If you had to remove one face from Mt. Rushmore, who would it be and why?

Question

this is a question i was asked in my AP US History class and I would really like some outside opinions because it is a really tough question if you think about it... so please tell me who and why?

Answer 1

Roosevelt did a number of things in the best interest of the nation, for example, he was a "trust buster" which among other actions included forcing the dissolution of a great railroad combination in the Northwest.
Roosevelt connected a short cut between the Atlantic and the Pacific by ensuring the construction of the Panama Canal. His corollary to the Monroe Doctrine prevented the establishment of foreign bases in the Caribbean and arrogated the sole right of intervention in Latin America to the United States. He won the Nobel Peace Prize for mediating the Russo-Japanese War, reached a Gentleman's Agreement on immigration with Japan, and sent the Great White Fleet on a goodwill tour of the world.
Some of Theodore Roosevelt's most effective achievements were in conservation. He added enormously to the national forests in the West, reserved lands for public use, and fostered great irrigation projects.

That said, I would remove President Lincoln because he changed the intent of the Founders as to the Constitutional role of the federal government. For example, prior to President Lincoln the Bill of Rights (in particular the first 8) were intended to be applied ‘only’ to the federal government excluding it from specific actions. After President Lincoln that Bill of Rights also applied to the State governments. He committed acts (such as suspending Habeas Corpus) that even the Supreme Court of the time defined as unconstitutional and he didn’t care.

Presidents Washington, Jefferson, and Roosevelt took their role of president within the context of the Constitution, President Lincoln didn’t.

(edit)
Article IV, Section 2, has nothing to do with the Bill of Rights or the intent behind its development, its proposal to the States, or debates leading to ratification. The idea of having a Bill of Rights to protect the people (and the States) from the federal government was agreed to during the Constitutional Convention to ensure support for ratification of the Constitution. The Bill of Rights was the first order of business for the new Congress under the ‘ratified’ Constitution. There (in that Congress) a committee was established to write it and it was then offered to the States for ratification.

The fifth Article of the Bill of Rights was defined in the 1833 Supreme Court of Chief Justice John Marshall in the case of Barron use of Tietnan v. Baltimore, with the general intent of, “This amendment is a limitation on the Federal Government and has no reference to State action.”

The Sixth Article of the Bill of Rights was defined in the 1833 Supreme Court of Chief Justice John Marshall in the same case (Barron use of Tiernan v. Baltimore) in terms of the applicability of this amendment with the words, “ The Sixth Amendment was designed to prevent interference with the rights of States and their citizens; it is restrictive of the powers exercised by the Federal Government alone, whether by Congress or by the judiciary, and is not a limitation upon the powers of the States.”

I could continued with a number of court decisions supporting my assertion that the Bill of Rights was originally applicable only to the federal government, however space here doesn’t support such a presentation. So too with Lincoln’s acts being unconstitutional (and the same with President Johnson in reconstruction).

It is always interesting to see the negative response to what are factual presentations on this period in our history. I suggest that a reading of Elliot's Debates (inclusive of Madison's notes on the Convention and the debates for ratification within the States) is a worthwhile read as opposed to accepting political spin offered on our history in the schools.

Answer 2

The question your teacher asked is a pretty stupid one. I would answer that Mr Rushmore is part of the American cultural record. It was created as a single monument not a living tribute that would grow with the history of the nation. No guidelines were established for adding new faces, nor would there be space to add faces without endangering the sculpture already in place. The monument shouldn't be altered by modern thoughts, but should be left for all time. Removing a face would be to similar to the revisionist history Orwell wrote of in '1984' for my tastes.

Each man did much to enhance America. Each man did things that were morally or legally suspect (compared from both a contemporary and historical view).

As for Randy saying Lincoln governed outside the intent of the constitution, I highly doubt that if any state prior to 1860 passed a law that violated fifth or sixth amendment that it would have stayed on the books long. All four men did things which pushed the boundaries of the Executive Office or avoided doing things well within the purview of the Office that should have been done. Also the Bill of Rights was intended to protect the rights of all individuals, and the constitution clearly supports this idea in Article 4 section 2

Answer 3

The simplest answer would be Washington or Jefferson. Both owned slaves in an age where equally enlightened men came to the conclusion that it was an abomination. Notwithstanding their other tremendous accomplishments, they did actively participate in our nation's most embarrassing historical black eye. Roosevelt can claim clean hands on this issue, though he never had to make the choice, and he was the most colorful man to ever occupy the office of the President. Why not pay tribute to his fascinating life.

Answer 4

It's really not a tough question. The correct answer is Teddy. He didn't do anything for this country, and when you compare him to people who SHOULD be on it, it's rediculous. I think he should be replaced with Ben Franklin.

Answer 5

I have never understood why Teddy Roosevelt was on there in the first place. He doesn't belong.

Answer 6

I guess it would have to be Theodore Roosevelt because he didn't do as much as Washington, Jefferson and Lincoln.

Answer 7

if you ask me i would say all and give the indians back there land that was treatied to them but only one?probably lincon cause he sits out all by himself and wouldnt be as hard.besides he ruined this nation racist that i am