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
Cite this documentation.
Walt
Touche, Aaron. I just drove a few hundred miles on the interstates today. I saw several large window decals with "MAKE NO MISTAKE" superimposed on a US flag. That's King Wobbly II's latest cliche, which will be forgotten along with his other cliche's and the silly speeches someone writes for him which he studiously reads to his admiring koolaid drinkers.
Let's all make no mistake, shall we? Let's Roll.
Clinton's defenders do the same thing. Exactly the same.
You're in good company.
"If there be any among us who would 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."
Thomas Jefferson, 1st inaugural address, 1801.
Read the entire Declaration of Secession Independence, and Amendment 10 of our Constitution.
If that's not enough follow that by the ratification debates of the states (especially New York and Virginia). Add The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions. Which state(s) threatened secession repeatedly long before the South left the Union?
For bonus points, read the Texas v White decision, and the argument for indissolvable nation. Justice Chase based his decision against secession on the word "perpetual" in the Articles of Confederation, so for extra credit, in Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation, how many states had to agree to dissolve the union (hint: last line of first paragraph)? Compare that with Article VII of the Constitution (remember, there were 13 states at the time), "The ratification of the conventions of nine states, shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the states so ratifying the same." Was nine more or less that the number agreed to in the AoC?
Can you oor can you not cite some actual sources from the Civil War period that support your position?
Walt
Can you oor can you not cite some actual sources from the Civil War period that support your position?
Walt
The D of I is not the law of the land; the Constitution is. And by any reading of the 10th amendment under which the states retain a right to secession, the people retain a right to maintain the Union in perpetuity.
If that's not enough follow that by the ratification debates of the states (especially New York and Virginia). Add The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions. Which state(s) threatened secession repeatedly long before the South left the Union?
That won't get you much.
In Dec., 1832, James Madison wrote to Nicholas P. Trist as follows;
"The essential difference between a free Government and Governments that are not free, is that the former is founded in compact, the parties to which are mutually and equally bound by it. Neither of them therefore can have a greater right to break off from the bargain, than the other or others have to hold them to it. And certainly there is nothing in the Virginia resolutions of 1898, adverse to this principle, which is that of common sense and common justice."
(James Madison, Writings; Rakove, Jack N., editor; The Library of America; 1999; p. 862)
For bonus points, read the Texas v White decision, and the argument for indissolvable nation. Justice Chase based his decision against secession on the word "perpetual" in the Articles of Confederation,
No, he bases it upon the idea that our Union is a a perpetual Union beind made -more- perfect by the Constitution.
so for extra credit, in Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation, how many states had to agree to dissolve the union (hint: last line of first paragraph)?
The Articles are expressly pledged to be perpetual, and the Preamble to the Constitution pledges that Union to be made more perfect.
The historical record does nt support a right to legal, unilateral state secession, and you can't make it do so.
Walt
Pretty much, yes.
Clinton's defenders do the same thing. Exactly the same.
What has that got to do with Lincoln?
"In all our deliberations on this subject we kept steadily in our view, that which appears to us the greatest interest of every true American, the consolidation of our Union, in which is involved our prosperity, felicity, safety, perhaps our national existance."
George Washington, 1787.
Wow. How do you figure that Washington's image came to appear on the Great Seal of the CSA? Seems a real mystery to me. What do you think?
"So obvious are the reasons which forbid this secession, that it is necessary only to allude to them. The union was formed for the benefit of all. It was produced by mutual sacrifices of interests and opinions. can those sacrifices be recalled? Can the states, who magnanimously surrendered their title to the territories of the west, recall the grant? Will the inhabitants of the inland states agree to pay the duties that may be imposed without their assent by those on the Atlantic or the Gulf, for their own benefit? Shall there be a free port in one state, and onerous duties in another. No one believes that any right exists in a single state to involve the other in these and countless other evils, contrary to the engagements solemnly made.
Every one must see that the other states, in self-defence, must oppose it at all hazards."
--Andrew Jackson
"In order, therefore, to form a more perfect union, to establish justice, to insure domestic tranquility, to provide for common defense and to secure the blessings of liberty, those people, among whom were the people of Georgia, ordained and established the present constitution. By that constitution, legislative power is vested, executive power is vested, judicial power is vested...We may then infer, that the people of the United States intended to bind the several states, by the legislative power of the national government...
