Posted on 12/15/2001 10:52:58 AM PST by shuckmaster
A statue of Abraham Lincoln in Carle Park in Urbana, Illinois, was hit with an act of vandalism which, while not particularly damaging to the materials of the sculpture, did nothing for the image of dignity associated with our 16th president.
The vandals painted Lincoln's face white, then daubed the eyes with black paint. Local officials described the effect as looking as if Lincoln was auditioning to join the rock band KISS.
The bronze statue was installed in the park in 1927 and is green in color from the patina bronze acquires when exposed to the elements. It was created by famed sculptor Lorado Taft and depicts Lincoln as he looked as a young circuit-riding lawyer.
The statue has been a frequent target of misguided mischief in the past, according to Urbana Park District Superintendent of Operations Joseph Potts. It is located directly west of Urbana High School as well as being fairly close to the main campus of the University of Illinois.
"We've had people put a Santa hat on it or hang plastic breasts on it," he said. "It's more funny than it is destructive sometimes."
Potts said that the current attack involved only water-based paint, which was easily removed with soap and water. He added that occasional inscriptions of vulgarities with markers are considerably more difficult to remove.
The park district and city officials have had off-and-on discussions for several months over relocating the statue from Carle Park to another site, possibly downtown or to a historic site associated with Lincoln's activities in Champaign-Urbana. School officials have said they favor the move since the statue attracts students and others who gather there to smoke, forcing school janitors to clean up discarded filters on a regular basis.
A committee is being formed to look into ways to improve Carle Park, including possibly better protecting the statue, according to Renee Pollock, a member of the Urbana Park District advisory committee. Park District Executive Director Robin Hall said the neighborhood committee might want to add lighting for the statue, which he said could help deter vandalism.
Courtesy of: Civil War Interactive: The Daily Newspaper of the Civil War www.civilwarinteractive.com
Well, that's not right either.
Got this off a newsgroup:
"Since neither side appealed to the Supreme Court, there was no immediate case ruling on the legality of secession.
However, in 1862, the court heard on appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts a collection of suits, collectively called the "Prize Cases" [67 U.S. (2 Black) 635]. The technically turned on whether the US had the right to declare a blackade of the ports of the states in rebellion, and, if so, who had the authority to authorize the blackade, the president or Congress.
President Lincoln issued a declaration of a blockade at the end of April, 1861. Congress retroactively approved of his actions when they met in July. The owners of the ships captured by US Navy ships and claimed as prizes of war, argued that a rebellion was not a war and therefore the ships were not prizes. Having good attorneys :>), they also argued that, even of a rebellion *was* a war, under the US Constitution, only Congress could authorize the blockade, so ships captured before July should be returned.
The US attorney for the District of Massachusetts argued the case for the United States. You have probably read one of his books: _Two Years Before the Mast_. Richard Henry Dana, Jr. got his start as a lawyer because seamen came to him after reading or hearing about that perennial best seller. He had become a Republican and was appointed by President Lincoln as US Attorney.
This was one of the two important lawsuits that Dana was involved in: the other was the treason trial of Jefferson Davis. Dana was appointed as a sort of special prosecutor by Andrew Johnson to try Davis. Because treason is such a hard crime to prove under the Constitution, Dana urged that Davis not be tried.
In the Prize Cases, Dana was spectacularly successful. The Court ruled unanimously that putting down a rebellion was a legitimate function of government (Chief Justice Taney supported this). To the second question, about who could authorize the resistance to the rebellion, the court split 5-4 in favor of the president. The minority, including Taney, argued unsuccessfully that only Congress had the power.
the official syllabus to the decision says:
"A state of actual war may exist without any formal declaration of it by either party, and this is true of both a civil and a foreign war.
"A civil war exists, and may be prosecuted on the same footing as if those opposing the Government were foreign invaders, whenever the regular course of justice is interrupted by revolt, rebellion, or insurrection, so that the Courts cannot be kept open.
"The present civil war between the United States and the so-called Confederate States has such character and magnitude as to give the United States the same rights and powers which they might exercise in the case of a national or foreign war..."
