(11-14-2020 04:33 PM)Rob Wick Wrote:  Maybe I'm just stupid, but your point makes absolutely no sense to me. However, Lincoln's own definition of democracy was this: "“As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy. Whatever differs from this, to the extent of the difference, is no democracy."

I've already spent far more time on this discussion than it's worth. Therefore, I'm finished with this.

Best
Rob

There's an odd bit of history associated with the Lincoln quote to which you make reference:

Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln. Volume 2.
Lincoln, Abraham, 1809-1865.

Definition of Democracy [1]
[August 1, 1858?]

As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy. Whatever differs from this, to the extent of the difference, is no democracy. A. LINCOLN---

Annotation
[1] AD-IHi. The date which has been assigned to this document is apparently pure conjecture. The manuscript is associated with no speech or occasion known to the editors. It was given by Mrs. Lincoln to her friend Myra Bradwell of Chicago, who together with her husband, Judge James B. Bradwell, succeeded in having Mrs. Lincoln released from the institution in which she was confined as insane in her later years. The scrap of paper is unsigned, but a signature clipped from another document has been pasted below the definition.

(11-15-2020 11:32 AM)David Lockmiller Wrote:  So, when the Board of Education in the city where I live, San Francisco, makes the decision to dishonor the character and reputation of President Abraham Lincoln by renaming the high school that had been named in his honor, I am personally deeply offended.

And, when I then learn that this decision has been made on the basis of President Lincoln’s alleged misconduct in the “Dakota 38” Native Indians issue, I am genuinely perplexed as to how this possibly could have happened. Based upon the important relevant evidence to the contrary that I have already presented on this thread, such a decision that has already been made by the Board would be impossible to make in terms of fairness and justice.

That is all that know about the situation here in San Francisco at this point. My next step is discovery, if possible, of the relevant evidence presented to the Board on this particular subject in reaching their highly questionable decision.

I have begun my "discovery" research.

In accordance with the Brown Act, Boards of Education in California are required to inform the public of their machinations. Anyone can engage in their own research by going to School Renaming Advisory Committee.
Then, scroll down a little to "Agendas and Minutes for Committee Meetings" for hyperlinks to the various Zoom Meetings of the San Francisco School Renaming Committees.

About the School Renaming Advisory Committee:

On May 22, 2018, the SFUSD Board of Education passed Resolution No. 184-10A1 to establish a blue ribbon panel to oversee a formalized process that reviews San Francisco public school names. This panel will be responsible for considering the relevance of schools names and appropriateness of these names when they honor historical figures and making recommendations to the Board of Education for further action.

SFUSD School Names Advisory Committee
Minutes - 1/30/2020

• Brown Act orientation - Under The Brown Act, a meeting is defined as any occasion in which a majority of the voting members of the board come together at the same time and location to “hear, discuss, deliberate or take action on any matter that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body.”

• Review of Leadership Roles, membership composition, and decision making processes. Committee approved the following framework:
o Use Modified Consensus Model for decisions
o Limit committee to 17 members maximum (with consideration to include youth or transitional age youth)
o Committee recognized a need to have representation of the indiginous community as a voice on this committee and particularly advocated for the Superintendent and Board of Education to recruit Gregg Castro - an exemplary candidate and representative of inidiginous people - to serve on this body.

Approval of Minutes from 1/30/2020
• Minutes not approved - requested to add following
o Label document as “Minutes”
o Add text “Committee recognized a need to have representation of the indiginous community as a voice on this committee and particularly advocated for the Superintendent and Board of Education to recruit Gregg Castro - an exemplary candidate and representative of inidiginous people - to serve on this body.”

Agenda Review for 2/27/2020 meeting

Review of Governance and Officer Roles

Committee agreed by consensus on the following for ensuring effective meeting management and for specific roles inside and outside meetings
• School Names Committee will operate using the Model for Modified Consensus Decision Making
• 3 committee members serving as co-convener/facilitator
• 2 committee members serving as notetakers
• Staff to continue managing administrative tasks


Planning and Review

• Staff provided update on ongoing collection of inventory of schools and preparation of spreadsheet
• Staff promised to provide electronic copy of SFUSD school history
• Discussion on alumni associations and restrictions - acknowledgement of groups as private entities without jurisdiction (emphasis added) under Ed Code
• Consensus on beginning discussion of school criteria at earlier date

Thursday, June 25, 2020
9:30 am to 10:40 am
Conducted Via Zoom

The password for the first Zoom meeting held on June 25, 2020 was “heroes.”


