(12-19-2020 04:26 PM)Rob Wick Wrote:  Well, let's see. On November 9, 2020 in post #9 on this very thread I wrote

Quote:While I personally oppose what's going on here,

On December 16, 2020 in post #44 I wrote

Quote:I don't think what you're doing is saving the character and reputation of Lincoln from dishonor.

Best
Rob

Of course, by the use of the word "here" in post #9, you are not actually referring to a location but rather criticizing the process by which the San Francisco School Board and its "blue ribbon" Panel for Renaming of Schools appear set to remove the name of Abraham Lincoln as the honored name of a local community high school for so-called "just causes." This is an assessment and judgment with which we both apparently disagree.

Of course, it is not the community where you live that this unfair and unjust renaming of schools process is occurring. I am the one living "here" in San Francisco. You live "there," wherever your local community might be.

You wrote in post #44: "But I [Rob Wick] don't live in San Francisco. It isn't my right, or even my duty, to tell members of the school board or the community that what they are doing is wrong, unless the board or members of the community asked for my opinion."

I do live in San Francisco. So, it is my right (and for me something I consider to be my duty) to tell members of the school board and the community that what the local school board is doing is wrong. I sought the opportunity and was granted the permission to write a Letter to Editor for the Richmond Review titled: "Do Not Rename Lincoln High School." I believe that the title makes the purpose of my Letter to the Editor clear to the public.

If the school board in your local community also proposed renaming the local Abraham Lincoln High School (if there is one) for the very same justifiable reasons as determined by the Panel for Renaming of San Francisco Schools, what would you do? Something or nothing?

You state in your post #44: "I don't think what you're doing is saving the character and reputation of Lincoln from dishonor."

I will say this in response to your mocking statement: "I am trying to save the character and reputation of President Abraham Lincoln from this "unfair and unjust" dishonor and I mean to keep doing so until the end."

Quote:If the school board in your local community also proposed renaming the local Abraham Lincoln High School (if there is one) for the very same justifiable reasons as determined by the Panel for Renaming of San Francisco Schools, what would you do? Something or nothing?

If you're asking me would I support such a move, the answer is no. If you're asking me would I actively fight against the proposal, then the answer is also no. At most, if given the opportunity to make a public statement, I might consider it only because my deep interest in Lincoln provides me a perspective that might be helpful in reaching a decision, but I would not make it a holy crusade because my belief that Lincoln is someone worth studying and knowing about is not contingent on other people's point of view. Plus, I don't believe mounting a crusade would change any minds.

I'm going to make a prediction. If you approach your campaign by saying the board's decision (provided it does what you think it will do..I'm not convinced it will) was "unfair" and "unjust" then you are going to have your hat handed to you, and rightfully so.

If, however, you approach it from the perspective that the board erred in agreeing to the panel's position (provided that's what it does), and then pointing out why you believe that, you might be competitive. I normally wouldn't do this, but I'll make you a deal. I will write a statement that you should give, and give you permission to use it, provided you do not edit or change anything of substance (meaning you can change the style of it, but not the content).

"I am running for a seat on the SFUSD Board of Education because of my strong belief that as we emerge out of the deadliest global pandemic we have known in 100 years, it is imperative that we marshal all our resources for our most precious obligation--the education of our children. Spending $10 million to rename schools in the midst of this crisis shows poor judgment and deprives our children of their right to a proper education by diverting precious resources from their intended goal, which is giving our children the tools that will help them survive no matter what challenges they face.

I also fear that we are sending the wrong message to our children. There is no one among us who hasn't done things we are not proud of. We have every right to expect that those people we choose to lead us through times like the recent pandemic or the shedding of blood in a fratricidal battle for the soul of our nation are of the highest moral character. But what message do we send to our children when we suggest that even if those leaders make terrible choices that they are beyond redemption? To be sure, they must first accept their own failings and admit to their mistakes, but to judge how well they did requires a historical literacy that I fear is lacking in our citizenry. There are very few people in our society, or our history, that are all good or all bad. If we demand perfection in an imperfect world then we dilute the lessons we can impart to the future generation by showing them how people are able to overcome the failings that inhibit growth in us all.

I don't for a moment suggest that we ignore those failings. I sincerely believe that the majority of our leaders were more than aware of the contradictions that plagued their most private thoughts. But how one looks and interprets those failings, I believe, determines how one looks at their fellow citizens, both locally and globally. Some will argue that their decisions reflected their desire to obtain and protect a power that came at the expense of others. In some ways that is correct. But I insist that those who dispute the vision that I accept realize that while it is perfectly fine to look for strong moral standards from our leaders, we must also exhibit it ourselves.

