"Rail Splitter Robert Chandler, who has authored several articles that have appeared in past hard-copy issues of our journal, recently made a neat purchase on eBay. It is a pair of unmounted stereo view photographs showing the severely damaged statue of Abraham Lincoln that was erected in front of the Abraham Lincoln Grammar School at 5th & Market Streets in San Francisco. The earthquake and resulting fire that occurred on April 18, 1906 destroyed most of the school and the statue. The school was the first one in the United States to be named after the martyred President, being dedicated on June 29, 1865. The first post-assassination statue of Lincoln, by Pietro Mezzara, was unveiled at the school on April 14, 1866. The full story of the school and the statue appear in the Summer/Fall 2001 issue of “The Railsplitter” which is accessible through our web site. It is archived along with all past issues. The base of the statue survived the devastation of 1906. The inscription, legible on the stereo view photos, is as follows:
ABRAHAM LINCOLN.
Born Feb. 12, 1809.
Inaugurated President
of the United States,
March 4, 1861.
Re-inaugurated, March 4, 1865.
Died, April 15, 1865.
Statue designed and erected by P. Mezzara. San Francisco, 1866."

See the stereo view photos here. http://railsplitter.com/stereo-view-phot...arthquake/

"The first public monument to Abraham Lincoln, after his death, was a statue erected in front of the District of Columbia City Hall in 1868, three years after his assassination.[7]"

Wikipedia needs to make a clarification in one of their postings about Lincoln statues. The Lot Flannery statue of Lincoln (which still stands in front of D.C.'s City Hall) was the first statue commissioned for Lincoln in the U.S., but it took until April of 1868 to get it erected. San Francisco beat them to the punch.

Many thanks to Anita for sending this link:

https://www.wbir.com/article/news/local/...-540618022

Here's a Lincoln statute with a fascinating history to add to our list.

https://www.wtae.com/article/whats-the-s...g/25228205

Very interesting, Anita!

Here is another story about this statue:

https://triblive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/ne...44183.html

(11-27-2018 12:18 PM)Anita Wrote:  Here's a Lincoln statute with a fascinating history to add to our list.

https://www.wtae.com/article/whats-the-s...g/25228205

I get this:
   

Eva, I'll send it to you.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/...-in-london

(06-07-2020 09:46 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/...-in-london

It just goes to show how stupid people can be, either unknowingly or knowingly.

There is an article in today's New York Times that will separate the wheat from the chaff.

FACT CHECK

Trump’s False Claim That ‘Nobody Has Ever Done’ More for the Black Community Than He Has

The records of Presidents Abraham Lincoln and Lyndon B. Johnson, among others, beg to differ.

How is it that the NYT is always wrong whenever they say anything negative about Lincoln, and always right whenever they say anything negative about Trump (and they do it continuously)?

Your biased, hateful, baseless Trump bashing has grown very tiresome. And why are you continually seeking ways to do it on a Lincoln forum?

(06-07-2020 09:53 PM)My Name Is Kate Wrote:  How is it that the NYT is always wrong whenever they say anything negative about Lincoln, and always right whenever they say anything negative about Trump (and they do it continuously)?

Your biased, hateful, baseless Trump bashing has grown very tiresome. And why are you continually seeking ways to do it on a Lincoln forum?

Kate,

I don’t know how anyone can say anything “bad” about President Abraham Lincoln without telling the complete truth.

What is the most egregious thing that President Lincoln did wrong, in your opinion? If you have a list of things that President Lincoln did wrong, I’ll try to address them one at a time.

Do you believe as I do, according to the argument that I have posted, that the New York Times essayist Nikole Hannah-Jones (winner of 2020 Pulitzer Prize for Commentary) intentionally misrepresented the response of the Committee of Free Black Men on the issue of colonization as evidenced by the New York Times published reporting of the meeting in 1862 and the written response of the Committee to President Lincoln two days following the meeting?

In my post previous to the one that I now respond, I cited the example of President Lincoln defying the will of Congress regarding Reconstruction (Detroit Man Scores Lincoln autograph, post #3):

The goodwill engendered among congressional radicals by Lincoln’s appointment of Fessenden was swiftly eroded by his refusal to sign the punitive Reconstruction bill that passed the Congress in the final hours of July 2, 1864, before it adjourned for the summer. [T]he bill laid down a rigid formula for bringing the seceded states back into the Union. The process differed in significant ways from the more lenient plan Lincoln had announced the previous December. Lincoln had proposed to rehabilitate individual states as quickly as possible, hoping their return would deflate Southern morale and thereby shorten the war. . . . Finally, the bill imposed emancipation by congressional fiat where Lincoln believed that such a step overstepped constitutional authority and instead proposed a constitutional amendment to ensure that slavery could never return.

