Author: David J. Kent

David J. Kent is an avid science traveler, scientist, and Abraham Lincoln historian. He is the author of books on Nikola Tesla, Thomas Edison, and Abraham Lincoln. His website is www.davidjkent-writer.com.
8 Comments

Can We Add Context to Confederate Monuments?

  By

Confederate monument exampleAs I continue to explore “The Rational Case for Removing Confederate Monuments,” a key question has arisen: Can we add context to Confederate monuments and keep them in place? [Note: Also see my post: Do we ‘erase history’ by removing confederate monuments?]

Most of the existing Confederate monuments (statues, as well as school, army base, and street names) remain standing in the locations in which they were placed over the last century. A small number have been removed, although removals are still occurring as local and state communities grapple with the question. A tiny number were pulled down during the racial justice protests in 2020. Little has been done to the remaining monuments, but there have been calls to leave them in place and add additional context.

A good illustration of the difficulties of adding context comes from a statue of Abraham Lincoln that had been targeted for forcible removal during the summer of 2020. The Emancipation Memorial, also called the Freedman’s Memorial, is not a Confederate statue. It was erected as a commemoration of Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation and freedom for enslaved African Americans. The funds for the statue were raised entirely from freed slaves and Frederick Douglass gave the keynote address at its dedication in 1876. The black male figure is modeled after a specific freed slave named Archer Alexander. This history would seem to make the statue immune to attack. However, the design includes a standing Lincoln with a crouched African American man breaking his chains and apparently rising to freedom. This “superior” positioning of a white male versus “inferior” positioning of a black male was controversial from the beginning (the funders had no say in the statue design). In our current time, the third time period reflected by all statues, many believe the design to be inappropriate. Historians and the public alike have debated what to do with the statue, if anything.

As with Confederate statues, some have suggested that the Emancipation Memorial can be augmented with additional context. So what context might be added?

Emancipation Memorial

Within a week after dedicating the Emancipation Memorial, Frederick Douglass expressed in a newspaper advertisement that the design had some problematic elements. He suggested that additional bronze figures might be added around the statue to complement, and more fully contextualize, the main Lincoln/Alexander artwork. Nothing was done at the time and today there is a legal problem in doing so. The statue is owned and maintained by the National Park Service, which is barred by law from removing – or adding – any additional statues. Given today’s congressional trend toward inaction, the idea of Congress passing a law to allow additional figures seems remote. [DC delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton introduced a bill in the summer of 2020 to have the Emancipation Memorial removed, but as of this writing no further action has occurred.]

Forgetting this logistical roadblock, historians and the public have offered various options for adding statues to provide a fuller picture. They include turning the statue again so that the Archer Alexander figure is looking across the park to the Mary McLeod Bethune statue. [The entire Emancipation Memorial statue had been turned 180 degrees in the 1970s to face the newly installed Bethune statue; Bethune was a black educator and civil rights activist] Others have suggested statues of Frederick Douglass, Sojourner Truth, and/or Harriet Tubman be added. There is also a suggestion that the statue be replaced by one featuring Lincoln and Douglass standing together, eye-to-eye, shaking hands, which would show them as equal statesmen. As noted, however, the idea of adding statuary seems a losing battle on NPS land.

Another suggestion is to add signage with additional context. Again, the Emancipation Memorial shows the difficulty and apparent ineffectiveness of this option. During two “teach-ins” conducted in the summer of 2020 at the Emancipation Memorial, including one where protest activists expressed their contempt for the statue and attempted to arouse the gathered crowd to pull it down, many attendees said they were unaware of the history noted above (Funding by former slaves, Frederick Douglass dedication, Archer Alexander figure). And yet, the Memorial itself contains a large (3 foot x 5 foot) plaque on the side of the pedestal explaining the funding process, including that Charlotte Scott, a former slave, had contributed the first $5. People don’t read, or don’t remember, plaques. Howard University Lincoln scholar Edna Greene Medford recently noted that statues are built to be seen, not read. Given historical patterns, virtually no one would see, or retain, any additional context signage added to existing monuments.

Costs and logistics would also seem to be prohibitive. Any additional context signage would have to be permanent; paper or temporary billboard signage wouldn’t last long enough to be meaningful. This means that additional context would need to be included on permanent, probably bronze, plaques installed on or near the statues. It’s unclear that NPS limitations would allow even this change. Bronze (or marble or any other permanent material) is expensive. The cost and time to design, fund, get permissions, and build permanent addendums would require considerable time. It seems unlikely that 99% of existing monuments would ever see additional permanent contextual elements added.

When it comes to Confederate monuments the difficulties of context become even more acute. What additional context could be added to a statue of Nathan Bedford Forrest, for example? As I noted in response to a comment on the initial Confederate Monument post, Nathan Bedford Forrest’s historical context would obviously have to include his Confederate Army service, as well as his roles in the murders of black Union troops (USCT) at Ft. Pillow and elsewhere, as well as his role as grand dragon of the KKK. In all cases, the full story would need to be told. Would those wanting to preserve Confederate heritage want that story? Robert E. Lee’s story might include his service in the United States Army prior to rejecting the Union and fighting for the Confederacy to protect and expand slavery. His time after the war as president of Washington College (renamed Washington and Lee after his death) might be relevant if any of his actions were relevant to his standing. Similarly, Jefferson Davis forsook his United States citizenship and his prior service as U.S. Secretary of War and U.S. Senator to become president of the Confederacy with the swore belief in white supremacy, slavery, and rejection of the U.S. Constitution. Again, what additional context would improve the historical position of Confederate leaders and generals in today’s society?

As we can see, there are significant roadblocks to adding context to Confederate monuments, both logistical and textual content.

The discussion above is primarily focused on adding contexts to statues in situ, that is where the statues are currently placed in public areas. Two other options have been suggested: One, to move statues into museums where context would be easier to add (e.g., they wouldn’t need to be as durable); the other is to move statues to battlefield locations or to special parks. I’ll address both of these ideas in future posts.

A reminder that this is a continuing series of posts addressing rational discussion of the fate of Confederate monuments. The initial post is: The Rational Case for Removing Confederate Monuments. This and follow up posts are appended at the end of that post.

[Emancipation Memorial photo credit: David J. Kent; Confederate monument photo source: Confederate Statues Come Down Around U.S., But Not Everywhere : NPR]

David J. Kent is an avid traveler, scientist, and Abraham Lincoln historian. He is the author of Lincoln: The Man Who Saved America, Tesla: The Wizard of Electricity and Edison: The Inventor of the Modern World as well as two specialty e-books: Nikola Tesla: Renewable Energy Ahead of Its Time and Abraham Lincoln and Nikola Tesla: Connected by Fate.

