Remember when we were assured that this type of idiotic iconoclasm would be restricted to the Confederacy? Rubbish, the US has always been the target. This attack on Lincoln is part and parcel of a deep hatred on the Left for this nation. However, for the moment let us assume the perpetrators are merely bone ignorant and take their alleged grievance seriously.
It is easy to forget that between 1861-1865 there were other wars fought by the United States in addition to the Civil War. One of these was the Dakota War of 1862 fought in Minnesota. Relations between the native Dakota (Sioux) and the white settlers of Minnesota had been rocky for years before 1862. Late treaty payments, and cheating Indian agents had reduced many of the Dakota to poverty on their reservations. Alcoholism was rampant as were diseases of the white man. Encroachments on the land of the Dakota by the settlers was common and some of the Dakota responded with murder. Tensions erupted into open conflict on August 17, 1862 when a member of a Dakota hunting party murdered five whites. A council of Dakota under war chief Little Crow that evening decided it was time to drive the whites out of the Minnesota river valley. Over the next few weeks between 450-800 settlers were massacred by the Dakota. The Dakota made an attempt to take the town of New Ulm but were repulsed.
Regular Army troops, Minnesota volunteer regiments originally mustered to fight in the Civil War and various militia units fought the Dakota throughout the state. The Americans held Fort Ridgely in the southwestern part of the State from two attacks by the Dakota. The Dakota won two victories over the Americans at the Battle of Redwood Ferry on August 18, 1862 and at Birch Coulee on September 2, 1862.
The largest battle of the War took place at the battle of Wood Lake on September 23, 1862. Colonel Henry Sibley marched from Fort Ridgely up the Minnesota River valley on September 19, 1862 with the Third, Sixth, Seventh and Ninth Minnesota Volunteer Infantry Regiments, various militia units and a battery of six cannon. Little Crow planned to ambush Sibley’s force at Lone Lake. (Sibley’s guide mistakenly thought Lone Lake was Wood Lake, and hence the misnaming of the battle.) The ambush was discovered when a foraging party from the Third Minnesota approached a group of Dakota concealed in high grass. The fighting lasted for two hours. Little Crow had between 700-1200 braves and Sibley had about 1169-2000 soldiers. As usual, artillery had a big impact on the morale of Indians in combat. The Americans routed the Dakotans. Casualties were light on both sides with seven Americans kill and 7-15 Dakota.
The Battle proved decisive. Pacifist chiefs seized the leadership of the Dakota and surrendered on September 23, 1862, returning 269 white captives. In December 303 Dakota were sentenced to death by military tribunals. Some of the “trials” lasted all of five minutes, the Dakota had no defense counsel and no one explained the proceedings to the Dakota who were probably completely bewildered. President Lincoln personally reviewed the sentences, distinguishing between Dakota who had merely fought in the war from those guilty of rape or murder. He commuted all but 39 of the death sentences, despite warnings that the white population would be incensed by his mercy, as they were. The condemned men, minus one who was given a reprieve, were hung in the largest mass execution in US history on December 26, 1862 in Mankato, Minnesota. The Republican party was weakened in Minnesota as a result of Lincoln’s clemency. When this was brought to his attention after the 1864 election, Lincoln responded that he could not afford to hang men for votes.
Thus the facts. Of course the facts would almost certainly make no difference to the perpetrators who are motivated by racism and identity politics. They should hate Lincoln. They are his antithesis.
To the liberal progressive feminist environmentalists, native American Indians massacring white settlers is perfectly acceptable regardless of the reason so long as it isn’t their the lily white behinds being massacred.
PS, yes, the white man did great harm to native American Indians, and vice versa too. Man killing man, just like it has been since Cain slew Abel. And Democrats would like to keep things that way so long as the stone is in their hands.
BTW, I know an Anglican priest who is native American Indian. He buys into all this liberal Democrat crap hook, line and sinker. Social justice, the common good, peace at any price, capitalism is evil, the white man is the oppressor, nature worship, environmentalism nonsense, etc. ad nauseam. It’s disgusting. I hope he’s not representative of today’s native American Indians. I suspect, however, that the Democrats want to keep native American Indians poor and impoverished and sequestered on their reservations so that they can use them to say how evil conservative Christians (who by accident of birth may be white) are.
