HANG OUT YOUR BANNERS: UNION VICTORY! PEACE! Surrender of General Lee and His Whole Army (4/10/1865)

New York Times - Times Machine ^ | 4/10/1865

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "His law partner says he was an atheist.
Maybe the law partner is trying to exploit his relationship with Lincoln and is just making that up, but it's credible enough that it should not just be dismissed lightly."

It is not uncommon for men to focus their minds on God more in elder years than they did in their youth.
We might almost say that a young man's mind is more focused on the appendage between his legs, and that over many years, as it begins to wither, his focus naturally rises towards the heavens and his next life.

In Lincoln's case, we have more quotes of a religious nature from his final years than we do from his youth.
Does that mean he was insincere?
I don't think so, because responsibilities, crises and impending death can make the toughest minds very sincere.

[BroJoeK]

Seward's 1860 train to Chicago bringing supporters:

DiogenesLamp: "I know of no one else who would use rail cars to carry massive numbers of fake supporters to bribe and intimidate a convention."

How many times have we discussed those events, and yet you continue to lie about it?

No, it was not Lincoln who would "use rail cars to carry massive numbers of fake supporters" to the Chicago Republican convention in 1860!

That was Lincoln's chief rival and future Secretary of State, NY Sen. William Seward, who did that.
Seward was the leading candidate and almost won the nomination through such tactics.

Lincoln's supporters had their own tactics, but in the end, Seward himself did not think he was illegally cheated out of the nomination, and Seward agreed to serve loyally in Lincoln's administration.
Soon, Seward came to genuinely admire Lincoln, writing his wife:

"The President is the best of us..."

Seward served Lincoln loyally, then Johnson after him, retiring in 1869, Seward traveled the world for two years returning home to Auburn, NY, in late 1871.
He passed away a year later, in October 1872, age 72.

[DiogenesLamp]

That's my point: your calling Lincoln a "racist" is just woke crazy talk.

It is the plain truth. You just can't accept it.

[DiogenesLamp]

In Lincoln's case, we have more quotes of a religious nature from his final years than we do from his youth.

Are they sincere? Or are the meant to cynically exploit the perception of him as a religious man?

As I said before, you cannot grasp the idea of Lincoln as a con-artist manipulator. I can.

The trouble with very good con-artists is that it is difficult to see where the lies stop and the truth begins.

I don't think so, because responsibilities, crises and impending death can make the toughest minds very sincere.

Maybe, and I don't discount that possibility, but there is a *LOT* of evidence to support a view of Lincoln as a cynical manipulator.

[DiogenesLamp]

How many times have we discussed those events, and yet you continue to lie about it?

What particular thing have I sad about it that you view as a "lie"?

No, it was not Lincoln who would "use rail cars to carry massive numbers of fake supporters" to the Chicago Republican convention in 1860!

That was Lincoln's chief rival and future Secretary of State, NY Sen. William Seward, who did that.

Seriously? Have you even read accounts of what happened at the Chicago convention?

I've read several, and they mention how Lincoln's army arrived off the railroad cars and began intimidating, bribing, shouting down, and raising ruckus to get him the nomination.

It was a coordinated astro-turf army created for the purpose of stealing the nomination from Seward.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp #77: "You are trying to ignore the fact that Lincoln was racist and was also a white supremacist."

quoting BJK: "That's my point: your calling Lincoln a "racist" is just woke crazy talk."

DiogenesLamp: "It is the plain truth.
You just can't accept it."

By that same standard, then you, DiogenesLamp, are also a "racist and... a white supremacist.".
If such claims are true of Lincoln, then they are true of you too, FRiend.

But I don't accept such definitions because they are pure nonsense, especially in the 1860s historical context.

What mattered in 1860 was not that Lincoln was a "racist" (there was no such word in 1860), but that he was a moderate abolitionist.
It was Lincoln's abolitionism -- however "moderate" -- that drove Deep South Democrat Fire Eaters to begin organizing to declare secession the week of Lincoln's election on November 6, 1860.

It is the plain truth.
You just can't accept it.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "As I said before, you cannot grasp the idea of Lincoln as a con-artist manipulator.
I can.
The trouble with very good con-artists is that it is difficult to see where the lies stop and the truth begins."

