DEPACincy

This is literally the first time you've made this argument. Either of you. In any of your posts. You haven't even hinted at this angle. Do you have any sources for this claim? Or are you just making it up? Any contemporary writings that show that Cincinnatians of the era felt this way? Any documentation that the statue was erected because of this? Because it sounds like bullsh*t. The statue wasn't erected until 1896, so we know it was not erected by Cincinnatians during his lifetime. They weren't scrambling to honor him in 1841 out of pride for their city. We do know that a lot of downtown residents have expressed that they would support removing it. Again, I'm pretty indifferent on it. I actually buy the argument that we should just put up a plaque. Or, even better, add a statue of Tecumseh. But you guys drive me crazy because you just keep making sh*t up as you go along.

LOL. See my post above. It has EVERYTHING to do with why he was president. And everything to do with why John Tyler was his VP. And everything to do with why we ended up in a Civil War. Harrison's life's work helped create the Confederacy. He just died 20 years before he got to see the actual war.

That sounds like a great idea. Well reasoned. Doesn't ignore history. Thank you for the perspective.

This is why arguments with conservatives on this site are so stupid. @Brutus_buckeye @jmecklenborg we could have a legitimate discussion about whether his advocacy for slavery is disqualifying when it comes to whether or not he should be honored. You COULD take the position of "being a slavery advocate is not that bad" or "we should honor him despite the fact that his biggest achievement was fighting to expand slavery in the Northwest Territory" but you won't, because you actually understand that it is morally repugnant. Instead you guys try to lie about the actual facts and say "he just happened to own slaves," "he just inherited slaves," or "everybody had slaves back then." You cannot have your own facts guys. These are the facts: 1. William Henry Harrison was born in VA and lived in OH. 2. He was president for only 31 days. A presidency where he had no significant policy achievements. 3. He advocated and fought for the expansion of slavery into territory where it had already been decided that slavery was not going to be legal. 4. He advocated for the denial of rights to free black people in a place where they had been granted those rights. 5. He was out of step, morally, with the leaders of that era in the part of the country where he lived. Folks like Manasseh and Ephraim Cutler, Rufus Putnam, etc. recognized the evils of slavery and fought to have it excluded from the Northwest. 6. His biggest achievements were fighting at Tippecanoe and advocating for slavery. 7. Historians agree that his election and the subsequent elevation of John Tyler to the Presidency led directly to the Civil War. Ok, we cannot debate these things. They are facts. If you want to argue that he should still be honored, go ahead, tell me why. But do not tell me that was a product of his time, that he was "merely a slave owner," that he "just inherited slaves," or that slavery was tangential to who was or why he has been honored. Slavery earned him the Presidency. His fighting for it appealed to Southerners and got him elected. It is the defining characteristic of his legacy. So stop lying.

No, YOU are missing the point. I can't believe I have to keep making it. He fought to make slavery LEGAL in a place that it was ILLEGAL. "He was not fighting for something illegal" is a LIE. And not only did he advocate for enslaving other human beings, he made it his premier policy position. His actions led to a CIVIL WAR. This is so dumb. I feel like you're just trolling at this point.

Harrison was not someone who "may have condoned slavery as it was the law of the land and common for the time." The law of the land in the Northwest Territory was that slavery was BANNED. The leaders who wrote the Northwest Ordinance recognized years before Harrison became governor of the Indiana Territory that slavery was bad and should not be allowed. Harrison was an activist who fought FOR slavery. He tried to have the law changed to allow it. And he openly advocated for its expansion and against giving any rights to free black people. I don't know why that is so hard for you guys to understand.

This is a fair and measured point. I really do think just adding a plaque explaining who he really was would be a good compromise. I disagree with this. Seelbach has given LGBTQ folks representation in a city that, for too long, was hostile to their existence. Also, before he was on council he helped get Article 12 repealed, which was a huge deal. He has also been a leading voice for revitalization in OTR and he is always on the right side of urbanist issues. If Mary Kuhl hates you, you're doing something right! https://www.cincinnatimagazine.com/citywiseblog/chris-seelbach-getting-past-gay/?utm_campaign=Social Media 2020&utm_content=131671383&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&hss_channel=tw-32264744

So I should not trust his statements on the issue, and instead trust your INTERPRETATION of his statements. Because you know what is truly in his heart. It seems like Seelbach is not the one who is a slimeball. You guys are constantly doing the things that you accuse the other side of doing. It's really quite impressive.

