Lincoln Statue Subjected to Unusually Undignified Vandalism

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

"It is more a testimony to the piss-poor pitiful quality of confederate artillery than any sort of care being shown on the part of the rebels to control casualties. IMHO, of course."

ROTFLMAO! Excellent point (such inaccuracy would never happen today though).

"But the important factor is that the confederates DID open fire first. The question is why? What was threatened?"

Considering that the South had seceded and reclaimed their sovereignity, the Fort we are discussing was hundreds of miles into the territory now claimed by the South. And of course they fired first. Why? Consider Pearl Harbor in 1941. Would you wait until a foreign government sent planes smashing into your ships and destroyed the bulk of your fleet before firing? Was there a legitimate reason for hundreds of Japanese planes to be flying over US territory? If we had sufficient warning of the attack, would it have been wrong for the US to defend it's property from attack before the targets were reached? If a Iraqi plane is headed toward you, or towards American soil, with an unknown cargo, do we have to wait until it drops the bomb before it's ok to shoot it down? Would it have been wrong for the USS Cole to destroy the attacking boat before it hit?

"Even with the reinforcements and supplies could Sumter have threatened the survival of the confederacy? Could the 500 or so men in the fort launched an invasion of South Carolina? Would closing the third largest port in the south caused irreparable economic harm? Had the troops in Sumter issued any threat at all? The answer to all those is no. "

With our knowledge after the fact, I might tend to agree with you. The question is did the South know at the time, and would you allow a FORT to be restocked and retained by a foreign force?

I'm not praising the actions of either side, I think that both sides made mistakes. FWIW, that's why I find it incredible that Lincoln was so willing to force the South to remain, and that so many lives would be lost. Not just Southern, but Northern as well. Would the Union have self-destructed if the South had been allowed to leave? No. Would the South have ever returned to the Union? Possibly. Would the South have been a enemy of the North? I doubt it.

"So why the rush to open fire if not because you wanted a war all along?"

Why the rush to stock the fort, if not to start the war?

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

YOU:

That was during the war.

Sumter was not fired upon until mid april, 1861. Lincoln was inaugurated on March 4, 1861. Sumter, by all reasonable means, was the start of the war as it marked the first significant event in which a battle, albeit minor, occurred. For that reason, it is said that the shots fired at sumter started the war. You yourself have acknowledged this by noting the confederacy to have fired those shots.

In fact, the war, in sense, was well underway.

Was it? Then tell me, what battles occurred before Sumter? And no, a group of rabble rousing texans killing a pro-yankee mexican does not constitute a ballot, nor do a few shots at a tugboat.

It began when South Carolina hauled down Old Glory and put up a different flag.

That's a political act, not a war. A war entails two military forces combatting each other. This did not significantly occur until sumter.

But you attempt to dodge a big bullet here.

I beg to differ and in fact note that it is you making such an attempt by playing games to push back the war's starting date in order to save your hero Lincoln from the truth about what he himself said in his inaugural address.

You -know- unless you are blithering, that I was referring to at least 1848, when Congressman Lincoln drafted legislation to eliminate slavery in DC

Just as I was referring to March 4, 1861, when president lincoln endorsed an amendment to constitutionally protect and perpetuate slavery. So what's your point?

and when he was making speeches favoring the gradual elimination of slavery--well before the war.

Sure he was. But simultaneously he was making statements indicating somewhat different views on slavery before the war, and even openly endorsing an amendment that would have perpetuated slavery indefinately before the war.

How anyone can spout this contra-historical nonsense

That is a matter for you to consider asking yourself, as I am truly clueless as to how you could be so willfully blind to the documented historical fact that Lincoln was a flawed character just like anybody else, and his flaws included significant flaws in the area of slavery.

when our troops are in contact with enemies who would cut all our throats is beyond me.

And what exactly do you mean by that? Are you somehow suggesting that I am not entitled to historically debate Lincoln due to the fact that we are currently in a war? If so, your assertion is an absurd cheap shot and nothing more.

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

And assertions of politically motivated demagogic appeals to a current state of war in order to rescue oneself from the misfortune of being on the wrong side of the truth in a debate actively engages in stupidity. So what's your point?

And so does belittling our greatest president and statesman.

So I don't have a right to historically criticize Abe Lincoln based on the historical records of his political carreer? Excuse me for saying so, but who gave you the authority to take away that right from me? And since when does your pitiful little opinion of Lincoln constitute fact on which to ground a charge of treason?

