Why history matters

Interview with Doris Kearns Goodwin for Echoes Magazine, July and August 2025, p. 34.  "Lincoln was worried as the Revolutionary generation was dying off, and it was a very tumultuous time. It was in the 1830s when there were abolitionists being killed and lynchings being done in the South.  And Lincoln was afraid that when those people died, we would forget the ideals of the Revolution.  He recommended that mothers read history to their children, that pastors talk about it from their pulpits, that we had to teach history in the schools--the history of the Revolution--so those ideals would remain strong in our countrymen's minds and hearts." 

And there was light, book club selection September 11

 For book club this month I'm reading Jon Meacham's "And there was light; Abraham Lincoln and the American Struggle." (Random House, 2022) By page 140 I was noticing a subtle hint of 21st century moral superiority and self- righteousness in the author's tone.  I grabbed a second Lincoln book from my personal library, Ronald White, Jr.'s "A. Lincoln; a biography." (Random House, 2009) They are both massive books (676 pp. and 796 pp.) The bibliographies/notes sections are so huge and so different, it's almost impossible to check one against the other. I'm supplementing my reading with Paul Johnson's "A History of the American People," pts 3 and 4, which covers 1815-1870, which emphasizes links to England's history and our country's religious beliefs and formation. I was a little fuzzy on the Mexican War and the Nebraska-Kansas problem.

The bibliographies are incredibly difficult, but here are some rough, ballpark stats: Meacham cites Steven Douglas 27 times, White 106 times; Meacham cites Frederick Douglass 58 times, White 30 times. Both men were important, but for telling the story of pre-Civil War America and what Americans thought and believed, Steven Douglas is a better example of the pro-slavery forces Lincoln was up against convincing Americans (many of whom had never seen a black man or a slave) to stop the expansion and then ending slavery.

I've come away from this reading experience with a suspicion that all great heroes of our history will never pass muster because of the 21st century's race problems. They won't survive the Obama presidency and the George Floyd riots which were far more damaging to our national fabric than January 6 riot. Statues will continue to be torn down and schools renamed. 

 In this era of abortion up to the day of birth, maiming children in sex change surgeries, border sex trafficking, and energy and welfare policies that hurt the poor some of our scholars, publishers and activists find 21st c. American morals and ethics superior to the 19th and 18th centuries!

Although White never hides Lincoln's failures, he faithfully follows through on an outstanding study of his growth, integrity, and complexity, as well as his evolution in religious values and struggles. Plus, he's readable. Meacham does say good things about Lincoln but always "balances" with what his detractors from 3 centuries had to say. Cherry pickers for CRT classes will love it. Does Lincoln's passion for saving the country and destroying slavery have to be explained through a (failed) 21st century racialist lens?

I noticed the similarities to what we are going through today. In passionate love for their country, Lincoln and Trump are pretty well matched, regardless of what you think of their causes. And I can't think of any president more vilified than Lincoln except Trump. Lincoln was ridiculed, damned, hated with a passion, lied about, and feared just like Trump is today. There was more than one assassination attempt. The Republican party was in its infancy in 1860, lively and eager, and in its dotage in 2016 and 2020, careless and timid. The Democrats were racists then and they are racists now. The stakes were different, but slavery was embedded in every aspect of American life, even for northerners. The danger from non-elected entities in the deep state are as stubbornly embedded in our way of life as slavery was then. The desire to control others' lives it still with us today. To challenge the deep state today is as dangerous as challenging slavery was then. And abortion, although not a cause for Trump, is OUR moral issue overshadowing all other events and decisions just as slavery was in 1830-1860.

Trinity Forum Conversations | Lincoln in Private: Leadership Behind Closed Doors with Ron C. White (transistor.fm)