I. Review of School Names
Discussion by committee on the review / renaming process - Key points raised:
• Committee desires a public spreadsheet of school names to reflect analysis of school names
• Committee’s mission is to identify school’s with problematic names and recommend alternatives; this process can also occur in parallel by a school committee
• Committee will prioritize school sites where the name has recognized history of oppression of human beings in the U.S. and/or around the globe [In the end, President Abraham Lincoln apparently qualified for this distinction.]

Guiding Principles for SFUSD School Names Advisory Committee
Approved by Committee on July 17, 2020

Guiding Principles:
For identifying school names to be changed, the committee will use any of the following criteria:
We will seek to change the names of schools that are named for:

• Anyone directly involved in the colonization of people
• Slave owners or participants in enslavement
• Perpetuators of genocide or slavery
• Those who exploit workers/people
• Those who directly oppressed or abused women, children, queer or transgender people
• Those connected to any human rights or environmental abuses
• Those who are known racists and/or white supremacists and/or espoused racist beliefs

Somehow, the San Francisco Board of Education - School Renaming Advisory Committee has made the determination that President Abraham Lincoln has violated one or more these criteria for renaming schools in San Francisco .

It would appear thus far that there is a very different "renaming of schools" standard on the East Coast according to my previous post on this thread of a prior Laurie Verge post:

RE: I’m not offended!

(07-07-2019 07:47 PM)L Verge Wrote: And then we have two politicians in my area over the past decade: One who was killed while driving intoxicated with a woman other than his wife -- and ended up having a school re-named for him (it used to be named Lord Baltimore for the founder of Maryland). And just recently, another local politician was driving while intoxicated and doing well over the speed limit until he crashed, jumped out of his government car, and ran. And, he got re-elected...

In terms of fairness and justice, the evidence considered by the San Francisco Board of Education - School Renaming Committee must be considered. And, in accordance with provisions of the Brown Act, that due consideration of all relevant evidence regarding President Abraham Lincoln took place in the subsequent Committee Zoom meetings available to the Public on the internet.

David, you may be aware of this, but I will post the link just in case you are not:

https://www.courthousenews.com/san-franc...-pandemic/

(11-16-2020 01:50 PM)RJNorton Wrote:  David, you may be aware of this, but I will post the link just in case you are not:

https://www.courthousenews.com/san-franc...-pandemic/

Thanks for posting the link, Roger. It is quite informative.

The beginning of the article states: San Francisco Mayor London Breed sharply rebuked the city’s school district Friday over plans to remove the names of historical and political figures from a third of its schools, saying its focus should be on reopening schools, not renaming them.

Breed said the plan, reported Thursday by the San Francisco Chronicle, shows that the district has clearly misplaced priorities. Public schools remain closed citywide despite being allowed to open since September.

“Parents are frustrated and looking for answers,” she said.

“It’s offensive to parents who are juggling their children’s daily at-home learning schedules with doing their own jobs and maintaining their sanity. It’s offensive to me as someone who went to our public schools, who loves our public schools, and who knows how those years in the classroom are what lifted me out of poverty and into college. It’s offensive to our kids who are staring at screens day after day instead of learning and growing with their classmates and friends.”

Breed said the city gave the district $15 million of the taxpayers’ money to support reopening and she expects them “to do what needs to be done to get our kids back in school.”

According to the article, The School Names Advisory Committee will reconvene on Jan. 6 to consider feedback from schools and draw up its recommendations to the board. The board of education will likely consider the recommendations in January or February.

Laura Dudnick, the public relations manager for the school district, said in an email the district understands that the timing of the renaming effort may be difficult for schools and that the district “has conveyed concerns to the advisory committee regarding the challenges of making recommendations at this time given that we are in distance learning due to the pandemic. . . . The panel has gone through a process to set standards for why the name of a school would be changed, to research to the best of their ability the backgrounds of the individuals or places that are namesakes for a school, and analyzed those under the panel’s established guiding principles. From this process, the panel generated 42 schools covering 44 campuses that it intends to recommend to the board.”

The San Francisco Unified School District began working in earnest over the summer to purge the names George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln from its public high school and grammar schools; Washington and Jefferson because they owned slaves, and Lincoln because of his administration’s wars with American Indian tribes which resulted in the U.S. Army’s massacre of hundreds of Cheyenne and Arapaho people.

