ulysses S. Grant, and Francis Scott Key have also now been toppled.I'll be surprised if Stone Mountain survives, and possibly Mount Rushmore. Then we can expect a book burning for "Gone With the Wind" and "To Kill a Mockingbird", along with many others. And on, and on to no foreseeable end.
But the memories will linger. "Sometimes there just isn't a big enough rock."
This is just an observation, not my thoughts for a discussion of the issues at hand.
RE: Why Is the G.O.P. Fighting to Preserve Monuments to Traitors in the Capitol? - Gene C - 06-21-2020 02:40 PM
Good or bad, actions betray ideology.
A noble cause will be validated by noble actions.
I hope the local and state government authorities will show true leadership in preserving history and the virtues that past leaders are remembered for. It seems that some of our current batch of leaders, by their actions and/or inaction, uphold the vales of civil disobedience, anarchy, and violent attacks on innocent people and businesses. Those are not values most people respect and value in society.
RE: Why Is the G.O.P. Fighting to Preserve Monuments to Traitors in the Capitol? - David Lockmiller - 06-21-2020 05:03 PM
(06-21-2020 08:25 AM)RJNorton Wrote: It's not just Confederate leaders. Statues of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Ulysses S. Grant, and Francis Scott Key have also now been toppled.
I was just at the Ulysses S. Grant bust (now gone) at Golden Gate Park in San Francisco. I almost could not believe that the bust of the man who defeated General Lee, and thereby saved the Union for democracy without slavery, had been the objective of protesters in favor of the "black lives matter" movement.
As I was viewing the paint damaged pedestal, a middle-aged white woman voiced her opinion that she thought that Grant was a Confederate general. I informed her that Grant was a Union general and had defeated General Lee to save the Union. She took the correction in nonchalant stride."Whup, wrong number." (those were not her spoken words).
The Francis Scott Key much, much larger memorial was close by and on each of the four sides is a stanza from the National Anthem, as I recall from previous examination of the structure. [I did not go over to see the damages.] According to the news reports on TV, Francis Scot Key had been a slave owner and that is the reason his memorial had been targeted by protesters.
"Shoot first, and read the history books later" should have been the motto for the protesters. And, this stoppage of traffic on the major bridges by protesters must truly be annoying to ordinary citizens stuck in non-moving traffic for hours as a penalty for what happened a century and a half ago.
"No sacrifice is too great . . . when the sacrifice is being made by others."
(06-21-2020 10:57 AM)My Name Is Kate Wrote: After all, Lincoln did once entertain the idea of sending black people back to Africa, and he did say that his foremost goal was to keep the union together, not to free the slaves.
Slaves were brought over in slave ships and placed in holds that were jam-packed with people and little food and water provided; tens of thousands must have died in the journey under these conditions. When you calculate the cost of returning four million former slaves to Africa on passenger ships in 1865, the costs would be staggering and this calculation assumes that after 200 years there were would be ample places in Africa willing to accept these former slaves.
We have had discussions here ad nauseum about slavery being a states right issue, supported with guarantees in the Constitution. The slave colonies would not have signed their approval of the Constitution without these guarantees.
Early in President Lincoln's first administration, he said to John Hay: "I consider the central idea pervading this struggle is the necessity that is upon us, of proving that popular government is not an absurdity. We must settle this question now, whether in a free government the minority have the right to break up the government whenever they choose. If we fail it will go far to prove the incapability of the people to govern themselves." (Team of Rivals, page 356.)
The capability of the people to govern themselves is called a democracy.
RE: Why Is the G.O.P. Fighting to Preserve Monuments to Traitors in the Capitol? - My Name Is Kate - 06-21-2020 11:15 PM
I don't see how what you wrote in response to what I wrote, has much of anything at all to do with what I wrote (I was employing a bit of satire (which apparently went unnoticed), not stating my own opinions...).
Nevertheless, I'm curious...Shouldn't Lincoln have consulted some of the former slaves to find out how they felt about going back to Africa, before even entertaining such a solution as a possibility? Perhaps he eventually did do that, and abandoned the idea on that basis. But your response implies that the idea was abandoned because it wasn't feasible, not because it was unjust. Further, what you wrote implies that you are okay with that.
I am well aware of why the original Constitution recognized the legality of slavery, and why Lincoln's foremost concern was to keep the union together, and not to free the slaves. It is liberals/leftists/democrats who do not understand that and do not accept it, and want to destroy this country and the Constitution because of it. It would appear that democrats, despite their name, do not believe in democracy.
RE: Why Is the G.O.P. Fighting to Preserve Monuments to Traitors in the Capitol? - David Lockmiller - 06-23-2020 10:47 AM
(06-21-2020 11:15 PM)My Name Is Kate Wrote: (I was employing a bit of satire (which apparently went unnoticed), not stating my own opinions...).