I doubt you will answer me on this as you know as well as I do that you are behaving in an absurd manner. Calling names may work in your pre-school view of history. Sorry Walt, but this is the real world and pre-schoolers such as yourself need not apply. If you can't take the heat of the factually oriented arguments that I offer before you, well, you know the rest...

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. - me

YOU:

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.

1. Potentially, but it's a lot more complex than that. If provisions were cut off (which they were not), there remained the issue of reenforcements in the form of warships sent by Lincoln to forcefully reach, provision, and reenforce the fort. If they had not fired on Sumter, they would have had to fire on Lincoln's warships Harriet Lane, Pawnee, and Pocahontas or else the fort would have been reprovisioned, meaning shots would have been fired anyway.

2. Do I take it then that you are now conceding the point that Sumter was not on the brink of starvation? 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.

Quod gratis asseritur gratis negatur.

In the meantime, I think it pertainent to note that Beauregard repeatedly attempted to negotiate the peaceful surrender of the fort and even offered Anderson the opportunity to set the terms. Lincoln ordered Anderson to hold the fort and sent warships to further that purpose. Therefore to suggest that Davis randomly ordered a shot fired to cause an incident when there could have been another way is historically ignorant, overly simplistic, and intellectually dishonest.

From GOPcapitalist:

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."

FROM YOU, INDICATING YOUR PURPORTED RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE:
I said: And that is simply not true by any fair reading of these events.

But wait, that is NOT what your actual response to my above statement was. Your actual response said, and I quote, "Your statement that Lincoln opposed slavery only as a war measure is simply NOT supported in the record."

In that case, you are SPECIFICALLY attributing a statement to me (as in "your statement that...") which I did not make (I did not say "lincoln opposed slavery only as a war measure," I said "Lincoln was perfectly willing to tolerate slavery where it existed and only moved to end it as a war time strategy."). That makes it a straw man - you attributed an argument to me that I did not make. It resembled one I made but differed in key elements as your attributed argument is less specific and accordingly weaker than the argument I actually made. Hence, you are guilty of constructing scarecrows.

So it is hardly a straw man to quote you and then refute what you say

Indeed, that would not be a straw man. But that is not what you did as you did not quote me. Instead you generalized and modified my argument, then restated it in terms where it had been altered. That makes it a straw man.

but it is getting sort of comical to cover the same ground over and over

Indeed it is, just as your increasingly desparate debate tactics are becoming quite comical themselves.

but that is the nature of these vanities regarding poor old Lincoln.

Perhaps where you are involved, in which case I would not be surprised.

Now, it is simply -not- fair to say that Lincoln only became interested in the slavery issue in 1861.

Indeed it would not be fair to say that, but that is a moot point as nobody ever said that other than you in denouncing it.

He opposed slavery throughout his life.

Yet he was willing to endorse a constitutional amendment designed to perpetuate, protect, and even expand its presence...

But we can continue to spin this out as long as you like.

You can continue spinning it all you want. I need only respond by directly citing the plane historical fact of Lincoln's endorsement of the amendment.

Well, that is simply not true.

Simply calling something untrue does not make it so. Quod gratis asseritur gratis negatur.

First of all, as I said before, the war was already on when Lincoln took the oath of office.

How so? I know of no formal military engagements prior to Sumter, and no, a skirmish between two band of ruffians does not count as a military engagement. For there to be a war, there must be military engagement.

Additionally, you yourself have placed the first shot at Sumter by the confederates, which would seem to recognize that shot to be the first official shot of the war. This contradicts your assertion that the war was already going on. Sorry Walt, but you can't have it both ways. It was in December, 1860 when South Carolina denounced Old Glory.

That's a political act, not a war.

And in January, State troops fired on the 'Star of the West'.

That's an isolated skirmish, not a war.

And it is simply false to say that Lincoln "undertook" government actions, since he was was not even in office prior to taking the oath, as would seem obvious.

Lincoln's was indeed in office when he undertook the actions I refer to. His first action in office was his inaugural address, which he used to endorse the pro-slavery amendment. And even on that occasion, all he said was: "I cannot be ignorant of the fact that many worthy and patriotic citizens are desirous of having the national Constitution amended. While I make no recommendation of amendments, I fully recognize the rightful authority of the people over the whole subject, to be exercised in either of the modes prescribed in the instrument itself; and I should, under existing circumstances, favor rather than oppose a fair opportunity being afforded the people to act upon it."

