American History Myths: Not Just the Whispy JSJr Image

[_sock puppet]

Sock Puppet, your OP reminds me of our ongoing discussions about the Nauvoo Expositor. The unconstitutional actions by the Lincoln administration you are describing are exactly the kind of after-the-fact justification Dallin H. Oaks tried to provide for suppressing the Expositor. From Oaks' 1965 Utah Law Review article:

http://content.lib.utah.edu/utils/getfi ... /14523.pdf

(page 897)

The action of the Nauvoo City Council in suppressing an opposition newspaper may have been the earliest example of official action of this type ( in a day when mobs were not infrequently employed for the same purpose) , but subsequent history shows that such official acts of suppression were not unique.

In 1863 General Burnside proclaimed the suppression of the Chicago Times and the Jonesboro Gazette "on account of the repeated expression of disloyal and incendiary statements," and took possession of the Times printing office with troops. Publication was resumed four days later when public pressure induced Lincoln to rescind the order, so the action was never tested in court.

Yeah, Lincoln's power plays have been used to claim that JSJr's power plays are not unique in history. Somehow Lincoln's later acts justify JSJr's earlier ones? The only real precedent in America for JSJr declaring martial law was General Andrew Jackson declaring martial law (i.e., ignoring orders issued by courts to bring an arrested person before the court).

[_sock puppet]

Lincoln, in particular, is a tricky case. Context is hugely important when considering historical events, and it is important to note the context behind many of those decisions. You have to remember that Lincoln was desparately trying to (i) prevent additional secessions and treason (which is why he restricted freedom of the press and suspended habeas corpus, (ii) cajole a large number of people in the North to fight a war that quickly became unpopular in the North (since a lot of Northerners were unwilling to fight a war to end slavery), (iii) appear strong to prevent foreign powers from recognizing and aiding the Confederacy. Did Lincoln go too far sometimes, and can we criticize certain things he did? Sure, but the context is important.

Despite his flaws and occasionally troubling decisions, I still believe that Lincoln was our greatest President.

I agree context matters. Certainly the glamorized historical version of Lincoln omits lots and lots of context, right? There's no need to reiterate his positives; everyone knows them from the American historical propaganda. We know the context that Lincoln was trying to save the Union, even if at the expense of states' rights to prevent centralized power such as the colonies lived under from England.

What I've listed are rarely mentioned facts. The OP adds more context that is not commonly known--and I said nothing of Lincoln's considered place among American presidents. I think my OP goes much farther towards providing missing context than your post.

But why continue (save) the American experiment if you have to ditch its fundamentals to do so?

The point of this thread is not to beat up on Lincoln.

It is to point out that I find repugnant the snow job that historians after Lincoln died, just as I do the snow job from Mormons after JSJr died. In both cases, the distorted images painted are so inaccurate as to be misleading, deceptive. Is it really my fault that I did not go to a library and research for myself when in K-12 every statement made in class, in textbooks, so that I could verify for myself the veracity? I don't think so, but that's what the apologists and Mormon defenders suggest when a disillusioned Mormon complains that he or she was lied to.

I don't take any more kindly to the fact that in the public schools I attended such a distorted, one-sided, all glamorous image of Lincoln was painted, than I do to the fact the in Mormon classes I attended such a distorted, one-sided, all glamorous image of JSJr was painted.

[_huckelberry]

I liked Cicero's comment above. I am not inclined to try and justify each action Lincoln did. I do feel that the danger was high enough that actions which make no sense in normal times became necessary in the Civil War. Brothers shot at each other. Riots in northern cities could have lost the war for the north.

I think perhaps an important part of the coverup that Sockpuppet is upset with is the cover up of just how nasty and chaotic and dangerous war really is.

[_sock puppet]

I liked Cicero's comment above. I am not inclined to try and justify each action Lincoln did. I do feel that the danger was high enough that actions which make no sense in normal times became necessary in the Civil War. Brothers shot at each other. Riots in northern cities could have lost the war for the north.

I think perhaps an important part of the coverup that Sockpuppet is upset with is the cover up of just how nasty and chaotic and dangerous war really is.

