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
To say that the man that wrote the Delcaration of Independence had no influence on the signers of the Constitution is beyond naive. And the fact that he formed the documents for Kentucky's ratification of the same said document that were accepted by the federal government tells me that not only did he have a grasp of the document but was thought highly enough by his peers to be elected POTUS in 1800. BTW, he was President when Massachusetts started secession proceedings and didn't have a problem with it. Matter of fact, wished them well in their endeavors
TwoBit, Sgt 1st Louisana Zouaves, Co. D, CSA
Did you know that the CA/OR border is the western extension of the Mason-Dixon Line?
Dittos to what you said, but I'd be a little harder. Nearly all the Southern legislatures were controlled lock, stock and barrel by the big slaveholders.
Some claim the war was an economic war of the industrial North against the agricultural South as if the agriculture side was a bunch of small farmers. That is nonsense. The controlling forces in the South were major landholders who had personal wealth that rivaled any Northern industrialist and millions to gain from the expansion of slavery. The Southern wealth was gained with the chain, the lash, the blood, and the freedom of other humans. That is a fundamentally un-American system and after ‘four-score and five’, the charade that it was “American” could no longer be entertained. The South had no moral or constitutional ground the stand on so they resorted to force. Despots always do resort to force, and Slavers, no matter what their excuse is, are always despots.
Then you could show that in the record.
Where are the letters going back and forth that demonstrate this? Jefferson was in France. It would have been very difficult for him to have any input to the give and take debates of the Constitutional Convention.
Now, you obviously don't find your position very worthy or compelling, or you'd put in the type of research that I have.
Walt
BTW, have you seen this: "No Gettysburg - An Alternative History." I hardly know what to make of it, though it's clear that the author spent a lot of time on it. He captures the expansionist, imperialist and militarist tendencies that were present in the Confederacy underneath the libertarian rhetoric and Jeffersonian veneer, but he overestimates the degree of social stability that the Confederacy, or for that matter the US, would have had, if the war had gone differently. He supposes that, contrary to many neo-confederates, slavery would not have been abolished by the victorious CSA on the end of the war, but underestimates the costs of letting slavery live on for generations.
A time-waster to be sure, but some may be interested.
It is often easier to look back and point out a previous error than to look forward and know what the future entails. So what's your point?
The territory was enormous, etc. Territory was enormous, but I am curious as to what you speak of in the "etc." The south did have a number of advantages in the war. Territorially, they were indeed huge (but that also means bigger coastline to defend etc). They had an advantage in military leadership. But they lacked severely in population and industrialization. The essentially yankees won the war by overwhelming the south with both. I direct you to the commentary made by grant and lee at appomatox if you doubt me - the confederates were starved for able bodied men at the time, lacking in proper equipment, and without food. The yankees had full provisions, plenty of expendable men, and enough food to feed themselves AND the entire confederate army. In the end, the war came down to population and resources, which were a northern advantage.
And that was probably true. But the CSA leadership never developed a grand strategy
Most historians would tend to differ with you on that and for a good reason. The war came down to manpower and resources. The north had superiority in both. The amazing thing is just how hard the confederates made it for the northerners to conquer. Some of this is evidenced in the far higher northern casualty figures than were those found in the south. That is because northern troops were plenty and expendable. Southern troops were not.
and its military leaders bumgled away any chance of military victory.
Considering that you are defending the north, I do not believe you are in much of a position to accuse other military leaders of "bumgling."
Now, people will now begin pounding their key boards. Who should we hold up as successful CSA generals? Pemberton? Bragg? Joe Johnston? John Bell Hood? Okay, how about Lee? He usually gets a good press. But what Lee did was dissapate his force in offensive operations, where prudence could have kept him going much longer. Oddly, he eschewed George Washington's policy of maintaining his army intact and picking his actions for a policy that guaranteed heavy casualties he could ill afford. Look at Antietam. Except for McClellan''s blundering, he would have been crushed, and he still took heavy casualties. In the Seven Days Battles, he took more casualties every day than McClellan did. Onlly Little Mac's timidity made him look good. And Gettysburg...well or course he wrecked his army at Gettysburg. Lee's reputation mostly hangs on one battle--Chancellorsville. And that was a great victory for him.