So you'd be wrong.
Walt
Why not just go way back to your post 124:
In fact, it was actually necessary for politicians to organize campaigns in the North to stir up the idea of fighting to keep the southern states in the Union. The initial response of most northerners was that they were actually glad to see them go due to the fact that they had always leached off the north economically. It was only after longer reflection that the people in the North started to realize the kinds of trouble and grief the inane idea of releasing the incompetant southern states into the world was likely to bring.
I simply asked you to post something other than your assertion, so don't get your feathers ruffled. Simply post the requested data showing how the South "leached" off the North, and maybe then we can have an intelligent discussion.
I have no interest in reviving "slaveocracy", only that the founders model for a limited federal government be instututed.
Is it simple logic to deny that the DoI was secessionary, and that the AoC were dissolved even though the purported to be perpetual, and that the Bill of Rights does not exist?
"If there be any among us who wish to dissolve the Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed, as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it."
Freedom of speech was already guaranteed by the First Amendment. Somehow, I just don't think that when Jefferson states, "dissolve the Union" that he's referring to free speech. Why not just accept the literal meaning?
First you said this:
Since Jefferson Davis proposed income taxes at levels far above those up north
and when I reminded you that
The Confederate bill that passed levied a 1% tax..., and 2% on all additional income, and in 1862, Abraham Lincoln signed a bill that imposed a 3% tax ... and a 5% tax. The bill was amended in 1864 to levy a tax of 5%..., a 7.5%, and a 10% tax on everything higher.
Then you have the audacity to say:
The Davis government proposed income taxes in excess of 25% (which is a change in your original contention, that it was Mr. Davis making these tax proposals, and now shifting to the "Davis government". Your origninal assertion was a criticism of Davis; now you change your tune to keep from being wrong), far in excess of anything Lincoln's administration imposed.
Oh come on, Pea, when it comes to misleading people I have a lot to learn from you
So go peddle your misinformation somewhere else.
Then you quote:
The Confederate bill that was finally passed on 24 April 1863, called for a milder graduated income tax exempting wages to $1,000, and levying a 1% tax on the first $15,000 over the exemption and 2% on all additional income. (Which was a convoluted method of admitting that you were wrong, hoping that no one would notice).
And finally you say this:
I realize that southern school systems are constantly ranked at the bottom of national averages but even they should realize that figures like 14% and 24% are greater than 5% and 10%. Looks like you are the one who is wrong. Shocking.
Seems as if your history class and dancing lessions were confusing to you.
Be glad that WhiskeyPapa is on your side, or else he would say "you lie like a dog".
Now, Walt, your 10 second research, which is characteristic of your efforts to get at the truth shown in most of your opinions, is interesting. Would you please give your soruces for this quote.
If that quote is accurate, it gives evidence that Anderson was improving his positions in November, 1860.
As you know, Governor Gist of SC negotiated a treaty with President Buchanan on December 6, 1860. The agreement was that the Federal government would not improve its defences if they were not attacked. So, to obtain compliance, Major Anderson would have to have had direct orders to stop his work that you describe.
However, after he moved his troops to Ft. Sumter on December 26, he was visited by officials of the state militia and government, and reminded that he had violated the treaty by improving his position in the move over to Ft. Sumter. It was reported by Abner Doubleday, and most history books , that Anderson said he knew nothing of the treaty with the US Government, and President Buchanan. That could not have been true if he had initiated improvements in November, ordered by his President stopped by the treaty in December.
That would also prove that Anderson's movements were illegal, and he knew it.
It would also prove that Buchanan's cabinet resignations in protest were correct, and that the Star of the West reinforcement was quite illegal.
It would also prove which of our valued historians are either liars, or just misinformed.
Cite your documentation.
If not, I have the documentation. So, rest assured, you will receive documentation of what no one wanted to teach you in school.
Effin' K-Mart...its probably a block from the Wal-Mart.
Well, I know you are not missing the common sense gene, so it must be something else.
