Lincoln and the Latter-day Saints

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Whatever you think I’m reading into the analogy, it and the other statement appear to be all we have from Lincoln directly addressing his attitude regarding the Saints. So far, I’ve seen nothing to even hint at, let alone compel, the conclusion that Lincoln intended to go after the Church and its leaders once the war was off his plate. For now, I have to put the notion under the heading of pure and so far baseless conjecture. 
 

Did you read the piece by Woodger? It’s very informative and analytical. 

You were perfectly content to use those statements to hint at support of your conclusion. I was saying that your confidence is ill-placed. Somehow you have decided that I have a hypothesis that needs debunking. Trying to shift the burden of proof off of your initialcertitude and onto those disagreeing as if they are absolutely certain of the opposite is more than a little disingenuous.

[Bob Crockett]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Bob, have you considered how your rhetoric tends to get overwrought very quickly? Earlier you said I was “lionizing” Lincoln When I merely pointed out that he showed tolerance toward the Saints in an era when it was not politically fashionable to do so. 
 

Now you’re accusing me by implication of “idol worship” and “beatifying “ Lincoln because I expressed admiration for him on Presidents Day. You have gone over the top on this. 
 

The rest of your post turns into a screed against the historical Republican Party. I seem to have unintentionally triggered you. I had no idea your partisanship was so close to the surface. 
 

I remind you this is a thread about Abraham Lincoln and his attitude toward the Church and its leaders and members, not about the Republican Party. 
 

 

Sorry.  No screed intended.  Lincoln was the father of the Republican Party, the party so hated by Brigham Young, and the party that confiscated church assets and put our patriarchs in the federal pen.  Am I upset?  No.  But as a constitutional lawyer I find it shocking and downright immoral.

Immoral like bombing civilian populations in WWII. 

Immoral like lying about an affair with an intern.

Immoral like inventing provocations to begin the war with Mexico and the Vietnam war.

Satan reigns with blood and horror.

And so forth.

Edited February 18, 2020 by Bob Crockett

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It was Buchanan, not Lincoln, who sent Johnston’s Army. By the time Lincoln came along, the folly of “Buchanan’s blunder” was quite well understood. It was not so much a matter of Brigham Young having faced down the nation as it was that it became clear the venture was stupid to begin with. 

You miss my point entirely, and I just assumed that you knew the chronology of Johnston's Army, so didn't mention that.  The point was that Brigham cleverly defanged that Army (the largest ever assembled before the Civil War), and that has nothing to do with any mistake made by Buchanan, but rather it clearly indicates the actual intent of the U.S. governing elites to bring the Mormons to heel.  It all came a cropper after the Civil War.  You seem unable to focus on that fact.

7 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If we take the clear, perspicuous meaning of the stump-in-the-field analogy, we have to conclude that Lincoln meant by it that he intended to ignore the Latter-day Saints and “plow around” them. The notion that he was going to take out the stump later seems at this point to be invented from whole cloth. From what I can see, Lincoln never said or did anything to signal that intent.

Every American farmer knew that removal of the stump was de rigeur, now or later.  It's called stumping, and more recent farmers used dynamite to do the job (just put it under the stump).  There is no invention involved, Scott.

7 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You keep making a priori assertions about what Lincoln had “every intention” of doing. I’m open to consideration of anything to substantiate that, but so far you have provided nothing. 
You say I’m being Pollyanna, but my view is informed by that excellent scholarly and analytical article that Bob Crockett linked us to. 

Your love for the Lincoln legend has colored your judgment, Scott.  I love the guy too, and he belongs to the ages, but I also see his deeply flawed character.  He was no friend of the Mormons.

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

That sums it up.   I think the tendency of Church members to beatify certain people, such as Lincoln, or Thomas More, or even George Washington for that matter, reflects a sort of idol worship.  They are just men, perhaps better than some, but in the end, sinners like the rest of us.

