Skip to comments.Yes, Lincoln, Yes, Here - Historical Society Plans Lincoln Statue in Richmond Virginia
Posted on 12/26/2002 9:05:17 AM PST by berserkerEdited on 07/20/2004 11:48:10 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
The devil must be ice-skating. Richmond is getting a statue of Abraham Lincoln.
Many Virginians and other die-hard Southerners may be flabbergasted by this news. After all, it has been widely held for generations that Richmond would have a statue of Lincoln when hell froze over.
(Excerpt) Read more at timesdispatch.com ...
The rough man from Illinois in 1860.
Wouldn't that be revision?
"Once the three stood agreed on the terms, Sherman and [General Joe]Johnston signed it and Sherman called for copies to be made for their two governments. He then he spoke to the two Confederates of Lincoln's assassination. Johnston confided to Sherman his horror at the deed, fearing it would be blamed on the Confederates, and that Lincoln might have been their greatest ally in reconstruction." Stepping outside to their now mingled escorts, they found the news generally known, as Sherman introduced the two of them to his staff, and [John C. ]Breckinridge and Reagan discussed it with some of their followers. The postmaster said he hoped no connection between the murdered and their cause would be found, or it should go hard for them, while Breckinridge said Lincoln's death at this time and in this manner must precipitate great calamity for them. "Gentlemen," he told them, the South has lost its best friend." At once he wrote a message to be taken by courier to Davis, announcing the assassination and what he called the "dastardly attempt" on Seward.
-"An Honorable Defeat" pp.166-67 by William C. Davis
He [Davis] read the telegram [bringing news of Lincoln's death] and when it brought an exultant shout raised his hand to check the demonstration..."He had power over the Northern people," Davis wrote in his memoir of the war," and was without malignity to the southern people."...Alone of the southern apologists, [Alexander] Stephens held Lincoln in high regard. "The Union with him in sentiment," said the Georgian, "rose to the sublimnity of religious mysticism...in 1873 "Little Elick" Stephens, who again represented his Georgia district in Congress, praised Lincoln for his wisdom, kindness and generosity in a well-publicized speech seconding the acceptance of the gift of Francis B. Carpenter's famous painting of Lincoln and the Emancipation Proclamation."...
-- "Lincoln in American Memory" pp 46-48, by Merrill Peterson
How is it that you know better than Jefferson Davis, Alexander Stephens, Joe Johnston and John C. Breckinridge?
That's not true. Lincoln said on numerous occasions before the war that blacks were as entitled to the precepts of the Declaration of Independence as any one.
Although Lincoln supported colonization efforts early in the war (and prior to the war), he never suggested that anyone be forced out of the country, and after 1/1/63 he no longer supports colonization, but instead begins to work for full civil rights for blacks.
I was thinking that very thing as I was reading this.
Socialist government of North America? Traitorous tyrant Lincoln? His attack against sovereign states? Please please please tell me you are being sarcastic. It's sometimes hard to tell on FR. The people mis-writing and revising history are the ones who claim that the rebel attack on America was an act of northern aggression. The democrats will always have on their record that they supported secession, slavery, the Klan, Jim Crow laws, and all sorts of other racism.....all wrapped up with a nicely jaded bow under the name of the "state's rights."
Good for you.
Not according to the Richmond Examiner:
"No power in executive hands can be too great, no discretion too absolute, at such moments as these...we need a dictator. Let lawyers talk when the world has time to hear them. Now, let the sword do its work. Usurpations of power by the chief, for the preservation of the people from robbers and murderers, will be reckoned as genius and patriotism by all sensible men in the world now and by every historian that will judge the deed hereafter."
-- Richmond Examiner, May 8, 1861.
Quoted from "The Coming Fury" p. 360 by Bruce Catton
Sounds like Lincoln was the man for the job, don't ya think?
