Abraham Lincoln statues

[David Lockmiller]

(01-27-2020 05:09 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  Many thanks to David Lockmiller for sending these images. David writes, "The first photo of Lincoln is from Springfield. The rest of the photos were taken today at the Lincoln statue outside of City Hall in San Francisco."

I just saw on the local CBS (Channel 5) news at 5 o'clock that this Lincoln statue in front of San Francisco City Hall was vandalized. Lincoln's face was painted bright red; Lincoln's name on the base was also painted bright red. Film footage of the damage was provided. The news report indicated that the statute has been cleaned.

Idiots!!! Idiots acting out of ignorance and misinformation.

Story in Sacramento Bee newspaper: Lincoln Statue Vandalized Amid Calls To Rename Namesake School, San Francisco Sheriff’s Dept. Says

A statue of Abraham Lincoln was vandalized in San Francisco as a school district committee pushes for the renaming of Lincoln High School and others, authorities said.

Deputies responded to a call about the incident at 12:55 p.m. Saturday, the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department told McClatchy News in an email. The suspect had fled before deputies arrived, according to the department.

The statue has been restored and deputies are still investigating.

[LincolnMan]

While the statue of Lincoln in Boston was completely removed.

[David Lockmiller]

(12-29-2020 08:23 PM)David Lockmiller Wrote:  A statue of Abraham Lincoln was vandalized in San Francisco as a school district committee pushes for the renaming of Lincoln High School and others, authorities said.

Deputies responded to a call about the incident at 12:55 p.m. Saturday, the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department told McClatchy News in an email. The suspect had fled before deputies arrived, according to the department.

The statue has been restored and deputies are still investigating.

Lincoln statue vandalized amid calls to rename namesake school, California cops say - Sacramento Bee by BROOKE WOLFORD, DECEMBER 28, 2020

Jeremiah Jeffries, a first grade teacher and chairman of the committee, said the task force members were all in agreement about renaming the school, according to SF Gate. The recommendation has captured national attention, including President Trump’s, the outlet reported.

“The history of Lincoln and Native Americans is complicated, not nearly as well known as that of the Civil War and slavery,” said Jeffries, according to SF Gate. “Lincoln, like the presidents before him and most after, did not show through policy or rhetoric that Black lives ever mattered to them outside of human capital and as casualties of wealth building.”

That's the opinion of a dilettante President Abraham Lincoln historian, first grade teacher, and "chairman of the committee" who will be confirming on January 6, 2021 the committee's recommendation to the elected members of the San Francisco School Board that Abraham Lincoln High School be renamed for just and equitable causes.

[Rob Wick]

Quote:While the statue of Lincoln in Boston was completely removed.

When I was a young boy, I can remember the very first time I walked into the Hall of Representatives in the Old State Capitol in Springfield. It was in the early 1970s, and even though I was only around 9 or 10 years old, I knew exactly what had happened in that room. Not only was it a room where Abraham Lincoln served the state as a representative, but it was also the place where Lincoln delivered one of the most notable and stirring speeches in the history of the country. I stood in awe as I strained to hear Lincoln tell those in the overstuffed hall on June 16, 1858 that a house divided against itself could not stand. I kept telling myself that I was in the same room as Lincoln, touching the same floor as Lincoln as I looked at the same walls that Lincoln gazed on.

Except I wasn’t.

At the time I had no idea that just a few years before, the state of Illinois had completely dismantled the building, completely gutting the interior and rebuilding it. While the state determined to make the building look like a building that Lincoln would recognize, there were many things in the building that Lincoln would have wondered over. There was no electricity or electrical lights in the building at any time when Lincoln was there. Air conditioning would have been a Godsend on that hot summer’s day in June when 1,000 people crowded into the hall to hear Lincoln speak. The sound system installed in order to hold naturalization ceremonies would have been foreign to Lincoln and the others who often had to struggle to make themselves heard.

In a more tactile vein, the floors were not the same floors that Lincoln trod upon. Neither was the walls the same walls he saw. They actually disappeared for all practical purposes in 1899 to 1901 when Sangamon County, who had been using the building as their courthouse since 1876 when the Illinois capitol moved, did their own renovations.

But it didn’t take away then, nor does it now, the significance of what happened on that site. I relate this story in an attempt to try to provide some context into the debate over Lincoln statues and the removal of the statue in Boston. First, and foremost, statues are nothing more than a representation of someone. They do not make up the bulk of who the man was.