[So, I have made a mistake. It was not President Abraham Lincoln’s December, 1862 order to execute the “Dakota 38” that I had presumed was the basis for the San Francisco Board of Education’s action in renaming Abraham Lincoln High School.]

First grade teacher Jeremiah Jeffries, who serves as facilitator for the School Names Advisory Committee, said in an email to Courthouse News:

“The school renaming process is a continuation of the fight for justice. I know educators like myself and the Mayor are on the same side of things in the fight for justice and wanting to do what we can for young people. We are not the problem. Racism and White supremacy has not taken a break and we will not either from trying to dismantle it.”

I did not know that President Abraham Lincoln was a racist or white supremacy advocate.

I think that it is not a good thing that those who are truly ignorant of our nation’s history are teaching the nation’s children and also making decisions to rename local schools on the basis of that same ignorance.

From the referenced San Francisco Chronicle article, I am adding the following paragraph:

"Frustrated parents have been circulating a petition calling on the district to reopen the schools and criticizing the city for prioritizing opening gyms, bars, churches and salons instead. Some residents have questioned why the mayor and supervisors aren’t doing more to reopen the schools, though they have almost no say in the process. The district, with approval from the health department, has the ultimate authority to get students back in their seats."

Unless they want to start naming schools after Jesus, and I don't see that happening, they are going to have a difficult time finding eligible candidates to name schools after.

The Sand Creek massacre (also known as the Chivington massacre, the battle of Sand Creek or the massacre of Cheyenne Indians) was a massacre of Cheyenne and Arapaho people by the U.S. Army in the American Indian Wars that occurred on November 29, 1864, when a 675-man force of the Third Colorado Cavalry] under the command of U.S. Army Colonel John Chivington attacked and destroyed a village of Cheyenne and Arapaho people in southeastern Colorado Territory, killing and mutilating an estimated 70–500 Native Americans, about two-thirds of whom were women and children. The location has been designated the Sand Creek Massacre National Historic Site and is administered by the National Park Service. This was part of a series of events known as the Colorado War and was preceded by the Hungate [white family]massacre.

Chivington and 425 men of the 3rd Colorado Cavalry rode to Fort Lyon arriving on November 28, 1864. Once at the fort, Chivington took command of 250 men of the 1st Colorado Cavalry and maybe as many as 12 men of the 1st Regiment New Mexico Volunteer Infantry, then set out for Black Kettle's encampment. James Beckwourth, noted frontiersman, acted as guide for Chivington. The following morning, Chivington gave the order to attack. Two officers, Captain Silas Soule and Lieutenant Joseph Cramer, commanding Company D and Company K of the First Colorado Cavalry, refused to obey and told their men to hold fire.

However, the rest of Chivington's men immediately attacked the village. Ignoring the U.S. flag and a white flag that was run up shortly after the attack began, they murdered as many of the Indians as they could.

I saw the bodies of those lying there cut all to pieces, worse mutilated than any I ever saw before; the women cut all to pieces ... With knives; scalped; their brains knocked out; children two or three months old; all ages lying there, from sucking infants up to warriors ... By whom were they mutilated? By the United States troops ...

— John S. Smith, Congressional Testimony of Mr. John S. Smith, 1865

Jis' to think of that dog Chivington and his dirty hounds, up thar at Sand Creek. His men shot down squaws, and blew the brains out of little innocent children. You call sich soldiers Christians, do ye? And Indians savages? What der yer s'pose our Heavenly Father, who made both them and us, thinks of these things? I tell you what, I don't like a hostile red skin any more than you do. And when they are hostile, I've fought 'em, hard as any man. But I never yet drew a bead on a squaw or papoose, and I despise the man who would.

— Kit Carson to Col. James Rusling

The critical and imperative question to ask in fairness and justice to the character and reputation of President Abraham Lincoln is this: What could President Abraham Lincoln have done beforehand to prevent war crimes being committed upon defenseless Native American Indians – men, women, and children - by Union soldiers following the orders and commands of a commissioned Union officer?


