Statue of Abe Lincoln: "...a slap in the face of a lot of brave men..."

The Cincinnati Enquirer ^ | Friday, December 27, 2002 | AP

[yankeedame]

Friday, December 27, 2002

Lincoln statue won't be embraced by all

The Associated Press

RICHMOND, Va. - Abraham Lincoln is returning to the capital of the Confederacy, much to the chagrin of the Sons of Confederate Veterans.

Five days before the Civil War ended in April 1865, the president and his youngest child, Tad, traveled to still-smoldering Richmond soon after Southern forces abandoned the city in flames. On April 5, 2003, the 138th anniversary of that visit, a bronze statue of the pair commissioned by the United States Historical Society will be unveiled at the Civil War Visitor Center of the National Park Service.

"Here is a national hero, a small boy, and a beautiful city by the James River, all united again," said Robert Kline, chairman of the nonprofit group society, which works on behalf of museums and other groups on projects of historic and artistic value. "This time Lincoln's in Richmond for all time."

Richmond, home to towering statues of Confederacy figures including Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson and J.E.B. Stuart, was abandoned after Union forces led by Gen. Ulysses S. Grant attacked on April 2, 1965.

The Sons of Confederate Veterans view the Lincoln statue as "a slap in the face of a lot of brave men and women who went through four years of unbelievable hell fighting an invasion of Virginia led by President Lincoln," Brag Bowling, the SCV Virginia commander, said Thursday. The group had only recently learned of the statue, and had no immediate plans to protest.

The life-size statue by sculptor David Frech will show Lincoln and his son on a bench against a granite wall. The words "To Bind Up The Nation's Wounds" will be etched into a capstone.

[NittanyLion]

John Calhoun was Vice-President of the United States and New York City is a city in the United States. Calhoun was an Irish-American and Harlem used to be a heavily Irish community. Calhoun also visited New York City, though not in an official capacity.

There's a statue to Mahatma Gandhi in Union Square - and he has a much more tenuous link than Calhoun.

LOL. Fair enough - I'll give you the above. Nevertheless, Lincoln's ties to Richmond are far stronger than Calhoun's to NYC; and the statue is to commemorate an actual event.

[Cogadh na Sith]

Yet, no guilt for the North? Why?

'Cuz the South was willing to destroy the nation itself to perpetuate the old iniquity.

[talleyman]

Just a question: now, who is it that's obsessed with "The War of Northern Agression"? I'll ignore the insults and try to address the issues. You would do well to do the same.
The framers of the Constitution clearly meant for it to be binding on the states in perpetuity. See the Militia Act of 1792 as amended in 1795 and the Judiciary Act of 1789. The Militia Act requires that U.S. law operate in all the states. The Judiciary Act requires that "Controversies of a civil nature" between the states be submitted to the Supreme Court.
Totally irrelevant - the Acts are not part of the Constitution; "in all the states" means those in the union, hence has no bearing on states outside the union, and there was absolutely no civil nature to this particular conflict.
And you cite the Illinois State Journal as legal authority? No wonder you have to resort to insults.

[laotzu]

"followers of Christ were fighting and sacrificing to save people from slavery worked against the south"

Why did the "followers of Christ" in the north keep their slaves after those in the South were freed? It didn't really have anything to do with following Christ, did it?

[Question_Assumptions]

When, if ever, do you think slavery would have been eliminated in the Confederacy?

The Virginia General Assembly was debating that matter when news came of shots fired at Fort Sumter(sp?). Slavery would have been eliminated throughout the nation within decades for the most irresistable reason of all: economics. With the advent of the industrial revolution, it was simply becoming unprofitable.

I agree. This of course opens up another "what if" scenario. What if the Southern states hadn't been pushed into succession?

What do you think the status of blacks would be in the Confederacy today?

Better.

Can you explain? I'm not calling you a liar. I can imagine some scanarios that would have this result. I'm honestly curious how you think they'd be better off. If you can answer this question plausibly, it goes a long way towards killing the charge of being motivated by racism.

How do you think the CSA and USA would have fared through the end of the 19th and through the 20th Century as compared to how the USA really fared?

Several interesting books have been written on that subject. I recommend "If the South Had Won the Civil War" by McKinley Cantor (sp? - it's been many years.) Consensus seems to be that the Russians would still be in Alaska (which may be preferable to the Communists in Berkeley).

Of course if the Russians had held Alaska, any number of other things may have changed that could have prevented communists in Moscow, as well. This sort of speculation is always fun. I guess my main reason for asking this question is that the South has made such critical contributions to American war efforts in the 20th Century that I'm left wondering if the North or the South would have been as strong apart as they've both been together. Could either alone, for example, have pulled of a Manhattan Project or put a man on the Moon?

[laotzu]

"'Cuz the South was willing to destroy the nation itself"

Was the sin slavery, or trying to destroy the nation? This convenient changing of condemnation has the appearance, and sound, of blind hatred.

Footnote: The South did not bring war on the North; it was the other way around. The South merely wanted to leave the North alone.

[talleyman]

"Seeing as how Lincoln was a President of the United States, and Richmond is located in the United States, and the statue is commemorating an event that happened in the United States, I fail to see the problem."

Fine. You like it, you take it. No problem.

[x]

Hamilton did favor protective tariffs. Washington wanted to remain above political disputes but he had no objection to protection. Madison put through our first protective tariff in 1816, and Monroe followed his policy. National defense demanded the development of domestic industries. Even Jackson, a small government man, supported protective tariffs that angered South Carolinians.

