Lincoln Statue Subjected to Unusually Undignified Vandalism

Civil War Interactive ^ | 12/15/01

[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

[GOPcapitalist]

"Lincoln made plain well before the war that he was an oppenent of slavery." - you

"In that sense, so did Robert E. Lee. But simply opposing slavery as a practice does not equal politically supporting a government action to abolish it." - me

YOU:

Your statement is not well supported in the record.

Quod gratis asseritur gratis negatur.

I will not at this time suggest that you are being disingenous. But to compare Lincoln's amd Lee's positions on slavery is a bit of a stretch.

Who said I was comparing their position (as in their ENTIRE political position) on slavery? Certainly not me. I simply noted the historical fact that both men were personally _opposed_ to slavery after you stated that Lincoln personally _opposed_ slavery.

Lincoln repeatedly said that all men should be free

Lincoln also said to a group of blacks: "But, even when you cease to be slaves, you are yet far removed from being placed on an equality with the white race...on this broad continent not a single man of your race is made equal of a single man of ours" - Lincoln, August 14, 1862

So again, what is your point?

Lee said the best relationship between black and white was that of master and slave.

Lee also said this: "There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil. It is idle to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it is a greater evil to the white than to the colored race. While my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more deeply engaged for the former." (December, 1856)

So again I ask, what is your point?

Too, you state that "simply opposing slavery as a practice does not equal politically supporting a government action to abolish it". Well, as my note put up just a few minutes ago shows, Lincoln wrote legislation in the late 1840's to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia.

Sure he did, but he also used his inaugural address to endorse a constitutional amendment perpetuating it. Now tell me, in the scheme of things which do you think constitutes the bigger picture?

(a) a lowly 1 term representative writing a bill to abolish slavery in a single city of only a few square miles wide primarily for the purpose of casting off the image of slavery's presence in what was supposed to be the nation's capital to the world

or

(b) the president of the united states using his inaugural address to specifically and enthusiastically endorse a constitutional amendment that specifically perpetuates and protects the presence of slavery from any form of federal intervention in any state existing or future that wishes to employ the institution.

So again, you tell me. Which is it?

That is a governmental action. I do not think Robert E. Lee ever did as much.

I don't think Robert E. Lee ever used his inaugural address to call for an amendment to the constitution to protect and perpetuate slavery in any state that wanted it either. So again, what's your point?

In fact, any opposition to slavery by Lee was just lip service.

Was it? And, might I ask, do you have proof of this? If not, I again note quod gratis asseritur gratis negatur. Additionally, I note that Lee's most famous statement in opposition to slavery came in the form of a long personal letter from which I earlier quoted, not some public political speech. So who was he paying "lip service" to? Himself? Additionally, Lee was not a politician but a military officer and accordingly had much less of a need to pay "lip service" than does somebody trying to get votes.

Lincoln took action --before the war.

He sure did! He used his first public speech as president to endorse a constitutional amendment protecting slavery!

It is simply incorrrect to say that Lincoln only adopted opposition to slavery as as war measure.

Quod gratis asseritur gratis negatur.

The record simply will not support that.

Quod gratis asseritur gratis negatur.

[GOPcapitalist]

Just for fun, let's look at what Abe said about secession in 1847...

"Any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right, a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world"

And what of historical secession rights? 1803, Senator Plumer of New Hampshire: "The Eastern states must and will dissolve the union and form a separate government of their own, and the sooner they do this, the better"

That same year, Sen. Pickering of Mass.: "I rather anticipate a new Confederacy exempt from the corrupt influence of th the aristocratic Democrats of the South"

Move forward a bit to 1814, and this time do yourself a favor - research a little thing called the Hartford Convention and see what the yankees tried to do there.

Next try 1828-32, research a man named John C. Calhoun and see what some of his followers wanted to do regarding the political future of north carolina

On to 1845 and a man named John Quincy Adams regarding the annexation of Texas.

What did they all have in common? That's right. Secession "crises." Times in our nation's history where various sides, north and south alike, have called openly for secession or bordered very close.