I’m pretty sure this is not the first instance of statues of Lincoln being vandalized by the Left, nor will it be the last. “Gender” is not the only thing they are fluid about. Perhaps this fluidity is the sea from which the Beast will one day emerge.
We used to have leaders who wouldn’t hang men just to get more votes. Now, we have an entire party that will murder innocent children and destroy a once great nation to get more votes. Doesn’t sound very progressive.
Speaking of the Mankato hangings, the discussion about it in modern Minnesota go like this: “Lincoln authorized the hanging of 38 proud, innocent Native Americans. The largest mass hanging in US history. He did this because he was so racist against the indigenous peoples.” As you say, the reality is that he saved the lives of 265 Sioux, and the ones who were hanged were hardly innocent so this depiction of the events is about has backwards as you can get. But that’s how they spin it now, and they will do the same for all of our ancestors regardless of what they did. (Don’t even get me started on the lies told about MN’s native son Charles Lindbergh.)
(Don’t even get me started on the lies told about MN’s native son Charles Lindbergh.)
He was a Germanophile who was exceedingly obtuse about the Nazi regime all the way up to about 1941. He was also a chronic adulterer the latter part of his life and maintained a pair of households in Germany where lived his mistresses and their ba*tard children. Note, his pre-war viewpoint had it that ‘a few Jews of the right type’ are beneficial to a country but otherwise Jews are a cancer. You don’t have to lie to injure the man’s reputation.
…Detraction, however, is often required
Detraction, however, is often required
Since Lindbergh being Lindbergh is a matter of public record, it’s hard to understand why you said this.
I hadn’t heard any of it … Nor was I aware of the “public record” loophole. I’ll start revising my examination of conscience cheat sheet immediately.
Nor was I aware of the “public record” loophole.
I haven’t revealed his faults unjustly. Those were just his faults, known to anyone who has looked at recent biographical literature on Lindbergh or riffled through his surviving correspondence in archives.
The Baltimore Catechism: “revealing the sins of another without necessity.”
CCC: disclosing another’s faults and failings, without objectively valid reason, to persons who did not know them.
I see the Catholic Encyclopedia mentions the “justly” angle … I’ll have to look into it, although I’m not sure any justice was done here by bringing up the late Mr. Lindburgh’s failings … and then there’s De mortuis nil nisi bonum … 🙂
It’s as if those “liberal progressive feminist environmentalists” yearn for the days of native polygamy, when powerful men could have many wives and send younger braves out to war -rape, torture and pillage neighboring tribes in search of a wife.
Or maybe they haven’t got a clue.
The glass house market is pretty thin these days.
CAG:
Historians have a right and obligation to tell the truth. Revealing bad stuff out of an historical record is hardly “detraction”, especially if one bad behavior seems to explain another. Your proposal would make history next to impossible.
Tom Byrne:
I see, so this is a history lesson? Another loophole to add to my cheat sheet 😉
The Baltimore Catechism: “revealing the sins of another without necessity.”
Whether it was necessary or not (depends on what your goal is), that he sired seven illegitimate children over a period of nine years and that he was between the ages of 55 and 64 when he did so, was revealed by one of those ba*tard children. His comments on Germany’s ‘Jewish problem’ were in his diaries, placed in archives with the rest of his papers. You can complain to his daughter that it’s a sin for her to reveal the name of her father (you can’t complain to Strom Thurmond’s daughter because she’s now dead) and you can complain to the archivist that he was obligated to shred the contents of his collections.
Your proposal would make history next to impossible.
It would make it impossible to have a discussion of any public figure, during his lifetime or afterward.
This from the Catholic Encyclopedia (“Detraction”):
“Journalists are entirely within their rights in inveighing against the official shortcomings of public men. Likewise, they may lawfully present whatever information about the life or character of a candidate for public office is necessary to show his unfitness for the station he seeks. Historians have a still greater latitude in the performance of their task. This is not of course because the dead have lost their claim to have their good name respected. History must be something more than a mere calendar of dates and incidents; the causes and connection of events are a proper part of its province. This consideration, as well as that of the general utility in elevating and strengthening the public conscience, may justify the historian in telling many things hitherto unknown which are to the disgrace of those of whom they are related.”