Weighing the successes of individual generals is by no means an easy task. Take Hood for example. He entered the war and soared on one brilliant victory after another, all the way to Chickamaugua. But then, as the old saying goes, Hood "played hell in Tennessee." From there on out it was over for the general with loss after loss, in part due to his possession of a war ravaged army that was quickly losing ground to superior union numbers and resources.
I noticed you neglected to mention Jackson and Stuart all together, nor did you say a word of Lee's solid victories at Fredericksburg (over the "bumgling" of Burnside) and 2nd Manassas, not to mention his continued foiling of yankee attempts to force a decisive battle at spotsylvania courthouse, wilderness etc. in the closing days of the war.
And on the topic of "bumgled" decisions, let's add a little balance to the equation. Even Lee's worst mistakes do not compare to several major cases of northern idiocy. Good ole Ambrose Burnside had a bad habit of marching his men across narrow water crossings and the sort straight into the mowdown range of confederate fire. And McClellan? The guy couldn't even figure out where he was going much less how to get there. Ironically, his defenders at the time likened him to Belisarius, blaming his ineffectiveness on none other than your boy Lincoln, a modern Justinian who was impeding his general more than anything (which makes me wonder about your position on this controversy over your side's early leading commander and one of its most prominent generals pitted against your favorite president. Who do you side with? Cause both of them could not have been "right"). Or what about the entire union flotilla of warships that fell victim to a confederate force of only 43 irish dockworkers led by a mere lieutenant who decided to disobey his orders and hold his position? Or of Stuart's legendary calvalry circumnavigation? Confederate victories against superior union numbers are legendary throughout the war. Yet remarkably few cases exist where small unequiped bands of union soldiers forced the surrender of entire confederate forces. Why is that, Walt? Surely it mustn't have something to do with the failings of union leadership? But then again, you would not concede any such failing no matter how evident it is because you skew history to your side to a degree of absurdity. You never do mention anything historical that is inconsistant with your often misguided personal assertions. That is because you selectively bend your way through history and actively shape it to your worldview. It's intellectual dishonesty at its worst.
As I noted once before, in light of the above statement may I conclude that your are conceding your inability to "marshal the facts" based upon the presence of a large number of personal insults contained within your posts from the very beginning of this discussion forward?
So I take it from the above that, when faced with the challenge to substantiate your repeated accusations of factual inaccuracy, the best you can come up with is the fact that I figuratively referred to a merchant sidewheeler you had earlier implied to be a warship as a "tug boat"?
That in itself speaks vollumes of exactly where you stand in this debate, Walt. And despite your instistance otherwise, you stand on the shaky ground of intellectual dishonesty.
...and that is where Madison comes in. Madison, the "father of the constitution," provided Jefferson's voice at the convention as he related many of Jefferson's positions in his own. In addition, constitutional delegates Clymer, Franklin, Gerry, Robert Morris, Read, Sherman, Wilson, and Wythe had all signed the Declaration of Independence.
...and that is where Madison comes in. Madison, the "father of the constitution," provided Jefferson's voice at the convention as he related many of Jefferson's positions in his own. In addition, constitutional delegates Clymer, Franklin, Gerry, Robert Morris, Read, Sherman, Wilson, and Wythe had all signed the Declaration of Independence.
That is the -lamest- crap I ever heard in my life. Jefferson was a utpoian, a dreamer, and not one given to seeing things the way they are. Madison, on the other hand, was very pragmatic.
Well, maybe this is the voice of Jefferson:
"The [constitutional] convention was slow to tackle the problem of an army, defense, and internal police. The Virginia Plan said nothing about a standing army, but it did say that the national government could 'call forth the force of the union against any member of the Union failing to fulfill its duty under the articles thereof.' The delegates had expected to discuss something like this clause, for one of the great problems had been the inability of the old Congress to enforce its laws. Surely it should be able to march troops into states when necessary to get state governments to obey.