"The [London] Spectator continued:
"He is not malignant against foreign countries; on the contrary, thinks they have behaved rather better than he expected. No power in Europe can take offense at the wording of the [12/01/62] Message, nor can anyone say that the Republic bends to dictation, or craves in any undignified way for foreign forbearance. The words might have been more elegant, bur the astutest diplomatist could have accomplished no more, and might, perhaps, have shown a reticence less complete."
The gist of the message was epitomized: "Mr. Lincoln has from the first explained that he is the exponent of the national will. He has not merely recognized it. Amidst a cloud of words and phrases, which, often clever, are always too numerous, a careful observer may detect two clear and definite thoughts. 1. The President will assent to no peace upon any terms which imply a dissolution of the Union. 2. He holds that the best reconstruction will be that which is accompanied by measures for the final extinction of slavery." '
In the President's discussions of peace, said the Spectator, "He expresses ideas, which, however quaint, have nevertheless a kind of dreamy vastness not without its attraction. The thoughts of the man are too big for his mouth." He was saying that a nation can be divided but "the earth abideth forever," that a generation could be crushed but geography dictated that the Union could not be sundered. As to the rivers and mountains, "all are better than one or either, and all of right belong to this people and their successors forever." No possible severing of the land but would multiply and not mitigate the evils among the American States.
"It is an oddly worded argument," said the Spectator, "the earth being treated as If it were a living creature, an Estate of the Republic with an equal vote on its destiny." In the proposals for gradual emancipated compensation there was magnitude: "Mr. Lincoln has still the credit of having been first among American statesmen to rise to the situation, to strive that reconstruction shall not mean a new lease for human bondage." The President's paragraph was quoted having the lines; "Fellow-citizens, we cannot escape history. The fiery trial through which we pass will light us down in honor or dishonor to the latest generation," as though this had the attractive "dreamy vastness" that brought from the English commentator the abrupt sentence "The thoughts of the man are too big for his mouth."
Greeley and others could not resist the impact of some judgments pronounced on Lincoln abroad. Greeley did not accept these judgments. He questioned them sharply. He saw, however, that they had significance and they were of historic quality. Under the heading "Mr. Lincoln in Europe" the New York Tribune of January 10, 1863, reprinted from the Edinburgh Mercury:
In Mr. Lincolns message, we appreciate the calm thoughtfulness so different from the rowdyism we have been accustomed to receive from Washington. He is strong in the justice his cause and the power of his people. He speaks without acerbity even of the rebels who have brought so much calamity upon the country, but we believe that if the miscreants of the Confederacy -were brought to him today, Mr. Lincoln would bid them depart and try to be better and braver men in the future. When we recollect the raucous hate in this country toward the Indian rebels, "we feel humiliated that this 'rail splitter' from Illinois should show himself so superior to the mass of monarchical statesmen.
"Mr. Lincoln's brotherly kindness, truly father of his country, kindly merciful, lenient even to a fault, is made the sport and butt of all the idle literary buffoons of England. The day will come when the character and career of Abraham Lincoln will get justice in this country and his assailants will show their shame for the share they took in lampooning so brave and noble a man, who in a fearful crisis possessed his soul in patience, trusting in God. Truly, Mr. Lincoln speaks, 'the fiery trial through which we pass will light us down in honor or dishonor to the latest generation.' There is little doubt what the verdict of future generations will be of Abraham Lincoln.
"Before two years of his administration has been completed, he has reversed the whole constitutional attitude of America on the subject of Slavery; he has saved the territories from the unhallowed grasp of the slave power; he has purged the accursed institution from the Congressional District; he has hung a slave trader in New York, the nest of slave pirates; he has held out the right hand of fellowship to the negro Republicans of Liberia and Hayri; he has joined Great Britain in endeavoring to sweep the slave trade from the coast of Africa! There can be no doubt of the verdict of posterity on such acts as these.
Within the light of the 'fiery trial' of which Mr. Lincoln speaks, another light shines clear and refulgentthe torch of freedomto which millions of poor slaves now look with eager hope.