The statue in Boston was not destroyed. It is in storage and will be placed in another location once the city determines where that will be. Second, while we may look at the statue as nothing more than a representation of an African-American man rising up to accept his freedom, others do not. So whose interpretation should prevail? Why, of course, we believe ours should, because if the other viewpoint holds, then it says that Lincoln is not worthy of public commemoration or that there will be a wave of destruction where Lincoln is concerned (and someone needs to tell David that the crime of vandalism will be prosecuted if the perpetrators are captured).

But is that what it really says? Cannot a case be made that the attacks on the statue do not represent an attack on Lincoln as much as an imagined perception of him? To be honest, I haven’t followed the debate over the emancipation statue, but what I have read seems to say that many people don’t like what the statue represents. I’ve not read anything that says Lincoln should not be honored, and only the shrillest voice would argue that’s what this debate is about. Does that mean there are not people out there who think Lincoln should be denigrated and his memory forgotten? Of course not. But in a nation of 330,000,000 people, one can always find a few lone voices to say whatever one wishes to hear.

What it seems to me is that people want the statues to be placed into context. That is exactly what historians do. Whether the statue sits in a public square or in a museum, or is melted down and made into car parts does not for one moment take away the right of people to seek out and honor Lincoln (or anyone else, for that matter) in whatever way they choose. Nor does the removal of something that Lincoln would have never known about in any way erase his memory. What we are seeing right now is the raising of voices that have not been listened to for centuries, if ever. That some of those voices may say things we don’t agree with is the price we pay for living in a free and open society.

Best
Rob

[Mylye2222]

On the Lincoln Boston statue.

The main issue isn't Abe himself, it's the black man's posture below him. We over there understand it's a representation of what happened when Lincoln visited Richmond after its fall. Former enslaved men and women were so happy to meet him that some kneeled before him, to this Lincoln asked them to go back on their feets and said they'd better kneel before God for their freedom. By this he showed he was not their master, only their Chief Executive.

But, unfortunately the New Left lacks culture. For someone who don't know and believe the Richmond account, the plain sight of a black man knelt before a white head of state seems offensive.

I emphasize with the point of wiew, although I think they should get some reading first to contextualize. The spirits are so high, maybe it could be appropriate to show Lincoln shaking an ex enslaved person's hand....

[Rob Wick]

Quote:For someone who don't know and believe the Richmond account, the plain sight of a black man knelt before a white head of state seems offensive.

Frederick Douglass, who knew and believed the Richmond account, also found it offensive.

On April 19, 1876, Douglass wrote the editor of the National Republican newspaper "The negro here, though rising, is still on his knees and nude. What I want to see before I die is a monument representing the negro, not couchant on his knees like a four-footed animal, but erect on his feet like a man.”

So it just isn't a 21st century phenomenon.

Best
Rob

[David Lockmiller]

(12-30-2020 04:16 PM)Mylye2222 Wrote:  On the Lincoln Boston statue.

The main issue isn't Abe himself, it's the black man's posture below him. We over there understand it's a representation of what happened when Lincoln visited Richmond after its fall. Former enslaved men and women were so happy to meet him that some kneeled before him, to this Lincoln asked them to go back on their feets and said they'd better kneel before God for their freedom. By this he showed he was not their master, only their Chief Executive.

But, unfortunately the New Left lacks culture. For someone who don't know and believe the Richmond account, the plain sight of a black man knelt before a white head of state seems offensive.

I emphasize with the point of wiew, although I think they should get some reading first to contextualize.

It took more than President Abraham Lincoln to win freedom for America's slaves, much more:

Returning promptly to Washington, Grant established his headquarters with the Army of the Potomac, at Culpepper, and for about a month actively pushed his military preparations.

He seems at first to have been impressed with a dread that the President might wish to influence or control his plans. But the few interviews between them removed the suspicion and all doubt on this point vanished, when, on the last day of April, Mr. Lincoln sent him the following explicit letter:

"Not expecting to see you again before the spring campaign opens, I wish to express in this way my entire satisfaction with what you have done up to this time, so far as I understand it. The particulars of your plan I neither know nor seek to know. You are vigilant and self-reliant; and, pleased with this, I wish not to obtrude any constraints or restraints upon you. While I am very anxious that any great disaster or capture of our men in great numbers shall be avoided, I know these points are less likely to escape your attention than they would be mine. If there is anything wanting which is within my power to give, do not fail to let me know it. And now, with a brave army and a just cause, may God sustain you."