The beginning of the American Civil War, in 1861, led to the organization of military forces in Colorado Territory. However, the attention of the Federal Government was firmly fixed on quelling the rebels in the South. As a result, there was no significant military protection of wagon trains, settlers, settlements, communication lines, and supply wagons in the region. By summer of 1864, nearly every stage was being attacked, emigrants were being cut off, and settlements were being raided continually. The settlers abandoned their farms and ranches and began seeking refuge in the major settlements such as Denver. A coordinated attack was carried out on August 8, 1864, where all the existing stage lines in the region were attacked. Between August 11 and September 7, Governor Evans sent multiple letters to Secretary of War Edward Stanton in an attempt to furnish military aid, but Stanton was unable to pull the Second Colorado Volunteers, led by Colonel Ford, off of the eastern Civil War front. As a result of the repeated calls for aid, authorization was granted to call up "one-hundred-days' men" to form the Third Colorado Volunteers.

In testimony before a Congressional committee investigating the massacre, Chivington claimed that as many as 500–600 Indian warriors were killed. Historian Alan Brinkley wrote that 133 Indians were killed, 105 of whom were women and children.White eye-witness John S. Smith reported that 70–80 Indians were killed, including 20–30 warriors, which agrees with Brinkley's figure as to the number of men killed.

Initially, the Sand Creek engagement was reported as a victory against a brave and numerous foe. Within weeks, however, witnesses and survivors began telling stories of a possible massacre. Several investigations were conducted – two by the military, and one by the Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War. The panel declared:

As to Colonel Chivington, your committee can hardly find fitting terms to describe his conduct. Wearing the uniform of the United States, which should be the emblem of justice and humanity; holding the important position of commander of a military district, and therefore having the honor of the government to that extent in his keeping, he deliberately planned and executed a foul and dastardly massacre which would have disgraced the veriest savage among those who were the victims of his cruelty. Having full knowledge of their friendly character, having himself been instrumental to some extent in placing them in their position of fancied security, he took advantage of their in-apprehension and defenceless condition to gratify the worst passions that ever cursed the heart of man.

Whatever influence this may have had upon Colonel Chivington, the truth is that he surprised and murdered, in cold blood, the unsuspecting men, women, and children on Sand creek, who had every reason to believe they were under the protection of the United States authorities, and then returned to Denver and boasted of the brave deed he and the men under his command had performed.

In conclusion, your committee are of the opinion that for the purpose of vindicating the cause of justice and upholding the honor of the nation, prompt and energetic measures should be at once taken to remove from office those who have thus disgraced the government by whom they are employed, and to punish, as their crimes deserve, those who have been guilty of these brutal and cowardly acts.

Statements taken by Major Edward W. Wynkoop and his adjutant substantiated the later accounts of survivors. These statements were filed with his reports and can be found in the Official Records of the War of the Rebellion, copies of which were submitted as evidence in the Joint Committee of the Conduct of the War and in separate hearings conducted by the military in Denver.

During these investigations, numerous witnesses came forward with damning testimony, almost all of which was corroborated by other witnesses. One witness, Captain Silas Soule, who had ordered the men under his command not to fire their weapons, was murdered in Denver just weeks after offering his testimony.

(Principal Source: Wikipedia on subject of Sand Creek massacre.)

(11-16-2020 02:55 PM)David Lockmiller Wrote:  The San Francisco Unified School District began working in earnest over the summer to purge the names George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln from its public high school and grammar schools; Washington and Jefferson because they owned slaves, and Lincoln because of his administration’s wars with American Indian tribes which resulted in the U.S. Army’s massacre of hundreds of Cheyenne and Arapaho people.

[So, I have made a mistake. It was not President Abraham Lincoln’s December, 1862 order to execute the “Dakota 38” that I had presumed was the basis for the San Francisco Board of Education’s action in renaming Abraham Lincoln High School.]

I learned today that I may not have made a mistake. (Good to know.)

At the very beginning of the 7/29/2020 Zoom meeting, there is a screenshot of an Excel spreadsheet titled “School Names Research – For School Names Advisory Committee.” Under the column heading “Current School Name” is listed an Abraham Lincoln High School line. In the “Why change” column of the spreadsheet, it reads on the Abraham Lincoln High School line: “Responsible for Dakota 36 + 2, largest mass hanging in US history.”

So, apparently, the School Board Renaming Committee has at least two so-called "good reasons" for renaming Abraham Lincoln High School in San Francisco.

Before the start of each Zoom meeting of the Renaming of Schools Committee, there is a short period of time allocated to accept public comments. For the August 12, 2020 meeting, an older lady was accepted to speak. When she did speak, she spoke critically of the Renaming of Schools Committee’s evidence evaluation and consideration process. She began her public comments at “12:30”.

