Abraham Lincoln statues

[David Lockmiller]

Rob, the following is the full paragraph from my previous post about which you make complaint.

“I hope that I do not pontificate too much. But I believe such lies about President Abraham Lincoln in a Pulitzer Prize winning work tend to lead to such wrongful incidents as recently occurred in Portland, namely the toppling of the President Lincoln statue there and the graffiti spray-painted on the base of "Dakota 38." The people responsible were misled by historical lies in the present.”

You wrote in response:

To call this a "lie" is very incendiary and requires more proof than your feelings that somehow Lincoln is being disparaged. . . . you cannot prove that the paper set out to be purposefully dishonest.

I am not saying that the New York Times told a lie. In essence, I am saying that they published a “lie.” The New York Times published the 2020 Pulitzer Board Prize winning essay by Nikole Hannah-Jones on an esoteric subject – the August 14, 1862 meeting at the White House on a black colonization proposal. (Esoteric means: intended for or likely to be understood by only a small number of people with a specialized knowledge or interest. The essay itself was intended to be read by the New York Times Magazine readership, a rather large number of people. How many of this set of people knew that they were purposely being misled on an esoteric subject?)

I wrote:

“The following is a detailed argument against the false assertions made by Nikole Hannah-Jones in her 2020 Pulitzer Prize winning Essay regarding the August 14, 1862 meeting at the White House on a black colonization proposal presented by President Lincoln to the Committee of five prominent free black men:”

[Rather than copy it here, see my post above.]

I did not set out to prove the paper “to be purposefully dishonest”; I set out to prove that Nikole Hannah-Jones in her 2020 Pulitzer Board Prize for Commentary “to be purposefully dishonest” regarding both the content and the results of the August 14, 1862 meeting.

For example, she wrote in her essay regarding the close of the meeting: “the delegation’s chairman, informed the president, perhaps curtly, that they would consult on his proposition.”

To my way of thinking, insertion of the words “perhaps curtly” into that sentence implies that delegation was not pleased by President Lincoln’s presentation on black colonization. Nothing could be further from the truth as evidenced by the letter response from the chairman to President Lincoln two days later. (See my post.) You can be a judge for yourself and I will be a judge for myself.

Rob, you also wrote about the “Dakota 38”:

“While most (including myself) can accept that Lincoln saved more lives than he allowed to die in the largest mass execution in U.S. History, it is a legitimate historical question as to whether he did enough."

I disagree with this last statement made by you. Lincoln saved 265 lives; but for the efforts of President Abraham Lincoln the state of Minnesota would have executed the "Dakota 303."

Steve wrote at his post #15 on this thread:

Here is Lincoln's 11 Dec. 1862 statement to the Senate on the Indians to be executed:

Anxious to not act with so much clemency as to encourage another outbreak on the one hand, nor with so much severity as to be real cruelty on the other, I caused a careful examination of the records of trials to be made, in view of first ordering the execution of such as had been proved guilty of violating females. Contrary to my expectations, only two of this class were found. I then directed a further examination, and a classification of all who were proven to have participated in massacres, as distinguished from participation in battles. This class numbered forty, and included the two convicted of female violation. One of the number is strongly recommended by the commission which tried them for commutation to ten years' imprisonment. I have ordered the other thirty-nine to be executed on Friday, the 19th instant.
Lincoln pardoned/commuted the death sentences of 265 of the 303 Dakota men condemned. (He also later pardoned one of the 39 mentioned in the letter to the Senate after evidence came to his attention questioning the man's guilt.)

After the 1864 midterm election, Minnesota Senator Alexander Ramsey told Lincoln that Republicans could have gotten a larger electoral majority in the state if Lincoln had allowed the execution of more Indians. Lincoln told Ramsey, simply:

"I could not afford to hang men for votes."

So, in conclusion, I agree with that portion of your quoted statement on the subject that reads: “While most (including myself) can accept that Lincoln saved more lives than he allowed to die in the largest mass execution in U.S. History.” However, I think for clarity that you should have stated the number of lives that Lincoln saved as being 265 and the number of lives Lincoln “allowed to die in the largest mass execution in U.S. History” (to use your words) as being 38. Or, the “Dakota 38,” as the protesters in Portland used when toppling the statue of President Abraham Lincoln.

Rob, do you really believe that the persons who told these protesters about President Lincoln’s role in the execution of the “Dakota 38” actually also told them about the 265 American Indian lives that he saved?

---

(10-15-2020 03:12 PM)Rob Wick Wrote:  "[Y]your seeming insistence that Lincoln should be kept free from criticism is misplaced.

I do not think that "Lincoln should be kept free from criticism." I accept any legitimate criticism of Lincoln so long as that criticism is based on facts, or as I like to phrase it, "the truth."