One of my personal heroes, and the subject of one of the board's decisions, Abraham Lincoln, once said, “In this age, and this country, public sentiment is everything. With it, nothing can fail; against it, nothing can succeed. Whoever moulds public sentiment, goes deeper than he who enacts statutes, or pronounces judicial decisions.” Lincoln also exhibited a self-awareness that as a leader he was not imbued with a special sense as to what is right and what is wrong. Noting that his time was not the "days of miracles" Lincoln insisted that his only option was to "study the plain physical facts of the case … and learn what appears to be wise and right.”

Lincoln, and our other leaders, were not always successful in instituting their vision for a more just society. Lincoln's heart ached for the 38 men he consigned to the hangman's noose, but his belief in justice and the rule of law suggested to him that was the only just outcome. I accept that not everyone will agree with him, or me. But I hope that as a member of society, and as a member of our school board, I can look at issues and somehow glean the proper path from what my heroes did, both good and bad. And I refuse to be ashamed in looking at many of these people as heroes. I also hope that as a society we realize that always striving for our success and the success of those around us requires not perfection, but humility and a desire to bring about what Lincoln once called "the last best hope of earth."

Best
Rob

(12-20-2020 06:10 AM)Rob Wick Wrote:  

Quote:If the school board in your local community also proposed renaming the local Abraham Lincoln High School (if there is one) for the very same justifiable reasons as determined by the Panel for Renaming of San Francisco Schools, what would you do? Something or nothing?

If you're asking me would I actively fight against the proposal, then the answer is also no.

Best
Rob

That was an unexpected answer.




When Lincoln was on his way to the National Cemetery at Gettysburg, an old gentleman told him that his only son fell on Little Round Top at Gettysburg, and he was going to look at the spot.

Mr. Lincoln replied:

"You have been called on to make a terrible sacrifice for the Union, and a visit to that spot, I fear, will open your wounds afresh.

"But, oh, my dear sir, if we had reached the end of such sacrifices, and had nothing left for us to do but to place garlands on the graves of those who have already fallen, we could give thanks even amidst our tears; but when I think of the sacrifices of life yet to be offered, and the hearts and homes yet to be made desolate, before this dreadful war is over, my heart is like lead within me, and I feel at times like hiding in deep darkness."

--E. W. Andrews in "Reminiscences of Abraham Lincoln" at pages 510-11.

And, yet, President Abraham Lincoln carried on to save democracy for the world!

Quote:That was an unexpected answer.

Sorry to disappoint you.

Best
Rob

(11-12-2020 06:29 AM)Gene C Wrote:  I didn't interpret David's comments that way.

I know what y'all are thinking.
While I don't write letters to newspapers and I haven't written any historical articles for newsletters or magazines, I have stayed at a Holiday Inn Express

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHCTaUFXpP8

I thought of this post by Gene tonight. I was watching the Celtics/Lakers basketball game . One of the Celtics' players got injured in the hand. And, one of the TV announcers commented that another teammate was looking at his hand and also said that both of his parents were doctors. And, Coach Gundy then said that this was like saying "I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express, last night."

P.S. Don't forget to watch the youtube video.

From Isaac Chotiner's article in the New Yorker entitled "How San Francisco Renamed Its Schools."

"One member of the committee said, about talking to historians, “What would be the point? History is written and documented pretty well across the board. And so we don’t need to belabor history in that regard. We’re not debating that. There’s no point in debating history in that regard. Either it happened or it didn’t.” What do you think of that?"

https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/h...ts-schools

Thank you to Bob Cook for sending this link.

(02-08-2021 05:05 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  From Isaac Chotiner's article in the New Yorker entitled "How San Francisco Renamed Its Schools."

"One member of the committee said, about talking to historians, “What would be the point? History is written and documented pretty well across the board. And so we don’t need to belabor history in that regard. We’re not debating that. There’s no point in debating history in that regard. Either it happened or it didn’t.” What do you think of that?"

https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/h...ts-schools

Thank you to Bob Cook for sending this link.

Isaac Chotiner: I think a lot of the commentary about the school names is focused specifically on Lincoln. It seems to be the thing that a lot of people are the most upset about. Do you have any thoughts about Lincoln and how we should view him?

