6 minutes ago, Jimmy Skinner said:

Harrison was part of two significant battles against Tecumseh and the Shawnee without which Ohio would not have become a state.  We should have a statue of Tecumseh in the same park, and an explanatory plaque in the middle.

 

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

19 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Harrison's act of being president of the US had nothing to do with fighting for slavery. They are separate parts of his life and separate points altogether. 

We can agree to disagree on this that is fine. As mentioned,  I think Seelbach is simply stirring the pot with his bully antics like he always does. 

 

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. 

4 minutes ago, DEPACincy said:

 

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. 

You keep missing the point that Jake and myself have been trying to make. Harrison is essentially a footnote in history as a president, but for Cincinnatians at the time, it was a big deal. In 1841 pretty much all presidents sans Andrew Jackson were from VA, NY, PA (the original colonies). For a growing city like Cincinnati, this was akin to having one of their own in the office. It was a feather in the cap. That is what they are celebrating, not the man himself. It was something that established the city as a peer city with its East coast counterparts. The man himself is a footnote. You keep getting bent out of shape by his history, but as Jake and I have been saying, it does not matter. That is not the point of the statue.   

I can sense someone is going to change their mind at any moment. Keep arguing.

38 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

You keep missing the point that Jake and myself have been trying to make. Harrison is essentially a footnote in history as a president, but for Cincinnatians at the time, it was a big deal. In 1841 pretty much all presidents sans Andrew Jackson were from VA, NY, PA (the original colonies). For a growing city like Cincinnati, this was akin to having one of their own in the office. It was a feather in the cap. That is what they are celebrating, not the man himself. It was something that established the city as a peer city with its East coast counterparts. The man himself is a footnote. You keep getting bent out of shape by his history, but as Jake and I have been saying, it does not matter. That is not the point of the statue.   

 

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.

1 minute ago, ryanlammi said:

I can sense someone is going to change their mind at any moment. Keep arguing.

 

This is less about changing his mind than it is about letting everyone else see how disingenuous he is. I know it's borderline insanity on my part, but I'm a sucker for punishment.

6 hours ago, ryanlammi said:

I can sense someone is going to change their mind at any moment. Keep arguing.

Well said. As I said a while back, we should just agree to disagree. Personally, I find putting a plaque to add historical context next to the statue a good solution too. So it looks like we have a detente. I think we can put the issue to rest. Hopefully Seelbach will too. 

For most instances where someone of major historic importance has a negative aspect of their past (Jefferson, Washington, WHH, etc) a plaque seems good to me. For someone who killed fellow Americans and fought to protect slavery, you can tear down those statues if the govt doesn't take them down on their own for all I care.

The statue in Piatt park is of a younger Harrison on horseback in Army garb, as he is usually depicted at the battle of Tippecanoe which made him famous. So really, one could argue this statue is just as much about his victory in claiming the Northwest Territories over Tecumseh and the native tribes as it is about him being elected president. If this was literally just about him being Ohio's first president, the statue would depict him as he looked when he was elected/inaugurated, they even could have posthumously put a coat on him!

Council approves interim city manager

 

 

Cincinnati City Council voted unanimously on Wednesday to make Paula Boggs Muething, currently the city’s top lawyer, to become the city’s interim city manager upon Patrick Duhaney’s departure next month.

 

Muething will make the same salary as Duhaney — $222,799 annually, up from her $163,937 salary as solicitor.

 

Muething will be interim city manager until a permanent city manager is recommended by Cranley and confirmed by council. Cranley has said he is unsure whether he is going to do a national search for a new city manager. He has 18 months left in office. An interim solicitor also will be chosen.

 

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2020/06/17/council-approves-interim-city-manager.html

13 hours ago, ucgrady said:

The statue in Piatt park is of a younger Harrison on horseback

 

Compromise - we remove Harrison but keep the horse.  Or if we simply want to create a tourist attraction, move just the hat from Harrison to the horse:

 

 

8 hours ago, jmecklenborg said:

 

Compromise - we remove Harrison but keep the horse.  Or if we simply want to create a tourist attraction, move just the hat from Harrison to the horse:

 

 

While we're switching up statutes in Piatt Park, we should put a cat at the feet of President Garfield on the other side. 