Grant's immediate reply confessed the groundlessness of his apprehensions:

"From my first entrance into the volunteer service of the country to the present day, I have never had cause of complaint, have never expressed or implied a complaint against the administration, or the Secretary of War, for throwing any embarrassment in the way of my vigorously prosecuting what appeared to me my duty. Indeed, since the promotion which placed me in command of all the armies, and in view of the great responsibility and importance of success, I have been astonished at the readiness with which everything asked for has been yielded, without even an explanation being asked. Should my success be less than I desire and expect, the least I can say is, the fault is not with you."

The Union army under Grant, one hundred and twenty-two thousand strong, on April 30, was encamped north of the Rapidan River. The Confederate army under Lee, numbering sixty-two thousand, lay south of that stream. Nearly three years before, these opposing armies had fought their first battle of Bull Run, only a comparatively short distance north of where they now confronted each other. Campaign and battle between them had surged far to the north and to the south, but neither could as yet claim over the other any considerable gain of ground or of final advantage in the conflict. Broadly speaking, relative advance and retreat, as well as relative loss and gain of battle-fields substantially balanced each other.

Severe as had been their struggles in the past, a more arduous trial of strength was before them. Grant had two to one in numbers; Lee the advantage of a defensive campaign. He could retire toward cumulative reserves, and into prepared fortifications; knew almost by heart every road, hill, and forest of Virginia; had for his friendly scout every white inhabitant. Perhaps his greatest element of strength lay in the conscious pride of the Confederate army that through all fluctuations of success and failure, it had for three years effectually barred the way of the Army of the Potomac to Richmond. But to offset this there now menaced it what was before absent in every encounter, the grim, unflinching will of the new Union commander.

General Grant devised no plan of complicated strategy for the problem before him, but proposed to solve it by plain, hard, persistent fighting. He would endeavor to crush the army of Lee before it could reach Richmond or unite with the army of Johnston; or, failing in that, he would shut it up in that stronghold and reduce it by a siege. With this in view, he instructed Meade at the very outset: "Lee's army will be your objective point. Where Lee goes, there you will go, also."

Everything being ready, on the night of May 4, 1864, Meade threw five bridges across the Rapidan, and before the following night the whole Union army, with its trains, was across the stream moving southward by the left flank, past the right flank of the Confederates.


Emily, I very much like your phrasing: "By this he showed he was not their master, only their Chief Executive."

[David Lockmiller]

(12-30-2020 09:30 AM)David Lockmiller Wrote:  Lincoln statue vandalized amid calls to rename namesake school, California cops say - Sacramento Bee by BROOKE WOLFORD, DECEMBER 28, 2020

Jeremiah Jeffries, a first grade teacher and chairman of the committee, said the task force members were all in agreement about renaming the school, according to SF Gate. The recommendation has captured national attention, including President Trump’s, the outlet reported.

“The history of Lincoln and Native Americans is complicated, not nearly as well known as that of the Civil War and slavery,” said Jeffries, according to SF Gate. “Lincoln, like the presidents before him and most after, did not show through policy or rhetoric that Black lives ever mattered to them outside of human capital and as casualties of wealth building.”

That's the opinion of a dilettante President Abraham Lincoln historian, first grade teacher, and "chairman of the committee" who will be confirming on January 6, 2021 the committee's recommendation to the elected members of the San Francisco School Board that Abraham Lincoln High School be renamed for just and equitable causes.

“Lincoln . . . did not show through policy or rhetoric that Black lives ever mattered to [him]outside of human capital and as casualties of wealth building.”

This is the same "1619 Project" rhetoric that has been debunked by leading President Abraham Lincoln scholars and historians.

[David Lockmiller]

(12-31-2020 11:51 AM)David Lockmiller Wrote:  

(12-30-2020 09:30 AM)David Lockmiller Wrote:  Lincoln statue vandalized amid calls to rename namesake school, California cops say - Sacramento Bee by BROOKE WOLFORD, DECEMBER 28, 2020

Jeremiah Jeffries, a first grade teacher and chairman of the committee, said the task force members were all in agreement about renaming the school, according to SF Gate. The recommendation has captured national attention, including President Trump’s, the outlet reported.

“The history of Lincoln and Native Americans is complicated, not nearly as well known as that of the Civil War and slavery,” said Jeffries, according to SF Gate. “Lincoln, like the presidents before him and most after, did not show through policy or rhetoric that Black lives ever mattered to them outside of human capital and as casualties of wealth building.”