Response by the President of the San Francisco Board of Education: I think that the killing of indigenous peoples and that record is something that is not acknowledged. It’s something that people are now learning about, and due to this process. And so we just have to do the work of that extra learning when we’re having these discussions.

Apparently, she did not read the email that I sent to each and every member of the School Board containing the new work on the "Dakota 38" by Professor Michael Burlingame on the morning BEFORE the 6-1 vote to rename Abraham Lincoln High School for just cause. [See my post #70 on thread titled "RE: Abraham Lincoln statues."]

And, there is no apparent way to forward that email to Isaac Chotiner for him to directly ask the question of the San Francisco School Board President. I cannot imagine what would be her response.

Regarding the possible renaming of Abraham Lincoln High School in San Francisco, I wanted to let everyone know that there are potentially dark clouds on the horizon, according to the Dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law, Erwin Chemerinsky. He is the renowned author of eleven books, including leading casebooks and treatises about constitutional law, criminal procedure, and federal jurisdiction.


Did S.F. school board's renaming of 44 schools violate California law?

San Francisco Chronicle -- Kellie Hwang
Feb. 10, 2021Updated: Feb. 10, 2021 4 a.m.

The controversy swirling around the decision to rename dozens of San Francisco schools continues to grow.

The San Francisco Unified Board of Education’s recent vote to rename 44 schools because they bear the names of historical figures linked to racism and oppression has opened the district to potential litigation under California’s meeting-transparency law, according to San Francisco attorney Paul D. Scott.

In a letter Saturday addressed to the board’s president, Gabriela López, Scott demanded that the board repeal the resolution it passed 6-1 at its Jan. 27 meeting. He alleged that the board did not properly notify the public that it was making a final decision to rename the school sites, which include ones honoring Abraham Lincoln and George Washington.

Scott said the board provided advance notice only that it would decide on a list of “potential” schools to be renamed. As a result, he said, the board violated the notice and agenda requirements under the Brown Act — California’s open-meeting law — and denied due process to families and the public.

His letter declared a 30-day window to “cure or correct” the action, and said that if the board does not reverse its decision, “legal action will follow.” He told The Chronicle, “The only way to implement the will of the communities is by giving them adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard on a school-by-school basis.”

Scott had outlined his legal conclusions in a letter Feb. 1 to Mayor London Breed, calling for a review and opinion by the City Attorney’s Office “so the School Board will have an opportunity, if appropriate, to reconsider its course of action.”

“While the language of the resolution indicated that the Board was going to consider approving a list of school names for potential renaming,” Scott noted, the district then sent out a news release that “goes further and states that the decision has now been made to rename the schools on the list and only alternate names will be considered going forward.”

Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the Berkeley School of Law, said that the board could respond to the demand letter by changing its meeting notification — but then proceed to deliberate and follow the same course.

“I understand that the claim was that the notice given was not sufficiently specific to meet the requirements of the Brown Act,” he said. “If this is correct, there is a basis for overturning the decision. The board could then do it again, but would need to give proper notice of the meeting and then could deliberate and vote the same way again.”

“In other words,” Chermerinsky said, “if this succeeds, it would delay the decision, but likely not change the outcome.”

Scott said that if the board followed that course, “We would have to take a close look at the specific actions taken by the School Board.”

Scott said the matter should be handled on a school-by-school basis, after students are back in schools and the public can engage in person, particularly those who do not have access to technology. He expressed concern about a decision affecting the 44 campuses en masse, adding that the actions were based on the findings of an advisory panel created by a board resolution that was to offer recommendations by June 2020 but delivered its findings in September.

“Beyond the notice issue, it is also highly problematic for the Board to be rubber-stamping a list of 44 schools produced by an unelected panel whose tenure had previously evidently expired,” he said. “Given how important each individual renaming decision would be to so many people, it is hard to imagine how the affected communities could possibly be given a fair hearing if the decision is made as to all of the schools at once.”

Scott, whose children attended San Francisco public schools, told The Chronicle he has been “approached by numerous others about their concerns or about them joining in an action if it proves necessary.” He said “there would be no shortage of plaintiffs” for a lawsuit.

The school board, city attorney and mayor’s office did not respond to requests for comment.

Congratulations to David Lockmiller and those who opposed this silly, yet harmful effort to discredit the achievements of several of this countries good leaders.
Thank you. You have made a difference.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/san-fra...ogy-recall

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/san...e-n1258649

(02-26-2021 09:27 AM)Gene C Wrote:  Congratulations to David Lockmiller and those who opposed this silly, yet harmful effort to discredit the achievements of several of this countries good leaders.
Thank you. You have made a difference.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/san-fra...ogy-recall

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/san...e-n1258649

This is far from being over, Gene.