But in the days before the convention opened Madison had been thinking it over, and he had concluded that the idea was a mistake. You might well march your troops into Georgia or Connecticut, but then what? Could you really force a legislature to disgorge money at bayonet point? 'The use of force against a state,' Madison said, as the debate started on May 31, 'would be more like a declaration of war, than an infliction of punishment, and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound.' Although he did not say so at the moment, he had another way of enforcing national law, which not only would be more effective, but also philosophically sounder. As the government was to derive its power from the people, it ought to act on the people directly. Instead of trying to punish a state, which was, after all, an abstraction, for failure to obey the law, the U.S. government could punish individuals directly. Some person -- a governor, a tax collector, a state treasurer -- would be held responsible for failure to deliver the taxes. Similarly, the national government would not punish a state government for allowing say, illegal deals with Indians over western lands, but would directly punish the people making the deals. All of this seemed eminently sensible to the convention and early in the debate on the Virginia Plan the power of the national government to 'call forth the power of the Union' was dropped. And so was the idea that the government should be able to compell the states disappeared from the convention. It is rather surprising, in view of the fact that the convention had been called mainly to curb the independence of the states, that the concept went out so easily. The explanation is, in part, that the states' righters were glad to see it go; and in part that Madison's logic was persuasive: it is hard to arrest an abstraction."
"Decision in Philadelphia" by Collier annd Collier
There is no right to unilateral state secession in the record. It is drawn from whole cloth--a fabric of lies.
Walt
That is the -lamest- crap I ever heard in my life.
What? The indisputable historical fact that Madison voiced Jefferson's input? Or the indisputable historical fact that several signers of the declaration were also delegates to the constitutional convention? Then again, I suppose you would consider those facts to be "lame crap" since they contradict your intellectually dishonest world view of historical revisionism and agenda-oriented historical selectivity.
Jefferson was a utpoian, a dreamer, and not one given to seeing things the way they are. Madison, on the other hand, was very pragmatic.
So what? The fact is indisputable that Madison acted for Jefferson at that convention. The two corresponded during the convention extensively and Madison based his arguments heavily on the suggestions of Jefferson.
Not that you would care that the two corresponded though, considering that you practice a bizarre concept of selective history in which everything that even remotely suggests agreement with you is indisputable "proof" of your worldview, while that historical evidence in contradiction with your opinion is conscientiously neglected from your consideration.
The size of armies alone does not mean parity. You must also consider what is there to replenish those armies as the inevitable casualties come. If one side has a huge population base behind it, 300,000 can be mowed down by an enemy who comparatively loses only 200,000 of its own. But if the guy who loses 200,000 has no population behind him, eventually the guy who lost 300,000 will overwhelm him, which is exactly what happened in the civil war: even though the south took out something like 100,000 more yankees than did the north take out confederates, the north still won because they had superior population numbers to sustain them through the war.
In addition, Southerners were all drafted for the duration, and Northerners served on average only about a year.
Yet another indicator of the odds being against the south. The north had enough manpower to do this. The south did not. Soldiers who fight for the duration get a lot more worn down by the war's end than do those only serving a year.
Yet, the casualty numbers you seem to allude to do not exist. The kill ratios are within 10% of parity and given the south fought most of the war on the defensive, that just doesn't figure until you realize that the stomach to win was simply not present in the south as a whole.
I am not certain as to what statistics you are refering to, but most historical estimates put souther casualties at 258,000 compared to northern ones at 361,000. Direct immediate battle deaths for the south are at 94,000 compared to 111,000 for the north. Death from battle inflicted wounds and diseases is similarly high on the northern end, even though the confederates lacked the continuous medical supplies posessed by the north. About 164,000 confederates died from wounds and disease, compared to about 250,000 yankees. The statistics are clear: more yankees died in the war than did confederates. Over 100,000 more, to be specific. That is hardly anywhere near the "10% in parity" you speak of.
And that was probably true. But the CSA leadership never developed a grand strategy
In some ways, no they did not. In others, they had a very clear strategy oriented around (a) the defense and continuation of the confederate government in Richmond and (b) achieving a decisive victory inside the boundaries of a northern state, as was attempted in Antietam and Gettysburg.
Most historians sell what people want to read, not the simple truth.
May I ask then upon what authority or source do you base your opinion, which seems to contradict a clear historical consensus?
If you go back to the literature written on the war following the war, you will find this point quite clearly brought forth by many southerners.
If that is so, the burden lies upon you to provide such a source and make the argument you do with that source. Until then...
Again, you are talking nonsense about numbers. Yankee armies in the field on many occassions were not as organized or as numerous as you imply.