Yes, they would not be happy. It's also not 1958. That someone didn't understand homosexuality in 1958 is not at all surprising. He was in no way an anti-LGBTQ activist though, which is what you were trying to claim. Do you ever get tired of twisting and spinning things to meet your worldview?

The people attracted to New Hope or Asheville are very put off by the confederate flags and outward racism in Ripley and Maysville.

Maybe it should? Why should we celebrate him for holding the office for 40 days? Especially if he got there through forcefully advocating for slavery and directly contributed to our eventual Civil War. Nobody is actually doing this. You're arguing against a straw man. He wasn't from Cincinnati. He was born in VA. He bought a house in North Bend. That's as close as he got to being from Cincinnati. What did he actually do to move the country forward? He actually held it back. And directly contributed to it almost being torn apart. He fought passionately for an evil institution. That was his greatest accomplishment. That's exactly what we do. I see you didn't read my comment about George Washington. When did MLK speak out against gay rights? I'd really like to know. Because I have never come across this. Coretta Scott King has been a lifelong LGBTQ rights activist and has said many times that MLK would've been supportive of the fight for marriage equality. This is true. And NOBODY is doing that. What were Harrison's accomplishments that make him worthy of honor? You guys keep saying liberals are trying to establish purity tests but you guys are the ones who are ignoring nuance. It can both be true that some slave owners did great things worthy of celebration, but that others' accomplishments failed to outweigh their failings. It has been explained to you and @jmecklenborg multiple times that Seelbach is not saying Harrison's statue should be removed because he was a slave owner, but that it should be removed because he dedicated his life to pro-slavery advocacy. That's a HUGE difference. But you guys ignore the actual discussion because it doesn't fit your narrative.

Who says you can't? You? We literally do this in everything we do in life. Nothing is black and white. Life is full of shades of gray. If you can't see that, I feel sorry for you.

Or, and I know this is hard, but nuance is a thing that exists. If you go to Mt. Vernon, they talk to you extensively about Washington's slave ownership. A friend of mine used to be a tour guide there, and white people would regularly confront her for sharing these uncomfortable truths. They came there to learn about the greatness of Washington, not about who he truly was. If you visit the original President's House in Philly, the entire area is dedicated to his slaves and their lives. You learn that Washington would rotate his slaves between Philly and VA so he wouldn't have to free them. If you go to Washington's birthplace in the Northern Neck of Virginia, they also cover the atrocities of slavery comprehensively, and I'm sure many people get mad about that too. All of these places serve, not as just a monument to Washington, but as honest accounts of his triumphs and failures. Slave ownership was one of those great failures. His greatest failure probably. And yet, he also did great things, which we can also recognize and we do. Before today, you knew nothing about Harrison, except that he was Ohio's first President. You didn't even know what he was most famous for. And not only did you not know it, but you doubled down when confronted with that reality. Instead of, you know, just googling it. You've probably walked by that statue a million times and never bothered yourself to actually seek out our history. I'm not even sure that I think the Harrison monument needs to be removed. I would be just as happy, probably more so, with a, historical marker explaining how he was one of the worst presidents and how his only great policy pursuit was to expand slavery. His presidency did nothing but bring us closer to eventual Civil War. But it is really amazing to me how you can be so SURE that you are right, even when confronted head on with your gap in knowledge here. The fact that learning about who the man REALLY was didn't budge your opinion at all should really worry you. You're so damned caught up in BEING RIGHT that you're not willing to learn.

It is amazing that you don't know this history. I was told that if we put up statues to people it will "preserve history" and if we take them down that history will be forgotten. It seems that this statue hasn't done its job. The thing that he is most famous for is arguing that the provisions in the Northwest Ordinance that prohibited slavery should be REPEALED. Like, if there is one thing people learn about him, it's that he died in office right away. If there are two things, it's that he died in office right away and that he fought for the expansion of slavery. In 1801, Harrison moved to the Indiana Territory where he was appointed as Governor. In 1803 Harrison lobbied Congress to repeal Article 6 of the Northwest Ordinance, in order to permit slavery in the territory. He argued that it was necessary to make the region more appealing to settlers and would make the territory economically viable. He was able to convince Congress to suspended the article for 10 years, during which time the territories covered by the ordinance were granted the right to decide for themselves whether to permit slavery. Harrison tried to have slavery legalized outright, in both 1805 and 1807. This caused a significant stir in the territory. When in 1809 the legislature was popularly elected for the first time, Harrison found himself at odds with them as the abolitionist party came to power. They immediately blocked his plans for slavery and repealed the indenturing laws he had passed in 1803. President Thomas Jefferson, although a slaveholder, did not want slavery to expand into the Northwest Territory. Anti-slavery churches in Indiana organized citizens to sign a petition and organizing politically to defeat Harrison's efforts to legalize slavery. https://potus-geeks.livejournal.com/151743.html

