I didn't say that Butler was running for office, I said he was -seeking- office. Butler never, after 1865, gave up trying to regain the power he had during the war. He didn't -plan- on dying in 1893. This story of his alleged meeting with President Lincoln in April, 1865 is of a piece with that.
Discussion over on the ACW moderated newsgroup indicates that Dr. Mark Neely says that the story of Lincoln's meeting with Butler and looking favorably on deporting all blacks is a complete fabrication. You should treat it as such.
Walt
[Wlat 328] I didn't say that Butler was running for office, I said he was -seeking- office. Butler never, after 1865, gave up trying to regain the power he had during the war. He didn't -plan- on dying in 1893. This story of his alleged meeting with President Lincoln in April, 1865 is of a piece with that.
[Wlat 328] Discussion over on the ACW moderated newsgroup indicates that Dr. Mark Neely says that the story of Lincoln's meeting with Butler and looking favorably on deporting all blacks is a complete fabrication. You should treat it as such.
[nolu chan 313] You claim that Butler was seeking office. You document the fact that Butler's Book was published in 1892. It appears that, in reality, Butler had not sought any political office in about 8 years. If you have anything whatever to support your claim that Butler was seeking any political office in 1892, please present it.
[nolu chan 280] You claim that Butler was seeking office. You document the fact that Butler's Book was published in 1892. It appears that, in reality, Butler had not sought any political office in about 8 years. If you have anything whatever to support your claim that Butler was seeking any political office in 1892, please present it.
Could you please provide whatever evidence or source material you relied upon to make your claim that Butler was seeking office in 1892?
Could you please explain how it would have benefitted Butler to lie about Lincoln and colonization, thereby providing a motive to lie about that subject, as you have claimed?
"Discussion over on the ACW moderated newsgroup indicated," is not a source. Discussion on a nationally syndicated radio talk show would be more prestigious than an AOL newsgroup. Discussion on a nationally syndicated radio talk show indicated that George Bush was actually a lizard. Really, that is what was indicated by David Icke, author of The Reptilian Connection. It was in a published book and on a nationally syndicated talk show. You should accept it. This way you will be prepared when the news breaks that the whole world is really being run by shape-shifting lizards.
Mark E. Neely, Jr. is the author of The Fate of Liberty: Abraham Lincoln and Civil Liberties. Chapter 8 is entitled The Irrelevance of the Milligan Decision. At page 184 one may read, quoting Edward S. Corwin, the McCormick Profession of Jurisprudence at Princeton University, "To suppose that such fustian would be of greater influence in determining presidential procedure in a future great emergency than precedents backed by the monumental reputation of Lincoln would be merely childish."
See, one learns something every day. Legal precedents backed by the monumental reputation of Lincoln outweigh fustian legal precedents of the United States Supreme Court.
It is in a book, and discussion around the brigade water fountain indicates the author is highly thought of. Dicky Dunn said it. It must be true. I don't even know any longer why the Supreme Court bothers to waste its time.
Lerone Bennett, Jr. is a highly acclaimed journalist, author and executive editor of Ebony. He graduated from Morehouse College in 1949 and began his career as a reporter for the Atlanta Daily World and later served as city editor. Bennett moved to Chicago in 1953 where he worked as associate editor at Jet magazine. The following year he became associate editor for Ebony and is now executive editor of the publication. He has authored many articles and books including, Before the Mayflower: A History of Black America, 1619-1962 (1962), What Manner of Man: A Biography of Martin Luther King, Jr. (1964), and Forced Into Glory: Abraham Lincoln’s White Dream (2000).
I hope you didn't miss it.
Abraham Lincoln Symposium
and Annual Abraham Lincoln Association Banquet
Sponsored by:
With support from:
Abraham Lincoln Symposium
February 12, 2002, at the Old State Capitol in Springfield, Illinois,
The Symposium is free to the public.
Address: Lerone Bennett Jr., Ebony Magazine, Forced Into Glory
The American Book Awards / Before Columbus Foundation
The American Book Awards, established in 1978 by the Before Columbus Foundation, recognize outstanding literary achievement by contemporary American authors, without restriction to race, sex, ethnic background, or genre. The purpose of the awards is to acknowledge the excellence and multicultural diversity of American writing.
2002 Lifetime Achievement: Lerone Bennett, Jr.
Salute to Greatness Award
of the Martin Luther King Jr. Center for Nonviolent Social Change
Lerone Bennett, Jr.
Among his numerous awards, he has received the Literature Award from the American Academy of Arts and Letters, the Lifetime Achievement Award from the National Association of Black Journalists and was recently inducted into Chicago State University's new National Literary Hall of Fame for Writers of African Descent in December 1998. Bennett is on the Board of Trustees at Morehouse College (Atlanta), Columbia College (Chicago) and the Chicago Historical Society. He is also a member of the President's Committee on the Arts and the Humanities.
Appealing to his authority is a fallacy, Walt. Neely has indeed questioned Butler's meeting with Lincoln. But other historians have countered with the conclusion that it was genuine. Thus it is by no means a matter of consensus among historians thereby rendering an appeal to one over the others fallacious.
Now, if you would like to track down Neely's article about Butler and perhaps post the relevent parts of it on this forum (i.e. what evidence he has to question Butler's account) you are certainly welcome to do so. They may then be scrutinized accordingly on their own merit rather than on the simple name of their proponent. But until then you have absolutely no grounds on which to state that Neely's argument is a conclusive fact and no basis by which to demand that others accept his conclusions as their own. Have a nice day.