ALL he said? Not so. Lincoln continued, as you have been made aware of on countless occasions though it appears you have paid attention to not one of them, perhaps intentionally..."I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution—which amendment, however, I have not seen—has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable."

So you are trying to make a case in the record that simply cannot be made.

On the contrary. I am using the record to make my case for me, as it clearly does just that. Getting you in your stubbornness and perpetual intellectual dishonesty to actually READ the record...well, that's another story. And as I said, in that, you have ONLY yourself to blame as I have been more than accomodating.

But don't let me stop you from plunging ahead and wrecking your credibility.

Why should I pay attention to a lecture on credibility as given by a person who has thoroughly demonstrated that he himself possesses not the good of which he speaks?

Lincoln said himself on many occasions that his bedrock oposition was that slavery not be allowed in the territories.

That he may have said, but he also said he had no objections to an amendment that would specifically allow and protect slavery in those territories after they became states.

That is why the slave holders bolted.

If that is why they bolted, why then did they not cease from bolting upon recieving notification that this supposed objection of theirs had been reconciled in a constitutional amendment that permitted slavery in those territories after they became states?

Too, you can only sound like a fool to characterize Lincoln as "enthusiastic" on the proposed 13th amendment.

I would tend to think that a fool would be a person who denies Lincoln's support of that amendment in clear conflict with the written record of Lincoln himself rather than the person who simply notes that record's existence and lets that record speak for itself.

" Lincoln repeatedly said that all men should be free-Lee said the best relationship between black and white was that of master and slave."

He also said something else I found interesting...

"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race." - Lincoln, 8/17/1858. So much for BEFORE the war, but what about DURING the war?

"You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races." - Lincoln, 8/1862

Read it and weep, Walt, cause those are the written statements of Lincoln.

Lincoln's position towards blacks was nowhere near as moral, equality based, freedom oriented, or anti-slavery as you have repeatedly asserted it to be.

The record simply DOES support that, whether you like it or not.

But the important factor is that the confederates DID open fire first. The question is why? What was threatened?

Let's just imagine you in south carolina's shoes for a seconde...you just declared your independence as a state with a new government which you elected, yet the army of the old government INSISTS without compromise that it is still entitled to camp out with an arsenal on a piece of your land smack dab in the middle of the entrance to your biggest seaport. Further, when you ask him kindly to leave, he responds by saying "make me" and calls for a fleet of warships to reinforce him. Tell me then, do you feel threatened? Do you want the old army's presence there to continue?

Even with the reinforcements and supplies could Sumter have threatened the survival of the confederacy?

Probably not, but it certainly could have severely impeded commerce into and out of charleston, one of the main ports in the confederacy and the single main port of south carolina. That aside, it all comes down to the fort's proper use, owner, and function. Any way you look at it, it's on south carolina's land. It guard's south carolina's seaport. It is of absolutely no use whatsoever to the northern government for any purpose other than the less than honorable motive of impeding commerce into a port of another.

Simply put, the north had no business being in Sumter unless that business was to cause trouble with the south.

Could the 500 or so men in the fort launched an invasion of South Carolina?

Most likely not, but they could have severely impeded commerce into the state, not to mention the fact that they had no other business or interest in being there other than to be a force that is capable of impeding that commerce.

Would closing the third largest port in the south caused irreparable economic harm?

It certainly wouldn't help.

Had the troops in Sumter issued any threat at all?

Lincoln sure did. He did so in the form of ordering 3 warships to "provision" the fort after repeated and perfectly peaceful requests by the southerners to the fort's occupants that they leave the garrison, and in doing so be given safe passage home without interference. In fact, they were even given safe passage home without interference after the battle!

The answer to all those is no.

Not exactly, and to suggest otherwise is to grossly oversimplify the situation. So why the rush to open fire if not because you wanted a war all along?

Because (1) peaceful requests for the turnover of the fort had been made since the preceding december, (2) occupants of the fort had repeatedly indicated that they would not leave without a fight as they had been ordered to stay put, (3) occupants of the fort had no business being there in the first place other than to retain the capability to cause trouble for southern commerce, and (4) Lincoln had dispatched three warships to reprovision the fort with increase ammunition and supplies, indicating preparation for future and increased military capabilities.