Nevertheless, I'm curious...Shouldn't Lincoln have consulted some of the former slaves to find out how they felt about going back to Africa, before even entertaining such a solution as a possibility?
Kate,
If you wanted a Louis-Vuitton purse, would you go down to the Louis-Vuitton store on Union Square (yes, the Union that President Lincoln was fighting to save) in San Francisco and pick out the one that you wanted before you even considered what might be the total cost of the purse, including sales tax?
You may already own a $459 million yacht, and cost is no object. If so, I would recommend the DAUPHINE MM model, that comes with a gold chain (no slavery pun intended) and a leather strap. The purse costs $3,250 without sales tax and right now there is complimentary delivery available here in San Francisco.
Just more satire.
By the way, I am one of those "liberals/leftists/democrats" to whom you refer.
I am for Bernie Sanders to be President of the United States. And, I am one of those "liberals/leftists/democrats" who believe that Speaker of the House Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, (my elected House representative who did not receive my vote), orchestrated the defeat of Bernie Sanders in both the 2016 and 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries. I believe that this democracy needs his leadership on a wide-range of issues, to include but not limited to: democratic principles of government, climate change, universal healthcare, and income inequality to name just a few (just four issues, if you want me to be precise -- more satire).
RE: Why Is the G.O.P. Fighting to Preserve Monuments to Traitors in the Capitol? - RJNorton - 06-23-2020 11:03 AM
Just to clarify - Until c. 1863-1864 Abraham Lincoln supported voluntary colonization. No one would be forced to go; the only ones to go would be people who made their own choice to depart. Lincoln eventually backed off his support for colonization, and on July 1, 1864, Lincoln's secretary, John Hay, noted that Lincoln had "sloughed the idea of colonization."
RE: Why Is the G.O.P. Fighting to Preserve Monuments to Traitors in the Capitol? - My Name Is Kate - 06-23-2020 11:23 AM
Is it known if any former slaves actually chose to go back to Africa, and were they sent back? Was that a common sentiment among the slaves, or was colonization perceived (by non former slaves) as an easy solution to a problem?
RE: Why Is the G.O.P. Fighting to Preserve Monuments to Traitors in the Capitol? - RJNorton - 06-23-2020 11:48 AM
During the time Lincoln supported voluntary colonization he was not focused solely on Africa as a possible destination. As President, he looked at possible sites in Panama and Haiti. Neither idea worked out, though. The Panama idea never got off the ground and was dropped. Lincoln's other major colonization site involved Cow Island, off Haiti. Around 450 people sailed there late in 1862, but the plan did not work out (disease a major factor), and Lincoln sent a transport to bring the people back. I do not know what percentage of those that went were ex-slaves.
Congress had made $600,000 available to Lincoln to develop plans and implement colonization, but Lincoln spent only $38,000 of it. The idea was not a major focus of his as far as I can tell.
RE: Why Is the G.O.P. Fighting to Preserve Monuments to Traitors in the Capitol? - David Lockmiller - 06-23-2020 03:58 PM
Ken Burns did a video for the Washington Post today in which he stated: "Our monuments are representations of myth, not fact."
The part to which I objected was Ken Burns' appraisal of comments made by James Balwin regarding the term liberty for black citizens in America:
At the end of the video, Ken Burns states: "Baldwin's words (regarding liberty) form a searing counterbalance, that are most venerated monuments represent a mythology, [not fact] . . . ."
In my opinion, the Lincoln Memorial [one of our "most venerated monuments"] does not "represent a mythology" regarding the word "liberty" for the black citizens of the United States.
Of course, I disagreed with the assessment made by Ken Burns and posted the following comment to the YouTube video that he had made for Washington Post publication:
Abraham Lincoln has said:
1) Our reliance is in the love of liberty which God had planted in us. Our defense is in the spirit which prized liberty as the heritage of all men, in all lands everywhere. Destroy this spirit and you have planted the seeds of despotism at your own doors. Familiarize yourselves with the chains of bondage and you prepare your own limbs to wear them. Accustomed to trample on the rights of others, you have lost the genius of your own independence and become the fit subjects of the first cunning tyrant who rises among you. -- Speech at Edwardsville, Illinois, September 13, 1858.
2) The fight must go on. The cause of civil liberty must not be surrendered at the end of one or even one hundred defeats. -- Letter to H. Asbury, November 19, 1858.
3) We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men's labor. Here are two, not only different, but incompatible things, called by the same name, liberty . . . . -- Address at Sanity Fair, April 18, 1864.