Check out my Goodreads author page. While you’re at it, “Like” my Facebook author page for more updates!

2 Comments

(Part 2) Abraham Lincoln – The Majesty and the Math of Niagara Falls

  By

Lincoln tightrope at Niagara Falls[This is Part 2. Read Part 1 here.]

Lincoln did appreciate the allure of the Falls. The very first impression in his fragment is “Niagara-Falls! By what mysterious power is it that millions and millions, are drawn from all parts of the world, to gaze upon Niagara Falls?” Kaplan, in his book “Biography of a Writer,” notes that the simplicity of the opening exclamatory “establishes the hugeness of his subject.” He further notes that “the exclamation point is both redundant and expressive,” signs of someone who appreciates the magnificence of the Falls. Lincoln’s sensitivity to the Falls’ is further shown in his fragment as he recognizes “its power to excite reflection, and emotion, is its great charm.” Therefore, it appears Lincoln did appreciate the beauty of the Falls, as well as the power of its attraction to people drawn from far and wide.

That said, Herndon is right in his observation that Lincoln had a problem-solver mentality. Seeing the Falls in person is an overwhelming experience. Yes, the beauty, the grandeur, the roar of the water falling into the misty gorge. But the astute Lincoln would also ponder where all that water comes from, and why does it not drain the lake? A systematic thinker would be curious about the larger technical issues of the falls, in addition to the beauty.

As Lincoln whiled away the long days and nights on the Globe as it worked its way through the Great Lakes, his mind was clearly on a future lecture on what he had seen at Niagara. Indeed, while he never completed his Niagara fragment, he did make mention of Niagara Falls in a draft of his later lecture on Discoveries and Inventions, before striking it out. In his analytical thinking, Lincoln did not believe there was any great mystery of the physics behind the falls itself.

“If the water moving onward in a great river, reaches a point where there is a perpendicular jog, of a hundred feet in descent, in the bottom of the river, Lincoln noted dryly, “it is plain the water will have a violent and continuous plunge at that point.” Having dropped off the edge, “thus plunging, will foam, and roar, and send up a mist.” If the sun is shining, it is only logical that “there will be perpetual rain-bows.”

Others may have been satisfied with the “mere physical” of Niagara Falls, or like Herndon, enthralled by the beauty without thinking too much about the science, but Lincoln’s analytical mind took this much further. He thought of the phenomenon from multiple viewpoints, a characteristic that allowed him to make decisions with both deeper and broader understanding than most people. Examining his fragment gives us further insight into that mind.

“The geologist will demonstrate,” Lincoln writes, as he envisioned how the vast movement of water wears away the rock as it plunges over the Falls, not just of the bottom, but more importantly, from the top. He speculated that that geologist would “ascertain how fast it is wearing now,” and determine from this that the Earth was “at least fourteen thousand years old.” This estimate is close to the time of the last Ice Age, which is when the Falls were formed.

Lincoln also showed he had some grasp of natural hydrology cycles, speculating that a natural philosopher “of a slightly different turn,” would look at Niagara as the pouring of “all the surplus water which rains down on two or three hundred thousand square miles of the earth’s surface.” He was remarkably accurate in this estimate; today’s scientists say the Niagara River and Lake Erie combined drain a watershed of 265,000 square miles. This same natural philosopher, according to Lincoln, might estimate “that five hundred thousand [to]ns of water, falls with its full weight, a distance of a hundred feet each minute—thus exerting a force equal to the lifting of the same weight, through the same space, in the same time.”

This is rather scientific stuff for a frontier lawyer with little formal education. Lincoln is writing this as he made his way back by steamer home from the East, so he would seem to be recalling all this from memory. But he did not stop there. Lincoln elaborates on this hydrology cycle by pulling in the role of the sun, which through the process of evaporation the water is “constantly lifted up.” He contemplates that if enough water is raised from the watershed to feed the Falls, this natural philosopher would be “overwhelmed in the contemplation of the vast power the sun is constantly exerting in quiet, noiseless operation of lifting water up to be rained down again.” This sounds like a science geek talking, not a future president. He would incorporate this view of solar power (as well as energy from the wind) in his later Discoveries and Inventions lecture.

“But still there is more.”

Lincoln was not finished. In the last paragraph of his Niagara fragment he turns philosophical. He suggests that Niagara Falls “calls up the indefinite past,” and “when Columbus first sought this continent—when Christ suffered on the cross—when Moses led Israel through the Red Sea—nay, even, when Adam first came from the hand of his Maker—then as now, Niagara was roaring here.” Lincoln also shows some familiarity with paleontology, noting that the “Mammoth and Mastodon,” whose existence is demonstrated by “fragments of their monstrous bones,” also “gazed on Niagara.” This section shows that Lincoln could be as philosophical as he could scientific.

Lincoln thus shows he is multidimensional in his thinking. While Herndon was enthralled by the beauty and power of the Falls, Lincoln saw the Falls as both beautiful and a learning experience. He contemplated not only its charm and power to excite emotion, but also its hydrology, geology, and natural science aspects. Keeping in mind that the Falls we see today are significantly lessened since the 1895 diversion of water into tunnels feeding the new hydroelectric plant, the site Lincoln saw must have been awe-inspiring indeed.

With Herndon notoriously lacking of a sense of humor, we also have to wonder whether Lincoln was pulling Herndon’s leg a bit with his initial reply to Herndon’s “deepest impression” query about the Falls. But clearly the events immediately following his brief visit were important in securing the technical aspects of the Falls in Lincoln’s already scientifically-primed mind, his “fascination from an early age with the human, the mechanical, and the natural, how things work in the world.”

Lincoln would once again get a chance to view the magnificence of the Falls. During a July 1857 trip to New York, ostensibly to collect an outstanding $5000 fee for a railroad case, Mary Lincoln notes that some portion of the trip was “spent most pleasantly traveling east,” with stops in “Niagara, Canada, and New York.” It is highly likely, as husband and wife gazed romantically upon the majesty of Niagara Falls, Lincoln was secretly doing a little math in his head.

[The above is adapted from my article by the same title in The Lincolnian, a publication of the Lincoln Group of the District of Columbia. If you missed Part 1 you can read it here.]