The American Colonies were defended against the French by English (and some colonial also) troops funded with English money. It seems prety logical that England would want some say in how things were run, as they were footing the security bill, don't you know. They also were reaping in beaucoup dinero from the colonies, which were quite a cash cow for them. And so yes, it was against English law (however unfair)for the colonies to take themselves out of their relationship they had to the Britsh crown.
Now, if you want to say that the secessionists were just as lawless in relation to US law as the Colonists were to British law, then we have no quarrel on this basis.
But even a wooden head will have to admit you can't wrap yourself in the cloak of 1776 AND claim to be acting legally in 1860. It just doesn't follow.
I mean, you are prefectly able to convene your own courts and pass your own laws. Not happy with your taxes, or gun laws, or abortion? Pass your OWN laws!
Brilliant! That's got to be the answer! Ony thing is, they have no force unless you can back them up with force. And you can't. The Colonists couldn't either--until they did it at the point of a bayonet. But there is no doubt they were going outside the law that was applicable to them--British law. And the secessionists were going outside the law applicable to them--United States law.
A big difference is that the colonists had the gumption to stick with it for 8 years and win. The CSA packed it in after only four. Of course the Colonists had good, effective leaders, both political and military. The CSA had losers in both spheres.
Walt
No, the Wal-mart is down on Battlefield Parkway ;-)
Walt
Now, Walt, your 10 second research, which is characteristic of your efforts to get at the truth shown in most of your opinions, is interesting. Would you please give your soruces for this quote.
I didnt make this quote, so I have no idea what you are talking about. I am way too lazy to look it up, but seems like the SC secession was agreed to on December 6, 1860.
Walt
I don't see support for secession in his words, just an affirmation that he would uphold the principle of free speech which Adams had violated. After all, he's willing to let not just secessionists but also those who would change the "republican form" of the union stand undisturbed. It would be very hard for them to change the republican form of the union when Jefferson had the Presidency and his party controlled Congress, and if they seriously tried to impose a non-republican regime, Jefferson would surely oppose that. Therefore I presume he's talking about speech, not about an actual act of imposing a non-republican government, which Jefferson would be bound by his principles and the Constitution to oppose. If he speaks of letting those who want secession and what he'd call tyranny or monarchy alone, and if we know he would fight rather than see actual monarchy or tyranny imposed, then it doesn't look like he's making the most rousing endorsement of secession. I don't know what he would have thought of secession at the time, but I do think the sentence is somewhat different in meaning than your interpretation.
Jefferson is an interesting case. He was much more radical than most of the rest of the Founders. And here he is in 1801, an old revolutionary and oppositionist, trying to keep his opponents from rebelling or revolting against his own authority. In time, at the head of a government, with obligations and responsibilities, Jefferson moderated his earlier views in practice, though not always in theory.
Whatever. - Walt
And THAT is exactly your problem in this debate, Walt. You pay attention ONLY to that which you want to hear. When I called you on a specific proven example of you engaging in dishonesty (straw man), you at first denied it by trying to alter the written record of our previous exchanges. Now that I corrected that and again pointed out your straw man, you casually dismiss it in hopes that it will go away. You do so because you do not want to hear what you do not like, even though what you don't like is the reality of the situation. You are engaging in intellectual dishonesty in its worst form.
Lincoln opposed slavery by words and deeds his whole life. Do you disagree with that statement?
Yes I do, and cite specifically that Lincoln had no reservations endorsing an amendment to extend and protect slavery as evidence of my position, which is contrary to your above statement.
Technically, no it was not. It was a two masted MERCHANT side wheeler. Figuratively, that's not much more than a tug boat.
And why should the fact that SC state trops fired on her -not- constitute the start of the war?
If bouncing a few pellets off the side of your little (figurative) tugboat constitutes war, then the fact that the star of the west was secretly delivering 200 armed infantry and ammunition to Sumter could similarly be characterized as an act of war - moving a hostile organized military force onto land that does not belong to them for the purpose of occupying that land and defending it as their position with military force.
If someone fired on you, would that be an act of war?
No. It would be an isolated act of violence. And if that person fired on me for attempting to enter his store to rob him with a weapon concealed under my jacket, he would probably have good cause to have fired.
