I really didn’t want this to go to a point-counterpoint discussion (as there is a growing number of blogs bringing this to our attention; most recently, Brooks Simpson’s “Battlin’ Bloggers” post), but I’ve got some additional thoughts.
Yes, last week, I expressed my thoughts that I like the idea (and that hasn’t changed) of recognizing a day, in Virginia, to recognize Abraham Lincoln’s connections… direct and indirect… to the Commonwealth. It is interesting stuff, but, I have to admit, it can be complicated and complex matter as far as historical memory goes.
Putting that aside for now, since Richard Williams pointed out the exact wording of the template proclamation, I’m taking issue with it (all Richard’s other points about Lincoln aside… as I think Brooks handled each of them, in detail… and yes, I’m also aware of all of the “other history” associated with Lincoln, having taken, for example, considerable interest in the newspaper clip that I found in a Hagerstown newspaper that details a fascinating exchange between Lincoln and border-state politicians).
The wording of the proclamation template seems… I don’t know… historically awkward. I’m really not surprised, as I don’t have a lot of faith in politicians who dabble in history, and then lay the offspring of that dabbling on the general public.
Now, in defense of one part of the proclamation, I have to say, however, that Richard is reading it differently (at least in this one section) than I.
Here’s the part in question…
During the Civil War, Lincoln’s family in Virginia were slave owners and Confederate
Richard’s take on it is…
Hmmm . . . slave-owning and ‘rebellion’ were part of Lincoln’s legacy here in Virginia yet we’re being asked to ‘honor’ that legacy?
No, I don’t see it that way. I take it that they’re trying to make more obvious the irony in the connection between Pres. Lincoln, and the line of Lincoln family that remained in Virginia. Of course, Pres. Lincoln never had personal association with the Virginia Lincoln line… although he knew of them, and, of course, knew his father (as awkward a relationship as that may have been) who was Virginia-born.
I can appreciate their taking the time to mention this because it IS ironic, and does catch the attention of the reader, but… well… let’s see…
I understand that Dr. Stone is behind the proposal likely helping to provide critical historical info in support of the wording… and he knows Lincoln history… however, I’m left skeptical about the manner in which the words were arranged (and, because of Dr. Stone’s knowledge, I’m skeptical that he has had a hand in the way it is worded), delivering historical information that might not be entirely true. Specifically, I have doubts that ALL the Lincoln descendants who remained in Virginia owned slaves and supported the Confederacy. Now, granted, my knowledge of the Virginia branch of the Lincoln fam goes only so far, but I think the proclamation may be a bit narrow-scope in focus. You WILL find the graves of slaves within the fenced-in cemetery on the Lincoln Homestead, in Rockingham County, but… all of the Virginia Lincoln line? And, what about the associated Virginia lines from which President Lincoln also descends… such as the Herring and Hanks family (o.k., I guess we can’t include her as she was born in nearby Hampshire County, bordering on the Shenandoah Valley, and not the post-Civil War defined Virginia). I just think that if it isn’t all-encompassing, that little plug for “wow factor” is in critical need of adjustment.
Sure, this might seem a very minor detail to some, but it’s at this point where I’m dying to find a footnote, detailing the facts, but, of course, it’s not there, and won’t be there (obviously, you won’t see them in government proclamations)… which, actually leads me to think that, “ya know… maybe that’s a problem with all historically-related government proclamations. Think about it… we’re left to assume that the stuff flowing down hill is accurate. Do we simply open brain and consume? Perhaps there should, indeed, be more concern coming from the historical community on the matter… but at that point, I wonder if any historically-related proclamations should be made by government bodies to the public. Perhaps there are deeper questions here than just adding significance of one day to the calendar.
Keep it up long enough, and I may talk myself out of giving support to any government issued historically-related proclamation. In fact, well, I dunno… perhaps we’re better left with historical markers and local events that mark the significance of the event to the people of that place… after all, the politicians have other things to do, like… no, I’m not going to start down that path…*
*And, as fair and friendly warning, a reminder to some folks not to take this post, or others on this blog, down that path either.
Cenantua's Blog 
Jeffry Burden
January 29, 2012
Robert,
I don’t know that it’s safe to say that Dr. Stone is “behind it”. He may well have some substantial connection, but my impression is that Sen. Henry Marsh has been the driving force, and is responsible for the wording, good or bad.
As discussion of this begins to float around the interwebs, it’s important to remember that the proposed Joint Resolution does not create a state “holiday” of any sort. If passed, it would merely express the intent of the Legislature that Feb. 12 be marked by appropriate commemmorations, including (but not limited to) a gubernatorial proclamation.
Robert Moore
January 29, 2012
Jeffry,
I should be more clear… I think Dr. Stone is a historical pool of info behind the effort, but I don’t think that he’s had a hand in the writing. On the other hand, has he had a chance to see it and comment?
Also, completely understand that it won’t be a holiday.
Thanks!
jgo
January 30, 2012
Huh. I’d given up interest in the Lincoln genealogy because of the existing political sand that’s been thrown. But that remark about Hampshire county is tempting me to take another look.
southron_98
February 5, 2012
Here’s a quote from a Time Magazine article about Lerone Bennett’s book “Forced into Glory: Abraham Lincoln’s White Dream”:
“Bennett’s main theme is that Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation was only “a ploy” designed to keep as many slaves in bondage as possible until Lincoln could build support for his plan for ending slavery: “colonization,” a preposterous scheme to ship the black population either to Africa or South America. His fondest dream, Bennett writes, was of a “lily-white America without Native Americans, African Americans and Martin Luther Kings.”
Robert Moore
February 5, 2012
So, what you’re saying is you haven’t read the book and prefer the thoughts of only those who align with yours. I say this because you mentioned nothing about another comment… “This book must be taken seriously. Bennett gets some things right…. But Bennett gets more wrong than he gets right.” — The New York Times Book Review, James M. McPherson.
Walter Ring
February 11, 2012
NO to honoring a bloodthirsty anti-White anti-Southern tyrant responsible for more White deaths than anyone else in America. SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS!!! Long live John Wilkes Booth!!!
Robert Moore
February 11, 2012
Oh, I see… convenient historical memory, which blames one person, and conveniently forgets the fact that the wealthy secesh extremists didn’t have anything to do with it…. noooo-sirreeee-bob…., all the while rattling their militia sabres, knowing full-well that secession was certain war, and, saying “so what” about the other Southerners who didn’t embrace the idea of secession as fully as they. Yup, I got you figured out, emotionally-blurred, wanna-be Confederate revisionists-indoctrinated, blinders-enabled, narrow-mindedness, and all…
… and Booth… you saying that at the end… that’s too funny, and tells us even more about just how not to take you seriously in your “grasp” of the history of the time.