Oh, and more on Sumter. Here's an interesting little side note on the "supply ships" sent by Lincoln, as recorded by none other than General Winfield Scott in a directive to another officer: "He is charged by high authority here with command of an expedition, under cover of certain ships of war, whose oobject is to reinforce Fort Sumter"

The ships of war Scott spoke of were the "steamers" Harriet Lane, Pawnee, and Pocahontas carrying "provisions" for the fort, or so said the president.

[WhiskeyPapa]

Ah, I see you are skilled at jousting with scarecrows, as that is not what I said. I said specifically: "The historical Lincoln was perfectly willing to tolerate slavery where it existed and only moved to end it as a war time strategy."

And that is simply not true by any fair reading of these events.

I refer you back to what I said earlier:

"From 1854 to his nomination for the presidency in 1860, as James McPherson noted in his DRAWN WITH THE SWORD, "the dominant, unifying theme of Lincoln's career was opposition to the expansion of slavery as a vital first step toward placing it in the course of ultimate extinction." In those years he gave approximately 175 political speeches. McPherson notes that the "central message of these speeches showed Lincoln to be a "one-issue" man - the issue being slavery." Thus, Lincoln's nomination to the presidency was based on a principled opposition to slavery on moral grounds, and that position was clear to voters both in the South and the North."

Lincoln worked for the gradual elimination of slavery well before the war.

I see you pass over what I said about Lincoln vs Lee. Lincoln undertook, well before the war, "governmental actions" to use your phrase, to attack slavery.

It simply is not correct to say that he only adopted an anti-slavery stance with the coming of the war, and you cannot torture the record into supporting such a position.

Now, Lincoln faced, on his very first day in office, a gigantic rebellion against the lawful government. The insurgent area covered seven states. Lincoln didn't want war. That is one thing you've shown with your stressing this proposed 13th amendment. You have shown that Lincoln was willing to bend over backwards to avoid war. So thanks for bringing that out.

On the other hand, as he made very clear in his first inaugural address he was definitely going to maintain the Union at all hazards. And that is pretty much what happened.

Of course this segue of yours does show us one thing: You want to hold Lincoln to some impossible standard, to take him out of a real situation, dealing with real events and real people. Lincoln did a masterful job of holding the country together. He brought the ship of state home safe and sound and we can all thank him for that, can't we?

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

Just for fun, let's look at what Abe said about secession in 1847...

"Any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right, a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world"

Now watch out; you're about to join the ranks of Twodees, Billbears, Stand Watier and others. There is simply no way to twist Lincoln's words into a support for legal, unilateral state secession.

Whatever credibility you have will go right out the window if you continue to maintain that Lincoln supported legal, unilateral state secession. There is not one scintilla of evidence that he supported such an "unjust and absurd position", to use his very words that are readily available in the record. No one, certainly not me- and certainly not Lincoln, would deny a right of revolution, with or without just cause. I mean after all, (and this is what Lincoln is referring to in this favorite quote of the legal secession crowd) is revolution.

Now, if we want to agree that 'secession' and 'revolution' are exact synonymns, then we are in agreement. The slave holder/secessionists went outside United States law to secede and attempt to establish a new nation. If you agree with that position, then we have no conflict on this point

Lincoln often said that all his political ideas sprag from the Declaration of Independence--especially that part about all men being created equal.

So it is not much of a stretch for him to support a right of revolution. But old Lincoln was a pretty canny lawter, don't you know. And no way was he going to allow the law to be flagrantly disregarded when he had just sworn an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution and ensure that the laws be faithfully executed.

Lastly, compare honestly Lincolns words on 7/4/61 and see, honestly now, if there is anything inconsistant with his 1848 (Lincoln was a congressman from 1848-50)statement and 1861:

"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. The nation purchased, with money, the countries out of which several of these states were formed. Is it just that they shall go off without leave, and without refunding? The nation paid very large sums, (in the aggregate, I believe, nearly a hundred millions) to relieve Florida of the aboriginal tribes. Is it just that she shall now be off without consent, or without making any return? The nation is now in debt for money applied to the benefit of the so-called seceding states, in common with the rest. Is it just, either that creditors shall go unpaid, or the remaining States pay for the whole? A part of the present national debt was contracted to pay the old debts of Texas. Is it just that she shall leave, pay no part of it herself?