We can split these hairs all you like Technically we could, but for some reason I do not think you are even honest enough to do that.
but you are simply wrong.
Quod gratis asseritur gratis negatur.
Note too, that in this case, the slave holders fired the first shot.
Did they? Do you know for a fact that the person who fired that shot owned a slave? If not, on what grounds do you make your assertion? Just curious.
But the war, --in a sense--
And the question is what sense. I maintain that a war is not a war until one organized force engages in a significant attack upon another. And no, shooting a pop gun at a tug boat does not constitute a battle.
began when South Carolina hauled down Old Glory. And they got what was coming to them.
Do I take it then that you admit the north acted in aggression against South Carolina for taking an action (hauling down the flag) that the north, in that particular case, disagreed with? Or do you mean something else when you say "they got what was coming to them"
The point remains that almost nothing you've said in this particular segue will hold water
Quod gratis asseritur gratis negatur. Accordingly, your above statement has been rejected.
, but you continue to dig yourself in deeper and deeper.
I would tend to think that you would be well served to purchase a mirror as it is you, not me, who stands deeply in something unpleasant of your own creation at this point in the debate. Let's consider what has happened so far...
1. I quoted lincoln's endorsement of the said amendment.
2. You responded by essentially ignoring the quote and then telling me that I am somehow wrong because what my quote demonstrated conflicted with what you asserted lincoln to be.
3. I again responded in defense of my quote, and you responded to that with # 2 again, and again, and again. In the meantime brief discussions have emerged about subtopics, in which case you have acted in a similar manner by attacking my facts on the grounds that they are inconsistent with what you say by your own authority and therefore must be wrong.
4. Eventually you realized you were getting nowhere so you built a straw man, attributed it to me, and attacked it.
5. I responded by calling you on your straw man
6. You responded to that by denying your straw man and altering the context and order in which that straw man was stated by exchanging it with another quote.
7. I corrected you again and demonstrated how the record clearly showed the order of our conversation and how, in that order, you engaged in a straw man.
8. You responded by attempting to casually shove off your straw man in hopes that it would go away and nobody else would notice.
9. That brings us to just before this post, where now you are arbitrarily telling me that I am wrong yet you give no proof why other than simply saying it.
10. Since that which is asserted without proof may be rejected without proof, I have again rejected your statement as it has not been proven, nor have you even attempted to prove it.
And that leaves us where we stand.
Indeed I can. And you can respond by shouting "you're wrong and i'm right!" at the top of your lungs all you want. But that alone doesn't make it so.
Davis fired on the fort to precipitate action by the northern tier of slave states.
Quod gratis asseritur gratis negatur. In other words, prove it.
Like the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, to which it has been compared,
Oh, so since some nameless person compared sumter to pearl harbor, that comparison must be valid? I think not. Let's examine that comparison:
Pearl Harbor: suprise attack
Sumter: repeatedly announced and anticipated attack
Pearl Harbor: Massive human casualties
Sumter: No casualties
Pearl Harbor: Japanese attack Americans occupying American soil
Sumter: Confederates attack yankees occupying confederate soil
Pearl Harbor: unprovoked attack
Sumter: provoked attack
I think it to be a safe conclusion that making a comparison between pearl harbor and sumter is about as valid as comparing an elephant to a watermelon.
it had the most disastrous outcome imaginable for the slave holders.
...And all this time I thought Grant was made president due to what he gained from the war.
But then, they weren't very clever, were they?
Grant? Well, let's just say he was brighter than the rest of the yankee generals, but that sure isn't saying much (cough) Burnside (cough cough) McClellan (cough)
So stubbornly occupying a fort that is not yours to begin with despite repeatedly friendly attempts to negotiate a turnover in peace, and doing so at a time when that fort also happens to be surrounded by superior military forces makes one great? Sounds to me more like a case of an incredibly bold but also incredibly stupid person
It strikes me SO funny that John Ashcroft, that stout defender of the CSA is now responsible for rooting out treason and sabotage.
I'm sure your ideological and intellectual compatriates Julian Bond, Sheila Jackson Lee, and Jesse Jackson are laughing it up right with you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.