There is much to criticize the Lone Eagle about. However it should be noted that he avidly supported the war effort after Pearl Harbor. After Roosevelt refused to restore his Army Air Forces commission, Lindbergh served as a civilian expert helping to develop combat aircraft. In 1944 he flew 50 unofficial combat missions in the Pacific as a civilian, and was credited with shooting down one Japanese aircraft. He took along on his missions a New Testament, saying that he had grown to appreciate it a lot more as of late. Ike in the 50s restored his Air Force Commission promoting him to Brigadier General. Like David, Lindbergh had great sins and great accomplishments.
(depends on what your goal is)
And what was your goal, Art? That, after all, was my point.
Journalists are entirely within their rights …
Great stuff! Keep it coming!
My list so far:
Father, It’s OK that I air others’ dirty laundry in public because:
I was not unjust (whatever that means)
It was a history lesson!
I ran outta gas.
I had a flat tire.
I didn’t have enough money for cab fare.
My tux didn’t come back from the cleaners.
An old friend came in from outta town.
Someone stole my car.
There was an earthquake,
… a terrible flood,
…locust’s.
It was journalism!!
… This is gonna get me out of sooo many Hail Marys!
And what was your goal, Art? That, after all, was my point.
It would not matter in this case. You keep accusing me of ‘detraction’ when I bring up information in the public domain. You’ve been poorly catechized.
As it happens, my goal was to point out that Lindbergh hadn’t been traduced, even if you can find examples of people misrepresenting his views. (Regrettably commonplace in the discussion of any public figure).
No clue why you’re so emotionally invested in Lindbergh. He had his accomplishments and he had his virtues and he had his stupidities and he had his sins.
As for Lindbergh I was referring specifically to the diminishing of his accomplishments (ex. transatlantic flight, key role in establishing commercial air travel, development of the perfusion pump, etc.) as well as the claims that he supported a Nazi takeover of Europe and a fascist government in the US or that he was a virulent racist against all non-whites. His prewar writings make it perfectly clear that he opposed German aggression, but that he didn’t think a European war, and especially a European war with US involvement, would resolve the situation. In particular he worried that a war in Europe would destroy the social fabric of Europe and leave the Soviet Communists in a stronger position in the aftermath… which is precisely what happened. (His preferred outcome stated many times in his prewar journals is that the communists and fascists simply take each other out, but this was never really possible; especially not without collateral damage.)
Nevertheless after the war broke out he did do what he could to fight (despite active attempts from Roosevelt to block him due to their pre-war rivalry). I’ve never seen even a hint of acceptance for Nazi Germany in his post-war writing, after the full extent of their atrocities became known.
As for his supposed virulent racism, see his laments over how US soldiers took souvenirs from Japanese corpses during the war, or his outright admiration for the Bedouin and Pacific Islander tribes.
Was he a man with faults? Certainly. He was an adultery, and for most of his life his faith was lukewarm at best. (Though he did return to the Bible many times, ultimately his true faith was in scientific progress; in his final autobiography he even muses about the possibility of technology making God irrelevant.) And you can dig into more beyond that.
But consider this: I made one off hand remark about a man with great accomplishments and suddenly we have several posts making sure that he is vilified to the correct degree. Why is this necessary to do at all? It’s an obvious fact that he is an accomplished man, and it is just as obvious that he has been made into more of a monster than he ever was by his popular depictions.
It’s in fact exactly this sort of reaction that inevitably leads to things like statues of Lincoln being defaced. You might not go that far, but the masses following the same impulses will.
[…] Evil Idiots at Play – Donald R. McClarey, J.D., at The American Catholic CNN/HLN to Feature T. L. M. Priest’s […]
The stone monument marking the hanging of 39 braves is long gone from the site on the banks of the Minnesota River in Mankato. A large stone sculpture of a buffalo has replaced it. My grandmother told us how relatives over in and near New Ulm were victims of the Indians. My great great grandfather came from Alleghany County PA before the Civil War When the Indians became violent my widowed ancestor took his surviving children back to PA and remarried and fought at Gettysburg. When it was safe the family of seven travelled by train back to MN. Six of the ten children were born in southern MN. Family lore has it that the first great great grandmother was chased on horseback by braves but she out rode them. She had been baking bread and the starving Indians came to the cabin.
That said my maternal grandparents and parents always supported the Catholic Indian Missions.
Lindbergh took my grandfather for a ride in his airplane. I suspect offering plane rides was a way to earn a bit. of money for plane upkeep. Think the flights took place near Lindbergh home.