Again, if one state may secede, so may another; and then when all shall have seceded, none is left to pay the debts. Is this quite just to creditors? Did we notify them of this sage view of ours when we borrowed there money? If we now recognize this doctrine, by allowing the seceders to go in peace, it is difficult to see what we can do, if others choose to go, or to extort terms terms upon which they will promise to remain...

If all the states, save one, should assert the power to drive that one out of the Union, it is presumed the whole class of seceder politicians would at once deny the power, and denounce the act as the greatest outrage upon State rights. But suppose that precisely the same act, instead of being called "driving the one out," should be called "the seceding of the others from that one," it would exactly what the seceders claim to do; unless, indeed, they make the point, that the one, because it is a minority, may rightfully do, what the others because they are a majority may not rightfully do. These politicians are subtle, and profound, on the rights of minorities. They are not so partial to that power, which made the Constitution, and speaks from the preamble, calling itself "We the People."

And there is nothing inconsistant between this passage and the one you tout. I'm sorry, but if you don't want to show extreme bias, you'll have to readjust your position.

Walt

[TopQuark]

It's a nice compilation, Papa. Thanks for the post.

[WhiskeyPapa]

Lincoln took action --before the war.

He sure did! He used his first public speech as president to endorse a constitutional amendment protecting slavery!

That was during the war. In fact, the war, in sense, was well underway. It began when South Carolina hauled down Old Glory and put up a different flag.

But you attempt to dodge a big bullet here. You -know- unless you are blithering, that I was referring to at least 1848, when Congressman Lincoln drafted legislation to eliminate slavery in DC, and when he was making speeches favoring the gradual elimination of slavery--well before the war.

How anyone can spout this contra-historical nonsense when our troops are in contact with enemies who would cut all our throats is beyond me.

Profesions of the legality of unilateral state secession border on treason.

And so does belittling our greatest president and statesman.

Walt

[Non-Sequitur]

That darned old southern school system again. I'm betting you're a product of Mississippi or Arkansas or one of the really pathetic ones because apparently they did not cover the definition of words like 'proposed'. If you had read my reply 55 I said that Davis had proposed income tax levels far in excess of anything Lincoln had suggested. In reply 91 I detailed the income tax levels put forth by the Davis government - 10%, 25%, 50%. Last time I checked every one of those proposed rates far exceeded the Northern rates, unless fractions don't mean the same down south as they do in the rest of the world.

[WhiskeyPapa]

It's a nice compilation, Papa. Thanks for the post.

Thanks; I don't do this for these blithering idiot neo-confederates, but for the many who might come across these threads not as well equipped to handle their half-truths and outright lies about the history of the American Civil War.

Walt

[TopQuark]

but for the many who might come across these threads not as well equipped to handle their half-truths and outright lies about the history of the American Civil War.

I am one of those still ill equipped in this area. So reading this was both informative and heart-warming: reminded me of America wherein people actively exercised the gift of thinking and directed it to worthy causes.

Thanks again, Walt. Should we not "meet" until then, have a very happy Holiday Season.

[WhiskeyPapa]

The quote itself states "I will await the first shot and, if you do not batter us to pieces, we will be starved out in a few days" obviously referring to the scenario that would occur if the battle began.

Then it still follows that the so-called seceded states did not have to fire a single shot in order to force the capitulation of the fort. All they had to do was to cut off provisions. My main point, which seems (unlike Fort Sumter) unassailed is that Davis had the fort fired on -because- he wanted an incident that would incite the northern tier of slave states to secession, which is what happened.

Walt

[Colt .45]

Slavery was LEGAL at that time! But the secession was about economics and rights ... not about slavery. The South was tired of a bunch of Yankee extremists trying to tell them how to run their own livelihoods and economy. Of Yankees trying to ramrod laws through Congress which were detrimental to the Southern economy. Yet the whole time, the Yankee textile mills in New York and Massachussettes were depending on Southern cotton to be supplied for the making of cloth. So you have the Yankees crying about slavery on one hand, and supporting it with their textile mills on the other. Hypocrisy in action, but then the Yankees were noted for that! And that hasn't changed much over the years!

