Post Reply 
President Lincoln and the Homestead Act
04-25-2020, 09:46 AM (This post was last modified: 04-25-2020 09:59 AM by David Lockmiller.)
Post: #21
RE: President Lincoln and the Homestead Act
RJNorton provided on another thread the following hyperlink:

http://www.hellenicaworld.com/USA/Litera...coln2.html

Roger, thanks very much for this hyperlink.

Lincoln and the Snow Brothers case:

In the spring term of the Tazewell County Court in 1847, which at that time was held in the village of Tremont, I was detained as a witness an entire week. Lincoln was employed in several suits, and among them was one of Case vs. Snow Bros. The Snow Bros., as appeared in evidence (who were both minors), had purchased from an old Mr. Case what was then called a "prairie team," consisting of two or three yoke of oxen and prairie plow, giving therefor their joint note for some two hundred dollars; but when pay-day came refused to pay, pleading the minor act.

The note was placed in Lincoln's hands for collection. The suit was called and a jury impaneled. The Snow Bros, did not deny the note, but pleaded through their counsel that they were minors, and that Mr. Case knew they were at the time of the contract and conveyance. All this was admitted by Mr. Lincoln, with his peculiar phrase, "Yes, gentlemen, I reckon that's so." The minor act was read and its validity admitted in the same manner. The counsel of the defendants were permitted without question to state all these things to the jury, and to show by the statute that these minors could not be held responsible for their contract. By this time you may well suppose that I began to be uneasy. "What!" thought I, "this good old man, who confided in these boys, to be wronged in this way, and even his counsel, Mr. Lincoln, to submit in silence!" I looked at the court, Judge Treat, but could read nothing in his calm and dignified demeanor.

Just then, Mr. Lincoln slowly got up, and in his strange, half-erect attitude and clear, quiet accent began: "Gentlemen of the Jury, are you willing to allow these boys to begin life with this shame and disgrace attached to their character? If you are, I am not. The best judge of human character that ever wrote has left these immortal words for all of us to ponder":

"Good name in man or woman, dear my lord,
Is the immediate jewel of their souls:
Who steals my purse steals trash;'tis something, nothing;
'Twas mine,'tis his, and has been slave to thousands;
But he that filches from me my good name
Robs me of that which not enriches him
And makes me poor indeed."

Then rising to his full height, and looking upon the defendants with the compassion of a brother, his long right arm extended toward the opposing counsel, he continued: "Gentlemen of the jury, these poor innocent boys would never have attempted this low villainy had it not been for the advice of these lawyers." Then for a few minutes he showed how even the noble science of law may be prostituted. With a scathing rebuke to those who thus belittle their profession, he concluded: "And now, gentlemen, you have it in your power to set these boys right before the world."

He plead for the young men only; I think he did not mention his client's name. The jury, without leaving their seats, decided that the defendants must pay the debt; and the latter, after hearing Lincoln, were as willing to pay it as the jury were determined they should. I think the entire argument lasted not above five minutes.

—George W. Minier, statement, Apr. 10, 1882.

[Edited for clarity and easier reading.]

"So very difficult a matter is it to trace and find out the truth of anything by history." -- Plutarch

Roger wrote: As author David Mearns said of Lincoln, "If he belongs to the ages it is because he belonged to his own age, his own fellows, his own environment ... if we would honor him, recognise and understand him we must return to his [age]."

I did my best to go back to his own age to explain just how Native Americans were deprived of their lands -- by both war and legislation. Abraham Lincoln played no role, either as a common citizen or as President of the United States, in the expropriation of the lands of Native Americans.

In fact, in 1862, President Abraham Lincoln came to the rescue of hundreds of Sioux Native Americans. The following is my post #1 on the thread: "President Lincoln and the Sioux Indian uprising in Minnesota in 1862"

Last Sunday, April 14, I watched on PBS Bill Moyers interview with Sherman Alexie, poet and award-winning writer. In that interview, Mr. Alexie, a native American, vilified President Lincoln for permitting the execution of 37 of the 303 Sioux Indians convicted of war crimes in the Minnesota Indian uprising and sentenced to death. Today at 1PM ET, at the Book Club web site, Sherman Alexie will have a live chat and answer questions submitted by viewers in advance. An hour ago, I posted the following question:

If you, Sherman Alexie, had been President of the United States, instead of Abraham Lincoln, at the time of the war crimes convictions and sentences to death of 303 Sioux men, what would have been your response in detail?

Following this question, I included in my post the following abbreviated history of President Lincoln's response from "Abraham Lincoln: A Life” Volume II, pages 480-84, by Professor Michael Burlingame, 2008.

President Lincoln ordered General Pope to "forward, as soon as possible, the full and complete record of these convictions" and to prepare "a careful statement." As President Lincoln and two Interior Department lawyers scrutinized the record of the trials, they discovered that some had lasted only fifteen minutes, that hearsay evidence had been admitted, that due process had been ignored, and that counsel had not been provided the defendants.

President Lincoln authorized the execution of only 37 of the 303 condemned men (35 were found guilty of murder and 2 were convicted of rape). Lincoln explained his reasoning: "Anxious not to 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 caused 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." He further sought to discriminate between those involved in massacres and those involved only in battles. At the last minute before the executions, President Lincoln pardoned Round Wind, who had helped some whites to escape.

On December 26, 1862, the convicted rapists and killers died on the gallows while a peaceful crowd of more than 5,000 looked on. In 1864, Minnesota Governor Ramsey told President Lincoln that if he had executed all 303 Indians, he would have won more backing for his reelection bid. “I could not afford to hang men for votes," came the reply.

In 1864, Lincoln pardoned two dozen of the 264 Sioux who, after being spared the death penalty, had been incarcerated. The same year, he intervened to spare the life of Pocatello, chief of a Shoshoni band in Utah.

In response to Episcopal Bishop Henry Whipple, who lobbied the president to reform the corrupt Indian agency system, Lincoln pledged that "if we get through this war, and if I live, this Indian system shall be reformed." In his December, 1862 annual message to Congress, President Lincoln urged that Congress change the system.
***************************************************

Yet, the Editorial Board of the New York Times recently implied that President Abraham Lincoln was himself a hypocrite in signing the Homestead Act in 1862:

The purpose of the federal government, Lincoln wrote to Congress on July 4, 1861, was “to elevate the condition of men, to lift artificial burdens from all shoulders, and to give everyone an unfettered start and a fair chance in the race of life.” The Homestead Act in particular was a concrete step in that direction: 10 percent of all the land in the United States was ultimately distributed in 160-acre chunks. But Lincoln’s conception of “everyone” did not include everyone: The Homestead Act rested on the expropriation of Native American lands.

(See the “Editor’s letter” of its extended opinion titled “The American We Need” as published in the April 19, 2020 edition.)

For the Editorial Board of the New York Times to attack the character and reputation of President Abraham Lincoln in this insidious (meaning: "proceeding in a gradual, subtle way, but with harmful effects) manner is beyond my comprehension.

On February 6, 2020, the New York Times published an article with a title that speaks for itself: "The New York Times Tops 5 Million Subscriptions." That's a very big megaphone directed at its current readers.

In my opinion, the Editorial Board of the New York Times should be held to account when it chooses to "smear" the reputation of President Abraham Lincoln. The conclusion is "fair and just" in this instance.

"He that filches from me my good name
Robs me of that which not enriches him
And makes me poor indeed."

"So very difficult a matter is it to trace and find out the truth of anything by history." -- Plutarch
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Messages In This Thread
RE: President Lincoln and the Homestead Act - David Lockmiller - 04-25-2020 09:46 AM

Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)