Abraham Lincoln statues

[Rob Wick]

Good morning David.

Quote:I am not saying that the New York Times told a lie. In essence, I am saying that they published a “lie.”

You do realize that, legally speaking, there is no difference here. A newspaper can be sued regardless of whether or not its employee or a guest writer purposefully tells a lie about someone. Of course, I am speaking of the current day if the lie libels a living person. Given that it's legally impossible to libel the dead it then moves from the legal sphere to the moral one.

You believe that the paper libeled Lincoln and lied about him but you still offer no proof beyond your opinion. While you are certainly entitled to your opinion, and to share it on whatever forum you choose, the Times is equally free to publish an opinion on a historical question. It appears to me that your whole argument rests on your belief that the paper has some responsibility to exercise greater care where history is concerned because it speaks with the voice of its prominence and moves public opinion. Very few, I think can argue that it does not have a responsibility, but I would question whether it has a greater responsibility.

Historical questions usually invite dispute. Whether it's published in the American Historical Review or the New York Times, one hopes that the writer does his or her homework in getting the story straight. The AHR uses peer review to police its contributors. The Times doesn't use peer review as we think of it, but still uses fact checkers and requires all sides of a story to be told. Sometimes that standard works and sometimes it fails--sometimes miserably.

I think if Nikole Hannah-Jones is guilty of anything, it's not taking seriously the voices of those who disagree with her and not adding those voices to the original articles. When Sean Wilentz, a historian that I deeply admire, raised his voice in protest about the 1619 project, that got my attention, because I think Wilentz is one of the greatest historians working. However, one of Wilentiz's weaknesses is his antagonism to popular history. Just read his review of David McCullough's biography of John Adams in the New Republic to see what I mean. Even historians of Wilentz's stature couldn't bring this story out of the basement of public thought. It took Donald Trump's idiotic attempt to satiate his base to bring it to national attention from the press and hence to the people.

David, we all have our own biases. I recently chastised a poster here for saying that Ida Tarbell was guilty of character assassination. Some could have very easily seen that as my attempt to shield Tarbell from legitimate criticism. I freely admit that after spending the past several years with Tarbell, I grow defensive when I think her reputation is being unfairly attacked. However, there are numerous flaws in her. She opposed women's suffrage. She could be snobbish when it came to the common man, whom she often looked at as simple-minded. She gained her reputation as the slayer of the trusts and John D. Rockefeller, yet spent the rest of her life trying to show that big business and capitalism wasn't inherently unfair (many won't see that last one as a flaw, but I do). But in all your posts, I have yet to see a true criticism of anything that Lincoln did, and I've seen plenty of times where you refuse to admit that there were times when Lincoln was wrong. If I'm wrong, I would appreciate being pointed to examples where you have done so.

Finally, as to whether or not the execution of the 38 Native Americans represented Lincoln's humanity or something else, I would say that the 38 executed, and their families, would beg to differ. While we can make our peace with what Lincoln did, or didn't do, that someone else can see it differently is the lifeblood of historical debate. I feel our biggest difference is that you see Lincoln as the great, good man, and I see Lincoln as simply a man, good in some instances and, like all men, less great in others. I welcome those who see Lincoln as less than heroic. It makes him much more human.

Quote: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?

No, I don't. However, I would counter that most would have looked at that and said "so what?" Nuance is usually lost on those who hold views strong enough to protest, regardless of what side of the political spectrum they are on.

Best
Rob

After posting this, I came across this article in the Madison Historical Review that is a good overview of the historiography of Lincoln and the Dakotas as well as areas in need of future research.

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