That's the opinion of a dilettante President Abraham Lincoln historian, first grade teacher, and "chairman of the committee" who will be confirming on January 6, 2021 the committee's recommendation to the elected members of the San Francisco School Board that Abraham Lincoln High School be renamed for just and equitable causes.

“Lincoln . . . did not show through policy or rhetoric that Black lives ever mattered to [him]outside of human capital and as casualties of wealth building.”

This is the same "1619 Project" rhetoric that has been debunked by leading President Abraham Lincoln scholars and historians.

“On New Year’s day, 1865,”wrote a correspondent of the New York “Independent,” “a memorable incident occurred, of which the like was never before seen at the White House. I had noticed, at sundry times during the summer, the wild fervor and strange enthusiasm which our colored friends always manifest over the name of Abraham Lincoln. His name with them seems to be associated with that of his namesake, the Father of the Faithful. In the great crowds which gather from time to time in front of the White House, in honor of the President, none shout so loudly or so wildly, and swing their hats with such utter abandon, while their eyes re beaming with the intensest joy, as do these simple-minded and grateful people. I have often laughed heartily at these exhibitions. But the scene yesterday excited far other emotions. As I entered the door of the President’s House, I noticed groups of colored people gathered here and there, who seemed to watching earnestly the inpouring throng. For nearly two hours they hung around, until the crowd of white visitors began sensibly to diminish. Then they summoned up courage, and began timidly to approach the door. Some of them were richly and gayly dressed; some were in tattered garments, and others in the most fanciful and grotesque costume. All pressed eagerly forward. When they came into the presence of the President, doubting as to their reception, the feelings of the poor creatures overcame them, and here the scene baffles my powers of description.
“For two long hours Mr. Lincoln had been shaking hands of the ‘sovereigns,’ and had become excessively weary, and his grasp languid; but here his nerves rallied at the unwonted sight, and he welcomed this motley crowd with a heartiness that made them wild with exceeding joy. They laughed and wept, and wept and laughed,-- exclaiming, through their blinding tears: ‘God bless you!’ God bless Abraham Lincoln!’ ‘God bress Massa Linkum!’ Those who witnessed this scene will not soon forget it. For a long distance down the Avenue, on my way home, I heard fast young men, cursing the President for this act; but all the way the refrain rang in my ears,-- ‘God bless Abraham Lincoln!’

A southern correspondent of the New York “Tribune,” in Charleston, South Carolina, the week following the assassination, wrote: “I never saw such sad faces, or heard such heavy hearts beatings, as here in Charleston the day the dreadful news came! The colored people – the native loyalists – were liked children bereaved of an only and loved parent.”

("Six Months at the White House," F. B. Carpenter -- pages 205 - 207.)

[David Lockmiller]

Last night, I wrote the following email to the San Francisco School Renaming Advisory Committee which I initially intended to read in the Public Comments portion of the January 6, 2021 online meeting of the Committee. I had a problem with Zoom for some unknown reason and I could not be heard. All the members of the Committee are supposed to have access to the emails received from the Public by the Committee's administrative support staff (which has been reported as a problem by the Committee members in the past).

My name is David Lockmiller. I am a 32-year resident of the Richmond District. I submitted a Letter to the Editor of the Richmond Review that was published online on December 9, 2020, titled “DO NOT RENAME LINCOLN HIGH SCHOOL.” Therein, I presented the reasons for my disapproval of this Committee’s evaluation process regarding President Abraham Lincoln’s actions in the “Dakota 38” controversy, the largest mass execution of Native Americans in the history of the United States.

The following is Lincoln’s Dec. 11, 1862 statement to the Senate on the Native Americans to be executed:

“Anxious to not act with so much clemency as to encourage another outbreak on the one hand, nor with so much severity as to be real cruelty on the other, I caused a careful examination of the records of trials to be made, in view of first ordering the execution of such as had been proved guilty of violating females. Contrary to my expectations, only two of this class were found. I then directed a further examination, and a classification of all who were proven to have participated in massacres, as distinguished from participation in battles. This class numbered forty, and included the two convicted of female violation. One of the number is strongly recommended by the commission which tried them for commutation to ten years’ imprisonment. I have ordered the other thirty-nine to be executed on Friday, the 19th instant.”

It is uncontested and indisputable that President Lincoln signed the execution death warrants for 39 Native Americans, as required by law of the President. However, it is also uncontested and indisputable that President Lincoln commuted the death sentences of 265 of the 303 Dakota men condemned as a result of the careful review of the facts of each Native American’s case . He also later pardoned one of the 39 mentioned in the letter to the Senate after evidence came to his attention questioning the man’s guilt.

