I thought I would send everyone on VA History something I wrote in reponse to 
a local Loudoun County VA Council Members Editorial in a local paper.  It 
relates to Lincoln's proposed statue at Tredegar and Delegate Black's 
outspoken comments against it.   I have several references in it that my 
surprise folks - will kinda should strange if you imagine they game fromthe 
lips of the man who had such inspiring and eloquent speeches as the 
Gettysburg Address and his 2nd Inaugural Address.  Anyway, I am not 
anti-Lincoln.  I think in the end the Civil War and they way the country not 
only remained as one, but propelled itself to its current status was for the 
better.  The splintering of the US in the 1800s would have, in my mind, been 
like the demise of the Greek city states.  perhaps we will fade as the Roman 
Empire did or succumb to the increasing burdens and tighting grip the federal 
government seems to be taking on society (opinion there), but it has been a 
great experiment and proof of the democratic concepts we all treasure.   In 
that vein I submit my editorial ramblings.    


An Inaccurate Day for Lincoln in Lincoln
By Tom McMahon

As a simple taxpayer in the ever sprawling Villages of Round Hill where I pay 
large water bills to the Town of Round Hill without any representation on its 
board, I am bound by simple historical relevancy and accuracy to respond to 
Eleanore Towe's guest Opinion "A Black Day for Lincoln" which appeared on the 
front page of the Blue Ridge Leader on January 24.  As politicians evoke the 
moral virtue of the founding Quakers (whose early and long standing 
abolitionist stances in history are well known) of Lincoln, Va in order to 
add credence to their two cents, I feel, I must mention how history and its 
relevance to the debate is being crucified.

The debate in question is on whether or not a privately designed and donated 
statue of Abraham Lincoln and his son Tad sitting on a bench should be 
erected within the Tredegar Iron Works, a site in the National Battlefield 
Parks site in Richmond, managed by the National Park Service.  The words "To 
bind up the nation's wounds" are to be carved into the granite above the 
statue.  

I do not agree with Del. Black that a President's statue does not belong 
anywhere in the state of Virginia and he, as Towe believes, may very well be 
choosing to make a big stink over something far from his district to get 
statewide notoriety in an effort to enhance future political aspirations.  
Well done if that was his goal, as Ms. Towe's response makes us all aware of 
him.  

However, from a strictly historical relevance perspective, with no ulterior 
or "darker side" motives, I would have to agree with Del. Black if forced to 
decide on its appropriateness.  Statues of historical figures, such as this 
one, should have some relevant rationale as to their design and placement and 
usually do.  Given the historical event, Lincoln's quick visit to a still 
burning, utterly destroyed city, with acrid smoke filling the air two days 
after its Union capture, is inconsistent with the design of statue of Lincoln 
and his son sitting on a bench.  It seems rather ridiculous.  The visit to 
Richmond, in and of itself, is not worthy memorializing.  Also, why Lincoln 
should be immortalized at the site of the largest arsenal of weapons used to 
kill Union troops - troops Lincoln sent to their death during the 5 year 
Civil War just doesn't not make historical sense.  Maybe the Brits could put 
Oliver Cromwell's likeness at Buckingham Palace or why not have the U.S. 
Federal Government put a statue of Robert E. Lee in front of his home on 
Arlington Heights overlooking Arlington Cemetery.   After all Lee was a model 
of reconciliation after the war.  What's more, it might make amends to the 
fact Lincoln's government essentially confiscated his land and illegally 
began burying Union dead on his property during the war (especially in his 
Rose Garden next to the house) knowing full well this act would prevent him 
from ever returning to his home.  

However, since Lincoln's visit did happen (I will forgive the inaccuracy of 
the timing of the quote from March 1865), the statue was not paid for by 
taxpayers, and the fact Tredegar is privately owned, I really do not care if 
it ever gets erected or not.  It has certainly enraged die hard Old South 
proponents which in turn has the liberals up in arms.  What is sad though, is 
the fact that stuck in between the political volley and serve over this 
memorial is accurate history.  But then again, history was probably not even 
the intention of the private group donating the sculpture as they intend to 
sell replicas and pad their purses.  Shame on the National Park Service to 
allow a park to be a stage for such enterprise.    