David J. Kent is an avid traveler, scientist, and Abraham Lincoln historian. He is the author of Lincoln: The Man Who Saved America, Tesla: The Wizard of Electricity and Edison: The Inventor of the Modern World as well as two specialty e-books: Nikola Tesla: Renewable Energy Ahead of Its Time and Abraham Lincoln and Nikola Tesla: Connected by Fate.

Check out my Goodreads author page. While you’re at it, “Like” my Facebook author page for more updates!

2 Comments

(Part 1) Abraham Lincoln – The Majesty and the Math of Niagara Falls

  By

Niagara FallsAbraham Lincoln was fascinated by science and technology. In his personal life he sought to improve his knowledge, studying not only the law but Euclid geometry, astronomy, and various forms of technology-driven improvement. As President he was often the first man inventors (and hucksters) would seek out with their new devices. He even had a patent, the first and only President ever to receive one. But perhaps the best way to highlight Lincoln’s way of thinking would be to examine the incredulous response to a question from his law partner, William Herndon.

Lincoln was on his way back to Illinois in 1848 during the intercession of his single term as a US Congressman. It was a presidential year so Lincoln, as a prominent Whig in Congress, gladly accepted an invitation to stump for Zachary Taylor on his first visit to New England. Joined by Mary and their two young sons, Robert at 5 and Eddy at 2-1/2, he made his way to Boston, which he used as a base to make day trips to various cities and towns in eastern Massachusetts. Lobbying for Taylor would later prove to be time well spent when it came to his own presidential aspirations, as would his second New England tour in 1860 following the renowned Cooper Union speech.

After an exhausting 11 days in which he gave 12 speeches in nine Massachusetts communities, Lincoln and family were ready to make the long trip home. Taking a train from Boston to New York City, then on to Albany, Lincoln eventually found his way to upstate New York and the fabled Niagara Falls. Formed during the last Ice Age, Niagara Falls consists of three separate falls: American and Bridal Veil Falls on the American side of the international border, and Horseshoe Falls on the Canadian side. The Falls have a vertical drop of over 165 feet, but because of the incredible width of the combined falls it has an average flow of 4 million cubic feet per minute. Seeing the massive volume of water crossing the precipice into the gorge is something most visitors do not soon forget.

Following his all-too-brief visit, Lincoln boarded the steamship Globe for the trip through the Great Lakes and on to Chicago, from whence he, with family in tow, traveled via the Illinois and Michigan Canal to LaSalle, then took a steamer to Peoria, before boarding a stagecoach for the final leg back to Springfield. Tired and cranky from the long journey, Lincoln caught up with his law practice for several weeks before the next session of Congress would call him back to Washington. After finishing his term as Congressman in 1849, Lincoln returned to Springfield and threw himself into his law career full time. Busy with his law practice, Lincoln likely did not have much time to think about Niagara.

At some later point, William Herndon also went to New York and made his way back by way of Niagara Falls. A few days after Herndon’s return he was regaling Lincoln with an account of his trip. In describing Niagara he “indulged in a good deal of imagery.” Herndon relates that:

“As I warmed up with the subject my descriptive powers expanded accordingly. The mad rush of water, the roar, the rapids, and the rainbow furnished me with an abundance of material for a stirring and impressive picture. The recollection of the gigantic and awe-inspiring scene stimulated my exuberant powers to the highest pitch.”

Nearly exhausted with this description, Herndon then asked Lincoln of his opinion of Niagara Falls. “What made the deepest impression on you when you stood in the presence of the great natural wonder?” he queried Lincoln, expecting something equally imagery-indulgent.

“The thing that struck me most forcibly when I saw the Falls,” Lincoln said, “was, where in the world did all that water come from?”

Dumbfounded, the humorless Herndon could not believe his ears. The beauty! The splendor! Had the man not opened his eyes to the sight before him? Had he not opened his ears to the thundering roar of the water splashing into the mist below?

Herndon’s explanation of Lincoln’s answer was that “it in a very characteristic way illustrates how he looked at everything.” Elaborating, Herndon added:

“He had no eye for the magnificence and grandeur of the scene, for the rapids, the mist, the angry waters, and the roar of the whirlpool, but his mind, working in its accustomed channel, heedless of beauty or awe, followed irresistibly back to the first cause. It was in this light he viewed every question. However great the verbal foliage that concealed the nakedness of a good idea Lincoln stripped it all down till he could see clear the way between cause and effect. If there was any secret in his power this surely was it.”

Herndon undoubtedly is not giving Lincoln enough credit for imagination here. While clearly an analytical thinker, Lincoln was not so divorced from emotion that he would fail to be impressed with the “magnificence and grandeur” of Niagara Falls.

A clue to how Herndon may have focused on this part of Lincoln’s response is in his biography of Lincoln immediately following the above passage about Niagara Falls. Herndon notes that after seeing the Falls, Lincoln continued his journey homeward. Immediately after his visit, while still on the long arduous journey, he took the time to compose a literary fragment likely intended for one of his future scientific lectures. He also found himself witness to an incident that coupled the science and technology of his recent visit to the Falls.

As the steamship Globe made its way through the narrow Detroit River passing between Lakes Erie and Huron, it overtook another steamer, the Canada, which had run aground on Fighting Island. Stuck fast, the Captain ordered the hands to collect “all the loose planks, empty barrels, boxes, and the like which could be had” and force them under her hull to buoy the ship higher in the water. This effort eventually allowed the Canada to escape her entrapment, but not until a few days after Lincoln and the Globe had passed into Lake Huron on their continuing voyage to Chicago. Ever the inquisitive one, and remembering his own experiences getting stuck on the New Salem dam back on the Sangamon, Lincoln was completely enthralled with the ongoing operation. The incident got him thinking seriously about how to solve this particular kind of problem.

Not long after, he would develop his own “improved method of lifting vessels over shoals,” for which, in May 1849, he received a patent, the only U.S. President to do so.

All of this was likely on Lincoln’s mind when Herndon asked him about his “deepest impressions” of Niagara Falls. To Herndon, the Falls he had just visited were fresh in his mind, as was the beauty and grandeur. For Lincoln, the awe-inspiring view was only part of a much more complicated memory from a brief visit to the Falls that also included witnessing the attempt to free a grounded steamship, his old memories of his personal standing on the Sangamon, and the subsequent development of an invention to overcome shoals. Added to his natural affection for science and technology and his boatman’s experience, and it is not surprising that he would relate the Falls to the more scientific question of how much water comes over it.

