For academics, there is no greater sin than the alteration of a historic document. That is precisely what amateur historian Thomas P. Lowry is accused of doing in writing a “5” over a date of a pardon by Abraham Lincoln – immediately gaining fame for finding the last official act before Lincoln’s assassination on April 14, 1865.
Lowry, 78, now insists that he was coerced into signing a confession — which he did without the aid of an attorney. For its part, the Archive says that he cannot be prosecuted because of the passage of the five-year statute of limitations.
The pardon was for Pvt. Patrick Murphy and records show that it was signed exactly one year before Lincoln’s assassination. Lowry confessed that he brought a fountain pen into the research room in 1998 and wrote a 5 over the 4 in 1864.
Trevor Plante, an Archives official, was always suspicious about the darker ink on the 5. The pardon became part of Lincoln lore but Plante could not get beyond the shade of ink. He then consulted a Lincoln collection of documents edited by Roy P. Basler in the 1950s and found the reprinted pardon with the date of April 14, 1864.
Ironically, the confession itself is now being challenged but the inspector general insists that “we have a written confession in his own hand.” Are you sure about that?
Source: Washington Post
Jonathan Turley
you cant grow hair on your palms. that is just silly Buddha.
It’s a lil’ troll self-love fest.
Careful!
That might make you go blind or grow hair on your palms.
Jill Chavez:
Thank you for your kind words, if you wish I can send you the address of where I learned all of these deep magical thoughts. I would be happy to instruct you in my magical, mystical understanding of the world.
But you have to be ready and prepared to learn. We don’t like slackers so you will have to work very hard. But it will be worth it. With hard work you to can become a prophet just like me.
Are you ready to learn, Jill? It’s loads of fun and educational to.
Chan L.,
You are the bomb. You have a way of saying things that make me think you are a prophet. Do you have a church or school that I could go to and learn. I know I could never match your intelligence but just to hear your words makes everything magical. Are you sure you are not a mystic?
Tootie:
interesting.
I believe you are a religious person, if I am right what do you think of this passage. It seems to me, although it has not been articulated by any on this blog, this is what Patrick Paramedic, Elaine M, Gyges, Buddha is Laughing, Bob Esq and others are afraid of from religion and those who are absorbed by it:
“I have said that faith and force are corollaries, and that mysticism will always lead to the rule of brutality. The cause of it is contained in the very nature of mysticism. Reason is the only objective means of communication and of understanding among men; when men deal with one another by means of reason, reality is their objective standard and frame of reference. But when men claim to possess supernatural means of knowledge, no persuasion, communication or understanding are possible. Why do we kill wild animals in the jungle? Because no other way of dealing with them is open to us. And that is the state to which mysticism reduces mankind—a state where, in case of disagreement, men have no recourse except to physical violence. And more: no man or mystical elite can hold a whole society subjugated to their arbitrary assertions, edicts and whims, without the use of force. Anyone who resorts to the formula: “It’s so, because I say so,” will have to reach for a gun, sooner or later. Communists, like all materialists, are neo-mystics: it does not matter whether one rejects the mind in favor of revelations or in favor of conditioned reflexes. The basic premise and the results are the same.”
In my bioengineering research, I find that so called “IQ” is merely a problematic, unreliable measure of acculturation conformity, having nothing of consequence to do with any person’s actual ability to do anything of value or merit, unless someone deems socialization by brain damage to be of value or merit other than to learn to avoid doing what aspects of socialization cause brain damage, in order to stop doing brain-damaging traumatic socialization…
So-called “intelligence” is a measure of conformity, not validity.
Thanks for the link, Buddha. I’d also recommend Howard Gardner’s “Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences.”
Chan
One more thing. I think as far as any success among groups, peoples, nations, tribes, or races can be found, culture is most important.
I think that even a not so smart or a really smart genetic group could benefit from replicating successful cultures.
Whether or not cultural practices are determined originally by IQ, I do not know. Nor, do I think it matters.