After the 1864 midterm election, Minnesota Governor Alexander Ramsey told Lincoln that Republicans could have gotten a larger electoral majority in the state if Lincoln had allowed the execution of more Indians. Lincoln told Ramsey, simply: “I could not afford to hang men for votes.”

Professor Michael Burlingame, Lincoln Studies at University of Illinois, Springfield, was the winner of the 2010 Lincoln Prize for his two-volume work on Lincoln, titled “Abraham Lincoln: A Life.” Professor Burlingame devoted five pages of this scholarly work to the 1862 Dakota Sioux Indian uprising and the subsequent actions taken by President Lincoln, titled “Magnanimity: Dealing With the Minnesota Sioux Uprising.” (“Abraham Lincoln: A Life,” Vol. Two, pages 480-484.)

The introductory first paragraph contains the following important relevant historical fact regarding the “Dakota 38” that the members of this San Francisco Schools Renaming Committee should have already carefully considered, but I sincerely doubt if a single member of this Committee is even aware of this historical fact.

“They (the Dakota Sioux Native Americans) killed hundreds and drove over 30,000 from their homes. It was the bloodiest massacre of American civilians on U.S. soil prior to September 11, 2001.”

Yours truly,
David Lockmiller

[Mylye2222]

Cancel culture is part of what feeds cults like QAnon....

[David Lockmiller]

The School Names Advisory Committee methodology of judgment is both devious and malicious.

The powers that be in controlling of the process, set the framework of consideration to exclude any and all equitable and fair considerations of character and accomplishments by the individual historical figure being investigated by this Committee of dilettante (a person who cultivates an area of interest without real commitment or knowledge) historians. The Committee members have been charged with the sole duty to investigate and determine whether any of the Committee criteria have been violated by dozens of historical figures for whom San Francisco schools have been named. If conduct of a historical personage meets one of the predetermined criteria, that is that is all that is necessary for conviction on a consensus vote of the Committee.

Or, as the facilitator might phrase this unfair and unjust process, the Committee members must not "belabor" any other point than the alleged transgression(s) of one or more of the listed criteria of the Committee.

President Abraham Lincoln signed the death warrants of the "Dakota 38," the largest mass execution of Native Americans in the history of the United States. The members of the Committee need not and must not "belabor" any other evidence. This undisputed historical fact alone is both necessary and sufficient to meet the "Renaming of San Francisco Schools" criteria of the Committee.

[RJNorton]

Thanks to David Lockmiller for sending these images. David writes, "The photos were taken by me on December 30, 2020, after restoration from 'Dakota 38' damages to Lincoln statue in front of SF City Hall."

[LincolnMan]

Thank you David for all you’ve done on this, sir.

[David Lockmiller]

The Los Angeles Times reported:

Some social media users opined that the vandalism intentionally coincided with the 158th anniversary of the Dec. 26, 1862, hanging of 38 Native Americans on the president’s watch. According to the Associated Press, a U.S. military commission sentenced 303 Sioux fighters to execution, following the 1862 Dakota War, also known as the Sioux Uprising. Lincoln reportedly reviewed each case and decided there was evidence to convict 38 of them. The sentences of the remaining 265 were commuted.

The defacement of Lincoln’s statue in San Francisco, which Crowley said was reported about 1 p.m. Saturday, follows national attention garnered after a committee recommended the renaming of 42 schools, including Abraham Lincoln High School.

The postscript to the Letter to the Editor of the Richmond Times that I wrote was published online on December 9, 2020 reads:

P.S.: Professor Michael Burlingame was the winner of the 2010 Lincoln Prize for his two-volume work on Lincoln, titled “Abraham Lincoln: A Life.” Professor Burlingame devoted five pages of his scholarly work to the 1862 Dakota Sioux Indian uprising and the subsequent actions taken by President Lincoln, titled “Magnanimity: Dealing the Minnesota Sioux Uprising.” (“Abraham Lincoln: A Life,” Vol. Two, pages 480-84.)

The introductory first paragraph contains the following important historical fact: “They (the Dakota Sioux Indians) killed hundreds and drove over 30,000 from their homes. It was the bloodiest massacre of American civilians on U.S. soil prior to September 11, 2001.”

How incredibly stupid can people be? I used to think that there was a limit. I no longer have that belief.