To Change the Future, Children Need History

[AussieMick]

This week's VP debate contained a reference to Lincoln and history. We saw it on TV here, live, at midday. The Australian newspaper article "Who Won The Pence-Harris VP Debate" had comments from readers ('Douglas' and 'Gosling') which may be of interest ...

Douglas ---

“ I’m so glad we had a little history.....” said Kamala Harris.
She then lectured Pence about “Honest Abe” Lincoln and his non appointment of a Supreme Court Chief Justice in 1864, to contrast with Trump nominating before the election.
She was completely wrong in her “history lesson”!
Lincoln did not send a recommendation to the Senate in October 1864 because it was not sitting.
It only reconvened in December 1864 after the November election when Lincoln was re-elected.
The official historical record can be seen at lincolncottage.com.
All histories are in accord with this.
As an astute politician, Lincoln used the nomination as a bargaining chip to get the support of Salmon Chase and others in his re-election campaign.
All Lincoln cared about was winning the election and the Civil War.
He had no intention of surrendering the nomination to the electors.
After winning re-election, he nominated Chase as Chief Justice on 6 December 1864, on day one of the reconvened Senate.
So much for the “ history lesson”.
Likethumb_up11

Gosling --

So she was right then
Likethumb_up3


Douglas ---
No, Gosling.
She was comprehensively wrong.
Lincoln nominated the candidate that he selected at a time of his choosing.
If it had suited his purpose he would have done so before the election.
Likedthumb_up6

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/world/w...9188f04002

My thoughts (as an Australian onlooker) ... The position that was open to Lincoln to fill was that of Taney the Chief Justice who died on 12 Oct 1864.... less than 3 weeks before the Presidential election. Ruth Ginsberg was an Associate Justice ... and I assume that is not the equivalent of the Chief Justice. She died September 18th.
So the two issues are only slightly similar. And whilst Lincoln was indeed a man of high integrity, he was also a very astute politician with a very determined agenda for what he wanted for his nation (no doubt, similar to Trump and Biden. Pence and Harris).

I'd disagree with "Douglas" when he says "All Lincoln cared about was winning the election and the Civil War." I think Lincoln was very much aware of the need to prepare for the post-Civil War. Ensuring he had Chase's support pre-election was important, even though Lincoln wanted him as Chief of the Supreme Court ... a gamble on leaving it to December was risky but meant Lincoln was above reproach and Chase's position was unassailable in 1865. A cynical person might also suggest that Lincoln could , in October 1864, dangle the promise of the position in front of several others (who really had no hope of getting it).