... until I can do so ...

I agree.

A little bemol, Contrex.

By the time Bartholdi said that, the Republic was born, actually it was the third Republic already.

So, what Fansy means is "glorify the republic, one day in my own native country!”

Bartholdi wants to say by that he would want to do such a sculpture/statue in France, in order to glorify the Republic.

I can't find online when he actually came to the States, probably a couple years before 1876 if that was the target date for completion of the statue. from Wikipedia, that was the period of the Second Empire, when the monarchy was restored, the Franco-Prussian War, when Germany conquered France, and the early days of the Third Republic, when there seems to have been ongoing political strife between various factions of monarchists and republicans of different stripes. There were ongoing wars and imperialist interventions. I suspect that to Bartholdi democracy in France seemed fragile and threatened, or nonexistent, depending on when he said it, and that's what he was talking about. He saw the States as a relatively stable democracy as opposed to France, so came here until France could get its act together. Which is what the quote means, I think.

You must have been trippin' when you read the Wikipedia article, or it was correct and it just didn't sink in. The Second Empire ended with the defeat of Louis Bonaparte (the soi-disant Napoleon III) at Sedan in 1870. The monarchy was abolished, for good, in 1848 with the ouster of Louis Philippe, who died in 1850.

There is no plausible reason for attempting to assert that, after 1870, there was "ongoing political strife between various factions of monarchists and republicans of different stripes." There were no "ongoing wars and imperialist interventions."

I strongly suggest that you don't attempt historical analysis of this type when you are so woefully ignorant of the period of history under discussion.

Oh, do stop being the insufferable twit for just a little while, Set.

I suppose you think displaying your profound ignorance so blatantly makes you a much more sufferable twit--is that it?

Damn, I lost most of the last post, I thought if I hit reply it might reappear. It didn'. Let's try again.

Do stop being the insufferable twit, Set.

YOU know the Second Empire ended for good in 1870, because you're living in 2009. No one living in the early 1870s could know that, including Bartholdi, and the political climate THEN is what shaped their opinions,not our knowledge of history today. Thw wars were ongoing, the European imperialist interventions overseas were ongoing--consider Bartholdi's recent context--the Crimean War, the French intervention and support of Maximilian in Mexico and other imperialist interventions, the bloody crushing of the Paris Commune,the Franco-Prussian War, and, maybe, depending on when he was speaking, the recent creation of the Third Republic. From what I can see from the Wikipedia article, and an admittedly sketchy knowledge of French history, the royalists still had strong positions, including some government positions after the 3rd Rep. came to power, so democracy in France was by no means assured, or considering the renowned instability of French governments, even necessarily LIKELY to endure.

I suggest you stop insulting people gratuitously, Set. We know you know more history than probably anyone else on a2k. But the gratuitous insults set everybody's teeth on edge, whether they're your most recent target or not. It makes agreeing with you, which I do almost all the time, almost unpleasant, simply because of trhe context the insults create.

I suggest that you stop providing people erroneous answers because you are insufficiently informed to give them an intelligent answer. Francis had already provided the answer to this question, and your remarks just muddy what had previously been a clear pool.

This is the correct answer to the question:

From Wikipedia, on the Third Republic:

"Besides this defeat [the Paris Commune], the Republican movement also had to confront counterrevolutionaries who rejected the legacy of the 1789 Revolution. Both the Legitimist and the Orleanist royalists rejected republicanism, which they saw as an extension of modernity and atheism, breaking with France's traditions. This lasted until at least the 16 May 1877 crisis, which finally led to the resignation of royalist Marshal MacMahon in January 1879. The death of Henri, comte de Chambord in 1883, who, as the grandson of Charles X, had refused to abandon the fleur-de-lys and the white flag, thus jeopardizing the alliance between Legitimists and Orleanists, convinced many of the remaining Orleanists to rally themselves to the Republic, as Adolphe Thiers had already done. The vast majority of the Legitimists abandoned the political arena or became marginalised. Some of them founded Action Française in 1898, during the Dreyfus Affair, which became an influent movement throughout the 1930s."

Sounds like the discord lasted well beyond the 1870s. The tsuccession is still taken note of. My ex-girlfriend's daughter was an aupair for a year in France. Her best friend there was an aupair for one of the current pretenders to the throne. I forget which one, Bourbon, I think. Her daughter visited their house quite a few times and met him. She said he was a cool guy, an investment banker as I remember it. He drives a Jaguar. He doesn't think he's likely ever to get the throne. He's probably right.

I would like to point out, by the way, that although it may be unpleasant to have someone tell you don't know what the hell you're talking about, in those instances in which you patently don't know what the hell you're talking about--it does not constitute "gratuitous insult."

Bartholdi did in fact make at least three (smaller) replicas of Liberty in France, including the rough draft for it, as it were.

Reread your replies, Set. You could simply say something like "I don't think that's right". You go way beyond that. Remember how many times people have mentioned your hairtrigger temper in your replies? They have reason.