Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ah, ok. So, in your opinion, because the dispossession was not predicated on any specific plans, any specific plans involving those lands occurring during that time frame had little to no bearing on said dispossession. Got it.
Ah, ok. So, in your opinion, because the dispossession was not predicated on any specific plans, any specific plans involving those lands occurring during that time frame had little to no bearing on said dispossession. Got it.
I knew about the NY State relocations. And, of course, I knew about Andrew Jackson's Indian Removal Act and the Trail of Tears in the 1830s. Neither had anything to do with the Indian dispossessions in Ohio and certainly nothing to do with Alfred Kelley.
Your claim that Ohio promoters of the Ohio & Erie Canal relocated Indian tribes in order to facilitate the building of the canal appears simply historically inaccurate. And despite your inference, Alfred Kelley apparently engaged in no such activities; as noted in post 20, Kelley didn't even arrive in northeast Ohio until 1810, after the Treaties of Greenville and Fort Industry were signed!!! You haven't even produced any historical documents tying the Ohio Indian treaties to a desire to build the Ohio & Erie Canal. In reality, the actual push to build the Ohio & Erie Canal didn't begin until the late 1810s, certainly inspired by the building of the Erie Canal.
The overwhelming motivation for dispossessing the Indians in Ohio was to provide land for settlers, especially when the federal government had bestowed land grants in Ohio such as for Revolutionary War soldiers in order to settle their unpaid war salaries and when the Connecticut Land Company purchased Connecticut's land claim in Ohio to form the Western Reserve.
Muddled historical knowledge is not anything to be condescending about IMO. It's certainly not anything that should be used to attack the character of an historical figure such as Alfred Kelley, who was a very important figure not only in Cleveland's history, but in Ohio's history in the first half of the 19th century.
Why would you suggest Kelley played a role in dispossessing Ohio's Indian tribes when you can produce NO historical evidence that he did so??? Surely, you're not trying to disparage Kelley to excuse the actions of Christopher Columbus.
Kelley also was prominent in building Ohio railroads. By your sloppy logic, Kelley also dispossessed Ohio's Native American tribes in order to build railroads.
BTW, most of the dispossessions in NY State apparently also occurred well before the beginning of the Erie Canal project was even imagined, even before the ratification of the U.S. Constitution.
Columbus should not change its name...just like the Cleveland Indians should not change their name or the Washington Redskins...this PC culture has gone way overboard.
Nobody alive today was affected directly by Columbus.
Columbus should not change its name...just like the Cleveland Indians should not change their name or the Washington Redskins...this PC culture has gone way overboard.
Nobody alive today was affected directly by Columbus.
The Cleveland "Indians" name was tainted by the arguably racist Chief Wahoo symbol used for decades. Since Chief Wahoo was banished, the Indians name seems lame, with uniforms and caps featuring only a block "C" as an alternative to the script "Indians."
One of the replacement names highly topping fan polls is "Rockers." IMO, this would seem highly preferable for Cleveland given the Rock Hall and the great Cleveland rock anthem, "Cleveland Rocks."
Cleveland could have a lot of fun with a "Rockers" MLB team, with performances featured throughout the game. Would Bob Seger make an appearance when the Tigers were in town in order to sing, "Old Time Rock 'n Roll?"
According to the Wikipedia article, "Cleveland Rocks" is the finale for every Trans-Siberian Orchestra performance in Cleveland.
I understood in this day and age the chief wahoo was not appropriate. But even that character was meant as a fun mascot not in a racist or derogatory way. As for the name Indians. How in the hell can anyone think racism or anything bad? To me Cleavland Indians means baseball, hotdogs, spring training etc. im pretty sure Cleveland did not name its baseball team Because they wanted to be derogatory, racist or whatever towards the Indians. The cancel culture has to go, they have overstepped their boundaries and the silent, law abiding majority of Americans will use their vote in November To crush this movement along with Antifa,defunding police etc.
I understood in this day and age the chief wahoo was not appropriate. But even that character was meant as a fun mascot not in a racist or derogatory way. As for the name Indians. How in the hell can anyone think racism or anything bad? To me Cleavland Indians means baseball, hotdogs, spring training etc. im pretty sure Cleveland did not name its baseball team Because they wanted to be derogatory, racist or whatever towards the Indians. The cancel culture has to go, they have overstepped their boundaries and the silent, law abiding majority of Americans will use their vote in November To crush this movement along with Antifa,defunding police etc.
Just curious. Do even you believe: 1) Prominent monuments to Confederate leaders and slavery proponents should be allowed to remain in cities with large minority populations and where the majority of residents no longer want them? 2) That U.S. military bases, ships, etc., should continue to be named after Confederate slavers?
Just curious. Do even you believe: 1) Prominent monuments to Confederate leaders and slavery proponents should be allowed to remain in cities with large minority populations and where the majority of residents no longer want them? 2) That U.S. military bases, ships, etc., should continue to be named after Confederate slavers?
No I actually disagree with erasing our history. Since when do we pick and choose? History should be studied so the same mistakes are Not made in the future. America has been far from perfect, but to erase history we are doomed to repeat past mistakes.
How far down the rabbit hole do you want to go?
No I actually disagree with erasing our history. Since when do we pick and choose? History should be studied so the same mistakes are Not made in the future. America has been far from perfect, but to erase history we are doomed to repeat past mistakes.
How far down the rabbit hole do you want to go?