At home and abroad judgments came oftener that America had at last a President who was All-American. He embodied his country in that he had no precedents to guide his footsteps; he was not one more individual of a continuing tradition, with the dominant lines of the mold already cast for him by Chief Magistrates who had gone before. Webster, Calhoun, and Clay conformed to a classicism of the school of the English gentleman, as did perhaps all the Presidents between Washington and Lincoln, save only Andrew Jackson.
The inventive Yankee, the Western frontiersman and pioneer, the Kentuckian of laughter and dreams, had found blend in one man who was the national head. In the "dreamy vastness" noted by the London Spectator, in the pith of the folk words "The thoughts of the man are too big for his mouth," was the feel of something vague that ran deep in American hearts, that hovered close to a vision for which men would fight, struggle, and die, a grand though blurred chance that Lincoln might be leading them toward something greater than they could have believed might come true."
You'd make some people pretty happy if you could show these quotes by Davis, Breckinridge, Stephens and Johnston to be unfounded.
Have at it.
"In 1886 Grady, thirty-six years old, was invited to address the New England Society of New York, on the 266th anniversary to the landing of the Pilgrims at Plymouth. General Sherman, seated on the platform, was an honored guest, and the band played [I am not making this up] "Marching Through Georgia" before Grady was Introduced. Pronouncing the death of the Old South, he lauded the New South of Union and freedom and progress. And he offered Lincoln as the vibrant symbol not alone of reconciliation but of American character. "Lincoln," he said, "comprehended within himself all the strength, and gentleness, all the majesty and grace of the republic." He was indeed, the first American, "the sum of Puritan and Cavalier, in whose ardent nature were fused the virtues of both, and in whose great soul the faults of both were lost."
--From "Lincoln in American Memory" by Merrill D. Peterson P. 46-48
I appreciate your posting to me, however, I did not write what you responded to. You meant to respond to post #6, posted by Marobe. My post was #13.
I do agree with post #6, however.
No doubt they will; children often misbehave when faced with their own inadequacies.
You would think Abe is on enough items. Do you think so?
Do we need additional reminders?
Nearly every monetary transaction bears his face.
Does everyone carry extra fives around in their wallet, just to remember his face?
Is this the money that Dick Chaney promised when he said we would have money that we could be proud of?
Perhaps we do need a statue, just to remind those in Richmond that Lincoln once visited the Viginian city.
Otherwise, the citizens of Richmond might forget Mr. Lincoln's visit, and he might fade into history.
And we can't let that happen.
After all, we might not get a five dollar bill in change today to remind us of Lincoln.
And that would be bad.
So maybe we need a statue.
It's always great for a laugh when some self righteous yankee attempts to make comments about the south, of which they have absolutley no knowledge.
In Richmond we have a statue of Arthur Ashe, which has never been vandalized to knowledge, even though it was erected after much controversy right at the start of a long line older early 20th century erected Confederate Generals, an Admiral, and Jefferson Davis.http://www.ci.richmond.va.us/visitor/monuments_memorials.aspThe powers that be insisted it be located there at a transparent attempt of race baiting, even though it is totally out of context in both subject matter, time, and surrounding architecture. The statue is such an artistic abomination and blatant effort to generate controversy, that Arthur Ashe's family refused to attend it's unveiling. There was a very appropiate and prominate location right in front of the tennis courts that was whites only when he was a kid, but wouldn't have stirred up any trouble and therefore useless to the City's rulers. (It woudn't have helped it's artistic merit though since it looks like he's trying to beat some kids in the head with his tennis racket).http://www.ci.richmond.va.us/visitor/arthurashe.asp.
The only vandalizm of anyone civil war related was a year or two ago they torched a large cloth mural with the image of Robert E. Lee on it which was hung on the flood wall for the opening of the new canal walk. They tried one with the General in civilian clothes, but that was torched too.
