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
My information comes from several sources. With regard to Anderson's original orders to do nothing to improve his position and the armistice with the Governor of SC, see the following:
"United States War Department, The War of the Rebellion: Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies" (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1880-1901), Series I, Volume I, page 3-73.
In "Hearts in Conflict", author Anders says that Buell gave unapproved leway to evacuate to Ft. Sumter if physically threatened.
When he was questioned about threats that prompted his move to Ft. Sumter, Anderson claimed that Confederate small boats cruising around Sullivan's island were menacing him, and that those boats caused him to retire to Sumter.
With regard to the quotes from Floyd and Buchanan see:
"Genesis of the Civil War" (New York: J.A. Hill and Company, 1887, pages 143-144), and again, see "War of Rebellion", volume 1, pgs 3-73.
JACOB WARLY, C. S.
You are continuing to post the resolution, but asserting it was law.
Again, where is your documentation?
And if all this is against orders then why did Buchanan try to reinforce and resupply Sumter a month later?
Several sources say that it was to please the hawks in the Republican party.
But the point being lost in your questioning is why would he order the 'Star of the West' in against the opinion of the Attorney General of the United States?
That "quote" is from some girl at a tech school posting on some bulletin board.
Lincoln would be very disappointed in your lack of regard for historical accuracy.
Do us all a favor and read something else other than what you have. Try Mary Boykin Chesnut's memoirs, or Confederate Charleston, by Rosen, or Hearts in Conflict by Anders, or even the War of Rebellion: Official Records. Or try this: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/586505/posts.
Every point in that posting is actually factual.
Insofar regarding your contention that the soldiers at Sumter were starving, that was an "urban legend" developed by the newspapers of the time.
It is well documented that the garrison was being provisioned by boat from the Charleston market until shortly before the Union ships arrived.
To which do you refer?
You seem to have difficulty understanding that not all "duplicity" or "equivocation" is necessarily illegal. (Not that I'm agreeing any such actions actually took place.) Illegal is a word that means in violation of a specific law. Please point out the specific Federal Law that Major Anderson violated by moving his troops to Sumter.
In the words of the men of the time:
"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.'"
How much clearer can that be?
Wrong. The agreement was that Anderson was to discontinue any efforts to improve his position, and that SC would not seize the forts.
And Buchanan kept his part of the bargain until Gist violated the agreement by seizing Fort Moultrie and Castle Pinkney.
Your opinion, and wrong again.
Fort Moultrie and Castle Pinkney were abandoned by the Union troops. Isn't seized a bit of hyperbole? They were unoccupied
After Anderson moved on the 26th, the SC governor telegraphed both the commissioners and the President, strongly requesting that Anderson move back. Buchanan failed to honor the "peace agreement". South Carolina did nothing to violate the agreement, because the agreement was for peace, and peace was occuring in the harbor.
You were listing a series of criticisms of Davis. I pointed out to you that the tax proposal came from the Confederate congress. Davis never proposed or signed a tax law as high as the Union's, and Lincoln did sign higher tax laws into existance. Wiggle as you want, but it doesn't change the facts, nor make you right.
. Seward says that troops won't go to Sumter and you attribute it to Lincoln.
Here is his quote from the 1st inauguration: "...there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere."
So, Lincoln did say that troops weren't going. So did Seward.
The resolution was sufficient. I don't remember if my original mote included that the reason that the US government wanted clear title in the first place was there was a completing claim on the land. The building of the fort would not continue UNTIL the US had clear title to the land. Everyone at the time knew they had clear title. No one advanced your argument at the time. Don't you remember? The so-called seceded states sent commisioners to try and buy the fort. THEY knew who had title. They just didn't care. The very fact that the fort existed at all proves the title was transferred and that South Carolina had in fact ceded complete title to the government.
There is a very detailed discussion of the title for Fort Sumter at:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=sumter+warly&hl=en&rnum=1&selm=e3964cff.0107110828.503758d5%40posting.google.com
If that doesn't work, just go to deja.com and search on "Sumter" and "Warly".
That's what I did.
And you know what the upshot is?