The lady’s prepared comments from which she obviously read, particularly relating to the efficacy of the School Board panel’s renaming process, began at “13:00”and were as follows:

“My comments today are to make noise(?) because of what John Lewis would call “Good Trouble.” Because I have seen something in the working papers, which only include negative comments. To me, this is akin to a trial in which there is no defense and only the prosecutors are allowed to present their case. And their argument leapfrogs over to the jurors and sentencing. For example, I think that it’s appalling, and shall I say, maybe even outrageous, that the working papers of this committee make no mention of George Washington’s leading the Continental Army at Delaware and Valley Forge. And he was the first one to sign our Constitution and was our first President. Washington . . .” [At “13:54”, the panel’s facilitator cut her off, by saying “Emily (?), you’re out of time.” I could see on my computer screen that the facilitator had been closely monitoring her permitted amount of time to make comments.] Emily continued briefly: “Without these men, we would become an aristocracy with a King.” [“14:04”]

No member of the panel made any comment regarding the lady’s important observations and opinion regarding the renaming process justification. The San Francisco Board of Education -Renaming of Schools Committee simply moved forward with its important work that day for the next one hour and 16 minutes.

The August 12, 2020 meeting of the Renaming Panel was both very informative and very uninformative.

According to the minutes of the previous meeting, the July 29, Meeting Agenda item #5 – the “Selection of school Names to be considered for renaming” – “was tabled due to time restrictions.” There was no public discussion at the July 29, 2020 Zoom public meeting of placing the name of Abraham Lincoln, or any other name, on the “Yes” list.

The following are meeting notes that I made regarding this key August 12, 2020 public Zoom meeting of the Renaming panel.

August 12, 2020 meeting notes:

@ 37:00 mark and forward, discussion about criteria basics for name change and possibly having historians coming in before panel to discuss various names. The panel’s facilitator informed the panel member that there would be no appropriation for historians.

@39:50 “judge and jury” discussion

@42:50 committee member says that the members have not been receiving emails from the public.

@54:00 beginning discussion of Abraham Lincoln

@55:08 a big yes and no discussion and a laugh from the facilitator



Public comment at October 7, 2020 meeting @ 9:10 from Father John Chesterman, class of 1949 at Abraham Lincoln High School, asking why the name is being changed.

1. Next Steps and Future Meetings
• Committee agreed by consensus to extend deadline for schools to submit alternative names from 11/15 to 12/18
• Panel will not meet in December as previously scheduled, but will now reconvene as a full group on January 6, 2020



P.S. Yesterday, I wrote the following email to the address provided for the public by the Renaming Committee

Subject: Renaming of Abraham Lincoln High School

Hi, to whom it may concern,

I am interested in accessing the workpapers of the San Francisco Board of Education – Renaming of Schools Committee for the renaming of Abraham Lincoln High School.

How do I do this online?

Yours truly,
David Lockmiller

RE: In San Francisco, Virus is Contained but Schools Are Still Closed – Post #32, 11-16-20

Guiding Principles for SFUSD School Names Advisory Committee
Approved by Committee on July 17, 2020

Guiding Principles:
For identifying school names to be changed, the committee will use any of the following criteria:
We will seek to change the names of schools that are named for:
Second item listed: Slave owners or participants in enslavement.

It is indisputable that General and President George Washington was a slave owner.

Lincoln Discussion Symposium Post by David Lockmiller
RE: In San Francisco, Virus is Contained but Schools Are Still Closed – Post #38. 11-18-20
Before the start of each Zoom meeting of the Renaming of Schools Committee, there is a short period of time allocated to accept public comments. For the August 12, 2020 meeting, an older lady was accepted to speak. When she did speak, she spoke critically of the Renaming of Schools Committee’s evidence evaluation and consideration process. She began her public comments at “12:30”.