Contrary to popular belief, there are only around 50 or so rebels left in the city which are kept confined in a confederate ghetto called Oregon Hill, and no known Republicans. If Abe is erected, he will be the first Republican back since 1972 when the Reconstruction Judge Merhige legislated mandatory school busing in order to bring the only two halfway decent public high schools down to the substandard level of the other five or six, and the last of them left.
If anyone were found vandalizing a monument of good 'ol Abe, I'm sure he would find himself locked up in the custody of Sheriff Michelle Mitchell, a perfect example of the City's reconstructed leadership, who would promptly steal any cash which they may have when locked up and embezzele the three dollars a minute collect call for help out money generated.http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/810319/posts
Vandalizing a statue of Abe Lincoln inside the city limits of Richmond, Virginia, the Capital City of the ONLY STATE IN THE UNION TO EVER ELECT A BLACK GOVENOR, would be good for only an attempt at a sucessful suicide.
Here it is.....
Plan to unveil Lincoln statue irks Sons of Confederate Veterans
RICHMOND, Va. - Abraham Lincoln, who visited the seat of the Confederacy soon after Southern forces abandoned the city in flames in April 1865, is returning to the capital, much to the chagrin of the Sons of Confederate Veterans.
A bronze statue of the Civil War president and his youngest child, Tad, will be unveiled April 5, the 138th anniversary of Lincoln's only visit to Richmond.
The statue shows Lincoln sitting on a bench with his right arm around his 12-year-old son, who gazes at his father's face. It was commissioned by the U.S. Historical Society, which works on behalf of museums, educational institutions and foundations on projects with historic significance and artistic value.
"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 society. "This time Lincoln's in Richmond for all time."
The Sons of Confederate Veterans view the 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 group's Virginia commander, said Thursday.
Richmond, home to towering statues of Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, J.E.B. Stuart and other Confederate leaders, was attacked by the Union forces of Gen. Ulysses S. Grant on April 2, 1865. Lee and Confederate President Jefferson Davis fled the city. Confederate soldiers set fire to Richmond's warehouses and arsenals to deny the supplies to the federals.
On April 4, Lincoln and Tad traveled to Richmond from Union military headquarters nearby.
With Richmond still smoldering, Lincoln, wearing his signature black silk top hat, and Tad walked to the White House of the Confederacy. The war ended five days later when Lee surrendered to Grant at Appomattox Court House. Lincoln was assassinated in Washington, D.C., 10 days after he visited Richmond.
The life-size statue of Lincoln and Tad by sculptor David Frech will show the two seated on a bench against a plain granite wall. The words "To Bind Up The Nation's Wounds" will be etched into a granite capstone.
The historical society will donate the statue to the Civil War Visitor Center of the National Park Service. The center is on the site of Tredegar Iron Works, a major supplier of munitions to the Confederate army. The statue will be placed outdoors on a hillside overlooking the James River.
Elaine Mancini, spokeswoman for the historical society, said the cost of the statue had not been determined. The society will cover the cost and is raising money by selling solid bronze miniatures of the statue, she said.
Exactly. In addition to the Richmond Examiner, there was also the Richmond Whig. What ever one would say, the other would disagree with as a matter of principle. If I remember correctly from my "Sectionalism and the Civil War" class of 25 years ago, taught by the esteemed Dr. Daniel Jordan (now President of the Thomas Jefferson Foundation which runs Monticello) http://www.monticello.org/tjf/jordan.html, the owners of the newspapers had an extreme personal animosity for each other that existed long before the start of the war. Anything quoted from one paper is more than likely just a personal attack of one individual against another. An opinion from today's Washington Post or New York Times has about as much credibility.
One of the greatest revisionist historian lies propogated by Lincoln worshippers is that he freed the slaves with the Emancipation Proclomation. The reality is that it freed only the slaves in captured southern territories and was issued only for inflicting economic damage on the South. The yankee slave holders in Maryland, Kentucky, etc. still held their slaves until the end of the war and were free to whip them whenever the mood struck (no pun intended) .
