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
Yeah. Well, personal attacks have to suffice when you can't marshal the facts.
Walt
So it looks like the Confederacy was worse than Mao's China or Franco's Spain at least in this respect, that it did not trust to law and diplomacy but chose the path of force, as did Indonesia in East Timor, India in Goa and Germany in Danzig. A bit more patience, statesmanship and foresight and you could have had independence and all the troubles it would have brought between classes and races and competing states and confederations or you could have arranged things within the Union to your satisfaction.
The Confederacy had suceeded in getting most of the federal installations evacuated. They could have existed and built a nation leaving a token federal post intact until a more general settlement had been reached. Given all that it took to defeat the Confederacy, it would be a mistake to think that Sumter and its small garrison posed a real threat to the Confederacy.
But it wasn't to be. Either Davis wanted a war to consolidate his power and pull the upper South into his orbit, or the Confederates were simply betrayed by their own overheated rhetoric, or both. This failure is pretty typical of the movement, for it was always "our sovereignty" and "our rights" raised to absolutes at the expense of other people's rights and freedoms. It was always a crisis demanding immediate action, and never a question of patient work towards a goal. And then when things go wrong, it's the cries of victimization. Those who bait bears or wrestle with lions, shouldn't be surprised if they get mauled.
There is one kind of rhetoric one uses in fighting against a real oppressor, and another that one uses in trying to get a "civil divorce" from a relationship that isn't working. The problem then, and the problem now, is that Southern nationalists have always used the first language -- the language of oppression and victimization and "no alternative" -- when that hardly described their real situation. Defeat in the war only convinced some that the language of victimization and oppression was the right one, and that was exactly the wrong lesson to learn.
In any event, these debates have been going around and around without any resolution achieved or any in sight. Something new comes up sometimes, but for the most part the arguments and assertions are already familiar to all and haven't had much effect.
So you thought it possible that a slave holder (Ruffin being an outspoken proponent of the peculiar institution) did in fact fire the first shot of the ACW, but you tried to obscure that possibility. Typical.
Walt
They were between a rock and a hard place.
Walt
You repeat that often of others yet never do you explain what facts are supposedly in error. Similarly, you take an entirely different approach to your own factual errors.
In this particular case, I noted that historically, various southern offers were made to compensate the north in exchange for taking possessions of certain federal lands located in their borders. Lincoln's position in response was the uncompromisable stance of demanding to retain them all.
I suppose this is due to the fact that you simply are not that familiar with the record.
In light of your unwillingness to even consider items of record that do not coincide with your historically inaccurate worldview surrounding Lincoln, for you of all people to question the familiarity of others with the historical record reeks of hypocrisy.
Name one.
Walt
Show that I have considered these items and then discarded them.
In point of fact, your use of phrases like "tug boat" and "warship" show that you are guilty of some pretty mighty hyperbole. But then you pretty much have to, as your position won't stand being compared to the clear historical record.
Walt
Why is it that I have the strange feeling that in your mind "calling it what it was" is also identical to your position in this argument?
Fort Sumter was a federal Army post located in Charleston harbor. It was built on a man-made island, funded out of the U.S. treasury, and manned by U.S. Army troops.
That's nice and all, but still beside the point. The point of the matter was that the north had absolutely no reason to be there other than one, that being the use of the port to obstruct entrance into a port that was not theirs. If you can demonstrate any other purpose, other than obstruction of the harbor, for maintaining a northern garrison at the entrance of a southern harbor 3 states away from the nearest northern border at a time when hostilities existed between the two, please do so.
By the time that Lincoln was inagurated it was also one of two federal posts that the south had not siezed.
Hence the issue surrounding it...
As such, and given the public statements that Lincoln had been making ever since South Carolina rebelled, Lincoln had little choice in the matter.
In other words, since Lincoln had made a speech or two saying he wouldn't give up Sumter, he therefore had no option to give up sumter? Sorry, but simple speeches are not written in stone, especially for politicians like Lincoln. And if the matter was not as clear cut as lincoln asserted it to be in his speech, he never should have taken the position in the first place. Simply put, your argument that Lincoln was somehow "bound" to retain sumter because of a speech he made pledging to do so is in itself absurd. There was absolutely nothing preventing Lincoln from altering his position...other than a desire to provoke the confederates into attacking a northern garrison that should not have been there in the first place.
He could either allow the rebellion to succeed or hang on to Sumter by whatever means necessary.
So the loss of a simple fort by Lincoln would have meant the success of secession? If that is the case and secession's success hinged entirely on who controlled fort sumter, why didn't secession suceed a few days later when the fort was surrendered?
Sumter was also a symbol for Davis and his government as well. Davis was not interested in a peaceful resolution to the situation unless it included southern independence.
Considering that Davis believed that independence to be a political right of his state and others who chose to do so, i suppose you are correct. But on the flip side, it could also be said that Sumter was a symbol for Lincoln, and that Lincoln was not interested in a peaceful resolution to the situation unless it included the complete submission of the southern part of the country to a political situation completely opposite of the one that they had democratically chosen, that being to cease its political affiliation with lincoln's part of the country.