The South Carolinians were no better than common thieves.
You know, it's funny in a way. Many in the north were apathetic about the south's attempt to rend the Union. "Let them go with their slavery and good riddance", many said. Horace Greeley said that a union pinned together with bayonets held no appeal for him.
Firing on Fort Sumter galvanized public opinion in the north. In that, it was much like the attack on Pearl Harbor.
The people who did it were fools.
Walt
As to acting contrary to the advice of cabinet members what president hasn't done that from time to time? No president is bound by their advice.
I pointed out to you that the tax proposal came from the Confederate congress. Davis never proposed or signed a tax law as high as the Union's, and Lincoln did sign higher tax laws into existance.
The higher rates were proposed by Memminger in 1864, Pea. He put forward the proposal for a 20% tax on incomes over $5,000 and 50% on sums of more than $10,000 incomes. The secretary of the treasury did it, Pea, not the confederate congress. I don't have anything to wiggle about.
Here is his quote from the 1st inauguration: "...there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere."
The master of misquotes, aren't you Pea? Let's look at the entire passage in context.
"The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the government, and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion -- no using of force against or among the people anywhere."
Lincoln was doing what he said he would do in his inagural address, no more and no less.
Here is additional proof:
One of the suppliers of the quote you present says this:
Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution provides clear instructions about how and under what circumstances the United States government may acquire title to property located within a state:
Congress shall have the Power To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings.
Another argues:
Article I, section 8, clause 17, cited above, is *not*, repeat not, the controlling constitutional provision in Sumter's case. Because I, 8, 17, refers only to Washington D.C., or *purchased* property, it has absolutely no applicability to Sumter. The correct constitutional provision is I, 8, 1, which gives Congress the legislative authority to "provide for the common defense". This legisaltive authority was given statutary expression on March 20, 1794, when Congress promulgated "An act to Provide for the Defense of certain Ports and Harbors in the United States". Section 3 of that act permits the President to receive cessions from the States. Under this act and under certain specified condtions, the South Carolina legislature, in 1805, ceded the properties in Charleston Harbor that would become Sumter.
This was interpreted to require that when any Federal installation was to be built within the boundaries of the state, the government had to purchase the property (unless it lay within the Public Domain) and the state legislature had to pass a law agreeing to the acquisition of the property.
As made perfectly clear, I, 8, 17 has absoultely no relevance to Sumter.
A contributor continues:
The process was very simple: a state would, through its members of Congress and senators, argue that the National Interest required that a fort be built, such as one in the middle of Charleston Harbor. The necessary legislation would pass Congress and be signed by the President. Then the state legislature would pass a law granting title (if the state owned the property) or affirming title (if the land was privately owned) to the United States. The one general exception was a clause inserted to allow state officials to enter the Federal property to seize fugitives from justice or to serve civil process papers. Depending upon the property in question there might also be affirmations of the right of eminent domain, i.e., if the private owner was unwilling to sell, the property would be appraised and, under the Fifth Amendment, the government would judicially take title, paying the owner the appraised price. In other cases, the states approval was contingent upon the Federal government using the land.
Sumter was ceded under the coastal protection act of 1794; accordingly it was a voluntary offering, and conditions were very speicifically imposed on the cession.
An example of how this worked will make this clearer:
The Brooklyn Navy Yard. The New York State Legislature voluntarily ceded that property to the Federal Government for the purposes of defense with very specific provisions for reclamation by New York should the US default on the terms.
The same process was followed in the acquisition of the various harbor installations in and around Charleston: Fort Moultrie, Castle Pinckney, Charleston Arsenal and fort Sumter.
Your comment: "In the specific case of Fort Sumter, in 1827, the Secretary of War, a man named John C. Calhoun (!) had approved the construction of a new fort in the harbor. The first appropriations were made by Congress in 1828 and construction started on the harbor shoal."
All of this was irrelevant.
At this time the U.S. was already in default of its agreement. The respect and patriotism of South Carolina prevented them from lawfully reclaiming the property. They offered to buy it back rather than facing a losing proposition of lengthy court battles on the eve of secession.