I am citing a total calculation of casualty reports for each side directly compiled from each battle. On the confederate side during the appomatox campaign, this also includes "missing" reports due to the fact that records of exact casualties from these battles (i.e. wilderness, cold harbor) are limited and therefore persons missing were presumed dead. That is hardly a "nonsense" figure. If you dispute the numbers I gave above, please provide some alternative numbers and the method that arrived at them, as well as your reasons for disputing my numbers. Simply saying "well, historians write what they can sell and some anonymous account published a few years after the war says otherwise" does not cut it.
Again, many more Northerners served, but not for long.
Which is PRECISELY the problem. A fully replenishable army will eventually wear down a non-replenishable one given time, no matter how many more members of the replenishable army are killed by the non-replenishable one than are suffered by that same army. From day one Hood was a man killer. He fought with great elan but depleted his resources far too quickly and with little wisdom. He never changed.
As I said, the south's inability to replenish its resources compared to the north was what won the war for the north. So far you have actually assisted my argument. I ask then, if we are in agreement over this point, why are you arguing it?
Lee's Fredericksburg was not at all solid, but lucky. Burnside's mistake was one taken with the counsels of his fellow officers, and if you have ever walked at Fredericksburg the error becomes entirely understandable.
I have walked Fredericksburg and what Burnside did was virtual suicide. I additionally do not see how you could make the above assertion had you yourself walked the battlefield and Marye's heights. Burnside marched his soldiers two by two over the Rappahanock right into a confederate firing squad. They were literally mowed down from confederate positions along the sunken road. Add an elevated battery on top of it all, and Burnside was toast. Lee's success there came from his ability to anticipate what Burnside was doing, which was essentially a by-the-book conventional attack in an unconventional situation.
Lee's position was nearly an optical illusion, and it looks far weaker than it really was.
I take it then that you did not ascend the steep hill with all the cannons on top of it when you visited, nor did you cross the sunken road right next to the visitor center, nor did you read the sign pointing out there were groundworks along it and provided by it. In all honesty, I am seriously beginning to wonder if you are talking about the battlefield you think you are. There were 4 of them fought in about a 10 mile radius from there, you know, which means you probably visited more than one of them if and when you stopped by there. In case your memory needs a little jogging, Fredericksburg was the one early in the war. The confederates took a defensive position on a large hill located right next to where the visitor center is today. It also has a cemetary on top of it with casualties buried there. It was also covered in gun emplacements. There's a road in between the hill and the visitor center. It was sunken at the time and had groundwork and fence along it, providing a defensive position from which to shoot. It all looks out across the area from which Burnside made his assault. The river is beyond that. The position controlling the battlefield could not be more clear. That is why Lee used it. It's effectiveness was also proven in battle. 10,000 yankee casualties occurred in the charge on Marye's heights, and not one of them even made it to the wall along the sunken road before the hill.
As for the rest of the battle, had Meade been properly supported on the Yankee left
...there's always the "had beens" about battles, and I have a feeling you would be kicking and screaming and jumping all over me if I made a similar assertion pertaining to "had beens" at Gettysburg. But unfortunately, history doesn't work that way.
when he broke the Confederate line in two
Meade did not "break the line." That entails a fight through the line. Meade conveniently walked in an area between two stretched out positions, both of them solidly in confederate hands and virtually impregnable, at a point in between where no fighting existed. His action was not even during the main part of the battle, which occurred in the yankee suicide run on Marye's heights. In addition, Jackson repulsed what made it through of Meade's force when confederate reinforcements arrived.
Even if Meade had been reinforced, it is unlikely that it would have turned the battle - at most, only reduced the union casualties slightly. That is because a key problem lied in getting the troops over the river. Franklin had a southern bridge, while Burnside focused on the northern one. The northern bridge took them straight into the heights, which basically controlled the entire position with its batteries. The heights, as has been noted, were impregnable during the battle and no yankee even made it within 100 feet of the confederate defensive position on them. the day would have gone very differently indeed.