The lady’s prepared comments from which she obviously read, particularly relating to the efficacy of the School Board panel’s renaming process, began at “13:00”and were as follows:

“My comments today are to make noise(?) because of what John Lewis would call “Good Trouble.” Because I have seen something in the working papers, which only include negative comments. To me, this is akin to a trial in which there is no defense and only the prosecutors are allowed to present their case. And their argument leapfrogs over to the jurors and sentencing. For example, I think that it’s appalling, and shall I say, maybe even outrageous, that the working papers of this committee make no mention of George Washington’s leading the Continental Army at Delaware and Valley Forge. And he was the first one to sign our Constitution and was our first President. Washington . . .” [At “13:54”, the panel’s facilitator cut her off, by saying “Emily (?), you’re out of time.” I could see on my computer screen that the facilitator had been closely monitoring her permitted amount of time to make comments.] Emily continued briefly: “Without these men, we would become an aristocracy with a King.” [“14:04”]

No member of the panel made any comment regarding the lady’s important observations and opinion regarding the renaming process justification. The San Francisco Board of Education -Renaming of Schools Committee simply moved forward with its important work that day for the next one hour and 16 minutes.


Pope Francis in a November 26, 2020 New York Times opinion piece wrote: “It is all too easy for some to take an idea — in this case, for example, personal freedom — and turn it into an ideology, creating a prism through which they judge everything.”

Regarding General and President George Washington and many other historical names, the Guiding Principles listed for SFUSD School Names Advisory Committee, approved by Committee on July 17, 2020, is the “prism through which they have judged everything.”

This short list of Guiding Principles specifically includes, “slave owners or participants in enslavement.” It is indisputable that General and President George Washington was a slave owner. Therefore, President George Washington is guilty as charged.

Never mind that as Emily stated in the short time permitted by the Panel’s facilitator: “I think that it’s appalling, and shall I say, maybe even outrageous, that the working papers of this committee make no mention of George Washington’s leading the Continental Army at Delaware and Valley Forge. And he was the first one to sign our Constitution and was our first President.”

Hence, judged through these simple Guiding Principles “prism” alone, the “blue ribbon” Renaming of Schools Panel will recommend to the elected members of the School Board in a January 6, 2021 scheduled Panel meeting that the names of Washington High School, Abraham Lincoln High School, and 42 other schools within the San Francisco Unified School District be renamed for just and sufficient cause.

Thus, in reality, the judge and jury on this $10 million project for renaming 44 San Francisco Schools for just cause(s) is the “blue ribbon” panel appointed by the elected School Board members. These same panel members were also the ones who decided among themselves the severely constrained “Guiding Principles” and the “prism through which they judged everything.”

Thereby, the purpose and function of the Brown Act will have been effectively thwarted. For it is only the elected members of the School Board who are subject to the provisions of the Brown Act. A meeting is defined under the Brown Act, as any occasion in which a majority of the voting members of the board come together at the same time and location to “hear, discuss, deliberate or take action on any matter that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body.”

The elected members of the San Francisco School Board have the exclusive governmental power to commit $10 million of San Francisco taxpayer funds for this project of renaming schools in San Francisco. In my opinion, the San Francisco School Board will merely rubber-stamp the recommendations of the Renaming of Schools Panel who they appointed, with little or no public discussion regarding the renaming of individual schools, including that of Abraham Lincoln High School in San Francisco.

President Abraham Lincoln saved in his time as President of the United States the institution of democracy for this nation and the world. And, with his instigation and able assistance caused passage of the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which Lincoln himself referred to as the “king’s cure” to the end of slavery in the United States.

Amendment XIII, Section 1 reads simply: “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.” Section 2 reads: “Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”

I am not tilting against imaginary windmill-foes. The elected members of the San Francisco School Board intend to disgrace the name of President Abraham Lincoln and many other historical figures in this unfair and unjust manner.

David,

Just curious. Did you know George Washington would take puppies that he didn't find to be "pure," tie them up in a sack, and drown them? Does that bother you at all?

Best
Rob

(12-15-2020 08:29 PM)Rob Wick Wrote:  David,

Just curious. Did you know George Washington would take puppies that he didn't find to be "pure," tie them up in a sack, and drown them? Does that bother you at all?

Best
Rob

I found a lengthy article on this subject.

It begins with an abstract of the well-documented article itself as follows:

The Dogs of George Washington and the Less Fortunate Ones of His Slaves
by John Ensminger

Abstract:
The practices of George Washington as to the dogs on his plantation and with which he hunted, and his attitudes towards the dogs of his slaves, show considerable influence from his English roots, though with significant adaptation to the very different North American environment. Practices such as drowning puppies from unwanted unions of his hunting dogs with loose dogs on the plantation reflect a period where dogs that did not have an economic or decorative purpose were thought best to remove. Hanging excess dogs of slaves, or threatening to do so, continues a practice found in English law for dogs that violated forest and game laws. Washington’s efforts to re-establish a hunting pack after the Revolutionary War shows how keen he was to resume his participation in the hunt, though his disappointment with the dogs supplied by the Marquis de Lafayette prove that he was still able to judge the quality of a dog even when he could no longer participate in the sport at the level he had in his youth. His efforts to find an Irish wolfhound show that he appreciated the range of functions dogs could perform. Washington was not a precursor of the cooing pet lovers that have since inhabited the White House, but rather had the tastes and skills of an English gentleman with hunting property.