What is important are the cultural habits of civilizations in determining success and recognizing that all civilizations which are dying have the same features: rampant moral, sexual, and political corruption at all levels of society.
Chan:
Not only do Asians (overall) have a higher IQ than whites, Jews (Ashkenazim) have a higher overall IQ than Asians.
I know that IQ is not everything and I would not say it was. Ted Kaczynski had an extremely high IQ and we know what happened to him. But IQ does mean a whole heck of a lot to genetic groups if prosperity tends to follow it.
And if we want to say that a high IQ is always best (and I don’t think we do), all we have to do is look at those populations with high IQs and see. The Ashkenazim Jews, with the highest IQ of all people on earth, are nearly extinct. We might want to say then: so much for high IQ’s.
And as far as the Asians go, what can we say? Well, they are certainly more prolific (reproductively) than the Jews and far from extinction as a genetic variation, but what intellectual trait do we find prevalent among them that might be a drawback? Well, they are radically and almost violently opposed to nonconformity. My guess is that since they are indeed so very smart, they assume that anyone begging to differ with them is stupid and shouldn’t be allowed dissent.
And, this is just my opinion, but it appears to be the case, it appears that this causes trouble up at the highest levels of the culture with totalitarian type attitudes. This goes back a very very long way with the Asian culture and perhaps, I can only guess, because of the brilliant Asian mind.
Friedrich Hayek mentions a quote by Confucius which goes something like this “When words lose their meaning, there is no place to put hand or foot”. What is being discussed by Confucius is the concept of liberty and how that when words are corrupt freedom is no longer possible. The reason for Hayek bringing it up was to point out how that the concept of liberty did not develop amongst the Chinese people like it had among the Greeks and other Western peoples.
And for all its complexity, the Chinese language had no character for the word “liberty”. There was just the concept as Confucius described. And I think this speaks to the highly intelligent mind of the Asian who assumes that since he or she is so obviously so smart and must be correct, it is foolish to disagree with him. Unfortunately, this smothers liberty–a thing most highly prized that all the riches in the world. Their highly regimented conformity crowds out independent thinking. I believe this has held back the Asian people and their cultural development. For the time being, of course.
Of course, the lowest IQ groups have a myriad of sad problems. One of which could be addressed. It appears that nutritional deficiencies impact their group IQ rates. This needs to be urgently addressed if they are ever going to improve their numbers (which is a very difficult thing to do).
But they won’t get a start on it if the left gets all hysterical about discussing the scientific evidence regarding IQ because it doesn’t fit into their ideological world view that capitalism is to blame for all the world’s ills.
I’m not offended that Asians or Jews as a group have a higher IQ than mine. There are really dumb and really smart people in all racial groups and no one needs to be embarrassed or arrogant about the group they are in.
Patric:
Get out! I think I give up my faith or start supporting slavery right now because of the new info you provided.
NOT!
Please, you are being silly. Christians are very aware of the verses that refer to slavery.
Under Roman control at the time of Christ, for example, perhaps as much as 40 percent of the population of Italy were slaves. The Church had to confront the issue especially since gentiles were converting and many were slaves.
Christ NEVER owned slave. He is our example. There is no evidence that his family owned slaves. The Apostles never owned slaves either. They are our examples as well since Christ hand-picked them. This is enough evidence to prove that the Christian should not hold slaves.
Paul, at one point, rags on a group of Christian critics for suggesting he is profiting from his apostleship. He tells them about how hard he has to work at manual labor to meet his own financial needs (while still maintaining his pastoral duties). He had no slaves.
There isn’t a more clear example for Christians than Christ himself and the apostles.
But there is more. In the portions of scripture which have to do with family life, it is never mentioned that a woman is to have slaves to do her work. All the work in the home is done by her. Same with a husband. There is no mention of anything having to do with home life including a slave.
Now to the passage you quote.
The apostle Paul, addressing what was the reality (slavery) faced by a brutal Roman occupation, asked Christians who found themselves being slaves at the time of their conversion to treat the master as if he were Christ (you left that passage out).