Not likely. Most of the battle had already been fought and lost by the union at Marye's heights. 10,000 of the 12,000 union casualties came from Burnside's assault on it. In addition, any reinforcements to Meade that crossed the Rappahannock and joined him quickly enough before the confederates moved in would have eventually been met by confederate reinforcements and fought, at best, to a standstill while never even coming anywhere close to taking the heights. To assert otherwise in light of what happened when the larger main union force tried to attack the heights is wishful thinking at best. Meade literally would have had to pull off a Dick Dowling to make that happen, and as his actions throughout the war indicated, he was nowhere near that lucky or capable.
There is no greater intellectual dishonesty than that which attempts to make a silk purse out of the wretched sow's ear of the Confederacy.
Ah, but claiming the confederacy constitutes sow's ear is inherently your own subjective judgment. Intellectual dishonesty occurs in the realm of factuality, not in the realm of personal opinion. You may hate the confederacy and think it to be all bad - that's your opinion which you are entitled to. But others find honorable things did exist in the confederacy. Yes, it had its blemishes in slavery. But so did the north in its slave trade, its factory conditions, its war camps, its slave owning generals grant and sherman, and its war crimes committed against southern civilians. So to claim that the north was some morally pure force taking on the evil that was the south cannot in any reasonable sense be said as something factual.
The truth is that the history of that period has long been cooked by this simple minded pro southern infantile mythology.
If that is so, I suspect you won't mind providing evidence? Or is your evidence similar to your presentation of Fredericksburg: perfectly clear in your own mind, but flat out absurd in the real world. As for simple mindedness, I would tend to think that those who pass off the civil war as something as simple as a "morally pure" north sweeping in to "liberate" the "eeeevvviiiillll" that was the south are the ones taking the simple minded view of things. The civil war was far more complex than persons of that outlook could even begin to imagine.
We have come a long way from the days that the economic collapse of the south and the barbaric and disgusting society that caused it have fallen into their deserved moldy graves.
Have we? How about the barbaric and disgusting society of the north at the time? You know, the slave trade, the factories, the war crimes committed against southern civilians throughout the war and during the reconstruction period, you name it. And have we as a society moved away from barbarism all together? Slavery may have ended in america, but barbarism is still there. It's there in things like abortion, and ironically the most pro-abortion areas of the nation are in the northeast.
Time to put away childish and stupid things and grow up.
I suggest you take your own advice, as it is you who are propagating a childish elementary school rendition of the civil war while simultaneously refusing to consider the enormously complex intricacies surrounding it.
Be an American. Be proud.
I am an American and, to a degree, I am proud of some aspects of our country. Other aspects of it, or more specifically, its government and those who run it, repulse me.
Give up the garbage of lost traitors and illiterate white trash
It is interesting that you speak of garbage propagated by illiterates, considering that your view of the civil war, not mine, seems to be the more simplistic and grade school of the two. Similarly, your knowledge of at least one specific battle is weak at best, and rests entirely around your speculation about an event that never even happened. That too suggests the less educated understanding of that particular battle between the two of us. So why is it that you imply a lack of education on my end of the argument, when, at least as far as the above comments are concerned, the more educated position seems to be on my side of this argument? And in addition, why is it you feel the need to interject an unrelated skin color into this debate, seeing as we have not even taken up in detail any of the race related issues of the war?
"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 - Lincoln, 8/17/1858.
Well, that statement is not well supported in the record. - Walt
"that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes" - Lincoln, 8/17/1858.
Well, that statement is not well supported in the record. - Walt
"nor of qualifying them to hold office" - Lincoln, 8/17/1858.
Well, that statement is not well supported in the record. - Walt
"nor to intermarry with white people;" - Lincoln, 8/17/1858.
Well, that statement is not well supported in the record. - Walt
"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." - Lincoln, 8/17/1858.
Well, that statement is not well supported in the record. - Walt
"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.
Well, that statement is not well supported in the record. - Walt
As I have noted before, Walt does not support himself by the record. He argues WITH the record.
"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 - Lincoln, 8/17/1858.
Well, that statement is not well supported in the record. - Walt
"that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes" - Lincoln, 8/17/1858.
Well, that statement is not well supported in the record. - Walt
"nor of qualifying them to hold office" - Lincoln, 8/17/1858. Well, that statement is not well supported in the record. - Walt
"nor to intermarry with white people;" - Lincoln, 8/17/1858.
Well, that statement is not well supported in the record. - Walt
"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." - Lincoln, 8/17/1858.