I have no trouble seeing where your lies start and stop, FRiend.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "I've read several, and they mention how Lincoln's army arrived off the railroad cars and began intimidating, bribing, shouting down, and raising ruckus to get him the nomination."

Naw... you're still confusing Lincoln with Seward.
Lincoln's supporters were local, from Illinois and Chicago.
They didn't need trains to take them to Chicago, they were already there!

Wig-Wam, Republican Convention, 12,000 attendees:

Seward supporters came out of New York, mainly his hometown of Auburn, 650 miles away from Chicago.
That's why they needed whole trainloads to take them there.

Seward's was by far the biggest delegation (NY+ 8 other states with 173 votes), followed by Cameron (PA 50), Chase (Ohio 48) and Bates (MO 48).
Lincoln was 5th in committed votes (IL 22), but he did have the "home field advantage", plus the Chicago Tribune newspaper, and local supporters who did not need to ride hundreds of miles on trains to get there.

During the convention (May 16-18, 1860), Lincoln's supporters were able to persuade another 80 delegates -- scattered a few each among 10 states -- to vote Lincoln, bringing Lincoln's first ballot total to 102 votes.
This made Lincoln 2nd after Seward.

But Seward's basic problem was, he was seen as a "radical" abolitionist and so overly antagonistic to such Republican friendly slave-states as Missouri, Kentucky and Virginia (especially western Virginia).
Also, Seward had previously p*ssed-off Horace Greeley and his New York Tribune -- there was personal animosity between them.
So Greeley originally favored Chase or Bates, but eventually settled on Lincoln.

Lincoln's supporters convinced many delegates and Horace Greeley that Lincoln's "moderation" was the winning ticket for November 1860.

And so it was.

First vote May 18, 1860, Chicago Republican convention (Red is Seward):

[DiogenesLamp]

By that same standard, then you, DiogenesLamp, are also a "racist and... a white supremacist.". If such claims are true of Lincoln, then they are true of you too, FRiend.

That doesn't make any sort of sense. Lincoln *WAS* a racist. Lincoln *WAS* a white supremacist, defined as someone who believes whites are superior and should rule. He was also a white separatist, as he himself said in some of those quotes i've already posted to you early.

So how does any of this tie in to me? Beyond you wanting to accuse me of what I am declaring Lincoln to be, what basis do you have for asserting I am a racist and a white supremacist?

I have not advocated against blacks or in favor of whites. I don't even engage in such discussions other than how they relate to the facts of American society in the 1860s.

You just don't want to admit that everyone was racist and a white supremacist back in the 1860s. While there may have been a few loose nuts in that era that advocated for absolute equality, they were a teeny tiny minority compared to the dominant opinion of the rest of the nation, which was absolutely racist and white supremacist.

[DiogenesLamp]

I have no trouble seeing where your lies start and stop, FRiend.

Your main problem is wishing I was lying.

[DiogenesLamp]

Lincoln's supporters were local, from Illinois and Chicago. They didn't need trains to take them to Chicago, they were already there!

Lincoln's supporters were from Springfield, which is where he lived and where he made his living.

[wardaddy]

https://www.reddit.com/r/ShermanPosting/comments/1iw3i8g/simon_bolivar_buckner_jr_at_okinawa/

Man this link has to be a nest where many of them congregate

Good lord

Fwiw everyone was racist then

Not that I care one wit

[Pelham]

‘Dwight Eisenhower, who considered Lee one of the four greatest Americans and hung his portrait in the Oval Office alongside those of the other three (Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, and Lincoln). “General Robert E. Lee was, in my estimation, one of the supremely gifted men produced by our Nation,” Eisenhower wrote, “selfless almost to a fault and unfailing in his faith in God. Taken altogether, he was noble as a leader and as a man, and unsullied as I read the pages of our history.”’

https://claremontreviewofbooks.com/there-goes-robert-e-lee/

[x]

Estimates are that over 40% of households in Mississippi and South Carolina owned slaves and over 30% of households in Georgia, Alabama, and Florida owned slaves. Those are significant numbers, and those were the states that sparked the secession movement.

Further north, fewer families owned slaves and there was less support for secession. For Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee and Arkansas, things were more complicated. Those states only seceded after war had begun, but for the Deep South states, what rights were they worried about? Chiefly the “right” to own slaves.