I do think Lincoln violated more of the Constitution that he took an oath to uphold than any other president in U.S. history. He is lionized for doing so. My point--"upset"--is that history writers have whitewashed and inculcated later generations by intentionally leaving out significant facts--context--just as the LDS Church has done regarding JSJr. Get it? My "upset" is with revisionist history.

[_Sethbag]

Another one I forgot to mention is that prior to Lincoln's presidency, the U.S. made the Gadsden Purchase in 1854--the southern most parts of what is now New Mexico and Arizona...

Was the northern route (connecting fewer cities) chosen for the good of the Nation, or for maximizing Lincoln's profits from his Nebraska property?

I live in Arizona. I just drove through New Mexico again. There's nothing frigging there my friend. The parts of the state that I saw were mostly desolate. The first time I drove across NM I took the I-40 route, and the second time the I-10 route, and there was nothing there. And back then, there wasn't much in Arizona either.

I would like to suggest that, at least in this region of the country, a more northern route would have connected more parts of the country where stuff was actually going on, with the rest of the country, than the southern route would have.

[_moksha]

What is the story behind imprisonments in Maryland and political prisoners in the Northern States? Was it in response to a particular action? Were these prisoners sentenced to gulags within the New Jersey Archipelago?

[_sock puppet]

Another one I forgot to mention is that prior to Lincoln's presidency, the U.S. made the Gadsden Purchase in 1854--the southern most parts of what is now New Mexico and Arizona...

Was the northern route (connecting fewer cities) chosen for the good of the Nation, or for maximizing Lincoln's profits from his Nebraska property?

I live in Arizona. I just drove through New Mexico again. There's nothing frigging there my friend. The parts of the state that I saw were mostly desolate. The first time I drove across NM I took the I-40 route, and the second time the I-10 route, and there was nothing there. And back then, there wasn't much in Arizona either.

I would like to suggest that, at least in this region of the country, a more northern route would have connected more parts of the country where stuff was actually going on, with the rest of the country, than the southern route would have.

The southern route would have connected San Diego to Houston (and thus on to the southeast railways), and points in between. The Gadsden Purchase meant no mountain passes to build.

The route chosen by Lincoln connected Sacramento to Council Bluffs, IA (and eastward to Chicago). It had to be build over the Sierra Nevada mountains. It also meant that the rail line would have to deal with snow in the winter. Drive the route built through northern Nevada and see how much more there is than in the Gadsden Purchase area.

[_Cicero]

What is the story behind imprisonments in Maryland and political prisoners in the Northern States? Was it in response to a particular action? Were these prisoners sentenced to gulags within the New Jersey Archipelago?

Maryland was a slave state, and Lincoln did not want it to secede (if it had then the North would have lost Washington D.C. to the Confederacy, and Lincoln was willing to do whatever it took to prevent that from happening). There were riots in Baltimore and several state legislators were trying to convene the legislature to have a vote on secession. Lincoln declared martial law, imprisoned several hostile legislators, arrested the rioters and held many of them in prison without trial for years in some cases.

[_richardMdBorn]

Another one I forgot to mention is that prior to Lincoln's presidency, the U.S. made the Gadsden Purchase in 1854--the southern most parts of what is now New Mexico and Arizona. The Gadsden Purchase was for the purpose of the US's construction of a transcontinental railroad along a deep southern route.

After Lincoln was elected, the northern route was chosen by him. I am sure it was no minor coincidence that Lincoln owned land in Nebraska that had to be purchased from him for the transcontinental railroad to be built on that norther route. (Lincoln had represented railroads in his law practice, and acquired that land as a consequence.)

Was the northern route (connecting fewer cities) chosen for the good of the Nation, or for maximizing Lincoln's profits from his Nebraska property?

There may have been a slight difficulty with building the transcontinental (or according to Obama, the intercontinental) railroad through Texas when it was part of the Confederacy.

[_ludwigm]

Was the northern route (connecting fewer cities) chosen for the good of the Nation, or for maximizing Lincoln's profits from his Nebraska property?

Or simply happened as the "Tsar's Finger"?

Tsar Nicholas (who reputedly, exasperated by the bickering of officials arguing over the route, selected the route by taking a ruler and drawing a straight line between the two cities on a map) accidentally drew around his own finger on the ruler.

See the map at http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/2187173