This is evident by their boycott of the Washington Peace Conference called by Virginia. They sent commissioners to see Lincoln not, as you claim, to offer to pay for the federal facilities they had seized You are constructing a straw man. I never claimed that south carolina specifically sent commissioners to the washington peace conference to pay for federal facilities. I simply noted the fact that on repeated occasions during secession, various federal lands were offered to be compensated for.
And they began mustering an army of 100,000 men - over 5 times the size of the U.S. Army.
Can you blame them considering that Lincoln was basically telling them that they could not govern themselves independently of him even though they had democratically chosen to do so, and was simultaneously threatening to forcefully prevent them from doing so if they tried?
In addition, I find your presentation of the secession events to be extremely one-sided. For you to assert that Davis sought a war for X reason, you must at least simultaneously acknowledge that Lincoln's uncompromisable positions in no way helped the situation and in fact further provoked the south. I will similarly concede that my own position is biased towards the south, but in the very least I can recognize that the south took the bait for war. So yes, they too were itching for war. But no less so than Lincoln, who actively provoked them into it.
What a colossal, narcissistic, obscenity he was, and at such an early age. As a graduate of the Law School, I am particularly saddened and repulsed. Given the temper of The University then, it is most odd that he wasn't shot down like a mad dog, for his "rejoicing". So often, in history, "tolerance" is suicide. He did not speak for "the southern generation. . . ": He spoke only for his sick, seething lust for power.
My point is that, even in 1869, the north clearly dominated and controlled the government of the united states whereas the defeated south was under the presence of "reconstruction" governments.
Supreme Court always rules on the legality of actions after the fact.
That it does. I'm simply noting that the impartiality of any aspect of the united states government in the period during the civil war and immediately after is highly questionable. I say this due to the clear northern dominance of that government and to the widespread political suppression of certain viewpoints that occurred during and after the civil war by those in power.
It cannot, by law, issue advisory rulings on pending actions.
Nor did I ever say that it could. So what's your point?
Your second claim
Second claim? Did I miss something, cause i'm not sure what you are attributing to me as my first claim.
that Lincoln arrested Supreme Court Justices who didn't agree with him - is clearly wrong and I would like to challenge you to name those that he did arrest.
You are incorrect. Lincoln issued an arrest warrant for Roger Taney, chief justice of the United States Supreme court, after Taney authored the opinion of ex Parte Merryman in 1861. Taney's opinion rebuked Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus which, according to court precedent, was a power of the legislature and not the executive.
The commander at Sumter had informed Washington in March that he would have to surrender within 6 weeks if his command was not reprovisioned. What little food was coming from shore ended on the orders of the confederate government on April 2nd. Your claim is false.
Your information is false and, I suspect, originates largely from a common myth that was started by factually challenged muckraker writer Ida Tarbell a century ago, and has tended to stick ever since.
The March letter to Lincoln, which Tarbell incorrectly claimed to suggest that Sumter had only a week or two of food left, in fact noted the presence of "biscuit and pork" provisions which, alone, could sustain the garrison unaided for about a month. The misquoted figure results from a misreading of Anderson's letter where he notes simply that, if the confederates layed siege to the fort they would be able to "batter us to pieces" and if that did not succeed, they could take the option of starving the garrison out.
As for the garrison's specific provisions, Charleston provided them without any difficulties from December through April, up until only a few days before the battle. If we presuming that up until early April, since Charleston had provided the food for the garrison until then, the garrison's stores which were stated at about a month's worth of supplies only a few days earlier were still at about that level. As for your assertion of "what little food" came from Charleston, it is historically inaccurate as Anderson himself wrote of the Charleston provisions in a letter to Pickens in late March, "I am satisfied with the existing arrangement" and further specified that he "did not solicit any modification" of it.
And as I pointed out earlier, war was even more important for Davis
Was it? Cause that seems to be a matter of contested opinion, more than it is a statement of fact. In fact, Davis's comments from the time, especially in his departure speech from the senate, indicated a desire simply that the south be left alone:
"I am sure I feel no hostility toward you, Senators from the North. I am sure there is not one of you, whatever sharp discussion there may have been between us, to whom I cannot now say, in the presence of my God, I wish you well; and such, I feel, is the feeling of the people whom I represent toward those whom you represent. I, therefore, feel that I but express their desire when I say I hope, and they hope, for peaceable relations with you, though we must part. They may be mutually beneficial to us in the future, as they have been in the past, if you so will it. The reverse may bring disaster on every portion of the country, and, if you will have it thus, we will invoke the God of our fathers, who delivered them from the power of the lion, to protect us from the ravages of the bear" - Davis' farewell speech to the senate
Considering the source of the above statement, I tend to be skeptical of the assertion. Most likely the issue fails to involve whether or not a different side was offered in those books, but rather involves the openness of one particular individual to acknowledge and consider that different side when it is presented, no matter what its historical merits may be. As evidenced by that individual's behavior here, history matters not when it contradicts his annointing of Lincoln as the secular diety of anti-slavery.
