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.

[CyberCowboy777]

What do you know about President Zachary Taylor?

It seems he had is own battle with the South over slavery and they threatened secession. Surrounding slavery in the territories of New Mexico and California . This was 11 years before Lincolns term.

[wardaddy]

Nothing.

But that is not the point. I admittedly assume they have chosen to place Abe and Todd in Richmond to make a political statement and if so then they should be aware of political grumblings or fallout.

Placing a statue of Ronald Reagan in Harvard Square or Sheridan Square would probably evoke similar grumblings but from different quarters.

Do you know for example if there is a statue of Edward Longshanks in Edinburgh as a comparison?

[talleyman]

"Also, I believe our "merry band of states" were fighting for freedom, not fighting to limit freedom."

'T'was the Union that fought to limit freedom, not the other way around.

[wardaddy]

That was below the belt Dirt...lol.

[talleyman]

The Supreme Court ruled in 1862 that the "so-called Confederate states" to use the court's phrase), were violating the Constitution.
They must have read it in the Illinois St. Journal

[dirtboy]

That was below the belt Dirt...lol.

True enough, I saw the point the poster was trying to make, but I couldn't resist a jab to the nether regions when he left himself that open...

[Cogadh na Sith]

Do you know for example if there is a statue of Edward Longshanks in Edinburgh as a comparison?

No. Again, as with Lee and the rebs--He Lost.

Your comparison should be that there are numerous statues and monuments to William Wallace in a wholly conquered Scotland.

If you win, you get to build the statues where you want. It is as simple as that.

[CyberCowboy777]

Preserving Slavery is Fighting for Freedom?

Yes and "bleeding Kansas" was really about the railroad.

[talleyman]

Could either alone, for example, have pulled of a Manhattan Project or put a man on the Moon?
Probably not.
Regarding your question re: my answer of "better", I believe that blacks in general in the South would have suffered less animosity. Many of the vanquished whites who lived through Reconstruction viewed blacks (unfairly) as symbols and tools of the North's revenge. In reality, the occupying forces had no love for either, and were happy to pit one against the other. Whites and blacks were(and are)inextricably connected in the social fabric of the South, and most likely would have had an easier path to the present without the bitterness engendered by Reconstruction. Who knows?

[talleyman]

"I believe God choose sides because the South refused to immediately and unconditionally free all slaves."

The North did likewise - how was this the determining factor?

[4CJ]

Words should read "To Bind Up The Nation meanwhile destroy the Republic" instead. I just pray one day the actual legacy of lincoln is taught in our classrooms, instead of the rosy Socialist view painted by slanted historians

BUMP! Which is exactly why the seek to suppress the truth, instead of welcoming it with open arms.

[talleyman]

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

Because they didn't offer a statue of Cadillac to go with it?

Because they're determined to ram it down our throats, that's why. (That's how "The War" started, as I recall.)

[4CJ]

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

Years ago, I was faced with the decision of a lifetime - how honest must I be with my fiancee? I went to my pastor and confided in him, the sordid story of my ancestry, and the fear of it's revalation upon my beloved.

My ancestors included Confederates, a yankee, numerous murderers, rapists, arsonists, a pedophile, congressmen and lawyers.

He advised me not to tell her about the yankee.

[CyberCowboy777]

20 years before the Civil War the North was working in Government and in private to stop the spread of slavery. This as a beginning to the end of the practice, using the same format as England.

After the war the North passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which established Negroes as American citizens and forbade discrimination against them.

A few months later Congress submitted to the states the Fourteenth Amendment, which specified that no state should "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." All the former Confederate States except Tennessee refused to ratify the amendment

The Lord knows the hearts of Men

[talleyman]

"Would you tell him if he did know? "

No, he shouldn't have to ask.

[Petronski]

Do you still claim the rebs won't vandalize this statue?

[talleyman]

"After all, I'm an American...
With a keen nose for hypocrisy."

You said it, not I.

[laotzu]

"God choose sides because the South refused to immediately and unconditionally free all slaves"

And so did the North. You kept your slaves after all in the South were free. Why?

The type of slaver you were is wrong. Claiming your kind of slavery was right, and even Godly, is blasphemous.

You have a surprising amount of shame to throw on the South, again exempting the North. Such denial requires active rationalization. But, then again; you do seem passionate on this topic.

Perhaps if you had been the first to reject slavery as immoral. But no... not even the second, or third. From where do you get this moral superiority? When did you first realize that, in the eyes of God, you were better than any from the South?

[Petronski]

You must be losing the battle, as name-calling seems to be your last defense. Are you a Democrat?

Why yes, yes he is.

[talleyman]

"Preserving Slavery is Fighting for Freedom? "
Red herring. (See earlier posts about the imminent demise of slavery.) The parties were engaged in a mature, reasoned discussion worthy of 4 year olds: "Will not!" "Will to!" "Will not!" "Will to!" "Will not!" "Will to!" "Will not!" "Will to!" ...