Well, that statement is not well supported in the record. - Walt
"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.
Well, that statement is not well supported in the record. - Walt
As I have noted before, Walt does not support himself by the record. He argues WITH the record.
Well, it's plain you are interested in disinformation. I caught you in some hyperbole and some errors of fact, and N-S also turned up some things that were clearly flat wrng.
And you've made a clear error of fact in this note and quite a wllful one, too.
I -never- denied that Lincoln said any of these things.
What I said plainly--that it was not well documented in the record to say-- was that it was not correct to say that he only adopted an anti-slavery stance as a war measure. This weird perversion of yours won't get you much support, except among your small coterie of neo-confederate crazies.
You also said that I made some errors of fact. I challenged you to document one, and you come back with this lame stuff.
There is no doubt that Lincoln's attitudes about blacks changed over time. You choose quotes from 1858 because Lincoln's later statements don't suit you. This is willful disinformation on your part. I know you've seen the many quotes of Lincoln's that show how he grew over time. Too bad the USSR is defunct, TASS would have loved you.
Here are some Lincoln quotes, not for your benefit, but for the lurkers:
"This is essentially a people's contest. On the side of the Union, it is a struggle for maintaining in the world, that form, and substance of government, whose leading object is, to elevate the condition of men -- to lift artificial weights from all shoulders -- to clear the paths of laudable pursuit for all -- to afford all, an unfettered start, and a fair chance, in the race of life. Yielding to partial, and temporary departures, from necessity, this is the leading object of the government for whose existance we contend."
7/4/61
"Why should they give their lives for us, with full notice of our purpose to betray them?" he retorted. "Drive back to the support of the rebellion the physical force which the colored people now give, and promise us, and neither the present, or any incoming administration can save the Union." To others he said it even more emphatically. "This is not a question of sentiment or taste, but one of physical force which may be measured and estimated. Keep it and you can save the Union. Throw it away, and the Union goes with it."
-Lincoln's Men, p. 164 by William C. Davis
"But negroes, like other people, act upon motives. Why should they do anything for us, if we will do nothing for them? If they stake their lives for us, they must be prompted by the strongest motive--even the promise of freedom. And the promise being made, must be kept."
August 23, 1863
"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."
April 11, 1865
And I think this is a very telling passage.
"Lincoln had Douglass shown in at once. "Here is my friend Douglass," the President announced when Douglass entered the room. "I am glad to see you," Lincoln told him. "I saw you in the crowd today, listening to my address." He added, "there is no man in the country whose opinion I value more than yours. I want to know what you think of it." Douglass said he was impressed: he thought it "a sacred effort." "I am glad you liked it." Lincoln said, and he watched as Douglass passed down the [receiving] line.
--"With Malice Toward None, p. 412 by Stephen Oates.
And here's another:
"After the interview was over, Douglass left the White House with a growing respect for Lincoln. He was "the first great man that I talked with in the United States freely," Douglass said later, "who in no single instance reminded me of the difference between himself and myself, of the difference of color."
ibid, p. 357
Abraham Lincoln was a great and good man. He deserves every iota of the acolades and remembrances that have been showered over him through the years.
"Pronouncing the death of the Old South, he [Henry Grady]lauded the New South of Union and freedom and progress. And he offered Lincoln as the vibrant symbol not alone of reconciliation but of American character. "Lincoln," he said, "comprehended within himself all the strength, and gentleness, all the majesty and grace of the republic." He was indeed, the first American, "the sum of Puritan and Cavalier, in whose ardentnature were fused the virtues of both, and in whose great soul the faults ofboth were lost."
--From "Lincoln in American Memory" by Merrill D. Peterson P. 46-48
Now, your last message, purported to show my statements, as anyone can see, if taken out of context
I can only assume you did it with a bitter heart. I sincerely hope that you'll be able to take a more reasoned and fair view of these events and I wish you a happy holiday season, and BEAT MIGHIGAN!!!
FIGHT WITH ALL YOUR MIGHT!
FOR THE ORANGE AND WHITE!
Walt
If such proof exists, you haven't shown it.