Still, Lincoln did appreciate the allure of the Falls. We’ll talk about that in Part 2.

[The above is adapted from my article by the same title in The Lincolnian, a publication of the Lincoln Group of the District of Columbia. You can read Part 2 here.]

David J. Kent is an avid traveler, scientist, and Abraham Lincoln historian. He is the author of Lincoln: The Man Who Saved America, Tesla: The Wizard of Electricity and Edison: The Inventor of the Modern World as well as two specialty e-books: Nikola Tesla: Renewable Energy Ahead of Its Time and Abraham Lincoln and Nikola Tesla: Connected by Fate.

Check out my Goodreads author page. While you’re at it, “Like” my Facebook author page for more updates!

[Photo credit: David J. Kent]

2 Comments

Lincoln in Singapore – Wiegers Calendar November

  By

Wiegers calendar SingaporeDavid Wiegers 2020 calendar takes us to Singapore, where Abraham Lincoln stands proudly in the courtyard of the Parkview Square building. Except he doesn’t. At least not when I was there.

Parkview Square is an elite (read: expensive) office building in downtown Singapore. In additional to executive suites it houses the Consulate of Oman and the Embassies of the United Arab Emirates, Austria, and Mongolia. The art deco style building has a beautiful open plaza that has been compared to Piazza San Marco in Venice. For a while, the plaza hosted a stunning array of bronze statues of world figures, including Sun Yat-sen, Salvador Dali, Mozart, Chopin, Picasso, Rembrandt, Shakespeare, Plato, Dante, Einstein, Winston Churchill, and Abraham Lincoln. Key words – For a while.

I arrived in Singapore in December 2018 after a small ship (200 passengers) took me from Hong Kong, through various stops in the Philippines, the Malaysian part of Borneo, and Brunei. In keeping with my aquarium obsession, one of my first stops was the S.E.A Aquarium on Sentosa Island. Having watched Crazy Rich Asians on the plane, I of course went to see the famous Marine Bay Sands tripartite building, Gardens by the Bay, and the Super Trees. At night I rode the Singapore Flyer Ferris wheel that gives a panoramic view of the city. Not surprisingly, I ate a lot of Chinese and other Asian fusion food.

Having been tipped off in advance by David Wiegers that there was a statue of Lincoln in Singapore, I duly determined which MRT train to take from Chinatown to Parkview Square. Upon arrival I marveled at the collection of modern art statues in the courtyard plaza. There was the odd grouping of five walking men standing on each others shoulders. There was a huge snail with a woman’s head and crown. There were four men dressed in orange standing outside looking into a square cage of bars. There were some more traditional Asian figures. But no Churchill. No Einstein. And definitely no Abraham Lincoln. Thinking maybe I was mistaken to expect them in the plaza I wandered into the breathtakingly expansive lobby where I found four large Salvador Dali sculptures hugging the corners. Still no Lincoln. Ah, there’s a concierge. Alas, she told me that the owners of the building periodically remove the artwork and feature other statues, like the four by Dali inside and the modern pieces outside.

So where was the Lincoln statue, I asked. Oh, she says, it’s probably being stored in the corporate offices in Hong Kong.

Where I had been two weeks before.

So once again I was in a place that had – or was supposed to have – a Lincoln statue and I either missed it or it had been removed. David Wiegers has featured Lincoln statues around the world in his calendar, and despite my having been in almost all the locations, I saw very few of them. Insert “sigh” here.

I do plan to return to some of these places in the (hopefully soon) post-COVID world. I definitely plan to go back to Edinburgh (the January 2020 statue, and where I lived for three months in the past). Others are less likely, but possible. As I write that sentence I realize I haven’t been out of the United States since my trip to Cuba in May of 2019. No wonder I’m feeling the wanderlust. Here’ hoping 2021 will get me back on the road, in the air, on the sea, and on the hunt for Abraham Lincoln (and aquariums) wherever I go.

This is Thanksgiving week in the United States. I find much to be thankful for this year notwithstanding ducking pandemics and feeling the walls edge ever so slowly closer together. Best wishes that all of us may see the silver linings. And please stay home, avoid large gatherings, wash your hands, wear a mask, and stay safe for the time to come where we can all celebrate each other’s existence in person again.

David J. Kent is an avid traveler, scientist, and Abraham Lincoln historian. He is the author of Lincoln: The Man Who Saved America, Tesla: The Wizard of Electricity and Edison: The Inventor of the Modern World as well as two specialty e-books: Nikola Tesla: Renewable Energy Ahead of Its Time and Abraham Lincoln and Nikola Tesla: Connected by Fate.

Check out my Goodreads author page. While you’re at it, “Like” my Facebook author page for more updates!

One Comment

Sabotaging the Transition from Outgoing President to President-Elect

  By

Buchanan cabinetVoters exhausted by four years of scandal and fraud opted to vote out the sitting president after one term, voting in a new president who offered a change in direction. But there would be months of transition before the president-elect’s inauguration, months that would present a national and international crisis as the outgoing administration sabotaged the nation.

The outgoing single-term president was James Buchanan. The president-elect was Abraham Lincoln.

Lincoln had won the popular and electoral vote by significant margins in a contentious 1860 election on November 6th. The inauguration would not be for four months, on March 4, 1861. Seven states seceded from the Union before Lincoln could take office. James Buchanan did not stop them. While Buchanan and Attorney General Jeremiah Sullivan Black both declared secession to be unconstitutional, yet also believed that the federal government had no authority to keep them in the Union. Buchanan blamed the crisis on “intemperate interference of the Northern people with the question of slavery in the Southern States,” and suggested that those Southern States “would be justified in revolutionary resistance to the Government of the Union.” This did not surprise anyone as Buchanan had always been a “doughface,” the derogatory name given to northerners with southern sympathies. Slaveholding states knew that Buchanan would do nothing, and indeed he took no action to resist secession, preferring to leave the growing crisis for the new president despite the president-elect having no power himself to act until he had taken the oath of office.