Lincoln’s response made to Hay: Lincoln understood that he would be politically damaged if the radicals “chose to make a point upon this.” Nevertheless, he told John Hay, “I must keep some consciousness of being somewhere near right: I must keep some standard of principle fixed within myself.”

The result: “Now personal sorrow was compounded by the realization that radical opposition might divide the Republican Party, undoing the unity he had struggled to maintain through the turbulent years of his presidency.”

In the thread “RE: The 1619 Project (in the New York Times Magazine)” at post #6, it is written:

In 1862, President Abraham Lincoln came to the rescue of hundreds of Sioux Native Americans. 303 Sioux Indians were convicted of war crimes in the Minnesota Indian uprising and sentenced to death.

President Lincoln ordered General Pope to "forward, as soon as possible, the full and complete record of these convictions" and to prepare "a careful statement." As President Lincoln and two Interior Department lawyers scrutinized the record of the trials, they discovered that some had lasted only fifteen minutes, that hearsay evidence had been admitted, that due process had been ignored, and that counsel had not been provided the defendants.

President Lincoln authorized the execution of only 37 of the 303 condemned men (35 were found guilty of murder and 2 were convicted of rape). Lincoln explained his reasoning: "Anxious not to act with so much clemency as to encourage another outbreak on one hand, nor with so much severity as to be real cruelty on the other, I caused a careful examination of the records of the trials to be made, in view of first ordering the execution of such as had been proved guilty of violating females." He further sought to discriminate between those involved in massacres and those involved only in battles. At the last minute before the executions, President Lincoln pardoned Round Wind, who had helped some whites to escape.

On December 26, 1862, the convicted rapists and killers died on the gallows while a peaceful crowd of more than 5,000 looked on. In 1864, Minnesota Governor Ramsey told President Lincoln that if he had executed all 303 Indians, he would have won more backing for his reelection bid. “I could not afford to hang men for votes," came the reply.

My point of these two examples is that President Abraham Lincoln was willing to defy even the will of a majority if he understood, according to his reasoning, that the majority was in the wrong. It is far easier to adopt the policy “to get along, go along.” But President Abraham Lincoln lived by the aphorism that “right makes might.” And, if you disagree with my opinion that Nikole Hannah-Jones’ attacks upon the character and reputation of President Abraham Lincoln are insidious lies, we will have to disagree until the end of time.

I repeat my offer made in the second paragraph: “What is the most egregious thing that President Lincoln did wrong, in your opinion? If you have a list of things that President Lincoln did wrong, I’ll try to address them one at a time.”

Kate, you have my word of honor that I will attempt to accomplish this task as best that I am able to do so. And, I will continue to oppose any future incredulous favorable comparisons made by President Trump to President Abraham Lincoln.

David

P.S. Regarding the purpose of the Lincoln forum, I believe that it is to learn the "truth" about Abraham Lincoln. I have made mistakes in some of my posts (the majority of time when I have quoted Emanuel Hertz stories without verifying authenticity) and have been corrected appropriately by other members of the Lincoln Discussion Symposium.

You didn't answer my question. Why the continual Trump-bashing on a Lincoln forum? That is my question, not whether or not Lincoln was ever wrong about anything.

(06-08-2020 10:56 AM)My Name Is Kate Wrote:  You didn't answer my question. Why the continual Trump-bashing on a Lincoln forum? That is my question, not whether or not Lincoln was ever wrong about anything.

I wrote in my previous post: "I will continue to oppose any future incredulous favorable comparisons made by President Trump to President Abraham Lincoln."

If there is no cause, there is no need for me to respond. Please write to President Trump and ask him to stop making "any future incredulous favorable comparisons [of himself] to President Abraham Lincoln." That should solve the problem. Let me know what his response is, or post it here.

It never occurred to you that there may be members of this forum who are both Lincoln admirers and Trump supporters? Why is your opinion the be all and end all regarding that?

This has nothing to do with statues - sorry! I like to force rank my interests: favorite sports figures, fast foods, movies etc. You get the picture. For presidents, Lincoln is number one (best), hands down. I won't get into all the why's except to mention his leadership under pressure and every action was for the benefit of the country. The worst? I vacillated between Buchanan, Tyler & Pierce with Buchanan usually settling at the bottom. But all that has changed in the last couple of years to the benefit of Buchanan.