Walt
"In 1861, Charleston Harbor held several batteries such as Fort Johnson, Castle Pinckney and Fort Moultrie. Also in the harbor was Fort Sumter which as under the command of Maj. Anderson. On November 9, 1860 the United States Flag was taken down at all the batteries and the South Carolina state flag was raised. After seeing this, Maj. Anderson sent word to Washington asking for additional troops and started his men erecting defenses. His hopes of additional men were dashed as the Star Of The West, carrying two hundred men, was fired upon by both the battery on Morris Island and Fort Moultrie, striking it twice. The Star of the West turned and left Charleston Harbor. On April 11, Gen. Beauregard sent his aides, Col. James Chestnut and Capt. Stephen Lee to deliver an ultimatum to Maj. Anderson. In it Beauregard specified that he would facilitate the removal of weapons and supplies from the fort, send personal items to any location desired but Anderson was to evacuate Sumter immediately. Anderson replied that his honor prevented him from doing so. He also informed Beauregard that the matter may be taken out of his hands anyway if they (the Confederates) didn’t batter down the walls, the Union soldiers would starved out anyway in a few days."
I think you are a little confused. And you shouldn't call people liars unless you can back it up.
Walt
140 posted on 12/17/01 7:20 PM Eastern by WhiskeyPapa -------------------------------------------------------
"On November 9, 1860 the United States Flag was taken down at all the batteries and the South Carolina state flag was raised. After seeing this, Maj. Anderson sent word to Washington asking for additional troops and started his men erecting defenses. His hopes of additional men were dashed as the Star Of The West, carrying two hundred men, was fired upon by both the battery on Morris Island and Fort Moultrie, striking it twice."
(MY comment) Now, Walt, your 10 second research, which is characteristic of your efforts to get at the truth shown in most of your opinions, is interesting. Would you please give your soruces for this quote.
(Your comment) I didnt make this quote, so I have no idea what you are talking about. I am way too lazy to look it up, but seems like the SC secession was agreed to on December 6, 1860.
Walt
275 posted on 12/19/01 11:29 PM Eastern by WhiskeyPapa
------------------------------------------
Well, Walt, looks like it was your comment after all. So, let's have the source, because it will prove that Anderson's improvements were occuring in November, and were stopped by the treaty of December 6, 1860. This makes Anderson aware of the treaty, and his move to Ft. Sumter illegal.
Or do you just not want to make Abner Doubleday a liar, and Lincoln a terrorist.
Your comment: You continue to make simple errors of fact. I suppose this is due to the fact that you simply are not that familiar with the record. In point of fact, SC had ceded the property the fort was built on to the federal government in perpetuity.
IN SENATE, December 21st, 1836
Resolved, that the Senate do concur. Ordered that it be returned to the House of Representatives, By order: JACOB WARLY, C. S.
Walt, this is the report of a bill out of the SC Senate. This is not an act of South Carolina. If you have the act, show us the documentation.
When Major Anderson, who apparently was not privy to Lincoln's secret plans, failed to evacuate, the fort was fired upon and eventually fell into the hands of the Confederacy on 13 April 1861 after thirty-three hours of bombardment. According to U.S. Army Captain Montgomery C. Meigs, "This is the beginning of the war which every statesman and soldier has foreseen since the passage of the South Carolina ordinance of secession."
Meigs' testimony, preserved in print by the U.S. Government itself, very candidly locates the responsibility of the bloodshed soon to come, not with the Confederates, but "in the office of the President." The violation of the armistice was, as Meigs would state in March of 1865, "an Executive act, unknown at the time to any but those engaged therein, including General Scott, the Secretary of State, and the President."
After realizing that he had been used by the Lincoln Administration to lull the Confederate Commissioners into a false sense of security, Judge Campbell likewise wrote the following words to Seward on the thirteenth of April:
"I think no candid man will read over what I have written, and consider for a moment what is going on at Sumter, but will agree that the equivocating conduct of the Administration, as measured and interpreted in connection with these promises, is the proximate cause of the great calamity." "I have a profound conviction that the telegrams of the 8th of April of General Beauregard, and of the 10th of April of General Walker, the Secretary of War, can be referred to nothing else than their belief that there has been systematic duplicity practiced on them through me. It is under an impressive sense of the weight of this responsibility that I submit to you these things for your explanation."
Evidence of illegal moves, my original contention, from the words of people of the time.
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.