The fact that yankees have some sort instinct to meddle in other's affairs had as much to do with why the the Southern States succeeded. The slave holders were a small minority in the south. A slave holder with twenty or more slaves could get an exemption from military service for the same economic reason that Lincoln freed them. This did not sit well with the enlisted personnel who volunteered to fight. This people were dirt poor and slavery was no issue to them one way or the other. They fought and died because they believed the yankees had no right to invade, no matter the reason. The Commonwealth of Virginia did not suceed untill Lincoln said he was going to send Federal troops across it's territory on the way to quell the rebellion in South Carolina.
The yankee meddling continues to this day with the Northeastern Liberal Elitists attempting to make all fifty states a clone of Massachusetts, complete with a Kennedy in every govenors mansion and ram unrequested and unwanted Federal crapolla like a Lincoln Statue down people's throats.
Slave ownership devolved on 1/3 of white southerners and 1/2 in MS, LA and SC. There were more slave owners in the south than there were real property owners in the north.
The Atlanta paper ran the same story.
I thought the SCV's deal was 'heritage, not hate'?
Why don't you show that in the record?
"...Had he failed to to insist on abolition as a condition for peace negotiations, he explained, he would be guilty of treachery to the hundreds of thousands of African-Americans who had 'come bodily over from the rebel side to ours.' Such betrayal could not 'escape the curses of Heaven, or of any good man.' Apart from the moral issue, there was the practical consideration that without "the physical force which the colored people now give, and promise us,...neither the present, nor any coming administration, [can] save the Union."
"But now, if he followed their advice, he would have to do without the help of nearly 200,000 black men in the service of the Union. In that case 'we would be compelled to abandon the war in 3 weeks.' Practical considerations aside, there was the moral issue. How could anybody propose 'to return to slavery the black warriors of Port Hudson and Olustee to their masters to conciliate the South?' "I should be damned in time and eternity for so doing,' he told his visitors (Gov. Randall, and Judge Mills, both from Wisconsin). "The world will know that I keep my faith to friends and enemies, come what will.'"
In fact, Lincoln was scrupulously honest.
I guess what galls the neo-rebs most about having a statue of President Lincoln in Richmond is that when Lincoln visited Richmond, he was cheered by black slaves. That's a bad thing, right?
What makes President Lincoln's refusal to abandon emancipation in the summer of 1864 even more laudable is that he was personally convinced that he would lose the 1864 election, and the Republican Party managers urged him to abandon emancipation.
But he wouldn't do it.
Thomas DiLorenzo has published a book telling the truth.
Why don't you publish one telling your lies?
Anybody want to start a fund?
Thomas DiLorenzo has published a book telling the truth.
But it's not a very important issue to you, or you'd have the data you want at your fingertips.
"The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labor, wisdom and forebearance in its formation, and surrounded it with so many guards and securities, if it was to be broken by every member of the Confederacy at will. It was intended for 'perpetual union' so expressed in the preamble, and for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution, or the consent of all the people in convention assembled. It is idle to talk of secession." January 23, 1861
"All the South has ever desired is that the union, as formed by our founding fathers, should be preserved." Jan 5. 1866
-- now that -- is two faced.
Show that Lincoln ever said anything like that.
Here's another interesting little factoid for you:
" Madam, do not train up your children with hostility to the government of the United States. Remember, we are all one country now. Dismiss from your mind all sectional feeling, and bring them up to be Americans."
--Robert E. Lee, 1867.
So I don't see why anyone would take issue with a statue of President Lincoln, do you?
"Bind up the nation's wounds"
"Our fathers* brought forth a new nation"
(lincolon lies and spin are in red text)
"The proposed Constitution, therefore, is, in strictness, neither a national nor a federal Constitution, but a composition of both. In its foundation it is federal, not national"--James Madison *One of "our fathers" the spinmeister referred to
Wasn't lincolon a revisionist?
That would be true if I did not have a life outside this little chat universe, like you don't.
