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
But it's not my assertion that Wilson was for dissolving a Union. It was Jefferson's own words referring to Wilson et al.
The proposed Constitution, therefore, is, in strictness, neither a national nor a federal Constitution, but a composition of both. In its foundation it is federal, not national; in the sources from which the ordinary powers of the government are drawn, it is partly federal and partly national; in the operation of these powers, it is national, not federal; in the extent of them, again, it is federal, not national; and, finally, in the authoritative mode of introducing amendments, it is neither wholly federal nor wholly national.
I defer to those who have more time and expertise to say just what it means and how it fits in with Madison's later views and the views of the other founders.
We both agree that Jefferson was affirming his belief in free speech and his unwillingness to jail people over differences of opinion*. Was he doing more than that? Was he saying that his opponents could nullify the laws Congress passed or leave the union if they didn't like his policies? I don't know and can't say with any certainty what he was thinking.
In Jefferson's heart was the conviction that he himself would never do anything to threaten or abridge the Constitution, and that his opponents would, if they were allowed to. Therefore, while he might be denounced verbally, he would not give his opponents legitimate grounds for rebellion or secession or nullification as he understood them. Jefferson would not be the first statesman or politician to view the world in this way. This was the source of his great conviction and passion. His opponents would use the word hypocrisy.
Indeed, he did have an ace up his sleeve: a state might threaten to leave if the federal government were too oppressive, but would not do so if it were not repressive enough. Since he viewed the hard-core Federalists as tyrannical and his own party as libertarian, could he have expected that the threat of secession that he had used against the Federalists could be used against his own administration?
Did Jefferson forsee that his opponents would view him as a tyrant? They did during the Embargo crisis. Did he imagine that the ideas he had promoted against the Federalists could be used against himself? How did he react when they were?
In any event Jefferson was more of a friend to ideas of nullification and secession than many of our other Founding Fathers. I'm going to read more about him and I'd appreciate feedback from others.
_______________
*It should be noted that his appeal was to more moderate and independent voters. "We are all federalists. We are all republicans." But not "Federalists," since he still believed hid more convinced opponents were enemies of republicanism and a danger to the Constitution and the republic.
Close enough.
Walt
It doesn't exclude hobbits either. ;o)
Either the new government was formed illegally or it wasn't. You tell me what it means. If there are 13 states at the time as members of the union, and the AoC requires ALL of them to agree to changes, it must mean just that - to change it. To secede from it, or dissolve it required "zero" states to agree.
Be that as it may, you did have some excellent ideas. If you really want to understand about states rights and the fear of an oppressive federal government, read the debates about the second amendment, and the quotes by the founders on the subject. They were petrified by the idea of the federal government having a standing army. Good luck.
I merely responded to that which you posted.
But-Why don't you demostrate that Lincoln had NO reservations over endorsing this amendment.
"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." - Lincoln, 1st inaugural.
That ought to keep you busy for a while.
To demonstrate my assertion? Nah. It took all of five seconds. To demonstrate it to you? well, that is another story as I must first convince you to remove your fingers from your ears and blindfold from your eyes, and that is something that could take centuries. Considering that your condition is self imposed, I don't see any reason for spending an inadequite ammount of time dealing with it, as that is only something you can do, meaning you have nobody other than yourself to blame.
Oh, and can you 'cite'your specifics?
Gladly, as I always do. See March 4, 1861. I gave you a direct quotation. Lincoln said he had absolutely no objections to the amendment. He expressed a desire to see it made irrevocable. Live with it.
Faulty analogy. There is a great difference between standing to defend what is yours from an invading foreign army and being that foreign army while trying to defend your encampment on the land of the people you are trying to invade, as was the case at Sumter.
Leaving out the parts of your argument that aren't true or proven
Specifics please.
Firing the first shot, Toombs warned, would be "suicide, murder. . . . You will wantonly strike a hornets' nest which extends from mountains to ocean. Legions now quiet will swarm out and sting us to death. It is unnecessary. It puts us in the wrong. It is fatal." Sounds like Toombs was right.
Sure he was. Firing the first shot gives a great psychological message to both sides. Unfortunately, that shot had been actively provoked out of the south by Lincoln, so while the psychological damage was recieved by the south by giving the north a cause to fight, that alone does not make the north in the right.
Was that the 'habit' of owning other people, or some other habit?
Just saw the movie. It does rock.
Walt
I asked if he had reservations. Dodges won't help.
Walt
Mockingly calling a two masted merchant sidewheeler a tug boat after you tried to portray it as a major warship is hardly a misstatement of fact. It's a simple figure of speech, which makes me wonder as to how you could be so dense as to fail to understand it. Now willfully ignoring history to facilitate your annointing of Lincoln as a secular saint...well...THAT is a misstatement of fact, as the record clearly shows.
Initially in post 148, and several times afterward since then, not that you've bothered yourself with actually reading much less rebutting any of them.
You mean in this thread? Indeed I do.
Well, this is a long thread
That it is, and for someone who has posted so much on this thread, you have said amazingly little.
so if you could refer me to the number of the note, I'd appreciate it.
It's about time, seeing as how you have yet to read the original post despite posting dozens of "replies" to it and subsequent ones. Then again, I do not anticipate you will read it now, as you do not read or acknowledge what you do not want to hear.
Do I take it that now you are changing your position, considering that you stated earlier that the war started the previous december?
How did we get off on this? I forget.
You stated the war began in december, contradicting what you stated above.
Well, that's just a damned lie, isn't it?
Show me where I said the "Star" was a major warship.
Walt
Is it? Cause all i'm trying to do is establish accuracy. You asserted that slave holders fired the first shot, and that is an assertion you cannot specifically document as the answer is not known. A similar question on the other end of the war is known to have an answer though. As to whether or not the conquering general who negotiated the southern surrender was practitioner of slavery, the answer is indisputably yes.
In other words, there is some question as to whether or not the firer of the first shot was a practitioner of slavery. But as to the man who recieved Lee's surrender, the answer is indisputably yes.
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.