But Buchanan was not alone. Members of his cabinet actively acted to sabotage the Union during the transition. Even prior to election day, Major David Hunter wrote to Abraham Lincoln and offered precise information on the “treasonous” shifting of military resources in preparation for succession. This treason was under the direction of former Virginia governor John Floyd, who was acting in his current position as Buchanan’s Secretary of War. Floyd ordered large numbers of arms to Charleston, South Carolina, the state that was already planning to secede once the election took place. Floyd also sent munitions and soldiers into the South, not to stop secession, but to reduce a possible Union response to secession. He also ordered the Union’s limited navy offshore or further South. Other Buchanan cabinet members also violated their oaths of office to assist the seceding states. Secretary of the Treasury Howell Cobb of Georgia left to become President of the Provisional Congress of the Confederate States. Secretary of the Interior Jacob Thompson of Mississippi denounced the incoming administration, then resigned to become Inspector General of the Confederate Army. Later he led the Confederate Secret Service and moved to Canada, from which he organized many anti-Union plots and was suspected of meeting with John Wilkes Booth. Secretary of War John Floyd also left his position after decimating the Union army; he was immediately commissioned a Confederate Major General and bragged about his disloyalty. Floyd was also found to have committed massive fraud while serving as Buchanan’s Secretary of War, lining his pockets through crooked land deals.

Members of Congress from Southern states also engaged in sabotage by strategically leaving their positions in the House and Senate in such a way that they could block any compromise that might reverse secession. Mississippi Senator Jefferson Davis and former Congressman Alexander Stephens renounced their citizenship to become President and Vice President of the Confederacy. Many military officers, including Robert E. Lee, who had turned down an offer of leading the Union army to instead lead the fight against the Union. Most of the West Point-trained officers joined the Confederacy.

By the time president-elect Lincoln was sworn into office, the Union military and navy was in shambles. Relations with foreign governments, especially Great Britain and France, were tentative at best. The economy was undergoing a major upheaval as northern textile mills relied on southern cotton.

All of this reinforces the importance of a smooth transition from the outgoing office-holder to the president- and vice president-elect.

Buchanan acknowledged Lincoln’s win in the election and rode with him to the inauguration, as is customary for all American presidents. Buchanan then hightailed out of town as fast as he could, telling Lincoln that “if you are as happy entering the presidency as I am leaving it, then you are truly a happy man.”

 

David J. Kent is an avid traveler, scientist, and Abraham Lincoln historian. He is the author of Lincoln: The Man Who Saved America, Tesla: The Wizard of Electricity and Edison: The Inventor of the Modern World as well as two specialty e-books: Nikola Tesla: Renewable Energy Ahead of Its Time and Abraham Lincoln and Nikola Tesla: Connected by Fate.

Check out my Goodreads author page. While you’re at it, “Like” my Facebook author page for more updates!

 

[Photo credit: Wikipedia Commons: By Mathew Brady – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Buchanan#/media/File:Buchanan_Cabinet.jpg]

 

5 Comments

Abraham Lincoln’s Long Road to Emancipation

  By

Emancipation Proclamation with LincolnAbraham Lincoln has been called “The Great Emancipator” for the Emancipation Proclamation during the Civil War. The Proclamation, and his role in promoting the 13th Amendment so eloquently displayed in the Steven Spielberg’s movie, Lincoln, secured Lincoln’s recognition for ending slavery in America. And yet, some have argued that Lincoln was “forced into glory” and that he was a reluctant emancipator. These claims are without merit. In fact, Lincoln was an active emancipator and completely consistent in his beliefs about slavery and how to overcome the constraints on its removal from American society.

Lincoln first encountered slavery as a child in Kentucky. While only seven years old when the family moved to the free state of Indiana—partly on account of slavery—Lincoln was already aware that black people were treated differently than white people. The Baptist church was splitting into pro-slavery and anti-slavery branches; his family adamantly followed the northern anti-slavery route. Though still very young, he knew that slavery existed and it was somehow wrong.

Jump forward to 1837. Twenty-eight-year-old Lincoln is now a state legislator in Illinois. As with many free states, Illinois was being pressured by slaveholding states to ban abolitionist societies and criminalize anti-slavery “agitation.” The bill passes overwhelmingly, 95-6. Lincoln is one of the six and decides to write a protest to explain his vote. He and fellow legislator Dan Stone lay out their beliefs:

  • The institution of slavery is founded on both injustice and bad policy.
  • But, abolition doctrines increase rather than abate its evils.
  • Congress has no power to interfere with slavery in the states.
  • But, Congress does have the power to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia.

These four principles lay out Lincoln’s positions on “the peculiar institution.” He remains consistent with these principles his entire career. In short, he believes slavery is immoral and ought to be ended. The question is how to accomplish this goal. He felt that the abolitionist tendency to demonize slaveowners put them on the defensive, thus making it harder to get them to free the men and women they held in slavery. Additionally, abolitionists wanted Congress to arbitrarily ban slavery in the states in which it still existed, an unconstitutional act that would invite a pro-slavery Supreme Court to strike down the legislation and damage other attempts to convince slaveholding states to end enslavement. But, Lincoln said, Congress does have authority over federal territories such as the District of Columbia and the substantial acquired lands from the Louisiana Purchase and the war with Mexico. These principles guided his path forward.

In 1849 Lincoln was a U.S. Congressman. While most freshman congressmen are instructed to sit in the back of the room, keep their mouth shut, and vote the way they are told, Lincoln decided to draft a bill to emancipate the slaves in the District of Columbia, consistent with his beliefs a dozen years before in Illinois. Initial support for the bill fell through after slaveholding powers pressured fellow legislators, so he was forced to withdraw the bill before introduction. His first attempted toppled domino.

Flash forward another baker’s dozen years. As President in 1862, Lincoln worked with Congress to produce and sign the DC Compensated Emancipation Act. The Act immediately freed approximately 3,100 enslaved African Americans in the District. The first domino had finally fallen. But Lincoln didn’t stop there. He repeatedly encouraged the four border states (Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware)—slave states that had remained in the Union—to voluntarily enact state laws ending slavery, similar to what had just been done in the District. Lincoln even persuaded Congress to cover the cost of owners’ compensation. Despite several attempts by Lincoln to convince them, the border states rejected his efforts. These dominos remained standing.

Lincoln still wasn’t finished. Over the summer of 1862 he continued to explore every option he could find; more dominos. In August he responded to influential New York Tribune editor Horace Greeley with a now famous public letter outlining how he would save the Union. “If I could save the union without freeing any slaves 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.” These words have been twisted by some to suggest Lincoln only reluctantly freed the slaves, but the opposite is true. Lincoln had already drafted the Emancipation Proclamation, holding only for a Union victory to release it. His letter to Greeley prepared the public to accept his actions.