If it's important to someone to discover the truth about what you're spinning, it will be important enough to them to search your voluminous nonsense in FR, where you have been thoroughly and soundly dispatched and refuted, and not just to read this page.
"The proposed Constitution, therefore, is, in strictness, neither a national nor a federal Constitution, but a composition of both. In its foundation it is federal, not national"
--James Madison *One of "our fathers" the spinmeister referred to
"In order, therefore, to form a more perfect union, to establish justice, to insure domestic tranquility, to provide for common defense and to secure the blessings of liberty, those people, among whom were the people of Georgia, ordained and established the present constitution. By that constitution, legislative power is vested, executive power is vested, judicial power is vested...We may then infer, that the people of the United States intended to bind the several states, by the legislative power of the national government...
Whoever considers, in a combined and comprehensive view, the general texture of the constitution, will be satisfied that the people of the United States intended to form themselves into a nation for national purposes. They instituted, for such purposes, a national government complete in all its parts, with powers legislative, executive and judiciary, ad in all those powers extending over the whole nation. "
John Jay, first Chief Justice, 1793:
"It is remarkable that in establishing it, the people exercised their own rights and their own proper sovereignty, and conscious of the plenitude of it, they declared with becoming dignity, "We the people of the United States," 'do ordain and establish this Constitution." Here we see the people acting as the sovereigns of the whole country; and in the language of sovereignty, establishing a Constitution by which it was their will, that the state governments should be bound, and to which the State Constitutions should be made to conform. Every State Constitution is a compact made by and between the citizens of a state to govern themselves in a certain manner; and the Constitution of the United States is likewise a compact made by the people of the United States to govern themselves as to general objects, in a certain manner. By this great compact however, many prerogatives were transferred to the national Government, such as those of making war and peace, contracting alliances, coining money, etc."
--Chisholm v. Georgia, 1793
Chief Justice John Marshall:
"The subject is the execution of those great powers on which the welfare of a nation essentially depends. It must have been the intention of those who gave these powers, to insure, as far as human prudence could insure, their beneficial execution. This could not be done by confining their choice of means to such narrow limits as not to leave it in the power of Congress to adopt any which might be appropriate, and which were conducive to the end...to have prescribed the means by which the government, should, in all future times, execute its powers, would have been to change, entirely, the character of the instrument, and give it the properties of a legal code...To have declared, that the best means shal not be used, but those alone, without which the power given would be nugatory...if we apply this principle of construction to any of the powers of the government, we shall find it so pernicious in its operation that we shall be compelled to discard it..."
From McCullough v. Maryland, quoted in "American Constitutional Law" A.T. Mason, et al. ed. 1983 p. 165
As to Virginia:
"The mischievous consequences of the construction contended for on the part of Virginia, are also entitled to great consideration. It would prostrate, it has been said, the government and its laws at the feet of every state in the Union. And would this not be the effect? What power of the government could be executed by its own means, in any states disposed to resist its execution by a course of legislation?...each member will possess a veto on the will of the whole...there is certainly nothing in the circumstances under which our constitution was formed; nothing in the history of the times, which justify the opinion that the confidence reposed in the states was so implicit as to leave in them and their tribunals the power of resisting or defeating, in the form of law, the legislative measures of the Union..."
ibid, p. 169-70
And James Madison: "The doctrine laid down by the law of Nations in the case of treaties is that a breach of any one article by any of the parties, frees the other parties from their engagements. In the case of a union of people under one Constitution, the nature of the pact had always been understood to exclude such an interpretation." (Remarks to the Constitutional Convention, July 23, 1787).
"The essential difference between a free Government and Governments not free, is that the former is founded in compact, the parties to which are mutually and equally bound by it. Neither of them can have a greater right to break off from the bargain, then the other or others have to hold them to it. And certainly there is nothing in the Virginia resolutions of --98, adverse to this principle, which is that of common sense and common justice. The fallacy which draws a different conclusion from them lies in confounding a single party, with the parties to the Constitutional compact of the United States. The latter having made the compact may do what they will with it. The former as one only of the parties, owes fidelity to it, till released by consent, or absolved by an intolerable abuse of the power created...."