It is disingenuous to argue "he just inherited slaves." The man's life work was to expand slavery into the Northwest Territory. It is what he is known best for. And I don't think anyone who is arguing against honoring bad people is saying that they, themselves, are perfect or would've been on the right side of history. I don't know if I would've been on the right side of history. My family came from Virginia. Lots of my ancestors owned slaves. But my third great grandfather fought in the Union Army and was vehemently anti-slavery. So it is a mixed bag. One thing I do know, is that we should definitely not HONOR people for being on the wrong side of history. There's too many good people that were on the RIGHT side that deserve to be honored.

Who needs parks or a city planning dept when you have a police force rivaling a small army?

Of note, OKI doesn't propose projects. What you see in the plan comes from the municipalities. So to get the priorities changed, we need a massive change in thinking from our elected officials.

"Retail doesn't work at the Banks" has become a meme around here but it's not really true. The businesses at the Banks do quite well. They also pay high rents, which has slowed its build out. Rents in this development in Norwood will be substantially lower so it will fill up faster.

I don't disagree with this. It could be more visible for sure. And it needs more connections. And it it will likely be "drive-to urbanism" like you say. But the contention was that it would fail because it was too far off the highway. I don't buy that. With the right anchors it could be successful just like Oakley Station. And by successful, I mean the developers will make money, not necessarily that it'll be good urbanism.

Well the apartments provide a large, built-in customer base as a start. But the "I never drive there" argument doesn't really hold up because, right now, there is no reason for anyone to want to drive there. I never drive near Summit Park unless I'm intending to go there. I never drive to Madisonville unless I'm intending to go there. Ditto for the Incline District, Mainstrasse, Columbia-Tusculum, and Woodburn. There's lots of places I would never drive to otherwise that have successful destinations. I don't see how this will be any different.

I mean... I live here, so I think I know them a bit. This isn't designed to appeal to "Cincinnatians" in West Chester or Mason. Many areas of the city that don't have great highway access are thriving. The Northside business district is way better today than it was when it had direct highway access. Hyde Park and Mount Lookout squares have basically zero highway access. You have to drive through the entire neighborhood to get to them. Pleasant Ridge business district is way off the highway. And if you're comparing it to more suburban developments, well it is a clusterf*ck trying to get off of I-71 and into Oakley Station, yet it is very successful. This will be more easily accessible than a lot of successful developments.

And so are basically all the Ohio cities and many others in the Midwest and Northeast. We all agree on that. This might happen. It might not. We don't know what will happen to work from home share. We also don't know how courts will rule on where the income tax money should go. It's something worth thinking about, but you've already made up your mind it seems. You've presented no data backing this claim. Again, as has been pointed out to you, there's zero evidence of this. You're free to speculate, but, so far, the data don't show this happening. In fact, the only data presented show the opposite. I'm not sure what you're actually trying to do here. All the things you've said that have actual facts behind them, we've all agreed on. We've simply pointed out that you are making logical leaps that aren't yet supported by data. You then ignore that and accuse everyone else of having a bias. Then you make a snide joke about broken windows, which was completely classless. Really showing your true colors.

It's like 2 minutes from the Montgomery Rd exit on the Lateral and 3 minutes from the Smith Rd exist on I-71. That's too far?

And no one has denied this. But it doesn't support your point that people will flee Cleveland. Cincinnati is going to have the same issues. Columbus too. And Dayton, Toledo, Akron, Canton. And many of our large suburbs that collect income taxes too. They've face this problem before, during the last recession. But people didn't flee the cities. Actually, people flocked to the cities and that trend has continued through present day. So how do you get the idea that this is going to cause people to flee Cleveland for the burbs? None of your data leads to that conclusion.

You're going to have to elaborate on this.