Lincoln Research

[Clarinetstar]

Hello!

I am a history major at Florida State University. I recently wrote a research paper for an English class about how modern films and media contribute to misportrayal on Abraham Lincoln. From my research paper, I created three new genres to spread my research.

Please feel free to share with me any comments on my work or any other misconceptions you may be aware of!

Podcast: https://soundcloud.com/clarinetstar/the-...honest-abe

BuzzFeed Article: https://www.buzzfeed.com/clarinetstar/10...raham-d5ug

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgG923yqOwA

Thanks,

Dani

[Thomas Kearney]

Dani,

Welcome aboard and Go Noles! Excellent insight

[ELCore]

Welcome! And thanks for your efforts to correct misrepresentations of Lincoln, which are legion.

Abraham Lincoln was anti-slavery on a logical level, not an emotional way.

To you, Dani: what does that mean? To all: does the statement strike you as accurate?

It seems to me that Lincoln had deep and powerful feelings about slavery, but he was also able to address the issue intellectually. (I think the best, succinct description of Lincoln that I've encountered is this: he had the heart of a poet but the mind of a scientist.) Perhaps Lincoln's "logical" approach distracts one from, or disguises, his depth of feeling?

To Lincoln, slavery was bad but something he did not really want to deal with.

I recall that Lincoln has been quoted as saying, during his presidency, that he got back into politics after Kansas-Nebraska and Dred Scott because Illinois would be a slave state in 15 years if the pro-slavery forces were not stopped. Even if that quotation is not itself accurate (I don't feel like hunting it down right now) there's plenty of evidence for the idea. Eventually, he thought, the Supreme Court could strike down states' anti-slavery laws as unconstitutional taking of property without due process in those cases in which slaveholders moved into free states. I think it can be argued, then, that the whole reason he got back into politics was to "deal with" slavery.

[Angela]

I wanted to start out with the buzzfeed article...what is this???
No sources, no facts, just plain, angry anti opinion that I see on tumblr all the time.
This can't start a political or historical discourse because op doesn't even offer a source on which those opinions are based.
Do I have to sit through the podcast?

[David Lockmiller]

(04-20-2017 06:41 AM)ELCore Wrote:  Abraham Lincoln was anti-slavery on a logical level, not an emotional way.

To you, Dani: what does that mean? To all: does the statement strike you as accurate?

It does not strike me as accurate.

President Lincoln's addressed the 140th Indiana Regiment on March 17, 1865 with the following words:

“I have always thought that all men should be free; but if any should be slaves, it should be first those who desire for themselves, and secondly those who desire it for others. Whenever I hear any one arguing for slavery I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally."

The People of the South did not desire slavery for themselves, but they did desire slavery for others.

[Gene C]

Angela,
I agree with your comments about the buzzfeed article.
There is a disclaimer in smaller print , "This post was created by a user and has not been vetted or endorsed by Buzzfeed's editorial staff. Buzzfeed community is a place where anyone can post awesome post's and creations.

Buzzfeed has an editorial staff?
The post has been up for about 2 weeks, but I understand the reason the article has not been endorsed yet is the editorial staff was given a time out for not sharing their crayons.
and ...... (sarcastic comment deleted so I don't get myself into trouble by offending a sensitive reader by my insensitive comment, which I have not intention of doing.... today)

Clarinetstar,
on the more serious side, I don't like to write long posts, but my opinion is at least half of the 10 points are misleading.
Let me start here for why I think that way ..... http://rogerjnorton.com/Lincoln95.html

[L Verge]

Dani - Welcome to the world of Lincoln studies!

Assuming that you are a college student between the ages of 18 and 22, I want to congratulate you on even having the interest and initiative to tackle any U.S. history now in an era where our educators are throwing the subject out the window. To take on an even greater task of trying to make sense of a man like Abraham Lincoln and then to share your thoughts through the brutal world of social media today deserves a round of applause, in my opinion.

With nearly sixty years in the dog fight over Lincoln's policies (and being branded as anti-Lincoln because I happen to enjoy the intrigue of his assassination), I can assure you that the mention of the man's name can stir up a hornet's nest of opinions. Take it in stride because historical debates and opinions serve to spread knowledge both to others and to yourself.

Am I an admirer of Lincoln? Yes. Do I idolize him? No. Do I consider him a pragmatist and a born-politician who knew which faction to please and when? Most certainly! Did it take me years of reading and dissecting other people's opinions to reach mine? You bet it did... And, personally, I think Lincoln was just as perplexed as to what to do about the institution of slavery (that had been thrust on his nation by money-seekers for over two hundred years) as our forefathers and following Presidents and politicians had been.

What I'm trying to say is to ride with the negativity you are going to encounter as you research Lincoln (and other historical topics) and don't let it stop you in your quest for learning. Continue to share your ideas (just be careful of the traps in social media today) and be strong in defending them. Learn, however, to defend with solid sources to back you up. You have based your project on ideas that other people have expounded on; check them out first, and then cite them when necessary to support your stance.

