Lincoln's Ford's Theater Clothing Moved To Storage

After my recent political comments about Ron Paul, Rudy Giuliani, and Barack Obama and how they are commenting on or comparing themselves to Lincoln, I want to step back and talk about just Abe himself.

My post from November 3, 2007 talks about the current renovation of Ford's Theater in Washington, D.C. The theater is undergoing restoration plus expansion which will permit a larger permanent exhibit about Lincoln's assassination and life.

Part of the preparations for the renovation included moving the clothing and boots he wore on that fateful night to the theater into a National Park Service storage unit. This article from the September 7, 2007 edition of The Washington Post details how the items were moved from Ford's Theater to the storage facility under armed police protection. A curator showed the article writer Lincoln's size boots, which are equivalent to modern-day size 14. They are of excellent quality, but were worn at the heels.

Lincoln's overcoat he wore that night was actually made and worn for his second inauguration, held just 6 weeks before the assassination. The lining contains embroidery which reads: "One Country, One Destiny." Prophetic words indeed.

The curator also pointed out bloodstains on the knees of the pants and of course on the frock coat (suit coat) Lincoln wore that night. Museum officials didn't realize that there were bloodstains on the knees, but it would make sense considering that Lincoln probably pitched forward after being shot.

Finally, the article quotes a couple of the movers, who were quite awestruck at the items they were responsible for transporting.

Once the renovations to Ford's Theater are complete in 18 months or so, the clothing and boots will be moved back to the new larger museum.

How Lincoln Dealt With His Rivals

Today's assassination of former Pakistani prime minister Benazir Bhutto at an opposition rally in Rawalpindi, Pakistan brings to mind dictat....er, President Pervez Musharraf's recent claims that his crackdowns on freedom and on opposition parties were just what Lincoln did.

Dictator.....er, President Musharraf should read Doris Kearns Goodwin's excellent "Team Of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln" to see exactly how Lincoln handled his rivals. He incorporated them into his cabinet in order to prevent their active opposition as well as to have the best political minds available in order to help the country.

There's a novel approach: let your rivals live so they can assist you in running your country instead of letting your supporters kill them. Dictato.....er, President Musharraf, you are still no Abraham Lincoln. Click here to see Musharraf's laughable claims to be just like Abe.

Ron Paul's Bizarre Opinion On Lincoln And Civil War

Presidential candidate and Republican Congressman Ron Paul appeared on yesterday's "Meet The Press" for an interview held by Tim Russert. Congressman Paul has been running a somewhat dark horse campaign for president, but has recently been the recipient of millions of dollars from Internet contributions from his fans. Paul is running on "freedom," and back-to-basics tenets which appeal to some among the populace.

However, Congressman Paul uttered some shocking, if not downright bizarre, comments yesterday during his interview. He claimed that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 had everything to do with government taking over property rights and nothing to do with race relations. He claimed that Ronald Reagan was a "failure" because he didn't bring down the federal government to "constitutional levels," whatever that means.

Even more surprising and dismaying to me is Congressman Paul's complete lack of understanding about Abraham Lincoln and the reasons for the Civil War. Paul stated in the interview "Six hundred thousand Americans died in a senseless civil war…. [President Abraham Lincoln] did this just to enhance and get rid of the original intent of the republic," Paul said. "Every other major country in the world got rid of slavery without a civil war. I mean, that doesn't sound too radical to me. That sounds like a pretty reasonable approach."

Let's dissect this. Paul claims that Lincoln started the Civil War. In a matter of weeks after Lincoln was elected president, southern states began seceding from the Union. In his first inaugural address, Lincoln told the south that in their hands, not his, lay the "momentous decision of Civil War." The South responded by attacking federal government property, culminating with the bombardment of Fort Sumter. Dr. Paul either buys into neo-Confederate beliefs about the war or shows a complete lack of knowledge about it.

Additionally, anyone with even a basic knowledge of Lincoln and the Civil War understands that Lincoln's goal was to preserve the Union, not to end slavery, at least in the beginning of the war. Lincoln himself stated that if he could preserve the union by freeing all the slaves he would do so. Or if he could leave slavery intact and preserve the union, he would do that as well. And if he could save the union by freeing some slaves while leaving others alone, he would do that.

Paul also apparently buys into the commonly misheld belief that all the U.S. government had to do at the time was to buy all the slaves held in the south and that would've solved the problem. Again, he doesn't comprehend the issue. First of all, the southern states were such fervent believers in "states' rights" that they wanted NO interference from the federal government of any kind with their "peculiar institution." The southern states wanted the right to maintain, and even expand, slavery wherever they wished. Secondly, slavery was a critical part of the southern economy, which was after all mostly agricultural. Plantation owners and smaller-scale farmers strongly believed they could not afford to pay free labor for their operations.

Abraham Lincoln did not start the Civil War. Buying slaves and then freeing them wasn't possible in the charged political atmosphere of the times.