I sent the following email to each and every member of the San Francisco Board of Education on the morning of the day before the 6-1 vote of the Board to rename 44 San Francisco schools for just cause, including Abraham Lincoln High School.

Professor Michael Burlingame was the winner of the 2010 Lincoln Prize for his two-volume work on Lincoln, titled “Abraham Lincoln: A Life.” Professor Burlingame devoted five pages of his scholarly work to the 1862 Dakota Sioux Indian uprising and the subsequent actions taken by President Lincoln, titled “Magnanimity: Dealing the Minnesota Sioux Uprising.” (“Abraham Lincoln: A Life,” Vol. Two, pages 480-84.)

At my urgent request, Professor Burlingame provided to me on Sunday, January24, 2021 an abbreviated version of this same work to present for review by the elected members of the San Francisco School Board and others. Professor Burlingame graciously wrote at the top of his email to me: “I hope this fills the bill. Please forward it to the relevant parties.”

Abraham Lincoln Overrules Death Sentence for
264 Dakota Indians Convicted of Murder or Rape
by Michael Burlingame

In the summer of 1862, Dakota Indians in Minnesota, understandably angry at white encroachment on their territory, at the government’s failure to deliver promised supplies and money, and at the notorious corruption of Indian agents and traders, attacked white men, women, and children along the frontier, killing hundreds and driving over 30,000 from their homes. It was the bloodiest massacre of civilians on U.S. soil prior to September 11, 2001.

After U.S. Army forces under General John Pope put down the rebellion, a military court condemned 303 Dakotas to death. Faced with a potential mass execution, Abraham Lincoln “resolved that such an outrage, as the indiscriminate hanging of these Indians most certainly would be, shall not take place,” according to a Washington newspaper widely regarded as an administration organ. When the president ordered the suspension of the sentences and demanded to see “the full and complete record of these convictions,” General Pope reported that white Minnesotans “are exasperated to the last degree.” The “most horrible massacres have been committed; children nailed alive to trees, women violated and then disemboweled – everything that horrible ingenuity could devise.” Therefore, the general warned, “if the guilty are not all executed I think it nearly impossible to prevent the indiscriminate massacre of all the Indians – old men, women, and children.”

Echoing that advice, Minnesota congressman Cyrus Aldrich told Lincoln that if all the men found guilty of murder or rape were not executed, his constituents would “dispose of them in their own way.” A Minnesota newspaper similarly counseled against leniency: “If the Government wants wholesale hanging by the acre; if it wants the Western plains turned into a wide Golgotha of dead Indians; if it wants them hunted down like wild beasts from the face of the continent, it had better refuse to perform the act of justice which the people of this State demand.”

Minnesota’s congressional delegation and Governor Alexander Ramsey joined the chorus demanding that all 303 convicted Dakotas be hanged. One missionary to the Dakota advised Lincoln “to execute the great majority of those who have been condemned” lest “the innocent as well as the guilty” be killed by vengeful settlers.

As the president and two government lawyers pored over the military court records, they discovered that some trials had lasted only fifteen minutes, that hearsay evidence had been admitted, that due process had been ignored, and that counsel had not been provided the defendants. The attorneys recommended that many of the condemned men be pardoned. While considering what to do, the president received letters from Minnesotans insisting that no mercy be shown to the “lurking savages.”

The situation resembled the one Lincoln had faced thirty years earlier during the Black Hawk War in Illinois, when his fellow militiamen wished to kill an Indian who entered their camp bearing a safe-conduct pass; then Lincoln had courageously blocked them and saved the Indian’s life.

After carefully reviewing the army trial records, the president authorized the execution of the thirty-seven Dakotas found guilty of murder and the two convicted of rape, thus sparing the lives of 264 condemned men.

Lincoln explained his reasoning to the U.S. Senate: “Anxious to not act with so much clemency as to encourage another outbreak on one hand, nor with so much severity as to be real cruelty on the other, I ordered a careful examination of the records of the trials to be made, in view of first ordering the execution of such as had been proved guilty of violating females.” In dealing with the murder charges, he had sought to discriminate between those involved in massacres and those participating only in battles.