I'll concede that AT TIMES you do offer SOME data to support your positions, but that is by no means often. You regularly state your position then assume it to be irrefutable fact simply because you stated it. Simultaneously you refuse to even consider alternative arguments against that position, even in cases where the alternative argument is supported by evidence that is stronger than that supporting your claim.
I really try and maintain an even tone and avoid personal attacks, as the website specifically enjoins us to do.
I have no doubt you do give it an effort, but by no means do you live by it. To some degree, that is the nature of heated debates, though I would characterize you as quicker to step over that line than most.
You do often strike my funny bone though.
Believe me, the feeling is mutual pertaining to you.
Show that I have considered these items and then discarded them.- walt
I have no need to do so, as showing you to have discarded them presumes that you first considered them, which you have not done so in the first place. This is evidenced by (a) your refusal to address them and (b) your continual posting of information in direct contradiction with them despite you having been given the opportunity to correct your position with the historical record.
In point of fact, your use of phrases like "tug boat" and "warship" show that you are guilty of some pretty mighty hyperbole.
Only in kind, as a response to your own exaggerations. But as far as they go, I think it is generally true that the star of the west resembled a tug boat far more closely than it did a ship of war.
But then you pretty much have to, as your position won't stand being compared to the clear historical record.
Quod gratis asseritur gratis negatur.
Quite on the contrary, and for you to assert the above is an exercise in blatant dishonesty. I very clearly noted that a slave holder's firing the first shot was a matter of debate, whereas a slave holder's acceptance of the south's surrender is an irrefutable historical fact.
As proof of your dishonesty, i point you to post 360 where I clearly and directly acknowledged the possibility you refer to. From that, I quote "there is some question as to whether or not the firer of the first shot was a practitioner of slavery."
Typical.
The only thing typical here is your dishonest representation of my statements. That is becoming a regular practice of yours.
That's nice and all, but unless Lincoln was offering as a gesture of good faith to defend the ports of his neighbor to the south, your said function of those forts of providing common defense was not an issue in 1861, meaning Lincoln's troops had no purpose being there other than one of disingenuous nature.
And Sumter was built by the federal government using stone shipped in to create an Island.
Sure it was, but where is it said that when a country literally splits into two halves, one half gets to keep ALL of that country's federal possessions including those located in the other half, while that second half gets nothing? Common sense dictates that the half in which property X lies gets to keep property X, especially considering that the other half has no _legitimate_ practical use of a military installment inside of its counterpart.
A bit of consideration of the complexities of the situation would have been advisable, rather than resorting to force.
Ideally, yes. But considering that Lincoln indicated early on that he was of the uncompromisable position that the north gets to keep all, and the south gets nothing, such consideration of those complexities was not feasible.
So it looks like the Confederacy was worse than Mao's China or Franco's Spain at least in this respect, that it did not trust to law and diplomacy but chose the path of force
How so? The confederacy only resorted to force after the other side indicated that no ammount of diplomacy would facilitate the turnover of the property. South Carolina actively attempted to arrange the peaceful turnover of the fort from Anderson from December 1860 until April of 1861, and only resorted to force after Lincoln sent a fleet of three warships to "provision" the fort with military supplies and troops. In other words, they actively tried negotiation, but the other side was simply unwilling to negotiate.
A bit more patience, statesmanship and foresight and you could have had independence
Could it have? Even though Lincoln asserted a position that he would never permit independence and would fight a war to stop it? And even though Lincoln's only response to attempted southern negotiation of the turnover of the fort was to send a fleet of warships to increase that fort's garrison?
The Confederacy had suceeded in getting most of the federal installations evacuated.
Indeed, except for the one blocking the entrance to one of their single most important ports.
They could have existed and built a nation leaving a token federal post intact until a more general settlement had been reached.
As I asked earlier, what settlement would that have been? Had they simply left Sumter as it was prior to April, they would have effectively been sitting there watching while Lincoln sailed war fleets into the harbor and stocked the thing full of men and weapons. Cause that is exactly what Lincoln was trying to do when the confederates opened fire.
Given all that it took to defeat the Confederacy, it would be a mistake to think that Sumter and its small garrison posed a real threat to the Confederacy.
What makes you think that Lincoln would not have attempted a march on Richmond anyway had sumter been left alone and ignored? He certainly indicated that was what he wanted to do.
Either Davis wanted a war to consolidate his power and pull the upper South into his orbit, or the Confederates were simply betrayed by their own overheated rhetoric, or both.
False dilemma. You neglect a contributing factor possibility, namely that Lincoln literally provoked the confederates into firing.
Name one. - walt
See above regarding your response to your straw man argument, which I called you on.
Yeah. Well, personal attacks have to suffice when you can't marshal the facts.
Do I take it that you are conceding your problems with factuality? I guess I would have to agree with you then. The high number of personal attacks in your posts suffice to fill in the large gap between your small contributions to this discussion and the vollumes you have written while posting in it.
You certainly implied as much when you asserted that shots exchanged at the ship constituted a war.
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.