When he did release the Proclamation, it was entirely consistent with his views expressed years ago in Illinois. Congress, he said then, was constitutionally restricted from banning slavery in the states in which it existed. But, he argued, the Constitution gave him, solely in his role as Commander-in-Chief during a time of insurrection, the power to take whatever steps were deemed a military necessity to protect and save the Union. This is why the Proclamation is rather dry language; it’s a legal document, a military order, because that is the only authority Lincoln had at his disposal. By freeing the slaves only in those areas in rebellion—the border states remaining in the Union could not be touched because of the Constitution—Lincoln could remove the assistance enslaved men were forcibly providing to Confederate troops while increasing the number of Union troops available to fight. Indeed, up to 50,000 men held in bondage were freed immediately, with many more gaining their freedom as they escaped into encroaching Union lines. Meanwhile, close to 200,000 African American men, many of them having newly gained their freedom, fought gallantly for the Union Army and Navy. Not only had more dominos fallen, they had begun exerting greater force.

Emancipation Proclamation Cabinet

Again, Lincoln wasn’t finished. During 1863 and 1864 he continued to tip dominos as Union armies regained control of southern states. He sent former Senator Andrew Johnson, the only member of Congress to remain with the Union when his state seceded, back to Tennessee as a military governor. Lincoln did the same with North Carolina and Louisiana, slowly pushing to reconstruct them back into the Union, yet always working every option within the constraints of the Constitution. Understanding that the Emancipation Proclamation would become moot once the war ended, Lincoln worked with Congress to amend the Constitution. The Senate passed the bill on April 8, 1864. Shortly thereafter the House voted in the majority, but short of the two-thirds needed to pass an amendment, setting the stage for Spielberg’s epic film. Lincoln worked throughout 1864 both for his own prospects and the success of Republicans in the November elections. Finally successful pushing the House over the line on January 31, 1865, Lincoln knocked over another domino in his quest for permanent African American freedom.

Sadly, the last domino he tried to tip would become the rationale for his murder. On April 11, 1865, Lincoln made a speech from the White House window on reconstruction, using Louisiana as an example because it was furthest along the process. Lincoln had privately encouraged the state to include African American suffrage in its new constitution, which it failed to do. On this fateful night Lincoln publicly asserted for the first time. “It is also unsatisfactory to some that the elective franchise is not given to the colored man,” he said, adding that “I would myself prefer that it were now conferred on the very intelligent, and on those who serve our cause as soldiers.” John Wilkes Booth was among the crowd on the White House lawn who heard these words. It would stir him to assassinate Lincoln four days later.

Abraham Lincoln deserves the sobriquet “Great Emancipator.” He was not reluctant in any way. Indeed, he was utterly consistent in this lifelong belief that slavery was wrong but the Constitution prohibited Congress from banning it where it existed. Congress could, however, ban slavery in the District of Columbia and federal territories in accordance with the Constitution, which it did under Lincoln. All of the northern states ended slavery within their boundaries by state law, so Lincoln encouraged the four border states to do the same (Maryland would become the first border state to end slavery in November 1864, followed by Missouri in January 1865). The Emancipation Proclamation was also consistent with Lincoln’s unique powers as Commander-in-Chief in time of war. Permanent emancipation occurred by amending the Constitution, again, consistent with the founding document and the principles outlined by Lincoln back in Illinois.

The Emancipation Proclamation could have occurred only during a time of war, and Lincoln used it as one more tool to set the dominos in motion toward ultimate freedom for all. And as Lincoln understood, each domino toppling can exert enough power to tip an even bigger domino, growing in intensity and power until great things happen. Each of us has the power to exert our forces for the greater good. I encourage all of us to do so.

[The above was published in The Lincolnian November 2020 issue and is based on a presentation I gave on September 5, 2020 for the Rock Creek Civil War Roundtable. The Lincolnian is sent to all Lincoln Group of DC members.]

David J. Kent is an avid traveler, scientist, and Abraham Lincoln historian. He is the author of Lincoln: The Man Who Saved America, Tesla: The Wizard of Electricity and Edison: The Inventor of the Modern World as well as two specialty e-books: Nikola Tesla: Renewable Energy Ahead of Its Time and Abraham Lincoln and Nikola Tesla: Connected by Fate.

Check out my Goodreads author page. While you’re at it, “Like” my Facebook author page for more updates!

No comments

Did Abraham Lincoln’s Competitors Give Concession Speeches After He Won?

  By

Abraham Lincoln Healy PortraitThe concession speech by the failed presidential candidate has become an expected tradition in American history. It’s a chance to acknowledge the electoral win of the victor and call for the country to unite. The speech is also a chance to celebrate democracy with the peaceful transfer of power while also vowing to continue to fight for the principles on which the candidate ran.

It wasn’t always this way.

Abraham Lincoln (Republican Party) won a plurality of the popular vote and a majority of the electoral vote in 1860, beating out John C. Breckinridge (Southern Democratic Party), Stephen A. Douglas (Northern Democratic Party), and John Bell (Constitutional Union Party) in a splintered electorate. None of his competitors gave concession speeches. Breckinridge, who was the outgoing Vice President, joined the Confederate Army and became the Confederate Secretary of War briefly in 1865. Bell also joined the Confederacy. Douglas became a strong supporter of Lincoln and the Union, only to die a few months after the war started.

In fact, there is no constitutional requirement to concede the election. Whomever wins the electoral college voting wins the election. Whether the losing candidate concedes or gives a speech is irrelevant. Yet, this has become an expectation.

The first official concession was a telegram from William Jennings Bryan in 1896 two days after the election to the victory, William McKinley. Bryan did this as a courtesy, acknowledging McKinley’s victory and noting that “we have submitted the issue to the American people and their will is law.” Bryan went on to unsuccessfully run for president two more times.

The concession has been continued in one form or another in every election since. Al Smith gave the first radio concession speech in 1928 after losing to Herbert Hoover. Wendell Willkie conceded to Franklin Delano Roosevelt via a newsreel shown in movie theaters in 1940. Adlai Stevenson was the first to give his concession on live television in 1952 after losing to Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Most recently, Hillary Clinton gave her concession speech in 2016, notably wearing a purple lapeled pant suit jacket while her husband and former President Bill Clinton stood behind her in a purple tie. As with all concession speeches, Clinton called for unity and reminded all Americans that:

Our constitutional democracy enshrines the peaceful transfer of power. We don’t just respect that. We cherish it.

Abraham Lincoln would have been proud.