I wish much good luck to you in the future. Keep your interest in history and try to educate others. I believe in the old Chinese saying of "Each one teach one." In this day and age, we need to teach a lot more than just one...

---

(04-20-2017 01:49 PM)David Lockmiller Wrote:  

(04-20-2017 06:41 AM)ELCore Wrote:  Abraham Lincoln was anti-slavery on a logical level, not an emotional way.

To you, Dani: what does that mean? To all: does the statement strike you as accurate?

It does not strike me as accurate.

President Lincoln's addressed the 140th Indiana Regiment on March 17, 1865 with the following words:

“I have always thought that all men should be free; but if any should be slaves, it should be first those who desire for themselves, and secondly those who desire it for others. Whenever I hear any one arguing for slavery I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally."

The People of the South did not desire slavery for themselves, but they did desire slavery for others.

And what about the People of the North who held slaves?

[Gene C]

Well said Lauri.

And regarding negativity, I sadly acknowledge that on the rare occasion I can sometimes seem a little bit ornery and sarcastic.
I'm working on that ornery part.

[Eva Elisabeth]

Welcome to the forum, Dani.

I agree with ElCore and David and second Angela and Gene. Re.: ...about how modern films and media contribute to misportrayal on Abraham Lincoln" - my perception is that exactly that is happening on that link.

Telling truth is a sublime and noble thing to do, the claiming of which, especially when challenging "established/popular views", IMO does require some evidence, some more in-depthness, some q.e.d. (quod est demonstrandum) - otherwise it remains an opinion, a theory, an axiom. (Well said, Laurie, as for that the mention of his name can stir up a hornet's nest of opinions....so better to be prepared.)

"It is said an Eastern monarch once charged his wise men to invent him a sentence, to be ever in view, and which should be true and appropriate in all times and situations. They presented him the words: 'And this, too, shall pass away.'"
https://www.nal.usda.gov/lincolns-milwaukee-speech

[L Verge]

Eva - I agree most heartily with you and Dani (and I imagine most of this forum) that the film industry and other media most certainly screw up history; and we can't limit their damage to just the topic of Abraham Lincoln. However, many well-trained and respected historians do the same exact thing in books and classrooms across this nation. We could debate for hours on the pros and cons of revisionist history - just one example.

Personally, I understood Dani's adventure into the weird world of social media to be her way of explaining to the young that there are two (or more) ways to more clearly define Abraham Lincoln: the American idol, the human Lincoln, or the Lincoln who said one thing one time and something different another time. (David, please note the date of the address you quoted from. March of 1865, when the enemy is on its knees and the abolitionists have been appeased, was a very safe time for Lincoln to state clearly his views on slavery.)

Because of his premature death, we'll never know if Lincoln had a plan for reconstructing the old Union that would avoid the race issues 150 years later. Wild Bill presented an in-depth, scholarly approach to this subject at the recent Surratt conference. Plans are in the works for our museum to produce a booklet of his speech. The point though is whether or not Lincoln would still be an American idol if he had not been murdered and had failed at Reconstruction.

Back to the subject at hand, however, Dani's essay assignment gave her the opportunity to reach young and tech savvy future historians (I hope) who may learn to view all events in history from a variety of angles. That's the message I took from her various links, and the comments made by a few others appeared to be personal attacks on Dani herself. I'm an old teacher (yes, history) who believes in positive reinforcement, not negativity. And thank you, Gene.

P.S. I loved the one clip of the cartoon Constitution commenting on "Bill O'Rights." If that didn't hit home today about the misuse of history, nothing will.

[Eva Elisabeth]

Laurie, I have never meant to attack anyone in person (feedback on the products was asked for) and basically agree on positive enforcement and the importance and necessity to teach from various angles. Yet IMO an advanced university student should be aware of the importance to provide sources/evidence, the more the less room for dialogue, and the responsibility you take over when spreading the truth under the academic seal. I frankly was disappointed of the lack thereof. Mass media is a tool of great benefits, but also great destructive potential, hence my request for responsibility.
So far and without, the "various angles" respectively what the reader gets IMO isn't "the truth" but one "blind man's description" of it (of an elephant).
   

[Eva Elisabeth]

PS: Laurie made an excellent point about the difference between admiring and idolizing. The first allows various angles and objectivity, the second doesn't. Admiring usually is for something, i. e. fact-or feature-based, idolizing has no "for" to it. At all an excellent passage, Laurie.

[L Verge]

(04-21-2017 03:03 AM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:  Laurie, I have never meant to attack anyone in person (feedback on the products was asked for) and basically agree on positive enforcement and the importance and necessity to teach from various angles. Yet IMO an advanced university student should be aware of the importance to provide sources/evidence, the more the less room for dialogue, and the responsibility you take over when spreading the truth under the academic seal. I frankly was disappointed of the lack thereof. Mass media is a tool of great benefits, but also great destructive potential, hence my request for responsibility.
So far and without, the "various angles" respectively what the reader gets IMO isn't "the truth" but one "blind man's description" of it (of an elephant).

