Posted on 11/19/2009 7:51:44 AM PST by BGHater
The lesson of history for any small child is that if you are lucky enough to be presented to the future president of the US, then make sure you have evidence of the encounter before bragging about it to your classmates.
George Patten, aged eight, discovered the bitter truth of that maxim in 1860 after he boasted at school about having met Abraham Lincoln, having been introduced to the then presidential candidate with his journalist father.
The boy's friends thought he had made the story up, and bullied him. To settle the matter, Patten's teacher wrote to the White House asking for clarification about whether there was any truth to the anecdote.
On 19 March 1861, two weeks after his inauguration and despite being preoccupied with forming an administration and the early slide into civil war, Lincoln took the trouble to reply: "To whom it may concern: I did see and talk with George Evans Patten, last May, at Springfield, Illinois. Respectfully, A. Lincoln."
The letter has now been put up for sale by Philadelphia's Raab Collection at a price of $60,000 (£36,000).
Last year another letter written by Lincoln to a group of children sold for $3.4m – a record for a manuscript in the United States.
That was an 1864 reply to a petition made by 195 children who asked him to ensure the freedom of "all the slave children in this country".
In the letter, dated 5 April 1864, he wrote: "Please tell these little people I am very glad their young hearts are so full of just and generous sympathy, and that while I have not the power to grant all they ask, I trust that they will remember that God has, and that, as it seems, He wills to do it."
(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...
It’s the little kindnesses that often tell the measure of a man.
Signed: Abe Lincoln, The Illinois Butcher, Republic Killer and founder of the all powerfull Federal Animal.
but but but he freed the slaves and that’s all the civil war was about (/sarc)
You’re still here? I’d have thought you would have seceded by now.
...Whoa! Much anger I sense in this young apprentice.
My state is going red, go figure. I have already seceded, in spirit. Actually, the US left me, not the otherway around...
Not anger, just posting reality of the man, from a different angle. One man’s dictator is another man’s hero.
And yet here you are.
Do your feet ever touch the ground?
Speaking of reality from a different angle, how do you suppose R. Lee or J. Davis would have answered a petition made by 195 children asking to ensure the freedom of "all the slave children in this country"? Would the answer be just plain "no" or would it have been "hell, no"?
I did talk to Rep. Jim Cooper (TN) in person about the destructive aspect of illegal immigration. He replied that he understood my concerns. Then, he did absolutely nothing about it. All of this is because his mom in TN is owner of a number of low-rent housing units from his hometown and makes a lot of money renting to that clientele. So, who cares?
Do you ever stop guzzling kool-aid?
So the answer is no?
or
"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that"
Clearly, a political snake....
Let no man who watches current events with a eye for “Unionism” at all costs, declare my head is in the clouds.
Especially when your head appears to be firmly lodged elsewhere...
No, one who was aware of the limitations of the president's powers. He closed out the Greeley letter by saying, "I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free."
And two and a half years after Lincoln was saying that, Lee was still saying, "Considering the relation of master and slave, controlled by humane laws and influenced by Christianity and an enlightened public sentiment, as the best that can exist between the white and black races while intermingled as at present in this country, I would deprecate any sudden disturbance of that relation unless it be necessary to avert a greater calamity to both." When you get right down to it, both men were consistent on their views towards slavery.
Robert E. Lee did not own slaves, but many Union generals did. When his father-in-law died, Lee took over the management of the plantation his wife had inherited and immediately began freeing the slaves. By the time Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, every slave in Lee’s charge had been freed. Notably, some Union generals didn’t free their slaves until the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868
Name some.
When his father-in-law died, Lee took over the management of the plantation his wife had inherited and immediately began freeing the slaves.
Incorrect. Check out Freeman's biography.
By the time Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, every slave in Lee’s charge had been freed.
Because George Custis' will mandated that all slaves be freed within 5 years of his death. He died in October 1857. Legally all the slaves should have been freed by October 10, 1862 but Lee did not manumit them until late December 1862. However, since he was so deeply engaged in rebelling at the time then the delay is understandable.
Notably, some Union generals didn’t free their slaves until the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868.
Name one.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.