President Lincoln and the Homestead Act

[Steve Whitlock]

(04-22-2020 07:24 PM)David Lockmiller Wrote:  

(04-22-2020 04:23 PM)Steve Whitlock Wrote:  [quote='David Lockmiller' pid='80786' dateline='1587528845']
[quote='Amy L.' pid='80785' dateline='1587504620']
But Lincoln’s conception of “everyone” did not include everyone: The Homestead Act rested on the expropriation of Native American lands.

We the People of the United States elected Abraham Lincoln in November 1860. This is what were the expectations of the voters who elected him to be President of the United States.

You left out the actual voter "expectations" to which I made reference.

According to Doris Kearns Goodwin, a Lincoln historian that I highly respect, the answer is (see my post #1):

Lincoln knew this election would not be determined by a single issue. While opposition to slavery extension had led to the creation of the Republican Party and dominated the national debate, in many places other issues took precedence. In Pennsylvania, the leading iron producer in the nation, and in New Jersey, the desire for a protective tariff was stronger than hostility to slavery. In the West, especially among immigrant groups, multitudes hoped for homestead legislation providing free or cheap land to new settler, many of whom had been hard hit by the Panic of 1857. “Land for the Landless” was the battle cry. And when, in the mist of the campaign, President Buchanan vetoed a mild Homestead Act, many in Indiana and throughout the West turned to Lincoln. All of these issues had been carefully addressed in the Republican Party platform. Had the election been fought on the single issue of slavery, it is likely that Lincoln would have lost.

We the People of the United States elected Abraham Lincoln in November 1860. This is what were the expectations of the voters who elected him to be President of the United States.

How about the Palestinians who are having their native lands expropriated by war and legislation in much the same manner as the American Indians in the first half of the nineteenth century (BEFORE Abraham Lincoln became President)? Now, that's something that the Editorial Board of the New York Times could actually do something about right away, instead of unfairly criticizing President Abraham Lincoln - the man who saved the institution of democracy for the world.

Just another thought.

The Native American problems in this country began centuries before Lincoln was ever thought of. He is only relevant here because you mentioned the Homestead Act, and other actions relevant to Native Americans. that got a little close to home for me since my late first wife is a Coast Pomo of Northen CA, that is, a roll member of the Manchester-Pt. Arena Pomo at the Manchester Rancheria. So are my children, and grandchildren, but I am not part Native American, despite what my mother told me.

But that is beside the point, which seems to be your grievance with the
Editorial Board of the NY Times for viewing former President Lincoln in a negative light. The reality of politics is that everyone is subject to criticism, whether fair or not, and The NY Times gave Lincoln a gentle kiss on the lips and job well done compared to the hatchet jobs, vile, despicable commentary, etc from the newspapers of the North, abolitionists, members of his own party, religious leaders, et al, until he became a revered martyr.

The cartoon from "Lincoln as a frightened raccoon, Punch, January 11, 1862Library of Congress" suggests he be assassinated in 1862.

Are you suggesting the Palestinians are living on a reservation, which I suppose could be a reach, but indigenous people from islands where slaves were gathered all over the world, along with reservations in Canada and reservations and no contact zones in South America could qualify. But none to be found in Germany and Japan. It just seemed curious to me almost 50 years ago when I wrote it for my then wife. Her thought, my words.