Whoever considers, in a combined and comprehensive view, the general texture of the constitution, wil be satisfied that the people of the United States intended to form themselves into a nation for national purposes. They instituted, for such purposes, a national government complete in all its parts, with powers legislative, executive and judiiciary, ad in all those powers extending over the whole nation."
Justice James Wilson, 1793
"It is remarkable that in establishing it, the people exercised their own rights and their own proper sovereignty, and conscious of the plenitude of it, they declared with becoming dignity, "We the people of the United States," 'do ordain and establish this Constitution." Here we see the people acting as the sovereigns of the whole country.; and in the language of sovereignty, establishing a Constitution by which it was their will, that the state governments should be bound, and to which the State Constitutions should be made to conform."
Chief Justice John Jay, 1793
"The mischievous consequences of the construction contended for on the part of Virginia, are also entitled to great consideration. It would prostrate, it has been said, the government and its laws at the feet of every state in the Union. And would this not be the effect? What power of the government could be executed by its own means, in any states disposed to resist its execution by a course of legislation?...each member will possess a veto on the will of the whole...there is certainly nothing in the circumstances under which our constitution was formed; nothing in the history of the times, which justify the opinion that the confidence reposed in the states was so implicit as to leave in them and their tribunals the power of resisting or defeating, in the form of law, the legislative measures of the Union..."
Chief Justice John Marshall
"In the case now to be determined, the defendant, a sovereign state, denies the obligation of a law enacted by the legislature of the Union...In discussing this question, the counsel for the state of Maryland deemed it of some importance, in the construction of the Constitution, to consider that instrument as not emanating from the people, but as the act of sovereign and independent states. It would be difficult to maintain this position...."
Chief Justice John Marshall
"That the United States form, for many, and for most important purposes, a single natiion, has not yet been denied. In war, we are one people. In making peace, we are one people. In all commercial regulations, we are one and the same people. In many other respects, the American people are one; and the government which is alone capable of controlling and managing their interests in all these respects, is the government of the Union. It is their government and in that character, they have no other. America has chosen to be, in many respects, and in many purposes, a nation; and for all these purposes, her government is complete; to all these objects it is competent. The people have declared that in the exercise of all powers given for these objects, it is supreme. It can, then, in effecting these objects, legitimately control all individuals or governments within the American territory. "The constitution and laws of a state, so far as they are repugnant to the constitution and laws of of the United States are absolutely void. These states are constituent parts of the United States; they are members of one great empiure--for some purposes sovereign, for some purposes subordinate."
It is simply a fraud to suggest that unilateral state secession was allowed for under our system of government.
"What was to be done in the event of controversies, which could not fail to occur, concerning the partition line between the powers belonging to the Federal and to the State governments? That some provision ought to be made, was as obvious, and as essential as the task itself was difficult and delicate…The provision immediately and ordinarily relied on is manifestly the Supreme Court of the United States, clothed as it is with a jurisdiction “in controversies to which the United States shall be a party,” the court itself being so constituted as to render it independent and impartial in its decisions"
James Madison
"The nullifiers it appears, endeavor to shelter themselves under a distinction between a delegation and a surrender of powers. But if the powers be attributes of sovereignty & nationality & the grant of them be perpetual, as is necessarily implied, where not otherwise expressed, sovereignty & nationality are effectually transferred by it, and the dispute about the name, is but a battle of words."
James Madison
"The conduct of S. Carolina has called forth not only the question of nullification; but the more formidable one of secession. It is asked whether a State by resuming the sovereign form in which it entered the Union, may not of right withdrasw from it at will. As this is a simple question whether a State, more than an individual, has a right to violate its engagements, it would seem that it might be safely left to answer itself. But the countenance given to the claim shows that it cannot be so lightly dismissed. The natural feelings which laudably attach the people composing a state, to its authority and importance, are at present too much excited by the unnatural feelings, with which they have been inspired agst. (sic) their bretheren of other States, not to expose them, to the dangers of being misled into erroneous views of the nature of the Union and the interest they have in it. One thing at least seems to be too clear to be questioned; that whilst a State remains within the Union it cannot withdraw its citizens from the operation of the Constitution & laws of the Union. In the event of an actual secession without the Consent of the Co-States, the course to be pursued by these involves questions painful in the discussion of them. God grant that the menacing appearances, which obtrude it may not be followed by positive occurrences requiring the more painful task of deciding them!"