4) Nowhere in the world is presented a government of so much liberty and equality. To the humblest and poorest amongst us are held out the highest privileges and positions. The present moment finds me at the White House, yet there is as good a chance for your children as there was for my father's. -- President Abraham Lincoln Speech to 148th Ohio Regiment, August 31, 1864.
Ken Burns, when you had the opportunity to do so, did you ask James Baldwin whether Abraham Lincoln 's Emancipation Proclamation and the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment legislation were or were not two giant steps in the right direction of liberty for all recently emancipated slaves? These giant steps for black citizens-to-be were paid for by the deaths of of hundreds of thousands of Union soldiers, such as Lieutenant-Colonel William McCullough of the 4th Illinois Voluntary Calvary. And, what of the loss to his own family by such sacrifice to the cause of democracy?
President Abraham Lincoln is not a myth and neither was Lieutenant-Colonel William McCullough of the 4th Illinois Voluntary Calvary.
David Lockmiller, San Francisco
RE: Why Is the G.O.P. Fighting to Preserve Monuments to Traitors in the Capitol? - David Lockmiller - 06-24-2020 09:41 AM
Lieutenant-Colonel William McCullough of the 4th Illinois Voluntary Calvary was a longtime friend of attorney Abraham Lincoln. McCullough had served many years as sheriff and clerk of the court for McLean County. When the Illinois Eighth Circuit Court traveled to Bloomington, Lincoln would sometimes stay with the McCullough family.
When the American Civil War came, William McCullough, an excellent horseman, volunteered to serve in the military but was rejected because of his age (48) and physical disabilities (loss of an arm in a farming accident and loss of an eye in a shooting accident). McCullough petitioned President Lincoln directly for permission to serve. Lincoln granted the petition and commissioned McCullough as Lieutenant-Colonel of the Fourth Illinois Calvary, which McCullough helped to organize; he was well-respected by his comrades.
Lieutenant-Colonel William McCullough of the Fourth Illinois Voluntary Calvary was killed in night warfare with Confederate forces at Coffeeville, Mississippi on December 5, 1862. After 22 year-old Fanny learned of her father’s death, according to her mother, she “neither ate nor slept since the tidings of his death, but shut herself in her room, in solitude, where she passed her time in pacing the floor in violent grief, or sitting in lethargic silence.” Recently-appointed Supreme Court Justice David Davis, a mutual friend of William McCullough, was informed of the family’s situation; he requested that President Lincoln write a letter of condolence.
Abraham Lincoln had suffered similar losses to that of the young Fanny McCullough. When Lincoln was only nine, his much loved mother called him to her side as she was dying from disease, saying to him: “I am going away from you, Abraham, and I shall not return.” Earlier in the year, on February 20, 1862, Lincoln’s own much loved 11 year-old son, Willie, died of disease at the White House, devastating President Lincoln.
Executive Mansion,
Washington, December 23, 1862.
Dear Fanny
It is with deep grief that I learn of the death of your kind and brave Father; and, especially, that it is affecting your young heart beyond what is common in such cases. In this sad world of ours, sorrow comes to all; and, to the young, it comes with bitterest agony, because it takes them unawares. The older have learned to ever expect it. I am anxious to afford some alleviation of your present distress. Perfect relief is not possible, except with time. You cannot now realize that you will ever feel better. Is not this so? And yet it is a mistake. You are sure to be happy again. To know this, which is certainly true, will make you some less miserable now. I have had experience enough to know what I say; and you need only to believe it, to feel better at once. The memory of your dear Father, instead of an agony, will yet be a sad sweet feeling in your heart, of a purer and holier sort than you have known before.
Please present my kind regards to your afflicted mother.
Your sincere friend
A. Lincoln
________________________________________
Source: Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, edited by Roy P. Basler et al.
One should read an actual facsimile of President Lincoln's letter to Fanny McCullough.
Subsequent to receiving the letter of condolence, a friend of Fanny reported to Justice Davis that the “beautifully written” letter “had a very good effect in soothing her troubled mind.” (W. W. Orne to David Davis, Bloomington, January 2, 1863 – Abraham Lincoln: A Life, Vol. Two, page 462, Michael Burlingame, (2008))
Here's an article in the New York Times today that should upset all "liberals/leftists/democrats":
These Companies Gave Their C.E.O.s Millions, Just Before Bankruptcy
The article's subtitle reads: "Corporate boards are handing out millions to top executives before their companies seek bankruptcy protection, and courts can’t do much about it."
And, one of the quotes from the article reads as followsssssssss: "Certain outlays that a company makes just before bankruptcy — for instance, payments to suppliers — are at risk of being clawed back. But the bonus payments typically don’t fall into that category, legal scholars say."