Is it true about Lincoln?I read it on yahoo answers...?

Their are two sides to Lincoln. On the day of the Gettysburg address he signed a paper committing 10 Indian chiefs to death for pleading for their promised blankets and food. General Grant took their supplies for his troops and their people ( the Indians) were starving to death.

Is it true about Lincoln?I read it on yahoo answers...?
I am unaware of this incident, did the poster provide SOURCES AND REFERENCES? If no, disregard it.


However, you are correct about TWO SIDES to Lincoln:





Abraham Lincoln: Sixteenth President of the United States of America


(1861-1865)





Abraham Lincoln: "Whether slavery is intact or abolished, either is acceptable to preserve our Union." Lincoln, at least initially, was not completely against slavery, he was not an abolitionist. He was, in other words, completely and unequivocally pro-Union.





President Abraham Lincoln during the American Civil War:





To the majority of the North, President Abraham Lincoln was a great president, uniter, liberator, and staunch American. To most of the South, however, Lincoln was a tyrant, invader, and he trampled (and even trumped) states’ rights and the United States Constitution.


One is inclined to believe that prior to the American Civil War the secession issue was settled. The constitutionality and legality of secession, however, was never addressed by the United States Supreme Court which was the only judicial and lawful arbiter regarding secession. Abraham Lincoln, moreover, never sought nor received a decision from the United States Supreme Court stating whether or not secession was legal and allowed according to the United States Constitution. By suspending the writ of habeas corpus, Southerners believed that Lincoln, again, disregarded and violated the U.S. Constitution. Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation and, consequently, his actions can be viewed in the 13th, 14th and, even, 15th constitutional amendments. President Abraham Lincoln stated that his goal was to preserve the Union (United States). Whether slavery was intact or abolished, Lincoln stated that either was completely acceptable in order to preserve the Union. Lincoln, at least initially, was not completely against slavery, he was not an abolitionist. He was, in other words, completely and unequivocally pro-Union. President Lincoln, moreover, didn't receive a single Southern electoral vote.





CREDIT AND SOURCE:


http://thomaslegion.net/presidentabraham...
Reply:What does this have to do with the Dakota uprising and General Grant taking the Native's foodand blankets? Report It

Reply:Not a thing, I know I am new but bearstirringfromcave warned me about this guy look at his answers every one has 10+ even 30 votes! Then most of them are wrong or cut and paste. Report It

Reply:Yes i believe it is true. I read something along that line here an there also.
Reply:"With malice towards none: With charity for all: with firmness in the right:as God gives us to see the right, let us to strive on to finish the work that we are in, to bind up the Nations wounds..............and........That we highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain--That this Nation-- under God, shall have a new birth of freedom--and the government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."





These...A. Lincoln actually said: Statements of a compassionate man that signed both the Emancipation Proclamation and the Commutation of Death sentences of some 275 Native Americans.





As I read your question, you seem to be drawing a distinction between the two events: As indicated, he was not sentencing the remaining 28 but saving those that had been tried by a military tribunal, is as little as 5 minutes (40/day), by testimony in as many as 50 of the cases, by a single individual ( one of the accused) and included some "mentally deficient " individuals. The "facts" sited, are largely drawn from "stories" of the, then, inhabitants of the south eastern Counties of Minnesota and accuracy is dubious.( I am a Minnesotan Democrat).





Our "Northern schools and school teachers" also tell us that these Dakota Bandshad ceaded 90% of their land for $1.5 million , that they were to recieve, over 50 years. Unfortunately, the then govenor of Minnesota (Alexander Ramsey) had given authority to "traders", first claim to these payments, for goods that had an escalated price of %400, on average.............The Dakota saw very little of their paymnets and due to the onset of the Civil War, nearly all resources were required to muster a 75,000 man army to respond to the "South's" beligerance. (Your reference to Grant ?)


Ironically, a very large shipment ($75,000) was already enroute to the Redwood Agency, near New Ulm (the New Ulm Massacre) when starving Dakota were told, by the Agency Agent " if they are hungary, let them eat grass"....In the aftermath, the Agent was found, dead, with his mouth full of grass..........The "uprising" was actually touched off by 3 young Dakotas, foraging for eggs in that they resented the likelyhood that they would be prosecuted, by a farmer, for taking eggs from along a fence line.





Although, the white inhabitants, clearly prevailed in this conflict," this is what is taught by "Northern School Teachers".