--James Madison
"What is now combatted, is the position that secession consistent with the Constitution -- is lawful, and peaceful. It is not contended that there is any express law for it; and nothing should ever be implied as law, which leads to unjust or absurd consequences."
Abraham Lincoln, 7/4/61
The concept of legal unilateral secession under our system is absurd. It doesn't exist.
Now you can go on for months or years spouting this nonsense--it's a free country, guaranteed by the blood of Union soldiers.
But the record will always make you look a fool.
Walt
The historical record (Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation etc.) are abundantly clear that indeed, a right to secession existed. If you're so against it Walt, you can always renounce American citizenship, and swear allegiance to Great Britain.
That right, clearly, does NOT exist under the Constitution.
Walt
Exactly correct.
From the moderated ACW newsgroup:
"There is no established legal procedure for secession. There are, however, two recognized methods of secession -- but neither of them are "established." No one has ever successfully seceded before.
One method would be to get all of the States to agree to spin off one or more states into a separate country. The other method would be to have a revolution "for cause," which means a revolution due to intolerable oppression. Madison made this distinction himself in his leter to Daniel Webster, dated March 15, 1833, wherein he states:
"I return my thanks for the copy of your late very powerful speech in the Senate of the U. S. It crushes "nullification" and must hasten an abandonment of "Secession." But this dodges the blow by confounding the claim to secede at will, with the right of seceding from intolerable oppression. The former answers itself, being a violation without cause, of a faith solemnly pledged. The latter is another name only for revolution, about which there is no theoretic controversy."
Secession does not exist as a matter of right according to Madison because it is a breach of the "compact" between the States, whereas secession or "revolution" for cause is recognized without question.
BTW, I have finally come up with the killer argument against the use of the 10th Amendment to support secession. I have always believed that secession is not one of the rights "reserved" to the States because the 10th Amendment (and the 9th to boot) merely express the truism that the federal government is a government of limited powers, namely, that it is limited to the powers expressly enumerated in the Constitution. It means that whatever has not been delegated to the federal government is reserved to the States and the People. When for example, the South attempted to secede in the 1860's, it was the same as a declaration that the U.S. Constitution no longer applied to the Confederate States. It is inconsistent to claim a right to secede under the 10th Amendment, while claiming the document no longer has any force or effect. It is the same as if one sued for breach of contract, claiming that one has enforceable rights under the contract, while also suing for rescission of the contract for failure of the other party or parties to the contract to keep their end of the bargain. A court would be bound to rule that it is inconsistent to seek both remedies at the same time; and that the plaintiff could have one remedy or the other, but not both. The same is true of claiming constitutional rights under a document that one claims no longer has any application.
But that is not the most important, or even the best argument, against claiming a constitutional right to secede. The best argument is by posing this hypothesis:
Let us assume that the Constitution was amended to explicitly exclude secession as a legal right of the States, and that the President and or Congress could act to prevent any attempt at secession. In this scenario, one could say that secession or revolution (and I use the terms interchangeably as Madison did, depending on whether the action was for cause or not) would no longer be reserved to the States or the People by the express terms of the 10th Amendment. As such, there would be no reserved right to secede.
So, would such an amendment, if ever enacted, really deprive the People or the States of the right to revolt or secede? The answer is a resounding, "No." Why? Because the right to revolt is a "self-evident" right inherent in every social compact resulting in the formation of a government. That is what the Declaration of Independence was all about. That is what Madison was talking about, as discussed above. That is what Jefferson said elsewhere in his writings. In short, the Constitution could never prohibit the right to secede, even if it were to be explicitly stated in that document.
My point is that the 10th Amendment is too slender a reed upon which to hang the right of revolution. That right exists with or without the Constitution, and with or without any affirmative declaration or prohibition against the exercise of that right in it. It is the most fundamental right of any community of People to decide for themselves their own form of government and to change it if the government is destructive to the inherent rights of man. Until it is destructive, however, the People have a duty to preserve it.