Congressman Paul displays a shocking lack of knowledge about the history of his own country and espouses extreme and inaccurate views about other events in our history as well. It's disturbing to me that such a candidate would be considered for the highest office in our land.

Paul isn't the only current candidate for president to either compare himself to Lincoln or be compared to Lincoln by others. Here's my post about Obama and here is one on Giuliani.

The History Channel To Depict Hunt For John Wilkes Booth

According to today's Denver Post, The History Channel is presenting a two-hour documentary about the hunt for John Wilkes Booth. The film is based on Michael W. Kauffman's 2004 biography of Booth, titled "American Brutus: John Wilkes Booth And The Lincoln Conspiracies."

The general public may not know that originally Booth and his fellow conspirators intended on simply kidnapping Lincoln in order to obtain leverage for the Confederacy. It was only after Booth listened to Lincoln give his last public speech in which he advocated citizenship for former slaves that Booth changed the plot to include murdering Lincoln, Secretary of State Seward, and Vice President Johnson. Seward narrowly escaped death at the hands of Lewis Payne (or Powell) in a savage stabbing, and the attack on Johnson was never carried out.

Kauffman's book is an excellent resource into the mind of John Wilkes Booth and what possessed him to commit perhaps the most cowardly act in American history. Instead of avenging the South as he hoped, Booth, by murdering Lincoln, actually ended up giving free rein to the Radical Republicans in Congress to have a far harsher period of Reconstruction than Lincoln would have permitted.

Another major source for reading about the hunt and eventual killing of John Wilkes Booth is "Manhunt: The 12 Day Chase For Lincoln's Killer" by James Swanson. It reads more like a thrilling novel as opposed to a sterile history book.

The History Channel's presentation of "The Hunt For John Wilkes Booth" premieres on Sunday December 23, 2007 at 8:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time.

Montage of Lincoln Pushed To Represent Indiana Lincoln Celebration

A montage depicting Abraham Lincoln's life and accomplishments has been issued by Indiana artist Thomas Kennedy. The montage is officially being unveiled in Indianapolis today by Sueellen Reed, the state superintendent of schools. This is part of her push for a literacy campaign in Indiana featuring books about the nation's 16th president. My post of December 11, 2007 discusses the annual recommended book list from Ms. Reed and how it includes numerous books about Lincoln.

Ms. Reed would like to see this montage be released in cheaper editions and placed in every public school in Indiana in order to remember the Hoosier heritage of Lincoln, who lived there for 14 years.

Additionally, the Land of Lincoln Indiana organization is going to push for this montage to be the official painting of the Indiana and national bicentennial celebrations of Lincoln's birth, coming up in 2009.

The montage depicts Lincoln's childhood in Kentucky, his residency in Indiana, his adulthood in Illinois, his ascendency to the presidency, the Civil War, and the ending of slavery. The painting is impressive.

Is Obama The New Abraham Lincoln?

The latest modern-day politician to be compared to Abraham Lincoln is presidential candidate Barack Obama. And the person comparing him to Lincoln is none other than master film maker Ken Burns, of "Civil War" fame.

In "The Trail" blog from the Washington Post, Burns is quoted as endorsing Obama, praising him for his "moral courage" and "unironic posture." He goes on to compare him to Lincoln, restating how Lincoln was basically unknown and had limited experience in national politics, just as Lincoln did prior to winning the presidency.

The point that most people miss when comparing modern-day politicians to Abraham Lincoln is that Lincoln was a brilliant politician with exceedingly rare leadership skills. Comparing Obama or any other of the major candidates to Abraham Lincoln is pointless, because we don't really know how a person can or cannot lead if elected to the highest office in the land. And it especially makes no sense to say that someone is equal to Lincoln because that person has limited experience just as Lincoln did.

Abraham Lincoln A Psychic?

Was Abraham Lincoln a psychic? Yes, claims a recent book titled "The Psychic Life Of Abraham Lincoln", written by Susan Martinez, who is a self-professed "spiritualist." Today's Chicago Sun-Times contains a brief article about this book and the author's claims. It appears that she makes the claim simply because Lincoln attended a handful of seances with his wife Mary after the death of their son, Willie. Most historians claim that he attended them simply to pacify Mary, who was desperately trying to reach her dead son in any way possible.

I'd think a better claim for any latent psychic ability Lincoln may have had would be based on his dreams, which are well-documented in numerous sources. For example, Lincoln had a very vivid dream just a couple of weeks before he died that he found himself amongst mourners in the White House. When he asked "Who died?" in his dream, he was told that the president had been killed by an assassin. He also had the same recurring dream of being on a ship or boat, rapidly nearing a shore, before momentous occasions in his life. He had this dream before major Civil War battles, and had it again shortly before his death.

The book might be a fun read, but it doesn't strike me as being essential for one's Lincoln library. Seems like it's another one of these books which are speculative at best, along those which claim Lincoln was gay, or that he had some terrible disease of some kind or another.