"The result was a state law:
COMMITTEE ON FEDERAL RELATIONS
In the House of Representatives, December 31st, 1836 The Committee on Federal relations, to which was referred the Governors message, relating to the site of Fort Sumter, in the harbour of Charleston, and the report of the Committee on FederalRelations from the Senate on the same subject, beg leave to Report by Resolution:
Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory, Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed....
Resolved, that the Senate do concur. Ordered that it be returned to the House of Representatives, By order:
JACOB WARLY, C. S.
These resolutions augment, and certainly do not supercede, the original conditions and authority of the legislative enactments of 1805.
Sumter was legally owned by South Carolina because of Federal defaults.
And by the way, most of this came from your favorite discussion site, so your sources are also not only wrong, but probably loose with the truth.
You can continue your boorish comments about the South because the bravery of the people of the South was obvious, and the brazen rabble that Lincoln roused to invade the South seem to have some of their offspring lurking around here. Imagine that.
You can continue your boorish comments about the South because the bravery of the people of the South was obvious, and the brazen rabble that Lincoln roused to invade the South seem to have some of their offspring lurking around here. Imagine that.
The American Civil War newsgroup is a great place for information. Many academics post there.
The upshot of the NG thread on Sumter was that enough time had passed since the 1794 acts that when the property was ceded in 1841, the federal government had clear title. It was also said on the NG that the government wouldn't even continue construction unless title were conveyed.
No one had any questions until it came time to throw down Old Glory and rebell against the national authority. It was a United States fort. The property belonged to the United States, not South Carolina.
The people of South Carolina arrogantly thought they dould steal from the people of the United States and they got slam dunked for their trouble.
Walt
In Champaign? Noo, never...
Obviously you have never heard of the Confederate Commissioners who were dispatched to Washington in February of 1861 to arrange for repayment to the Federal governmnet for all monies lost by fort and mint seizures.
Or, are you aware of this fact and just a mule?
I am sure you will be delighted to know that the next month, Lincoln would not meet with them. Seems as if he wasn't too worried about "theft".
That is not the 'upshot'. That is one poster's opinion.
"The people of South Carolina arrogantly thought they dould steal from the people of the United States"
They had been asking to buy the fort since November of 1860, and continued the quest in Washington until April 10, 1860
Fort Sumter was taken, no lives lost, and Anderson and his men sent home. This was the second time in four months that armed forces of the Union were expelled from Charleston Harbor without loss of life. The message was 'don't to to Charleston unless you want to be run off'. But war never came from the first excursion, and wouldn't from the second except for that little thing Lincoln did about calling out the troops.
Sounds as if your 'slam dunk' comparison is based on insufficient reasoning, and more on redneck posturing.
foreverfree
That is not the 'upshot'. That is one poster's opinion.
It was the opinion of a lot of other people too.
The feds stopped construction of the fort until clear title was conveyed. That was in 1841.
But a great many people thought it was U.S. property in 1861 too. Enough people in fact to ensure that the very same flag hauled down on April 15, 1861 was flying over the fort exactly four years later.
Firing on Fort Sumter was a catastrophe for the south. Many in the North WERE ready to let the slave states go, and good riddance. Horace Greeley went from saying that a government pinned together with bayonets had no appeal for him to joining the "On To Richmond!" crowd. The effect of the attack on Sumter and its manner has been likened to the galvanizing effect of the attack on Pearl Harbor. The CSA started stupid and it ended stupid.
Walt
And those opinions are just as irrelevant. See the federal and state laws governing the transaction for the truth.
"The feds stopped construction of the fort until clear title was conveyed. That was in 1841."
So, your post of an act of the SC state Senate in 1836 that you asserted settled the matter, didn't after all, did it.
"But a great many people thought it was U.S. property in 1861 too"
The people at the federal installations could use the property as long as they abided by the regulations outlined in the cessation documents. Those regulations were violated in 1860.
At that time the state of SC and later the Confederacy sent commissioners to Washington to secure and pay for the federal facilities. Lincoln stubbornly refused to see them and peacefully resolve this conflict. His stupidity cost the lives of over 620,000 people.
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.