The secession/revolution of 1861 did not hold a candle to the revolution of 1776 as a revolution for cause. Interestingly enough, the most persuasive argument against secession, as well as the most persuasive argument as to why secession was wrong, came from none other than the Vice President of the CSA, Alexander H. "Little Alex" Stephens. He answered the arguments of Mr. Toombs persuasively before the Georgia Convention when he said Georgia still had a viable alternative in (1) remaining in the Union and fighting it out in Congress; and (2) enacting its own retaliatory legislation to combat the perceived abuses of the Northern States.
In the declaration of causes for secession, the States that furnished such causes gave two basic reasons for secession: (1) that Northern STATES did not abide by their bargain in the compact; and (2) that the newly elected executive was so hostile to the interests of the South that it was inevitable that he would further intensify the hostility. The first reason was no reason to leave the Union, because it did not complain about the federal government's failure to maintain the compact, and it did not say that any petition was made to rectify the problem, much less that the federal government would do nothing to solve the problem. The second typical ground was no ground at all, given that Mr. Lincoln had, up to the time of the declaration of secession by several of the soon-to-be Confederate States, done nothing to establish the legitimacy of the view that he was so hostile to the interests of the South that he would carry through with the acts feared by the southern conventions. His first inaugural address should, instead, have laid those fears to rest.
So, given the above analysis, with which I am sure that Walt would agree in whole or in part, I genuinely doubt that Walt would agree, as you have said, that "the secession of 1861 had the same legal basis as the revolution of 1776 . . ." Assuming that Walt would agree with even the inherent right to revolt as expounded by Madison and Jefferson, I'm sure he would agree that a legitimate secession/revolution would have to be for cause, namely intolerable oppression, or that it would not be legitimate at all. Since the Southern States did not secede for a good cause, based on intolerable oppression which could not be redressed through the existing system, the grounds for secession did not form a legal basis for revolution."
Walt
Before we proceed any further, I must state that the desecration of the Lincoln monument is and was a despicable act. I do not hate Lincoln, but I do despise the methods he used to accomplish his goals. The protection of monuments, historical markers and the preservation of the history and heritage of of ancestors is what we a fighting for, and I denounce anyone that resorts to such tactics on either side.
I just don't understand why anyone has a problem understanding the statement, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The powers not given to the federal government, nor denied to the states, remain with the states. There is no article that vests the right of secession to the federal government, and neither is there an article that denies the states that right. The power remains with the state.
In 1803, when writing the Marbury v. Madison decision, Chief Justice Marshall wrote,
"It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect; and, therefore, such a construction is inadmissible, unless the words require it.A government that refuses to recognize the rights retained by the states, and exceeds the limitations placed upon it by the state governments, a government that can ignore the Constitution, and refuse to adhere to that compact, has already broken it.The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained?"
I have noticed that and that they also have a few other fan clubs.
Good try. Try to justify the same argument using the 2nd Amendment, "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." Even though it's very explicitly stated, the right to keep and bear arms has been infringed.
"It is the most fundamental right of any community of People to decide for themselves their own form of government and to change it if the government is destructive to the inherent rights of man.
I agree.
But, we know how he acted. Just like the current crop of "leaders" we have today. History may say the same about them...and it is still a farce.
How, and in what way did Lincoln act? Care to expand a bit?
Walt
When the US declared her independence in the Revolutionary War, British property became property of the US. You can't have foreign military forts and weaponry sitting squarely in the middle of your property can you? If the New England states had seceded in 1815, would they have allowed the US to retain it's military outposts in those states? Lincoln's insistence of fortifying Ft. Sumpter just escalated the situation. It'd be like China attempting to send troops and supplies into Taiwan after Taiwan seceded.
The SALT treaty that the USA just vacated provided for a means of withdrawal, and is now (or will be in a few days) no longer binding. Just as the Constitution provided a means of withdrawal (the 10th), once removed from the Constitution, the seceding state(s) are no longer bound by that instrument. The AoC had a requirement that ALL states agree to a new government, yet they abandoned it if only 9 of the thirteen ratifed the Constitution. Isn't that a secession from the existing government? What would be the recourse if New York had failed to ratify? Could it have declared war on the seceding states for breach of contract?
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.