What I do care about are some of the very poor historical assumptions and 
connotations used on the part of Ms. Towe and the air of infallibility she 
attaches to them.  Much of the basis of her argument in support of the 
statue, in opposition to Del. Black, warrant inclusion in the "History for 
Dummies" series.  She defines Lincoln as "a leader, a man to be honored 
through all ages," and goes on herself to define "a leader should be working 
towards understanding and healing old wounds, and bringing people together."  
Ms. Towe uses this definition apparently to chide Del. Black.  However, it's 
also a rather odd definition to apply to Abraham Lincoln if you pause and 
think about it.  He was a President, who when confronted with succession, did 
not seek reconciliation or to compromise, but rather actively and 
aggressively fought a devastating 5 year war, the bloodiest in American 
history.  What is incredibly interesting with regard to Virginia history is 
when you stop to realize that Lincoln fought a war against succession and yet 
sanctioned the division and succession of northwestern potions of our state 
which become the state of West Virginia!  Perhaps Del. Black might find a 
more defensible reason in this completely contradictory and dictatorial 
action to rationalize not having Lincoln immortalized anywhere in Virginia.

What's more Ms. Towe insinuates that speaking out against the placement of 
this statue, is an attack against Lincoln, and thus, in some way, a veiled 
way of voicing support of past "inequities," which I presume alludes to 
racial inequities.  Is it unethical to question the who, the why, the how, 
and the where regarding this Lincoln statue?  The fact that Ms. Towe is 
"troubled" by such questions of basic historical relevancy clearly shows that 
she herself is a victim of the simplified popular mythology we Americans 
indulge ourselves in the personification of Abraham Lincoln.  

What Towe and most Americans do not recognize is that Lincoln was, like the 
majority of whites in the 1860s, a racist.  His words of reconciliation which 
will be carved in the statue "To bind up the nation's wounds" (Towe quotes 
the rest of the verse from his Second Inaugural Address) was spoken with only 
whites in mind.  Perhaps, in order to add appropriate historical context and 
balance, listen to Lincoln's own words from 1858 in one of the famous public 
Lincoln-Douglas debates in Ottawa, Illinois:

"I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the 
white and black races.  There is a physical difference between the two, 
which, I my judgment will probably forever forbid their living together upon 
the footing of perfect equity and in as much as it becomes necessary that 
there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas am in favor of the 
race in which I belong having the superior position.  I have never said 
anything to the contrary."

Does this quote sound like words of wisdom from Lincoln or abhorrent doctrine 
of racial superiority?  I have a strong suspicion that if anyone attempted to 
place a statue of Lincoln with the above statement in Ottawa Illinois, let 
alone Lincoln Virginia, Ms. Towe would denounce the attempt whole heartedly - 
directly in face of her proclamation that "there should not be a single place 
where a statue of Abraham Lincoln and his words of wisdom are not welcome."   
There are multitudes of Lincoln quotes and views that can be used to point 
out that Towe's evoking of Lincoln's personification as incorruptible or 
stainless is utterly naïve.  

Lincoln was in no way an abolitionist, but rather a mild white superiorist/ 
seggregationalist and a firm believer in re-colonization, which is the 
sending off of the black population to either the Caribbean or back to 
Africa.  He supported the Fugitive Slave law enacted in 1850, corroborating 
the fact slaves where considered property.  He was against slavery's 
expansion into territories, but only for purely political reasons.  As a 
Republican he simply did not want to see its extension as it would extend the 
leverage the 3/5 Compromise gave to the Democratic Party in Congress.  The 
3/5 Compromise was used to count every slave as 3/5 of a person in census 
counting and determination of congressional seats distribution.  This 
compromise in the past had in the past allowed the Southern predominantly 
Democratic states to maintain a balance of power in Congress, which 
Republicans of the late 1850s, early 1860s sought to overcome.  