In the tradition of Lincoln "with malice towards none: with charity for all", we Yankees( predominately Democratic) have have demonstrated respect for those that have contributed to our history, not by villianizing them but naming cities after them (Shokapee, Chasca, Wabasha). No, we Minnesota Yankees didn't condemn our neighbors to a" trail of tears", we live side by side to this day: We might consider this, inpart, due to a respect for History and Lincoln, martyred for aspossing a"Nation..that shall have a new birth of freedom...and not perish fromthe earth."





But again, our toy soldiers, sulk in ambush, waiting for well meaning contributors to proffer a position or a perception that is actully relative to the question asked.


To lay blame for a loss of liberty, mitigation of States Rights, or any other circumstance that some "Southern Teacher" might be inspired to chant while attempting to transfer (transferance) attributes of those that actully suffered and died, brother pitted against brother, by mearly donning a parade like uniform and crying "foul".............Hardly a resolve that those that died, maimed and suffered did not due so in vain.........Most of we Yankees, cease to play cowboy and Indians when we reach the "age of reason".





As for suspension of Habeus Corpus , I am not aware of a single secceding State petitioned the Courts for the Right or Due Process: SO APPARRENT that South did not want to participate in any Democratic process: The slave, most certainly, did not have benefit of the right to Habeus Corpus.
Reply:Chronological contradiction.





If the Indians were pleading for the blankets and food that they didn't have, there wouldn't be anything for Grant to take.
Reply:Absolute garbage.





The 38 indians whom Lincoln determined committed crimes were hung on Dec 26, 1862, while the remainder that had only committed war against the US had their sentences commuted. The Gettysburg Address was given on Nov 19, 1863.





Do you see any problems with your question?





Furthermore, General Grant was not in charge of any military area that dealt with Indian affairs, in Nov 1863 Grant was wrapping up his advances in the West, On March 9, 1864, President Lincoln promoted U.S. Grant to the newly revived rank of Lieutenant General and on March 12 was made General in Chief of the Armies of the United States.





As to the other answers, they are from revisionists who have to lie about history in order to make themselves feel better because they can't believe that their "heroic"(in their eyes) ancestors could possibly have anything to do with an illegal revolution with the express purpose of retaining and expanding the immoral cause of human bondage.





Listen to the facts, not the lies told by revisionists who are trying to make traitors into heroes.





whale
Reply:That is one of the sad realities regarding A. Lincoln, as a humanitarian he was a work in progress - - - raised amidst an aura of bigotry and prejudice it took Lincoln a while to come around to the view that slavery was wrong and that Negroes ought to be treated more-or-less equally. If Lincoln had avoided assasination it is possible that his views regarding Natives would have 'improved,' actually in the context of the incident that you cited, Lincoln was 'temperate %26amp; just,' there were those clamouring for the killing of three hundred and three or so Natives due to an incident in the Dakota's - - - -


But the whole issue is complicated. As a young man Lincoln fought against Indians during the Blackhawk War and though he personally saw no combat, he was witness to the site of a massacre with scalped corpses littering the ground.. Lincoln had very few opportunities to truly learn about the Natives and was bias toward anyone other than white-anglo-saxon Protestsents.





Here are some links you might enjoy.


http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects...


"""The final decision on whether to go ahead with the planned mass execution of the 303 Dakota and mixed-bloods rested with President Lincoln. General John Pope, having been sent to Minnesota after his defeat at Bull Run, campaigned by telegraph for the speedy execution of all the condemned. Virtually all of the editorial writers, politicians, and citizens of Minnesota agreed with Pope. One of the few who did not was Henry Whipple, the Episcopal Bishop of Minnesota. Whipple traveled to Washington to meet with Lincoln and discuss the causes of the Dakota Conflict. By Lincoln's own account, the visit impressed him deeply and he pledged to reform Indian affairs. Lincoln knew well that the lust for Dakota blood could not be ignored; to prevent any executions from going forward might well have condemned all 303 to death at mob hands. Lincoln asked two clerks to go through the commission's trial records and identify those prisoners convicted of raping women or children. They found only two [cases 2 and 4]. Lincoln then asked his clerks to search the records a second time and identify those convicted of participating in the massacres of settlers. This time the clerks came up with the thirty-nine names included in Lincoln's handwritten order of execution written on December 6, 1862. [PHOTO OF LINCOLN'S ORDER]





In Mankato, at ten o'clock on December 26, thirty-eight (one person was reprieved between the date of Lincoln's order and the execution) prisoners wearing white muslin coverings and singing Dakota death songs were led to gallows in a circular scaffold and took the places assigned to them on the platform. Ropes were placed around each of the thirty-eight necks. At the signal of three drumbeats, a single blow from an ax cut the rope that held the platform and the prisoners (except for one whose rope had broke, and who consequently had to be restrung) fell to their deaths. A loud cheer went up from the thousands of spectators gathered to witness the event. The bodies were buried in a mass grave on the edge of town. Soon area doctors, including one named Mayo, arrived to collect cadavers for their medical research. [ACCOUNT OF EXECUTIONS] ""





http://campus.lakeforest.edu/~ebner/mack...