It goes like this:
Servants, be obedient to them that are [your] masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ;
This was a revolutionary idea and undermined the slave system because the Christian master would soon be told “And, ye masters, do the same things unto them…”
“Them” refers to the slaves they own.
What “same things” was the master to do to the slave? The previous sentence told us. They (the masters) are to “be obedient with fear and trembling”. To whom? To the slave as if he were Christ!
This subtly undermines slavery. For if the master was to submit (obey) himself to his slave as unto Christ and the slave was to submit himself unto master as Christ, slavery disintegrates. This subtlety was egalitarian in nature such that Christian believers would each free themselves (of error) and their slaves. Christ did not, and neither did Paul, teach a direct confrontation with Roman government over slavery. But they did provide the example and method for put it aside among believers. To Rome’s credit, freeing slaves was allowed.
The passage which you took your quote from must be read in its entirety in order to understand it:
“Slaves, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ; not by way of eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart. With good will render service, as to the Lord, and not to men, knowing that whatever good thing each one does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether slave or free. And, masters, do the same things to them, and give up threatening, knowing that both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no partiality with Him.”
And to the south’s discredit here in America, plantation slavery did not follow this scriptural model for the putting away of slavery. The slaveholders who erroneously used the Bible to justify slavery completely ignored these passages in Ephesians and elsewhere in connection to Christ and the Apostles having no slaves.
The alleged Christians in the south didn’t even live up to what the early church position was under Roman occupation about freeing slaves. When did they free their slaves as the New Testament suggested was possible? And when was there ever in the New Testament the generational slavery from slave father/mother to slave son/daughter in perpetuity to justify children of slaves being born into slavery? It is nowhere to be found. Any freeing of or possessing of slaves was an immediate matter addressed to new converts who were already in the slave system. There was never a policy directed at a system to be perpetuated over several generations because, like Christ and the Apostles, Christians shouldn’t own slaves.
Also, their using the Bible to defend slavery didn’t even reflect what the New Testament taught about brutality–there should be none. It is likely that many of these people were not Christians, and like Abraham Lincoln, they wickedly used Christianity to achieve their unseemly personal gain.
It is impossible to read the above passage of scripture and square it with the brutality of plantation slavery. Nonetheless, I believe the south was correct about the Constitutionality of secession. That plantation slavery was a vile and evil institution does not undo the Constitution (the 10th Amendment) or the original intent of our founders and framers.
And I also believe that Lincoln was as guilty of serious crimes as the slaveholders were.
Other relevant passages: Colossians 4:1; 1Corinthians 7:21.
You can take whichever side of the Civil War/Slavery issue you like, and it certainly looks as though everyone has.
But you serious Christians might want to tread lightly around the matter of God and slavery.
Because by all accounts measurable, the invisible man in the sky has shown a real penchant for leniency when it comes to one human owning another:
Ephesians 6:9
9 And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him
As a Catholic academy survivor, I’ve wondered since about age 12 why at least one of the 10 Commandments didn’t condemn the human ownership madness in the first place.
I mean, being Divinely scribed and all.
Elaine,
Might I also suggest researching in general the topic “practical intelligence” as it relates to psychology. A good place to start is “Tacit Knowledge and Practical Intelligence:
Understanding the Lessons of Experience by Jennifer Hedlund, John Antonakis and Robert J. Sternberg”. It can be found in .pdf form here.
Thanks Elaine,
The good Benedictine Nuns didn’t deal with IQ much. They would swing the yardstick at the smart kids and the smartass kids.
I suggest that anyone who thinks an IQ score is the true measure of anyone’s innate intelligence read Stephen Jay Gould’s book “The Mismeasure of Man,” which was published, I believe, around 1981.
Tootie:
“And since whites (including southern ones) have an overall higher IQ than blacks, what and who you are essentially demeaning, is not so much the south for being backwards, but BLACKS. Whites in the south do just as well academically as whites in the north given the same curricula. This is because of IQ. And the south’s education problems are not one of money either.”