Abraham Lincoln's Diary on Apple Podcasts

“From Christ to Emancipation,” Townhall.com Wednesday, July 8

From Christ to Emancipation, the mob is determined to erase history Blinded by their rage, the Left targets Christ, Grant, and Lincoln in the name of the revolution By Bishop Aubrey Shines We’ve all heard the phrase, “the road to hell is paved with good intentions,” but, as I’ve watched the unrest that continues to play out in our cities, I think it’s safe to say the “activists” who have taken over left the good intentions behind some time ago. First, they came for only the Confederate statues. Then they came for our Founding Fathers, and now they’re coming after President Lincoln, General Grant, and even our Savior Jesus Christ. In case you don’t know what I’m referring to, last month Shaun King, who is a prominent voice in the Left’s Woke class, called for the removal of any statues of Christ with European features because, apparently, those too are now a symbol of white supremacy. As a minister, it pains me to see such an asinine and narrow view of the Messiah. Not only is it shortsighted, but Mr. King is missing the entire point of Christ; what he may or may not have looked like doesn’t matter, but his message about love and reconciliation with others does. Christ walked the earth 2,000 years ago. None of us can ever know what the Savior actually looked like. Logically, it’s reasonable that different cultures would depict Him in a way they would know. White Europeans aren’t any guiltier for depicting Jesus as a white European in Renaissance art than Africans or Asians are for portraying Him as an African or an Asian in their artwork. Moreover, the Messiah’s message has nothing to do with the pigmentation of one’s skin. In His time on earth, Jesus extended God’s love to both Jews and Gentiles; Samaritans, Romans, it didn’t matter. Furthermore, what Mr. King suggests is the next step on an already dangerous path. Statues of Christ are found on the grounds of churches, and churches are separate entities from the government (look it up, it’s in the Constitution). This means Mr. King wants his Antifa friends to trespass on private property to destroy other private property. I would be shocked, but these people see themselves as revolutionaries; they live by their own rules, and no amount of reasonable discourse will stop them. And if statues of Christ that look too white have to come down, how long will it be before statues of Abraham, Moses, or Jacob have to come down if they look too white? Does this mean Michelangelo’s historic sculpture of King David needs to be destroyed because it looks too white? How long will it be before any white statues come down, regardless of whether or not the person in question enforced white supremacy? I fear that last question is already being answered. We’ve already had a statue of General Grant ripped down. Didn’t he bring an end to the Civil War by forcing Robert E. Lee to surrender? He, if anyone, should have a thousand statues up for every one Confederate statue; Grant ended the war and saved the Union. But because he is a 19th century white man with a beard in a military uniform, he must come down! So say the misguided who ignore their own history. The statue of Teddy Roosevelt, one of the greatest conservationists in American history, is being removed from in front of the New York Museum of Natural History. The reason? Roosevelt is apparently more prominent than the adjacent statues of a Native American and African American. This must mean Roosevelt only stood for imperialism and the patriarchy, never mind the fact we would not have our national parks were it not for him. Oh, and he was the first president to entertain a black man for dinner in the White House, namely Booker T. Washington. The mob even wants to attack the legacy of Abraham Lincoln, without whom there would be no Emancipation Proclamation. The Emancipation Memorial, a statue of Lincoln helping a freed slave to his feet, has stood by the White House since 1876. The mob’s excuse for this one is that the statue endorses “white saviorism,” even though the statue was funded by ex-slaves. If they stopped screaming and listened for a moment, maybe the misguided young folks trying to trample President Lincoln’s legacy would realize this. If Mr. King and his ilk insist on this path of destruction, I ask him to remember that Christ’s message is about forgiveness. He and the Antifa thugs tearing our country apart will always have a chance to be forgiven, even as they try to erase our history. I hope he knows this. I will be praying for him to understand it. Bishop Aubrey Shines is the founder of Glory to Glory Ministries and chairman of Conservative Clergy of Color.  Bishop Aubrey Shines, is available for comment on this op-ed. To schedule interviews with Bishop Aubrey Shines of Conservative Clergy of Color, please contact Will Hadden at whadden@sbpublicaffairs.com or call 703.739.5920

Let’s deny both history and art

Art has to say a lot, and be useful and meaningful years later. In this statue the black man is shaking off the shackles and rising. Democrats have battled this every step of the way, and still are. Now the art has to go. They are afraid too many are escaping their grasp.

Let it be known everywhere,” [Frederick Douglass, noted black abolitionist] declared, “[that] we, the colored people, newly emancipated and rejoicing in our blood-bought freedom, near the close of the first century in the life of this Republic, have now and here unveiled, set apart, and dedicated a monument of enduring granite and bronze, in every line, feature, and figure of which the men of this generation may read, and those of after-coming generations may read, something of the exalted character and great works of Abraham Lincoln, the first martyr president of the United States.”

https://www.faithwire.com/2020/07/01/boston-taking-down-lincoln-emancipation-statue-after-unanimous-vote/

Destruction of the Emancipation statue

I watched a Black woman on TV "explain" to a crowd (mostly young white adults) why the Lincoln emancipation statue needed to be destroyed--it showed slaves subservient and didn't represent how they participated in the emancipation. I suppose there's an element of truth there, but it is art and it also didn't show Lincoln as a man much vilified for his beliefs, his lack of a formal education and his physical appearance.