A strong argument against protective tariffs was that they would bring in less money than a lower "tariff for revenue only." The opponents of protection often argued that their policies would bring in more money. And it's not clear how much money we are talking about. Tariffs never brought in as much money as the income tax.

Many in early 19th century America thought that the money tariffs brought in could have been used to build roads and canals. This belief carried over into the practices of conservative, limited government Republican Presidents in the 20th century. But up until Wilson and FDR, the effect of tariffs and internal improvements doesn't seem to have been more power for Washington. For New York or Chicago, maybe, but not so much for Washington.

There was a tussle in the capital everytime tariffs were up for a vote, but the charge against the government at the time was that the country was really being run by Wall Street. It was low tariff men, including many Southerners, who expanded the power of the federal government the most in the 20th century.

The South was certainly within its rights opposing tariffs and internal improvements in Congress, but looking back, it might have been better for them to build those roads and canals, either on their own through local taxes or through federal taxation. Forgoing internal development to remain an underdeveloped provider of raw materials for foreign industry doesn't seem to be the wisest choice

[talleyman]

the civil war is over, you lost, get over it.
We are willing to let it go - seems like you're not.

[CyberCowboy777]

Ask those that ran the underground railroad. Ask those in England that worked all their lives to remove the blot of slavery from western civilization. Ask those that housed and fed the slaves that came up from the south. Ask the Pastors who took up collections to support anti-slavery movements and encourage the men to fight for their brothers freedom.


I do not excuse those in the North who violated Gods law in my original comments, I simply point out the fact that many more Christians were praying for the freedom of the slaves and the victory of the North. All other issues that the South may have had were concealed in their Governmental embrace of slavery.

I believe God choose sides because the South refused to immediately and unconditionally free all slaves. If they had done so all other issues would have been valid and history different.

[ContentiousObjector]

if your willing to let go, why the bitching over a statue of Lincoln?

[talleyman]

"What is objectionable to a monument to an American president in an American city? "

"If you don't know, I'm not going to tell you."

[CyberCowboy777]

Would you tell him if he did know?

WAI

[talleyman]

The question really is whether or not Richmond -deserves- a statue of Lincoln.
We don't - we have sinned - please retract your generosity, oh enlightened one! Take our City Council with you. And our Demonrat Governor - we don't deserve them!

[wideawake]

Not really.

WP basically said that the final word on the status of the Confederate States was decided by the Supreme Court.

I proffered Dred Scott as an example of how the Supreme Court can be wrong.

He responded by saying that although Dred was wrong, the anti-Confederate decision was good law.

In reality, the Constitution does not explicitly deny people the right to self-determination, nor does it explicitly guarantee a right to murder children.

So it's best that the Supreme Court not make decisions on matters that are exterior or anterior to its realm of competence.

[talleyman]

"The water rights conferred with the Spanish land grants and the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo mean a lot more to me day-to-day than the civil war."

Then why so hotly into the fray, when you don't have a dog in this fight?

[Polybius]

Bismark was not on the winning side, Mr Wake ....... GGpaX4DumpedTea

Let me get this straight: you're claiming that Prussia lost the Franco-Prussian War...... Explain yourself......wideawake

Maybe Mr. DumpedTea was referring to Bismark's last battle against the young and foolish Wilhelm II.

Or maybe he was referring to the Bismark-Virchow "Sausage Duel":

Otto von Bismarck, enraged by the famous German pathologist Rudolf Virchow's constant criticism in the Bundestag, one day ordered his seconds to arrange a duel. Virchow consented, with a small stipulation:

"As the challenged party, I have the choice of weapons," he explained, "and I choose these two large sausages... One," he continued, "is infected with deadly trichina. The other is perfectly sound. Let His Excellency decide which he wishes to eat, and I shall eat the other."

The Iron Chancellor, informed of the coice of weapons, called the duel off.

Bismarck's Two Defeats:

[Moose4]

I will agree with you about Churchill's quote regarding Lincoln. If he had lived, I do expect that Reconstruction would have been much less savage in the South than it was. John Wilkes Booth was an idiot, and his foolish act couldn't have come at a worse time. If he'd done it, say, after McClellan's failures around Richmond, a time when the North's military prospects were ebbing, things might have gone differently. But killing Lincoln when the war was already basically over only removed the last chance the CSA had to get magnanimous treatment from the USA. (Wouldn't it be interesting to imagine how Lincoln would be seen today if he'd finished out a second term in 1868 instead of being martyred in 1865?)

Look, I don't think Lincoln was the Messiah or the Antichrist--the truth, as often happens, lies in the middle. I don't agree with many of the things he did. I think he had a single, overriding goal--the preservation of the Union--and he wasn't going to let inconvenient little things like state's rights and the Constitution get in his way. (Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. I can sympathize even if I think he handled it wrong.) And, his reputation as some sort of anti-slavery crusader is wrongly earned--the Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in occupied CSA territories, and was obviously largely a political move to (a) get the abolitionists off his back, (b) encourage free blacks to join the cause, and (c) further disrupt the Southern economy by encouraging slaves to escape North to freedom.

I'll grant him his due as the man that preserved the Union. But I sure won't elevate him to mythical status as some sort of demigod. Lincoln was a man. Men make mistakes. He sure made his share.

The question really is whether or not Richmond -deserves- a statue of Lincoln.

You just have to stick that knife in there one more time, don't you Walt?

}:-)4

[Cogadh na Sith]

After all, I'm an American...

With a keen nose for hypocrisy.

[talleyman]

"My ancestors won the Civil War because they all lived in New York and my two ancestors who actually fought in the War fought in US Grant's army."

We don't begrudge a person his ancestors - nobody's perfect.

-"American by birth, Southern by the grace of God"