David J. Kent is an avid traveler, scientist, and Abraham Lincoln historian. He is the author of Lincoln: The Man Who Saved America, Tesla: The Wizard of Electricity and Edison: The Inventor of the Modern World as well as two specialty e-books: Nikola Tesla: Renewable Energy Ahead of Its Time and Abraham Lincoln and Nikola Tesla: Connected by Fate.

Check out my Goodreads author page. While you’re at it, “Like” my Facebook author page for more updates!

No comments

Those Who Choose to Vote Constitute the Political Power – Abraham Lincoln

  By

Lincoln voteAbraham Lincoln once stated:

“Hence it is not the qualified voters, but the qualified voters, who choose to vote, that constitute the political power of the state.”

He was writing in 1862 about the imminent admission of West Virginia into the Union, a kind of secession from secession by Virginia’s western counties. But his point has wider meaning.

Only those who vote exercise their power to affect the political decision-making of the state and the nation.

We are now faced with a constitutional crisis as serious as that faced by Lincoln. While the possibility of an armed conflict such as the Civil War is remote, we find ourselves in an inflection point. Do we live in a nation where the concept “all men are created equal” and our rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” applies to ALL Americans? Or do we fall into an authoritarian state were these rights apply to only some Americans? This isn’t a rhetorical question, nor is it hyperbole. American historians – those people who have studied and best understand our history – see our democracy on the cusp of destruction. We must take action to restore the constitutional rights for ALL Americans or sorely lose it for EACH American.

The way we do that is vote.

Abraham Lincoln understood the importance of voting. He encouraged soldiers to vote in the 1864 election despite the United States being in the midst of a desperate civil war. He ensured that the polls remained open so that all eligible voters could vote. He made sure that Nevada became a state in time for the election and prompted the residents to cast their first votes in the presidential election.

This year is especially important for naturalized Americans to vote. Immigrants now have great power to transform our national priorities – but only if they vote. There are now enough Asian Americans to swing the election in key states. The same is true for Latinx heritage Americans.

This year is also critical for African Americans, Native Americans, Women, and the LGBTQ community, whose votes will help determine if the nation will finally address the issues that affect their lives. Racism, bigotry, and misogyny have been driving much of the inequity of our society. This election will determine whether we can build on our gains, or lose more ground in the fight for equality.

Abraham Lincoln fought for progress. He knew he couldn’t end racism, but he took the steps to end the institution that promoted racism. Today we still have work to do. And today we’ve seen how easy it is to lose what progress has been made. The forces of racism, bigotry, and misogyny don’t go away on their own. We must vote them out and then continue to put our efforts into creating the legislative and institutional change that will lead us to the ideal of a more perfect union, an ideal that we’ve moved closer to despite pushback by reactionary forces.

It is the qualified votes who choose to vote who control the power.

Vote. It’s how we change for the better.

When we all vote, we move mountains. If we don’t vote, we let the status quo survive and strengthen.

VOTE!

See here for last minute voting information. If you haven’t voted already, you MUST vote IN PERSON on Tuesday, November 3, 2020.

David J. Kent is an avid traveler, scientist, and Abraham Lincoln historian. He is the author of Lincoln: The Man Who Saved America, Tesla: The Wizard of Electricity and Edison: The Inventor of the Modern World as well as two specialty e-books: Nikola Tesla: Renewable Energy Ahead of Its Time and Abraham Lincoln and Nikola Tesla: Connected by Fate.

Check out my Goodreads author page. While you’re at it, “Like” my Facebook author page for more updates!

2 Comments

Do We ‘Erase History’ by Removing Confederate Monuments?

  By

Confederate monumentsA week ago I wrote a post titled, “The Rational Case for Removing Confederate Monuments.” There were a couple of important comments that I addressed on that post, but one in particular that I would like to address here – Do we ‘erase history’ by removing confederate monuments?

The short answer is no, but the longer answer reveals that this question is more complicated. In fact, the question is really two questions: First, do Confederate statues accurately reflect history? Second, does removing statues disable us from learning history? Keep in mind that when I say monuments I include Confederate statues as well as naming schools, army bases, and roads after Confederate generals and political leaders.

As I noted in my original post, the history that these monuments honor is a false history, which is commonly referred to as “The Lost Cause.” Confederate monuments were a concerted attempt to rewrite history to deny slavery’s role in antebellum America and its fundamental causation of secession and the Civil War. Erecting Confederate monuments joined with Jim Crow laws and intimidation by white supremacist groups like the KKK to both undermine the voting rights of African Americans and promote a white superiority political power structure.

Why? One reason is inherent in the paragraph above – to maintain white-dominated political, social, and economic power. Prior to the Civil War the South was dominated by a plantation economy based on the existence of slave labor. Small farmers were bought, or forced through intimidation, out of the cotton market (as well as tobacco and sugar markets) because they couldn’t compete with huge plantations. This put all economic and political power in the hands of the wealthy few. Since vast acreages of cotton required significant manual labor, Americans of African origin were held in enslavement and forced to do the work. For a variety of reasons, this slave-labor based economic system grew in the South while diminishing in the North. Compromises in the Constitution, in 1820, and in 1850 tried to limit the spread of slavery as the geographic area of the United States expanded (because of the Louisiana Purchase and Mexican War, for example) while also securing continuing rights of slaveowners in those states in which slavery existed. The Kansas-Nebraska Act in 1854 and Dred Scott decision in 1857 gave more power to slave states, again focused on the power of wealthy plantation owners. With the near-election of John C. Fremont in 1856 and the actual election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860, these wealthy plantation slaveowners felt that slavery was in danger. Worse, they saw that potential racial equality would eliminate their white superiority power structure. Thus, the slaveholding states decided to secede and go to war to protect and expand slavery, and along with it, their belief that whites were superior to blacks. That perceived racial superiority continued to drive actions to disenfranchise black rights as guaranteed in the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments.

But there is a second reason for why the Lost Cause mythology caught hold, and why the United Daughters of the Confederacy and others focused on erecting statues in the early 20th century. As with most Americans, I am rightly proud of my father’s service in World War II. Others are proud of their own personal or family service in fighting for our nation. But consider the position of sons and daughters of Confederate veterans. Their fathers fought in a war to break up the United States and expand the right to enslave other people. True, most rank and file soldiers were probably not slaveowners themselves and may not have even been all-in on the idea of the war (which is why their leaders lied to soldiers, telling them it was a “war of northern aggression”), but to some extent their descendants must have felt similar to what the sons and daughters of Nazi soldiers felt in the decades following WWII. We all want to honor the bravery of our ancestors. The Lost Cause fabricated a mythology that allowed us to honor them. Even today there are many members of Civil War roundtables who proudly trace their heritage back to Confederate soldiers. Now, I’m going to stop here on this particularly topic because it requires a much deeper dive into history that I’ll attempt in a future post. I’ll leave by saying that I think people today should still warmly regard their ancestors that fought in the rank-and-file for the Confederacy. They should do so with a full understanding of the history, both of the Civil War (including pre- and post-) and their ancestors’ specific circumstances. I highly encourage genealogy and historical studies on both sides of the conflict.