Lincoln simply did not have the moral beliefs, fortitude, or desire to 
eliminate the institution of slavery.  In his first Presidential Inaugural 
speech in 1860 Lincoln stated plainly "I have no purpose, directly or 
indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where 
it exists" and indeed, even promised to strengthen the Fugitive Slave laws.   
In August 1862 only weeks before issuing the draft Emancipation Proclamation, 
Lincoln wrote a public letter to Horace Greeley, the noted abolitionist and 
editor of the New York Tribune:

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either 
to save or destroy slavery.  If I could save the Union without freeing any 
slave I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I 
would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone 
I would also do that.  What I do about slavery and the colored race I do 
because it helps to save the union;"

Hardly words of a morally convicted emancipator and again, words that are not 
likely candidates for inclusion on the next Lincoln memorial, but they are 
words of Lincoln himself.  Lincoln, in reality was the consummate shrewd 
politician, much like those of today, where political gain and entrenchment 
dominate morality and ethics.  

With regard to the actual Emancipation Proclamation he issued is a clear 
example of his political motivations and shameful lack of moral concern.  
Lincoln admitted he issued it as a "military measure," with the war 
stalemated, and fully acknowledged he had no constitutional authority to do 
so.    He issued it for 3 main reasons:  1) The hope that potential of slave 
insurrection in the South would be realized, 2) European states, most of 
which had abolished slavery in the last 50 years would be hesitant to trade 
with the South as the last great bastion of Slavery, and 3) To appease the 
pro-abolitionist radical members of the Republican Part so as to keep their 
support for the war.   As a further and perhaps most damning exemplification 
of Lincoln's shallow moral constitution, Lincoln exempted ever bit of 
Northern controlled territory that contained slaves from the Proclamation.  
Slavery in the border states of Maryland, Kentucky, and West Virginia and in 
occupied portions of Virginia, Louisiana, Tennessee, etc. was fully protected 
and allowed to continue.  So in effect, Lincoln "freed" the slaves in Rebel 
controlled south, which gave the net effect of not a single slave being 
freed.  So much for the "Great Emancipator" leading by moral or ethical 
example.

I highly doubt Ms. Towe would endorse or in anyway agree with the Lincoln's 
statements, beliefs, and/or actions I have cited.  Popular history alone has 
provided Lincoln as a seemingly firm platform for Ms. Towe to safeguard her 
opinion, but in reality our 16th President was far from infallibly and loaded 
with all to human moral and ethical contradictions.   

Abraham Lincoln is, without doubt, a Great Figure in history and an icon of 
Americana.  However, his assassination, and subsequent elevation to 
martyrdom, has warped the historical accuracies surrounding him, so much so 
that his true motivations and beliefs have become irrelevant.  The Great 
Emancipator is a terrible misnomer.   His personification as such, much like 
the use of the Confederate Battle Flag today, has been usurped by people and 
movements over the last 140 years, making it impossible for the majority of 
Americans discern what he truly stood for.  To somehow use Abraham Lincoln as 
shining beacon of racial equality only serves to do great historical 
injustice to the multitudes of forces, from the early abolitionists to the 
great Civil Rights leaders of our times, which truly deserve recognition.   
Racial equity under that law took 100 years post-Civil War to be gained and 
social equity remains a work in progress.  

The statue of Lincoln and his son sitting on a bench is simply out of place 
in Tredegar. The addition and connotation conjured up by the emblazoned 
quotation qualifies it as a good dose of dumb-dumb history.  The memorial and 
its words might be the ideal in a world of political correctness, but popular 
history and political usurpation be damned, it simply isn't a worthy or 
appropriate historical enshrinement.  Be assured, any true and informed 
Quaker living in Lincoln Virginia in the 1860s would recognize that Abraham 
Lincoln might have good reason to be enshrined as the wager and victor of the 
Civil War, preserver of the Union, or as the President of the United States, 
but he had very little legitimacy to be immortalized as a proponent, much 
less as a leader, of true moral racial emancipation and equality.   

To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html