I think you really need to look at that statement. I could say that Asians are smarter than whites. IQ is a strange thing as Mike Spindell indicated above and there are many dimensions to it. Being able to remember something out of a book doesn’t make one “smart”.
Mike Spindell:
Elvis took a bunch of songs from the old black blues musicians of the Gulf Coast as you are most probably aware.
Have you read “Black Rednecks and White Liberals” yet? Thomas Sowell is a true genius.
“IQ has a direct relation to education ability and thus the state rankings you wish to bludgeon the south with, has everything to do with those rankings. And this is the pile of crap you stepped in with what some might assume to be a backwards mode of thinking typical to folks from the south.”
Tootie,
As per what seems usual for you you neglect to address the salient points I’ve made and instead avoid them by going off into a tangent that creates a “straw man” regarding my opinions. Unfotunately, this has been a tactic of the radical right wing cons (a more apt term for conservative)for years. However, let me answer you in light of your statement above regarding I.Q. being a measure of intelligence and that therefore whites testing better than blacks indicates some sort of superiority.
My own I.Q. measures out in the top 1% of the I.Q. scale. Does this mean I’m more intelligent then all the 99% below me? Not a chance. An I.Q. test is a measure of one’s verbal ability andf reasoning skills, based on a standard developed years ago by “experts” who were acting on a false premise. To wit: They could measure intelligence by verbal skill and by reasoning skill as defined in certain narrow terms, that gave an advantage to people of their same class, namely white people.
My own I.Q. advantage comes from growing up in an intact family of readers, with an extensive home library and who also were avid crossword puzzle solvers. My schools were attended by a large percentage of wealthy children and were extremely well-funded.
Black Americans were only freed from a genocidal slavery 146 years ago. That slavery was constructed, by your Southern role models to deny education to their slaves, to eradicate their identity and history as human beings, and most importantly to destroy their strong family systems. After the slaves were freed your “enlightened” southerners maintained a terroristic system of oppression known as segregation and “Jim Crow.” The murder, genocide actually, and oppression specifically had the continued destruction of the Black family as a main goal. State laws throughout the South enforced this inequality and ensured that the separate educational systems were anything but equal. Also involved in this genocidal conspiracy was the entire law enforcement establishment in the South. Southern whites who were against the horror being perpetrated found themselves also at risk.
While the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ameliorated these Southern crimes to a degree, the damage of hundreds of years had been done. Yet despite all of this Black Culture produced many geniuses right here in this country. To name a few: Frederick Douglas, Marcus Garvey, Booker T. Washington, Ralph Ellison, James Baldwin, Martin Luther King and Malcome X. In music one has only to look at the greatest and most influential musician in American History, Louis Armstrong. Add in Duke Ellington, Count Basie, Cab Calloway, Miles Davis, Dizzy Gillespie, Ray Charles and Jimmy Hendrix to name but a few. The lily white icon named Elvis, became famous because his style appropriated Black music. He admitted it, so did John Cash, Willie Nelson etc. I’ve just named a short list of black people who have excelled in politics, literature and the arts, despite having every cultural obstacle thrown in their way.
Now you somehow believe that I only think American racism and stupidity exists in the South, but that is not true. America is a thoroughly racist society North, South, East and West. Not only do Blacks face discrimination, but Latino’s and people of all colors, non American cultures and non-Christian religious beliefs, do as well. I goes back to your professed belief that this is a White Christian country and your lack of historical context due to following the wrong sources, who only tend to reinforce your own pre-judgments. I focussed though on the Southern evils in this post because you and a few like thinkers brought up your propaganda about the poor victimized South, yet history and an honest reading of same tells a different, more horrific story.
“Stam:
You were the one who misread my sentence. So don’t get all snippy at me.”
No, obviously you misread my post. And, with all the vitriol you vomit, I have every right to get snippy with you, missy.
Tootie,
Don’t be so mean.
Tootie,
You don’t have to take this web abuse. There is no difference in verbal and cyber abuse. Stand up.