Or, if you wish, we can make an analogy. Suppose you had recently bought yourself a new house, yet when you moved in, the previous occupants were still residing in a van parked in your driveway. Now suppose that the van threatened to completely shut off your driveway from any access by you and its occupants had indicated that they would bash the hood in on any car you tried to park in the vicinity of their van. Further, lets suppose that the van's occupants were completely unwilling to leave despite the fact that you had made several polite requests of them and even invited them in for dinner on occasion. And to make matters worse, what if you knew that they were storing ammunition in the van and, on top of that, a bunch of redneck friends were driving in from out of state with more ammo with the intent of joining them on your driveway. Tell me, if faced with this scenario, would you take action to get the van moved?

If you are sane, probably. You would probably call the police to come tow them. But what if we suppose that this hypothetical situation exists in a state where there are no police, and all such matters are left entirely to you to enforce. See where I'm getting at?

The people in the van have no place being in your driveway in the first place. Similarly, the yankees in fort sumter had no place being in the middle of charleston south carolina's harbor in the first place. Additionally, the presence of both is at least an inconvenience if not a greater threat, and it also happens to be a presence that is unwilling to remove itself and in fact is staked in ready to use force to impede any who try to make it leave. And on top of that, there are reenforcements coming to them soon to help them stake it out and fight, plus no authority other than yourself to make them leave. So what do you do? You make them leave!

That is exactly what South Carolina did, and for that I can in no way fault them.

Considering that the South had seceded and reclaimed their sovereignity, the Fort we are discussing was hundreds of miles into the territory now claimed by the South.

That is the sort of half-assed, half-baked argument that neo-confederates must resort to. The historical record in no way supports it. The people are the sovereigns of the United States, and the "south" had no right to act unilaterally.

That was made clear very early in the national life. Justice James Wilson wrote in Chisholm v. Georgia, 1793:

"Who were these people? They were the citizens of thirteen states, each of which had a separate constitution and government, and all of which were connected by articles of confederation. To the purposes of public strength and felicity the confederacy was totally inadequate. A requistion on the several states terminated its legislative authority; executive or judicial authority, it had none.

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."

Chief Justice John Marshall, 1819, writing the majority opinion in McCullough v. Virginia

"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..."

It just sort of seems, well, cheesy, to wait decades and then say you don't agree. And it is cheesy and dishonorable to post, in malevolence something that one knows the record simply will not support.

Now, I know you have seen these court cases before. I do not post them for your benefit. But they can only serve to embarrass you, and this nonsensical neo-confederate rant.

Walt

Oh my goodness, am I now supposed to throw up my hands and say, "Jiminy Crcket, I've been wrong all along!"

That's your job, as the record clearly shows.

"But to be plain, you are dissatisfied with me about the negro. Quite likely there is a difference of opinion between you and myself upon that subject. I certainly wish that all men could be free, while I suppose that you do not."

8/23/63

"I am naturally anti-slavery. If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong. I can not remember when I did not so think, and feel."

4/4/64

"it is also unsatisfactory to some that the elective franchise is not given to the colored man. I would myself prefer that it were now conferred on the very intelligent, and on those who serve our cause as soldiers."

4/11/65

And think about this:

"Viewed from the genuine abolition ground, Mr. Lincoln seemed tardy, cold, dull and indifferent; but measuring him by the sentiment of his country, a sentiment he was bound as a statesman to consult, he was swift, zealous, radical and determined."

--Frederick Douglass

Your position will not stand the most cursory glance at the complete record.

Walt

Lincoln's position towards blacks was nowhere near as moral, equality based, freedom oriented, or anti-slavery as you have repeatedly asserted it to be.

But it was.

4/11/65

What could be more fair than that?

Your attack on Lincoln and the record puts me in mind of something else he said:

"...peace does not appear as distant as it did. I hope it will come soon, and come to stay; and so come as to worth the keeping in all future time. It will have then been proved that, among free men, there can be no successful appeal from the ballot to the bullet; and that they who take such appeal are sure to lose their case, and pay the cost. And then, there will be some black men, who can remember that, with silent tongue, and clenched teeth, and steady eye, and well-poised bayonet they have helped mankind on to this great consumation; while, I fear, there will be some white ones, unable to forget that, with malignant heart, and deceitful speech, have strove to hinder it. Still let us not be over-sanguine of a speedy final triumph. Let us be quite sober. Let us dilligently apply the means, never doubting that a just God, in his own good time, will give us the rightful result."

8/23/63

Walt

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.