I think what we all are missing here is that we are only seeing what Dani posted on social media sites -- not her more scholastic essay which was turned into her college professor. That is where I suspect you will find numerous citations.

To post them on quick-and-easy social media would turn off the masses. If the intellectuals among the masses want to pick up on her thoughts and then do research on their own, she has done her job well.

[David Lockmiller]

(04-20-2017 02:16 PM)Gene C Wrote:  Clarinetstar,
on the more serious side, I don't like to write long posts, but my opinion is at least half of the 10 points are misleading.
Let me start here for why I think that way ..... http://rogerjnorton.com/Lincoln95.html

That guy Roger Norton is a pretty amazing guy and an authority on all things "Lincoln."

But I thought that some of the quotes that your hyperlink directs should be listed on this page:

"A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure permanently half-slave and half-free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved - I do not expect the house to fall - but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other." Lincoln's 'House-Divided' Speech in Springfield, Illinois, June 16, 1858.

"What I do say is, that no man is good enough to govern another man, without that other's consent. I say this is the leading principle - the sheet anchor of American republicanism." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume II, "Speech at Peoria, Illinois" (October 16, 1854), p. 266.

"We think slavery a great moral wrong, and while we do not claim the right to touch it where it exists, we wish to treat it as a wrong in the territories, where our votes will reach it." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume IV, "Speech at New Haven, Connecticut" (March 6, 1860), p. 16.

"In 1841 you and I had together a tedious low-water trip, on a Steam Boat from Louisville to St. Louis. You may remember, as I well do, that from Louisville to the mouth of the Ohio there were, on board, ten or a dozen slaves, shackled together with irons. That sight was a continual torment to me; and I see something like it every time I touch the Ohio, or any other slave-border." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume II, "Letter to Joshua F. Speed" (August 24, 1855), p. 320.

"I am naturally anti-slavery. If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong. I can not remember when I did not so think, and feel." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume VII, "Letter to Albert G. Hodges" (April 4, 1864), p. 281.

"I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." Lincoln's First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861.

"In the first place, I insist that our fathers did not make this nation half slave and half free, or part slave and part free. I insist that they found the institution of slavery existing here. They did not make it so, but they left it so because they knew of no way to get rid of it at that time." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, "Lincoln-Douglas Debate at Quincy" (October 13, 1858), p. 276.

"I think slavery is wrong, morally, and politically. I desire that it should be no further spread in these United States, and I should not object if it should gradually terminate in the whole Union." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, "Speech at Cincinnati, Ohio" (September 17, 1859), p. 440.

However, I must note that Roger split for some reason the quotation from Lincoln's address to the 140th Indiana regiment that I used in my previous post.

"Whenever I hear any one arguing for slavery I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume VIII, "Speech to One Hundred Fortieth Indiana Regiment" (March 17, 1865), p. 361. [Roger's list #2]

"I have always thought that all men should be free; but if any should be slaves it should be first those who desire it for themselves, and secondly those who desire it for others." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume VIII, "Speech to One Hundred Fortieth Indiana Regiment" (March 17, 1865), p. 361. [Roger's list - last entry]

[David Lockmiller]

(04-20-2017 05:18 PM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:  Telling truth is a sublime and noble thing to do, the claiming of which, especially when challenging "established/popular views", IMO does require some evidence, some more in-depthness, some q.e.d. (quod est demonstrandum). . . .

I had to Google this Latin phrase although I thought I knew what it meant in general from the last word: Q.E.D. (also written QED) is an initialism of the Latin phrase quod erat demonstrandum, meaning "what was to be demonstrated", or, less formally, "thus it has been demonstrated." The verb tense may be different.


This use of this Latin phrase by Eva Elisabeth reminded me of a passage from F.B. Carpenter's book, "Six Months at the White House" (1879) at pages 75 and 78:

Mr. George Thompson, the English anti-slavery orator, delivered an address in the House of Representatives, to a large audience, April 6, 1864. Among the distinguished persons present was President Lincoln, who was greatly interested. The following morning, Mr. Thompson and party, consisting of Rev. John Pierpont, Oliver Johnson, and the Hon. Lewis Clephane called at the White House.

A characteristic incident occurred toward the close of the interview. When the President ceased speaking, the Rev. Mr. Pierpont, impressed with his earnestness, turned to Mr. Thompson, and repeated a Latin quotation from the classics. Mr. Lincoln, leaning forward in his chair, looked from one to the other inquiringly, and then remarked, with a smile, "Which, I suppose you are both aware, I do not understand."

---

(04-21-2017 03:03 AM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:  So far and without, the "various angles" respectively what the reader gets IMO isn't "the truth" but one "blind man's description" of it (of an elephant).

I think that this is an excellent point that Eva Elisabeth makes with her "elephant" cartoon. One must consider the "whole" animal to make the requisite sense of it. I think that Abraham Lincoln is much more complex than any other elephant, figuratively speaking.