(James Madison, Writings; Rakove, Jack N., editor; The Library of America; 1999; p. 862)
In March, 1833, he wrote to William Cabell Rives as follows:
"The nullifiers it appears, endeavor to shelter themselves under a distinction between a delegation and a surrender of powers. But if the powers be attributes of sovereignty & nationality & the grant of them be perpetual, as is necessarily implied, where not otherwise expressed, sovereignty & nationality are effectually transferred by it, and the dispute about the name, is but a battle of words. The practical result is not indeed left to argument or inference. The words of the Constitution are explicit that the Constitution & laws of the U. S. shall be supreme over the Constitution and laws of the several States; supreme in their exposition and execution as well as in their authority. Without a supremacy in those respects it would be like a scabbard in the hands of a soldier without a sword in it.
The imagination itself is startled at the idea of twenty four independent expounders of a rule that cannot exist, but in a meaning and operation, the same for all.
"The conduct of S. Carolina has called forth not only the question of nullification; but the more formidable one of secession. It is asked whether a State by resuming the sovereign form in which it entered the Union, may not of right withdrasw from it at will. As this is a simple question whether a State, more than an individual, has a right to violate its engagements, it would seem that it might be safely left to answer itself. But the countenance given to the claim shows that it cannot be so lightly dismissed. The natural feelings which laudably attach the people composing a state, to its authority and importance, are at present too much excited by the unnatural feelings, with which they have been inspired agst. (sic) their bretheren of other States, not to expose them, to the dangers of being misled into erroneous views of the nature of the Union and the interest they have in it. One thing at least seems to be too clear to be questioned; that whilst a State remains within the Union it cannot withdraw its citizens from the operation of the Constitution & laws of the Union. In the event of an actual secession without the Consent of the Co-States, the course to be pursued by these involves questions painful in the discussion of them. God grant that the menacing appearances, which obtrude it may not be followed by positive occurrences requiring the more painful task of deciding them!"
(ibid; pp. 864, 865)
"That the United States form, for many, and for most important purposes, a single nation, has not yet been denied. In war, we are one people. In making peace, we are one people. In all commercial regulations, we are one and the same people. In many other respects, the American people are one; and the government which is alone capable of controlling and managing their interests in all these respects, is the government of the Union. It is their government and in that character, they have no other. America has chosen to be, in many respects, and in many purposes, a nation; and for all these purposes, her government is complete; to all these objects it is competent. The people have declared that in the exercise of all powers given for these objects, it is supreme. It can, then, in effecting these objects, legitimately control all individuals or governments within the American territory. The constitution and laws of a state, so far as they are repugnant to the constitution and laws of of the United States are absolutely void. These states are constituent parts of the United States; they are members of one great empire--for some purposes sovereign, for some purposes subordinate."
--Chief Justice John Marshall, writing the majority opinion, Cohens v. Virginia 1821
You can play that federalist 39 tune all you like.
There is not a nickel's worth of difference in the way that Washington, Madison, Jefferson,Jackson and Lincoln viewed the Constitution.
Head of the Virginia Division of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, who is quoted in the original article with a statement in opposition to the erection of the statue of Lincoln in Richmond, Virginia.
Commander Brag Bowling
The Virginia Division of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, on their website, has included the Pledge to the Confederate Flag, which reads as follows:
I salute the Confederate Flag with affection, reverence and undying devotion to the Cause for which it stands.
Maybe he'll remember that comment the next time he wonders why blacks (the descendants of people enslaved by the culture of his ancestors) get upset over Confederate flags and monuments. Maybe he'll remember that comment when blacks act like they don't like the term "states rights" which was used as a defense of legal, forced segregation into the early to mid 1960s. After all, a century of apartheid into generations which are currently middle aged does tend to make a people peevish.