Lincoln didn’t say he would take slaves away and he wouldn’t, but the idea that a party that was opposed to slavery would control the White House and Congress was seen as a threat by slaveowners and other secessionists. By appointing federal officials in the South, Lincoln, it was believed, would build up an anti-slavery Republican Party in the South that would ultimately threaten to abolish slavery state by state.

For many ordinary Southerners, the conflict was more about “us versus them,” but slavery was an important issue and at the root of the increasing division in the country. Neither elites nor ordinary people were that concerned about tariffs. Had the Southern states’ representatives remained in Congress, tariffs wouldn’t have gone up as much as they did.

[BroJoeK]

DiogesLamp: "That doesn't make any sort of sense. Lincoln *WAS* a racist.
Lincoln *WAS* a white supremacist, defined as someone who believes whites are superior and should rule.
He was also a white separatist, as he himself said in some of those quotes i've already posted to you early.
So how does any of this tie in to me?
Beyond you wanting to accuse me of what I am declaring Lincoln to be, what basis do you have for asserting I am a racist and a white supremacist?"

Again, my analogy: calling Lincoln "racist" (a word that didn't exist until the 1930s), is like calling fish "wet".
Sure, but why make a point of it?
What matters to us is that millions of years ago, some fish, despite being "wet", decided to crawl out of the water onto the land.
That's how we got here.

Likewise, in the 1860s world where every human being fit our definition of "racist", Lincoln was also an abolitionist, a moderate abolitionist, just as had been many of our Founding Fathers.
Lincoln favored restricting and abolishing slavery wherever possible.
That's how we got here.

Finally, if you insist on babbling nonsense about Lincoln's "racism", then we can just as easily babble nonsense about DiogenesLamp's racism, and my ultimate authority for that is the greatest nonsense babbler in the known Universe, Hillary.
You belong in her "basket of deplorables" just as surely as Lincoln belongs in yours!

I'm saying nonsense is still nonsense, regardless of who babbles it.

[BroJoeK]

wardaddy: "Fwiw everyone was racist then
Not that I care one wit"

I'm saying nobody was "racist" in 1860 because there was no such word as "racist" or "racism" in 1860.
Many argue that the word "racism" was coined by the Communist Leon Trotsky in 1927, as a slur against anti-Communists.
It's first appearance in English dates to the 1930s.

Today, by Woke-Democrat definitions, everybody who's not "woke" is a racist, sexist, homophobe, islamophobe, transphobe or "you name it", as Hillary said in her "basket of deplorables" rant.

That's why I don't think there's any value in calling people like Lincoln words that didn't even exist in 1860.

[icclearly]

For many ordinary Southerners, the conflict was more about “us versus them,”

Yes, it was -- which, even according to your numbers (which may or may not be accurate), was roughly 70% of the people who DID NOT own slaves. "Us vs them" is pretty much a common human trait. Especially for a relatively independent-minded group of people who settled and worked that land.

Slavery was not the predominant theme for that 70%. A consideration? Yes. But, it was just one of many issues that contributed to the "us vs. them" mentality and certainly not the dominant issue.

Frankly, to a somewhat lesser extent, it still exists today.

Neither elites nor ordinary people were that concerned about tariffs.

You don't know that, and neither do I. Even if you are correct (big if) it was the real or perceived economic impact of those tariffs -- just like today.

Bottom line: slavery was just one of so many issues and not necessarily the most significant. The South just wanted out of the deal/partnership because of many issues. To them, it was not working out as it was presented and agreed upon in 1776.

Why is that so hard to understand?

[wardaddy]

Bruh
Quit virtue signaling over 200 year old “racism”

By anyone even Lincoln

Who cares

It’s an absurd context to all of history where even today all peoples I’ve know self identify by race and other markers like ethnicity or nation or region etc

It’s like “Mfumii was the last of his tribe to give up cannibalism”

Lincoln thinking blacks were not up to snuff doesn’t diminish him anymore than it does Jackson or Washington etc

[DiogenesLamp]

Again, my analogy: calling Lincoln "racist" (a word that didn't exist until the 1930s), is like calling fish "wet".

Fish *ARE* wet. Therefore Lincoln *WAS* a racist.

Good. Finally got you to admit it.

[DiogenesLamp]

I'm saying nobody was "racist" in 1860 because there was no such word as "racist" or "racism" in 1860.

That is just silly. We can't describe racist people through the usage of a modern word because the word didn't exist back when they were being racist?

That is just silly.