By the way, as I've pointed out to others before, more abuses of human rights were carried out under the Stars and Stripes than were ever carried out under the Stars and Bars, its a historical fact! Unless you're a proponent of revisionistic PC history!

You sound like some PC driven left winger who doesn't care about 1st Amendment Rights and individual liberties. You would rather we all conform to some State sponsored idea of what is "sensitive" and correct, and "good for society". In a free society some folks will get offended from time to time, they just have to grow thicker skins and quit whining!

[WhiskeyPapa]

Thanks again, Walt. Should we not "meet" until then, have a very happy Holiday Season.

And also to you. :-)

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

The South was tired of a bunch of Yankee extremists trying to tell them how to run their own livelihoods and economy.

Simple nonsense.

Southerners controlled the executive and the judiciary branches of the government for decades prior to 1860. They had the power to deadlock the legislative branch.

When they saw that power fading, presaged by the election of a sectional candidate (Lincoln by name), they bolted.

Walt

[Non-Sequitur]

But the secession was about economics and rights ... not about slavery.

"The new (confederate) constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution -- African slavery as it exists amongst us -- the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution." - Alexander Stephens, vice president of the confederacy, March 1861

It appears that the confederate leaders of the time don't agree with your analysis of the cause of the civil war.

[Colt .45]

Its really simple Walt ... you Yankees won the war, so you can tell the story any way you want ... even if it means lying.

[Non-Sequitur]

By the way, as I've pointed out to others before, more abuses of human rights were carried out under the Stars and Stripes than were ever carried out under the Stars and Bars, its a historical fact!

Considering the U.S. has been around for 125 years and the confederate rebellion lasted a little over 4 years that is an easy claim to make and is certainly truthful. Now if you are also willing to admit that the southern people and political leadership were enthusiastic participants in those abuses throughout our history then we will have another area of agreement.

[WhiskeyPapa]

Its really simple Walt ... you Yankees won the war, so you can tell the story any way you want ... even if it means lying.

I'm not a Yankee. I was born and grew up in Chattanooga, Tennessee. I had several relatives in the ANV. My mother even got a copy of a document signed by Walter Taylor (Lee's adjutant)relating to one of my relatives. I also had at least one relative on the CSA side at Shiloh. In fact, I know of no relatives of mine who fought for the Union.

It -is- clear, however, that the heroes of the war were all wearing blue.

As an aside, my mom has also proved a distant link to our family and Francis Scott Key.

If he was a Yankee, I am glad of it.

Now, it is simply false to say that I can tell the story any way I like -just- because the United States subdued the giant reballion against it. You can check the note by N-S just above. The most damning words come from the rebels themselves.

Walt

[Colt .45]

I am here to fight for the South's right to fly the Confederate Flag as part of its heritage. I could care less if it offends you or anyone else. It is a basic freedom that people are guaranteed under the 1st Amendment. I have served on active duty in the Navy for 19 years to defend that Constitution and Bill of Rights that so many want to limit to fit the PC "sensitivity" mold! I fight against tyranny of every form. Where liberty is threatened ... there am I. That is now! Whether you think the South was right or not is immaterial to me, I believe what I believe, and I'll defend everyone's right to be free to fly whatever flag they want!

[Non-Sequitur]

I cannot speak for Walt but as far as I am concerned you can fly your flag whenever and wherever you want to. I am on record many times as saying that I find this whole jihad against the confederate flag to be way past the point of being ridiculous and if you want to honor your ancestors who fought for the confederacy then more power to you.

Having said that please don't expect me to sit back quietly as the great tide of southern revisionism washes over FreeRepublic until is would appear that Abe Lincoln and the Union government is responsible for every evil and every wrong up to and including a rainy day. Many of the sothron claims are just flat wrong and their view of some great confederate political utopia had they only won are plainly ridiculous. The men who fought for the North were every bit as devoted to their cause as the rebels were to their own and I'll not sit still for their being libled. And I'll continue to point out the errors as I see them regardless of your sensibilities.