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
Good idea.
"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, 9/17/87
Walt
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."--Thomas Jefferson 1801
---Timothy Pickering, former chief of staff to George Washington,Massachusetts, 1803
Well, a) Jefferson was not involved with drafting the Constitution. And b), this statement suppports me, not you.
But is that it? That's your only quote from the record?
Best look some more.
Walt
To call the agreement between President Buchanan and Governor Gist a 'treaty' is a bit of hyperbole on your part, isn't it Pea? After all treaties are approved by the senate and negotiated between soverign nations. South Carolina had not rebelled yet.
But regardless of what you call it, it was merely an agreement between Buchanan and Wiliam Gist that Buchanan would ignore requests for reinforcements if Gist would guarantee the safety of government property. And Buchanan kept his part of the bargain until Gist violated the agreement by seizing Fort Moultrie and Castle Pinkney.
Your claims that Anderson ignored or violated orders are wrong. The Secretary of War had sent Major Don Carlos Buell to Charleston in December to gague the situation. In his written instructions to Anderson, Major Buell had suggested that Anderson concentrate his command at whatever fort Anderson deemed "most proper to increase its power of resistance." Major Buell cautioned Anderson that he should do so only in the event of "tangible evidence of a desing to proceed to a hostile act" against his garrison and cautioned Anderson to "not allow the opportunity to escape."
Three days after South Carolina declared rebellion, the Secretary of War sent a cabinet directive to Anderson ordering him to "exercise sound military discretion" and to avoid "useless sacrifice" on the part of his command. In light of these instructions Anderson acted in the manner he thought best safegarded his command and secession was all the incentive necessary for Anderson to take action. After Anderson had followed his orders, Gist violated his agreement with Buchanan by seizing federal facilities. Buchanan was no longer bound by the agreement and sent reinforcements in January.
---Timothy Pickering, former chief of staff to George Washington,Massachusetts, 1803
This doesn't support you either--if you believe the secessionists acted under law.
I don't believe Pickering would be daft enough to suppose the principles of '76 involved legality, because British law was in effect at that time, don't you know.
>Walt
Please reference the UN Constitution. Any treaty signed by the President must be consented to by the Senate before it qualifies as a treaty.
Please stop using the word treaty to refer to this interim agreement. It was no such thing. It is possible for the US President to enter into agreements without them being a treaty, and for that matter without them having the force of law.
that lost 1/3 of the nation because constitutionally they had the right to do so?
Not up to par on this question, could you answer this. I heard the South would have needed a Admendment to withdraw from the Union is this what Lincoln wanted or what the Consituition demanded or another?
No, its just a load of crap to call it legal, proper or moral.
Too, the word 'secession' wasn't used in 1776, so you shouldn't use it either.
Walt
Because it's a guaranteed right under the 10th Amendment in spirit and letter of the Constitution
It is false to say it is in the letter of the Constitution.
As to the 'spirit' of the 10th amendment, under any reading by which the states retain a right to secession, the people retain a right to maintain the Union in perpetuity.
So far, that is exactly what they have done.
Frankly, you don't even sound rational.
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.