It particularly did not show the many free Blacks of that pre-war time who owned slaves. They owned slaves at a higher rate than southern whites according to Henry Louis Gates, Jr. PBS host and Obama's friend and mentor.

I was probably in my 30s or 40s before I found out that before the Civil War freed Blacks in the U.S. owned slaves. I don't recall that was covered in American history in high school or college. But it wasn't until Prof. Gates wrote about it, that I learned that free Blacks owned slaves at a much higher rate than whites, something like 25% compared to about 1.5%.

Free American Blacks were voting before the Revolution (long before women) and most likely helped ratify the amendments and send the men to Congress. There were very wealthy free Blacks who owned a lot of property as well as small businessmen and craftsmen of all manner of the arts in the South.

That would be hard to show in a piece of art, but BLM leaders should at least acknowledge it and reject the white Marxists who are now in control of their movement.

210th anniversary of Lincoln’s birthday

“While the Civil War raged in late 1862, Union Gen. Ulysses S. Grant wanted to stop the trade of Southern cotton. A number of Jews were involved in the cotton trade, including some in black market activity, and on Dec. 17, Grant issued a shocking order calling for the expulsion of all Jews from a wide swath of the South.

Fortunately the order had little impact because of faulty army communications – and to President Lincoln. When Lincoln heard that Grant was attempting to banish Jews, he quickly reversed the order.

“To condemn a class is, to say the least, to wrong the good with the bad,” Lincoln said. “I do not like to hear a class or nationality condemned on account of a few sinners.””

https://www.jta.org/2019/02/12/opinion/when-president-lincoln-fought-for-the-jews?

Lincoln on slavery

In March 1860 Abraham Lincoln spoke at Yale on the campaign trail to the White House. Yale's student body was divided on the issue of slavery, an important plank in the Democrats' platform. "If Slavery is right, all words, acts, laws, and Constitutions against it, are themselves wrong, and should be silenced, and swept away. If it is right, we cannot justly object to its nationality—its universality; if it is wrong they [the Democrats] cannot justly insist upon its extension—its enlargement."

That's how I feel about legal abortion, both the federal and state laws; if Roe v. Wade is ever overturned, the issue just goes back to the states where it is still immoral even if legal. If abortion is right, then all acts and laws are wrong and have no meaning. 

However, this statement by Lincoln was a paraphrase of a writer who influenced him and many abolitionists, Leonard Bacon, a Congregational preacher and writer who wrote it in 1846. The Congregationalists are now blended into United Church of Christ which has been supporting abortion since 1971. President Obama was a UCC member, but so was Harriet Beecher Stowe (Congregationalist).

November 19, 1863, Gettysburg, Pennsylvania

President Obama is just not doing well with this Gettysburg Address thing. First he bails on attending the 150th event in Pennsylvania, offending even some of his strongest supporters (he had a meeting with some Wall St. CEOs scheduled for today, although he'd been invited over a year ago), then it comes out when he recorded the speech for Ken Burns to "mash" with other Presidents and celebs (a really odd collection including some of my least favorite TV reporters), he does so without the "under God" phrase, so Jimmy Carter got that part. Really, what is wrong with this man, who literally spoke from Lincoln's grave to get elected in 2008? It's like he carries a stick to poke us in the eye regularly.

Can't always trust what you read on the internet

Civil War speakers this week

Craig Symonds, Professor Emeritus at the U.S. Naval Academy and the author of ten previous books, including Decision at Sea: Five Naval Battles that Shaped American History, yesterday examined Lincoln’s presidency through the lens of the naval side of the Civil War, and his relationship with his Admirals. Today’s lecture we learned about a new kind of warship with iron sides and revolving gun turrets used in the Union blockade of Southern ports and the Battle of Mobile Bay. Symonds is an outstanding, lively, well-informed speaker, and he never misses a step when asked questions from the audience. If he had notes, I didn't see them. If you ever have an opportunity to hear him, don't miss it, even to just enjoy a well-prepared, articulate speaker.

Two annoyances: first, so many people don't turn off their cell phones. How many calls can grandma get? So irritating. Then there's the "other" expert in the audience--this one about 2 row behind me with an extremely deep voice, that rattled and rumbled as he pointed things out in an audible whisper to the guys he was sitting with. If he's so smart, why isn't he on the speakers' circuit, or sitting in archives researching?

Reminds me of comments at my blog.