Again, I point out, the Catholics, Jews and Democrats arose in Congress to defend the Saints from imperial tyranny.   When the Church told the Saints to join standard political parties, it was tough to get the Saints into the Republican party.  It was Republican leadership who led the charge against Reed Smoot, subpoenaing apostles and the president of the church to ask them about their sex lives.  

Furthermore, the Republicans around 1875 or so tried to get a constitutional amendment  to make the United States a Christian nation.  The man leading the charge for that amendment, Justice Roberts, sat on the Supreme Court to hear the Reynolds case.  The Republican party approved an amendment to the amendment outlawing the Catholic Church.

So of much of this sprung from the attitude of the Republic party during the Lincoln administration.  The Republicans were not a party of tolerance. 

Today, things have changed among Church members, in part because of Reed Smoot's popularity and decision to run as a Republican.   

I just wish that the 80% of LDS members in the USA who are Republican actually understood that hard-edged history.

[Bob Crockett]

9 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I just wish that the 80% of LDS members in the USA who are Republican actually understood that hard-edged history.

There are so many reasons why Latter-day Saints have become social conservatives.  So many.

BH Roberts did not acquit himself well as a Democrat.  He alienated Church leadership and lost their support, whereas Smoot sought approval.  But BH Roberts was a polygamist and Smoot was not.   I think Roberts lived in defiance of the Manifesto.  Smoot served as the DC branch president for many years.  And then J. Reuben Clark (who disliked Smoot) emerged as a Republican leader. Ezra Taft Benson was a man to be admired.  So Mormons had good Republicans as examples and nothing from the Dems.

And then there's the Democrats drift to the left on moral issues, such as abortion.  

I'm a proud Republican but I will always vote for Trump's opponent.

Edited February 19, 2020 by Bob Crockett

[Robert F. Smith]

17 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

There are so many reasons why Latter-day Saints have become social conservatives.  So many.

But none of those reasons are due to an actual knowledge of history or of the Constitution.  Just like the Democrats, Republicans are all too willing to jettison the Constitution.

17 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

............................... So Mormons had good Republicans as examples and nothing from the Dems.

And then there's the Democrats drift to the left on moral issues, such as abortion.  

..............................................

The overwhelming totalitarian temptation, McCarthyism, and Bircherism in Republican history - led by Cleon Skousen and his ilk, has left almost no place for high ethical and moral norms.  Lifelong Democrats like Hugh Nibley and President James E. Faust are completely disregarded.

[Scott Lloyd]

Who could have known that by expressing admiration for a beloved historical figure on Presidents Day I would have kicked a hornets’ nest of partisans so doctrinaire that their antipathy stretches back more than a century and a half. 
 

Moderation team: Without my intent or doing, this thread appears to have become hopelessly political. You may close it at will, as far as I’m concerned. 

[Calm]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Who could have known that by expressing admiration for a beloved historical figure on Presidents Day I would have kicked a hornets’ nest of partisans so doctrinaire that their antipathy stretches back more than a century and a half. 
 

Seems like it would be a given these days.

[Bob Crockett]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

But none of those reasons are due to an actual knowledge of history or of the Constitution.  Just like the Democrats, Republicans are all too willing to jettison the Constitution.

The overwhelming totalitarian temptation, McCarthyism, and Bircherism in Republican history - led by Cleon Skousen and his ilk, has left almost no place for high ethical and moral norms.  Lifelong Democrats like Hugh Nibley and President James E. Faust are completely disregarded.

And Elder Steve Snow, former Utah Dem party leader. As I have said, I am a Republican but just barely.  

[Bob Crockett]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Who could have known that by expressing admiration for a beloved historical figure on Presidents Day I would have kicked a hornets’ nest of partisans so doctrinaire that their antipathy stretches back more than a century and a half. 
 

Moderation team: Without my intent or doing, this thread appears to have become hopelessly political. You may close it at will, as far as I’m concerned. 

Because your view of Lincoln is not correct.  It isn't a big deal at this point.