""Text of Order to General Sibley, St. Paul Minnesota:


"Ordered that of the Indians and Half-breeds sentenced to be hanged by the military commission, composed of Colonel Crooks, Lt. Colonel Marshall, Captain Grant, Captain Bailey, and Lieutenant Olin, and lately sitting in Minnesota, you cause to be executed on Friday the nineteenth day of December, instant, the following names, to wit ...


The other condemned prisoners you will hold subject to further orders, taking care that they neither escape, nor are subjected to any unlawful violence.


Abraham Lincoln,


President of the United States"





http://www.press.uillinois.edu/s00/nicho...


""Now available for the first time in paperback, Lincoln and the Indians remains the only thorough treatment of a much-neglected aspect of Lincoln's presidency.





Placing Indian affairs in the broad context of Civil War politics and the settling of the West, David A. Nichols covers the Sioux War of 1862 in Minnesota, the forced removal of the Navajos from their homeland to the deadly concentration camp at Bosque Redondo, and the massacre of Cheyennes by volunteer troops at Sand Creek. He also examines Lincoln's inept handling of the Five Civilized Tribes in Indian Territory and the corrupt "Indian System" of government aid that mainly benefited ambitious whites. ""





Peace
Reply:Of course, as sited by Dougie and others, that your premise of this question/statement is factually and chronologically flawed.


The REAL General John Brown Gordon (although Southron-98 uses his picture, uniform, name and now, stained reputation) who surrendered 1/2 of the Army of Northern Virginia , in his own memoirs(ReminincsesoOf The Civil War) expresses his respect for Grant, Meade, and even Lincoln :" I closed with a prophecy that passion would speedily die, and the brave and magnanimous soldiers of the Union Army, when disbanded and scattered among the people, that they would become promoters of sectional peace and fraternity"."The prophecy would have been speedily fulfilled but for the calamitous fate that befell the Country in the death of Abraham Lincoln; and even in spite of that great misfortune, we should have much sooner reached an era of good will and sectional concord if thespirit of the soldiers who did the fighting had animated the civilians who did the talking" (including Southron-98 ?)


In the preface of this work,by General Stephen Lee, he discribes the TRUE Gordon as "the great evangel of peace and good feeling": " In his last days the one object, in his heart was to wipe out, as far as possible, thebitterness of the people of the Northand and South."


General Gordon made specific comment (pg 450)of the impression left upon him by the answer of the United States Minister to Francet, Elihu Washburne, to his question "Why do you think, Mr. Washburne, that the South will be generously dealt with by the Government? "" Because Abraham Lincoln is at it's head", was his responce.


As well, The Honorable General Gordon, makes specific reference to the conditions of surrender between Gen. Joe Johnson and Sherman: IN FACT, General Sherman's proposals were even more liberal and humane than Grants, and thought so liberal that they rejected by the U.S.Congress and the tribunal overseeing the reconciliation.


So , did Southern School teachers tear out the pages, from Appomattox, April 9, 1865, when Gordon appealled to his commrads " Bear their trial bravely, to go home in peace,obey the Laws,rebuild the Country and work for the weil and hormony of the Republic"?


Read the journals of the Generals ? Done.
Reply:One of my favorite quotes “Surrender means that the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy, that our youths will be taught by Northern school teachers; learn from Northern school books THEIR version of the war”. General Patrick Cleburne. The reason these responders submit these answers are they only read what is available. They and you should read the papers of the day, the diaries of his Generals and most importantly Forced Into Glory: Abraham Lincoln's White Dream By Lerone Bennett, Jr. and Lincoln Unmasked: What You’re Not Supposed to Know About Dishonest Abe by Thomas J. DiLorenzo.


Lincoln’s war established myriad precedents that have shaped the course of American government and society ever since: the centralization of governmental power, central banking, income taxation, protectionism, military conscription, the suspension of constitutional liberties, the "rewriting" of the Constitution by federal judges, "total war," the quest for a worldwide empire, and the notion that government is one big "problem solver."


In 1863, there was an international convention in Geneva, Switzerland, that concluded that it should be considered to be a war crime, punishable by imprisonment or death, for armies to attack defenseless citizens and towns; plunder civilian property; or take from the civilian population more than what was necessary to feed and sustain an occupying army.