To summarize this first part of the question – Confederate monuments do not accurately reflect our history. Instead, their purpose is to deflect from actual history and create a feel-good alternative, and false, history.

Which gets us to the second part of the question: Does removing statues erase history, or perhaps better put, keep us from learning and understanding history?

In fact, removing Confederate statues may actually allow us to better understand our history. Once these monuments to a false history are removed, we can focus on doing a better job of communicating our actual history. In essence, the monuments distract us from learning history by replacing it with a political and social debate. A more accurate view of our history would need to include an honest discussion of the dominant role of slavery from our Constitution through the Civil Rights acts and beyond. It would require an accurate recounting of the pervasiveness of slave-based economic system, including the relationships between cotton plantations of the South, financiers and shipbuilders of New York, and the textile mills of New England. With respect to specific monuments, here is what I wrote in response to a comment on my original post:

As for “real historical information,” most would define that as accurate and complete history of individuals and the times. For example, Robert E. Lee might include his service in the United States Army prior to rejected the Union and fighting for the Confederacy to protect and expand slavery. His time after the war as president of Washington College (renamed Washington and Lee after his death) might be relevant if any of his actions were relevant to his standing. Nathan Bedford Forrest’s history would obviously included his Confederate Army service, as well as his roles in the murders of black Union troops (USCT) at Ft. Pillow and elsewhere, as well as his role as grand dragon of the KKK. In all cases, the full story would need to be told.

All of this and more would be necessary for us to gain a fuller understanding of our shared history.

So does this mean that all Confederate monuments should come down? Maybe. Or maybe not. The goal here is to encourage a rational debate on the fate of Confederate monuments, but also in a larger sense, a discussion of our often complicated and not-always-admirable history. Rather than call for feel-good propaganda – a hallmark of fascist and authoritarian states, not democracies – we should be calling for a more complete understanding of the principles and actions of our nation. Individual statues might remain or moved or provided with additional context. A rational discussion of Confederate monuments can help us communicate the realities of our history to the public such that the public can make more informed and rational choices. The more we can do this proactively, the less we’ll see of uninformed mob action.

This process has another benefit. The discussion may help us come closer to the Founders’ ideal of “all men are created equal” endowed with the unalienable rights of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” The goal isn’t to remove anyone’s rights but to ensure the rights imbued by our Constitution apply to ALL Americans.

I’ll continue with future posts addressing other rebuttals or concerns to my original post outlining a rational case for removing Confederate monuments. If you have any thoughts, either in support or refutation of what I’ve written, feel free to leave a comment below and I’ll do my best to provide a response. As always, any rational and respectful comment will be addressed. Non-respectful, racist, or vulgar diatribes will not. The goal here is rational dialogue.

[Photo credit: (Abdazizar/Via Wikimedia Commons)

David J. Kent is an avid traveler, scientist, and Abraham Lincoln historian. He is the author of Lincoln: The Man Who Saved America, Tesla: The Wizard of Electricity and Edison: The Inventor of the Modern World as well as two specialty e-books: Nikola Tesla: Renewable Energy Ahead of Its Time and Abraham Lincoln and Nikola Tesla: Connected by Fate.

Check out my Goodreads author page. While you’re at it, “Like” my Facebook author page for more updates!

No comments

Lincoln in Paris – Wiegers Calendar October

  By

Ah, Paris in the spring, er, fall. October takes me back to Paris on the David Wiegers 2020 calendar. Given lack of travel in the time of COVID, this is as close to Europe as I have gotten this year. Last year I went only to Costa Rica and Cuba (my “C” year), so it’s been a while since I’ve seen the old country.

I don’t recall offhand how many times I’ve been to Paris. My first trip was the tail end of a London/Paris week back in 2002. Those photos are stuck somewhere in storage as I was still clinging to 35-mm film at the time. I went back a few years later for a few days to get away from the grind. In 2008 I moved to Brussels, Belgium to begin my three-year stint working from my previous company’s European office. That’s where the fuzziness comes in. Soon after arrival I took the ultraspeed train from Brussels to Paris and spent the day at a consortium meeting for a client, and occasional work would take be back. I also had friends and family visit me in Brussels, and usually that meant hopping the train to Paris because, well, everyone wants to visit Paris. I became quite adept at the “highlights tour,” both in the city itself and the Louvre. I’ve also been to Paris once or twice (or thrice?) since I returned to the states and even after quitting my job at that company. It’s been a while since I’ve been so finding this month’s calendar featured photo was a treat.

Wiegers calendar Paris

This particular statue is unique in that it is the work of two men. In 2009, the American embassy commissioned a statue, which was dedicated at the University of Chicago Center in Paris, located a bit upstream on the Seine River from the traditional tourist areas. The structure of the statue itself was created by Henri Marquet. It shows a standing Lincoln with one arm to his side and the other stretched above his head. But all but the head of this structure is covered by the mosaics of Vincent Charra. Interestingly, the original statue structure included an homage to new U.S. President Barack Obama’s “Yes we can” campaign slogan. This was covered up by the mosaics, but the visible pattern does include “Captain O’ My Captain,” Walt Whitman’s poem about Abraham Lincoln following his assassination.

As with other statues in this calendar, I wasn’t aware of this one until after my last visit to the City of Lights. I’m eager to go again.

COVID is keeping me traveling solely by memory and photographs this year, but hope reigns that next year I’ll be back on the road and the air and the sea.

[N.B. The next post will get back to answering rebuttals to my “Rational Case for Removing Confederate Monuments” post.]

David J. Kent is an avid traveler, scientist, and Abraham Lincoln historian. He is the author of Lincoln: The Man Who Saved America, Tesla: The Wizard of Electricity and Edison: The Inventor of the Modern World as well as two specialty e-books: Nikola Tesla: Renewable Energy Ahead of Its Time and Abraham Lincoln and Nikola Tesla: Connected by Fate.

Check out my Goodreads author page. While you’re at it, “Like” my Facebook author page for more updates!