As execution day for the condemned men drew near, Lincoln instructed the authorities to be careful not to hang Chas-kay-don, whose name was similar to one of the condemned men. At the last minute, the president pardoned Round Wind, who had helped some whites escape. On December 26, the men convicted of rape or murder died together on the gallows. In 1864, Governor Ramsey told Lincoln that if he had approved the execution all 303 Dakotas, he would have won more support for his reelection bid. “I could not afford to hang men for votes,” the president replied.

Professor Burlingame holds the Chancellor Naomi B. Lynn Distinguished Chair in Lincoln Studies at the University of Illinois, Springfield.

It is uncontested and indisputable that President Lincoln signed the execution death warrants for 39 Native Americans, as required by law of the President. However, it is also uncontested and indisputable that President Lincoln commuted the death sentences of 265 of the 303 Dakota men condemned as a result of the careful review of the facts of each Native American’s case. He also later pardoned one of the 39 mentioned in the letter to the Senate after evidence came to his attention questioning the man’s guilt.

Heather Knight, San Francisco Chronicle, wrote in Effort to rename S.F. schools could have been history lesson, but it placed politics over learning –January 12, 2021: “The panel didn’t seek the guidance of historians, instead doing its own research in a cursory fashion using mostly Wikipedia entries and Google search results . . . .”

“Families for San Francisco, an advocacy group, watched recordings of the panel’s Zoom meetings from the past year and published a report outlining major concerns. The original resolution called for engaging San Francisco in a “sustained discussion” about renaming schools, but that hasn’t happened. Instead, the panel took the decision-making entirely upon itself.”

“A group of families from Feinstein last week wrote a lengthy letter to the panel, the superintendent, school board members and others explaining why they want to keep their name. They pointed out she was a trailblazer for women’s rights, authored 500 pieces of legislation and wrote the only assault weapons ban ever passed in the United States.”

At this point, it would seem to be both wise and efficacious to hire one, two, or three professional American History historians to review the work and conclusions of the San Francisco School Board’s own-appointed “blue ribbon” schools renaming panel (working for free, apparently). It’s always better “to be penny wise than pound foolish,” as the British would say. Quentin Kopp informed the public in the November, 2020 edition of the Richmond Review: “The estimated [schools] renaming cost is $20 million.” [$20 million was a typo; s/b $10 million.]

Now, the San Francisco School Board plans to follow the advice of local university historians (possibly teaching the "1619 Project" curricula).

Apparently, the new work of Professor Burlingame, who holds the Chancellor Naomi B. Lynn Distinguished Chair in Lincoln Studies at the University of Illinois, Springfield, and wrote specifically for them on the subject of the "Dakota 38" is not good enough for them.

(02-26-2021 09:27 AM)Gene C Wrote:  Congratulations to David Lockmiller and those who opposed this silly, yet harmful effort to discredit the achievements of several of this countries good leaders.
Thank you. You have made a difference.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/san-fra...ogy-recall

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/san...e-n1258649

Kudos and congrats, David!

https://www.newsweek.com/san-francisco-s...on-1575183

(03-11-2021 09:18 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  https://www.newsweek.com/san-francisco-s...on-1575183

Quote from the first paragraph of the Newsweek article:

"Abraham Lincoln can be assassinated a second time, with the second attack coming on his reputation. This posthumous attack comes from the woke luminaries heading up the San Francisco Unified School District."

---

The San Diego Unified School Board voted unanimously on Tuesday to rename Junipero Serra High School after students successfully petitioned for the change, saying the name was offensive to Indigenous peoples. [San Diego Union Tribune]

Local indigenous leaders praised the name change and said it will bring “much-needed healing” to the Kumeyaay and other first peoples.

What's your point, David? Are you saying that students who attend this school have no right to change the name of a school if it doesn't reflect their values?

Best
Rob

(03-11-2021 12:56 PM)Rob Wick Wrote:  What's your point, David? Are you saying that students who attend this school have no right to change the name of a school if it doesn't reflect their values?

Best
Rob

No, I am saying that they are the ones who should have the right to change the name of a school if it doesn't reflect their values . . . unless they have a hidden agenda as do the elected members of the San Francisco Board of Education. For good cause stated - yes; for bad cause not stated - no.

Let me be clear, Rob. I am against the actions of the San Francisco School Board in authorizing the renaming of Abraham Lincoln High School in San Francisco on the basis of President Abraham Lincoln's role in the execution of the "Dakota 38," the largest mass execution of Native Americans in the history of the United States. And, if the "students who attend this school" petitioned the School Board to rename Abraham Lincoln High School for this same reason, I would be against that petition, as well.