Just as I thought.
You favor allowing neo Confederates and their sympathizers (including Trump) to impose their "Lost Cause" distortion of historical reality on Americans and force us to honor traitors who precipitated a war OVER SLAVERY that resulted in a death toll higher than all other American wars COMBINED (according to modern death estimates), even though the population of the nation was only 35 million. Disgusting. Some of the individuals honored even were failed generals, such as Bragg and Hood, despised even by other Confederate officers and soldiers (see post 15).
As most of the monuments were built to celebrate the fallacious "Lost Cause" historical interpretation and to reinforce Jim Crow laws and the rejection of the civil rights bills enforcing minority rights by the U.S. Supreme Court, removing the Confederate statues would NOT erase our history, but actually RESTORE it to reality. If there was a sense of historical righteousness in Virginia and the U.S., Virginian George Thomas would take Lee's place of honor in Richmond. He not only was instrumental in defeating the Confederacy, he championed the national identity even when most persons, even in the North, still considered themselves primarily as residents of their individual states and not of the U.S.
Your logic would have forced the Germans to keep all of the Nazi monuments even though the Nazis similarly devastated their nation as well as the victims of their immoral aggression.
I'm sympathetic to retaining monuments to individuals with redeeming qualities, including Robert E. Lee, when citizens still WANT to honor the individuals. By these standards, honoring Lee with a very prominent statue in Richmond or as the namesake of a U.S. military base is wrong, but he should continue to be honored at Washington & Lee University IMO, at least in maintaining Lee's beautiful tomb there (the university may be forced to drop Lee from its name, just as Princeton has stripped Woodrow Wilson from the names of schools and buildings at that university in recent weeks). Lee was instrumental in the remarkably peaceful resolution of the Civil War and in encouraging the Confederate citizens to take the oath of loyalty and rejoin the Union. He also, in his few short years as president of Washington & Lee, was prominent in developing the modern liberal arts education model.
By these standards, I would be a vocal and determined opponent of any efforts to dishonor George Washington, whose positive contributions to America and to humanity rank among the highest in history.
I'll be surprised if Columbus doesn't change its name within 20 years. It's not a perfect analogy, but nobody would want a city named Hitler. A cringe-worthy name is not good for a city and will offend many of its citizens.
You favor allowing neo Confederates and their sympathizers (including Trump) to impose their "Lost Cause" distortion of historical reality on Americans and force us to honor traitors who precipitated a war OVER SLAVERY that resulted in a death toll higher than all other American wars COMBINED (according to modern death estimates), even though the population of the nation was only 35 million. Disgusting. Some of the individuals honored even were failed generals, such as Bragg and Hood, despised even by other Confederate officers and soldiers (see post 15).
As most of the monuments were built to celebrate the fallacious "Lost Cause" historical interpretation and to reinforce Jim Crow laws and the rejection of the civil rights bills enforcing minority rights by the U.S. Supreme Court, removing the Confederate statues would NOT erase our history, but actually RESTORE it to reality. If there was a sense of historical righteousness in Virginia and the U.S., Virginian George Thomas would take Lee's place of honor in Richmond. He not only was instrumental in defeating the Confederacy, he championed the national identity even when most persons, even in the North, still considered themselves primarily as residents of their individual states and not of the U.S.
Your logic would have forced the Germans to keep all of the Nazi monuments even though the Nazis similarly devastated their nation as well as the victims of their immoral aggression.
I'm sympathetic to retaining monuments to individuals with redeeming qualities, including Robert E. Lee, when citizens still WANT to honor the individuals. By these standards, honoring Lee with a very prominent statue in Richmond or as the namesake of a U.S. military base is wrong, but he should continue to be honored at Washington & Lee University IMO, at least in maintaining Lee's beautiful tomb there (the university may be forced to drop Lee from its name, just as Princeton has stripped Woodrow Wilson from the names of schools and buildings at that university in recent weeks). Lee was instrumental in the remarkably peaceful resolution of the Civil War and in encouraging the Confederate citizens to take the oath of loyalty and rejoin the Union. He also, in his few short years as president of Washington & Lee, was prominent in developing the modern liberal arts education model.
By these standards, I would be a vocal and determined opponent of any efforts to dishonor George Washington, whose positive contributions to America and to humanity rank among the highest in history.
I'll be surprised if Columbus doesn't change its name within 20 years. It's not a perfect analogy, but nobody would want a city named Hitler. A cringe-worthy name is not good for a city and will offend many of its citizens.
You lose credibility with me when you state Trump is a neo Nazi sympathizer. Total rubbish. He’s helped more Black people in four years along with other minorities more than our black president of eight years. That’s a fact. People can’t put their hate aside for Trump no matter what. I happen to think his policies were very good and we had the best economy in my entire life four months ago. The real dividers are groups like the Ku Klux Klan, neo-Nazis, Antifa nd Black Lives Matter. If people have to put a color in front of the words “lives matter” those people are the racistS.
getting back to statues and our not so proud history regarding the Civil War monuments you mentioned. You basically are taking away history for half the nation. Is that right? Are we supposed to pretend slavery didn’t exist now that the statues are gone? I just don’t get it. I’ll just agree to disagree I guess
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's certainly not anything that should be used to attack the character of an historical figure such as Alfred Kelley, who was a very important figure not only in Cleveland's history, but in Ohio's history in the first half of the 19th century.