On April 24, 1863, the Lincoln administration adopted the precepts of international law as expressed by the Geneva Convention, Vattel, and Halleck, when it issued General Order No. 100, known as the "Lieber Code.” The Lieber Code paid lip service to the notion that civilians should not be targeted in war, but it contained a giant loophole: Federal commanders were permitted to completely ignore the Code if, "in their discretion," the events of the war would warrant that they do so. In other words, the Lieber Code was purely propaganda.


The Lincoln government intentionally targeted civilians from the very beginning of the war. The administration’s battle plan known as the "Anaconda Plan" as it sought to blockade the South starving the Southern civilian economy to include drugs and medicines. As early as the first major battle of the war, the Battle of On June 20, 1862 – one year into the war – General George McClellan, the commanding general of the Army of the Potomac, wrote Lincoln a letter imploring him to see to it that the war was conducted according to "the highest principles known to Christian civilization" and to avoid targeting the civilian population to the extent that that was possible. Lincoln replaced McClellan a few months later and ignored his letter.


General William Tecumseh Sherman’s "march to the sea" where his army pillaged, plundered, raped, and murdered civilians as it marched through Georgia in the face of scant military opposition. In 1862 Sherman was having difficulty subduing Confederate sharpshooters who were harassing federal gunboats on the Mississippi River near Memphis. He adopted the theory of "collective responsibility" to "justify" attacking innocent civilians in retaliation for such attacks. He also began taking civilian hostages and either trading them for federal prisoners of war or executing them. Why blame just Sherman when such practices were an essential part of Lincoln’s entire war plan and were routinely practiced by all federal commanders? By 1864 Sherman would announce that "to the petulant and persistent secessionists, why, death is mercy.” In 1862 Sherman wrote his wife that his purpose in the war would be "extermination, not of soldiers alone, that is the least of the trouble, but the people" of the South. His loving and gentle wife wrote back that her wish was for "a war of extermination and that all [Southerners] would be driven like swine into the sea. May we carry fire and sword into their states till not one habitation is left standing." The University of South Carolina’s library contains a large collection of thousands diaries and letters of Southern women that mention these unspeakable atrocities. Shermans’ band of criminal looters (known as "bummers") sacked the slave cabins as well as the plantation houses. As Grimsley describes it, "With the utter disregard for blacks that was the norm among Union troops; the soldiers ransacked the slave cabins, taking whatever they liked.” A routine procedure would be to hang a slave by his neck until he told federal soldiers where the plantation owners’ valuables were hidden.


General Philip Sheridan is another celebrated "war hero" who followed in Sherman’s footsteps in attacking defenseless civilians. After the Confederate army had finally evacuated the Shenandoah Valley in the autumn of 1864 Sheridan’s 35,000 infantry troops essentially burned the entire valley to the ground. As Sheridan described it in a letter to General Grant, in the first few days he "destroyed over 2200 barns . . . over 70 mills . . . have driven in front of the army over 4000 head of stock, and have killed . . . not less than 3000 sheep. . . . Tomorrow I will continue the destruction."





Please allow me to interject some of my favorite quotes may-be you can see what Lincoln really was, I can't help it please allow me to use my favorite quotes: Lincoln - “I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races”. “If I could save the Union without freeing any slaves I would do it… what I do about slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps save the Union”. “We did not go to War to put down slavery, but to put the flag back, and to act differently, at this moment, would, I have no doubt, not only weaken our cause, but smack of bad faith”. When asked “Why not let the South to go in peace”? Abe replied “I can’t let them go, who would pay for the Government”.


Grant-“The sole object of this war is to restore the Union. Should I be convinced it has any other object, or that the Government designs using its soldiers to execute the wishes of the Abolitionists, I pledge to you my honor as a man and a soldier I would resign my commission and carry my sword to the other side”.


Sherman-“I am honest in my belief that it is not fair to my men to count ****** as equals. Let us capture ******, of course, and use them to the best advantage”.





To wrap up the picture consider this: Lincoln was reluctant to issue an Emancipation Proclamation but you would have thought from what one is taught in class these days this was his primary concern. He issued the proclamation to save the Union making impossible for foreign Governments to intervene on behalf of the Confederacy. Even though the English supported (indirectly) slavery, they like other countries were officially against the practice. By his actions, Lincoln was showing the US was against slavery but not the Confederacy. If like the leaders of these countries at the time, you took the time to read and study the act you would see it does nothing and in fact, Lincoln thought that the Afro American was not the equal of whites and his plan was to resettle the slaves in either the Amazon or Western Texas.








God Bless You and The Southern People.

pomegranate