In his conclusion to the lengthy article, the author wrote:

It is not fair to judge our first president by modern concepts of humaneness, nor to expect that he should keep alive dogs for which an estate such as Mount Vernon had no use. Neither can it be expected that a slave owner would overlook the activities of slaves of which he disapproved, and it is arguable that hanging dogs before their masters was a way of frightening the slaves sufficiently that no punishment would be needed for the owners of the animals. Nevertheless, it is not appropriate to overlook such facts in an effort to make the first president into a precursor of later cooing pet lovers in the White House. He lived in an age when dogs were expected to be useful, and likely more than any of his successors in office knew how to make them so.

Rob, I hope that you don't lose any sleep after reading this.

By the way, Rob, what have you personally done to prevent the elected members of the San Francisco School Board from unjustly and unfairly dishonoring the character and reputation of President Abraham Lincoln? As far as I know, San Francisco is the first city in the United States that has considered doing something like this. Oh, yes, try to be as brief as possible.

(12-15-2020 08:29 PM)Rob Wick Wrote:  David,

Just curious. Did you know George Washington would take puppies that he didn't find to be "pure," tie them up in a sack, and drown them? Does that bother you at all?

Best
Rob

I missed the connection of drowning puppies to changing the name of schools in San Francisco.
It does bother me that people who feel it is acceptable to destroy the lives of unborn children are also involved in the management of teaching and educating our children

Quote:I missed the connection of drowning puppies to changing the name of schools in San Francisco.

Well then Gene, allow me to explain.

David's whole point is that it's improper to take selected facts about someone and use that as a whole descriptive for their life and their work. I don't disagree with that notion, as much as I find drowning puppies to be repugnant. Yet, if one is going to do that with people that one admires, it is hypocritical to not do that with someone that one despises. I warned David that if the community of San Francisco is not allowed to change the name of a school if the majority of the community accepts that it should be done, that will open the door for people who want to keep Stonewall Jackson's statue at VMI or Robert E. Lee's statue on Monument Avenue in Richmond.

Only a local community has the right to determine what it right for them. If the local community doesn't want to hear about the numerous lives that Lincoln saved in the Dakota tribe, that is their right regardless of how historically illiterate it may be. You can't stop someone intent on being a fool from themselves.

Quote:By the way, Rob, what have you personally done to prevent the elected members of the San Francisco School Board from unjustly and unfairly dishonoring the character and reputation of President Abraham Lincoln? As far as I know, San Francisco is the first city in the United States that has considered doing something like this. Oh, yes, try to be as brief as possible.

Given that you can't tell the time without using 10,000 words (usually not your own, but of someone else) I'll do my best.

I have done absolutely nothing, and what's more I intend to do absolutely nothing. I am not a resident of San Francisco. Just as I would not want someone from San Francisco or Paducah or wherever to come into my community and tell me what our standards should be, I will not do that to other places. That is the textbook definition of carpetbaggery.

I don't think what you're doing is saving the character and reputation of Lincoln from dishonor. I think what you're doing is saying that the majority of American citizens can't see unbridled nonsense for what it really is, and that Lincoln has to be protected because his reputation is that tenuous. Believe it or not David there are people out there who don't worship Lincoln like you do. There are people who (shudder) think Lincoln was a tyrant or who don't agree that we should honor a president who writes that all men are created equal while holding humans in bondage.

Democracy allows us to support and laud those we like and admire. It also allows us to denigrate and curse those we don't admire. You can't have one without the other.

Best
Rob

(12-16-2020 09:46 AM)Rob Wick Wrote:  1. Given that you can't tell the time without using 10,000 words (usually not your own, but of someone else) I'll do my best.

2. I have done absolutely nothing

Response to item 1: It's 8:30 AM local time here in San Francisco. See, I learned my lesson, teacher.

Response to item 2: That's all you needed to say in order "to be as brief as possible." I now accuse you, as you did accuse me, of verbosity.