Eleanor Holmes Norton announces she wants Lincoln "Emancipation" statue removed from Lincoln Park

[Anonymous]

Can I ask what you and the grandkids can celebrate? Tell me a few holidays or statues in DC that dont have some ki d of controversy. A lost please.

[Anonymous]

Thanks to the person who posted the Ford's Theater piece which walks through looking at the statue in context. This statue was a political statement at the time. it used to face the Capitol and with far less trees, it was a visible reminder to the politicians that slavery was ended permanently and that a president had been assassinated for his actions.

Douglass' speech is amazing for its blunt critique yet admiration for Lincoln. As far as Douglass not liking the statue, it says that cannot be found in any primary sources.

This was the one of the first statues of Lincoln put up in the U.S. and the Freedmen's Assn wanted him honored and I respect that, even if it is cringe-worthy today. I don't want the statue pulled down by protesters, so I support what Norton is doing to get the NPS to move it. I just don't think it is worth getting arrested for statue vandalism when we can get them removed. Better to get arrested for protesting with others at the Capitol for our current injustices, including a better police reform bill.

[Anonymous]

Smithsonian volunteers have transcribed the Douglass speech and other speeches made that day in 1876, including the design. This statue really needs to be set with historical context.
https://transcription.si.edu/project/12955

[Anonymous]

I'm presuming Roosevelt monument will need to come down (not entering the war quickly enough, any Truman memorials (nuclear weapons), MLK (treatment of women), etc. I think Gandhi and Carter could stay..... though who knows--may offend someone, somewhere. Obama is probably in the clear; his personal life seems impeccable though he did descend from slaveholders, so he will have to pay reparations to Michelle's side of the family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wonder what world we are leaving for the kids and grandkids, once everything has been removed and all celebrations are controversial. I'm assuming AA's are not celebrating the 4th of July? Oh well.

Stupid hyperbole aside:

https://www.theroot.com/what-to-the-slave-is-the-fourth-of-july-1836083536

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Smithsonian volunteers have transcribed the Douglass speech and other speeches made that day in 1876, including the design. This statue really needs to be set with historical context.
https://transcription.si.edu/project/12955

People often equate statues with history, but this statue could really use some contextualization, which would allow it to actually teach some important history.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see strength, determination, and resolve in the black man’s face. I see him actively rising to embrace his freedom. Instead of looking to Lincoln as a savior, he’s looking (and oriented) in a completely different direction — likely looking at and preparing to enter his future as a free man.

I don’t find this statue offensive.

Lincoln wanted to send all of the African-Americans back to Africa (i.e., Liberia), so he had the same prejudices of most white politicians of his time. With that context, the statue is particularly offensive.

So, you want Lincoln canceled then, correct? Because the reasoning you offer above goes far beyond one statue.

If you think that enriching our understanding of historical figured over time is “cancelling” and should not be tolerated ... then I think you’re the person with a shaky understanding of how history works. If you’re so positive that reconsideration of Lincoln is wrong, write your own d*mn book!

[Anonymous]

By today's standards, it's not a great statue. I can see why it would bother people. It makes me uncomfortable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Wow, that angle is something else.

This has been discussed on my DC neighborhood listserv. Seems many would support taking it down.

It depicts an AA man in a demeaning position. If the AA community would like it to go, I support that.

PP here. Here's a news clip in which a couple of my neighbors were interviewed about why they don't like the statue.

https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/residents-call-for-changes-to-emancipation-memorial-in-lincoln-park/2335539/

However, AAs aren't a monolith. There are at least a few who support the statue remaining in place because freed slaves funded it.

https://wjla.com/news/local/dc-lincoln-park-emancipation-memorial-freed-black-americans-paid

Amen! POC are one gigantic homogenous monolith. The fact that some black people don't like the statue doesn't mean that all black people feel the same way.

Amen! The fact that some POC don’t find it offensive doesn’t mean that many more do find it highly offensive.

If AA want it gone so be it. However why can't the statue be physically altered? Remove the kneeling person? Why can't the NYC Roosevelt statue leave Teddy on the horse and artists remove the other figures? WPA style projects? Damaged statues can be repaired so why not alteed?

Change Lee o Grant? But he is also now bad. Ghandi, Churchill , et al. Move govt offices out of the Capital and make it apartments?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

This is a play on the angle of the photo and frankly manipulative. Please don't do this! Lincoln wasn't petting anyone's head.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://wjla.com/news/local/dc-lincoln-park-emancipation-memorial-freed-black-americans-paid

This statue was paid for by formerly enslaved people, but even Frederick Douglas was disappointed in the design. Since the statue is on federal land, perhaps it should go to the National Museum of African American History, and a new statue commissioned.

Before we discuss this, what about getting rid of that crazy statue of racist Mayor Barry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://wjla.com/news/local/dc-lincoln-park-emancipation-memorial-freed-black-americans-paid

This statue was paid for by formerly enslaved people, but even Frederick Douglas was disappointed in the design. Since the statue is on federal land, perhaps it should go to the National Museum of African American History, and a new statue commissioned.

Before we discuss this, what about getting rid of that crazy statue of racist Mayor Barry.

Never will happen. DC double standards. We care about racism until we don't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can I ask what you and the grandkids can celebrate? Tell me a few holidays or statues in DC that dont have some ki d of controversy. A lost please.

We celebrate Lenin, Stalin and Mao, of course.

[Anonymous]

Does this even matter:

The funding drive for the monument began, according to much-publicized newspaper accounts from the era, with $5 given by former slave Charlotte Scott of Virginia, then residing with the family of her former master in Marietta, Ohio, for the purpose of creating a memorial honoring Lincoln.[6][7] The Western Sanitary Commission, a St. Louis-based volunteer war-relief agency, joined the effort and raised some $20,000 before announcing a new $50,000 goal.[8]

According to the National Park Service, the monument was paid for solely by former slaves:

The campaign for the Freedmen's Memorial Monument to Abraham Lincoln, as it was to be known, was not the only effort of the time to build a monument to Lincoln; however, as the only one soliciting contributions exclusively from those who had most directly benefited from Lincoln's act of emancipation it had a special appeal ... The funds were collected solely from freed slaves (primarily from African American Union veterans) ...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does this even matter:

The funding drive for the monument began, according to much-publicized newspaper accounts from the era, with $5 given by former slave Charlotte Scott of Virginia, then residing with the family of her former master in Marietta, Ohio, for the purpose of creating a memorial honoring Lincoln.[6][7] The Western Sanitary Commission, a St. Louis-based volunteer war-relief agency, joined the effort and raised some $20,000 before announcing a new $50,000 goal.[8]

According to the National Park Service, the monument was paid for solely by former slaves:

The campaign for the Freedmen's Memorial Monument to Abraham Lincoln, as it was to be known, was not the only effort of the time to build a monument to Lincoln; however, as the only one soliciting contributions exclusively from those who had most directly benefited from Lincoln's act of emancipation it had a special appeal ... The funds were collected solely from freed slaves (primarily from African American Union veterans) ...

Wow. That was a LOT of money for back then. Bless them.