10 hours ago, jmecklenborg said:

Compromise - we remove Harrison but keep the horse.  Or if we simply want to create a tourist attraction, move just the hat from Harrison to the horse:

 

Though Cincinnati has several statues of presidents, I believe this is the only statue of a horse. If it were removed in entirety, we'd go back to having zero statues of horses.

59 minutes ago, Ram23 said:

 

Though Cincinnati has several statues of presidents, I believe this is the only statue of a horse. If it were removed in entirety, we'd go back to having zero statues of horses.

 

...isn't that what Kentucky is for?

Budget Hearing Breaks Down After Mann Abruptly Ends Meeting

https://www.wvxu.org/post/budget-hearing-breaks-down-after-mann-abruptly-ends-meeting

 

Cincinnati City Council's final public hearing Thursday night on the city budget ended in chaos. Budget and Finance Committee Chairman David Mann abruptly adjourned the session at the Duke Energy Convention Center and walked out. That came after the audience booed and attempted to shout down a speaker who was in favor of fully funding the city police department.

 

Mann told WVXU he reminded the crowd they were there to listen to each other, and that included the man who spoke up about fully funding police. "And the crowd erupted at me, and I vividly recall a gentleman saying 'We don't want to hear from somebody that we don't agree with,' " Mann said. "This is on the heels of a lot of very unpleasant allegations, and I just felt like we were past the point of having a meaningful discussion or public input. It was turning into a mob, so I said, 'This meeting is adjourned.' "

 

After Mann left, other council members including Jan-Michele Lemon Kearney, Jeff Pastor, P.G. Sittenfeld, and Greg Landsman tried to keep the meeting going.  Members Chris Seelbach and Wendell Young were watching remotely on Zoom. But some speakers agued the meeting was no longer legitimate with Mann gone. 

 

Real bad look for Mann just up and leaving last night.  

It was shameful. I've been to a lot of public meetings, and I've seen the crowd get very angry. I've never seen a chairperson handle it so badly. You bang your gavel. You ask for order. You wait until everyone calms down. And then you continue the meeting. People are understandably angry. As an elected official it is your duty to listen, not to decide that you've had enough. He looked every bit his age up there. He repeatedly mispronounced names, even when politely corrected. He looked completely disinterested in being there, making it perfectly clear that he has already made up his mind. He just tanked any chance he had at being mayor. 

12 minutes ago, Cincy513 said:

Real bad look for Mann just up and leaving last night.  

I dont think it will help him with votes. I do agree with his position. When you let the meeting get out of order like that, it devolves into chaos. People have a right to be heard but they have a duty to make their voices heard in a civilized manner.

 

 

Edited June 19, 20204 yr by Brutus_buckeye

2 minutes ago, DEPACincy said:

It was shameful. I've been to a lot of public meetings, and I've seen the crowd get very angry. I've never seen a chairperson handle it so badly. You bang your gavel. You ask for order. You wait until everyone calms down. And then you continue the meeting. People are understandably angry. As an elected official it is your duty to listen, not to decide that you've had enough. He looked every bit his age up there. He repeatedly mispronounced names, even when politely corrected. He looked completely disinterested in being there, making it perfectly clear that he has already made up his mind. He just tanked any chance he had at being mayor. 

I will agree with you on this point, he was a bit quick to end the meeting. He did need to show a bit more patience. 

Many of the speakers had quite obviously never looked at a city budget before and were wasting council's time. 

During the meeting, someone yelled, "David Mann, you were already the mayor when I was a kid!"

3 hours ago, DEPACincy said:

He just tanked any chance he had at being mayor. 

 

In theory, does he have a chance by running to PG's right? I am assuming there are plenty of upper class and upper middle class folks who are liberal but not progressive and would empathize with his actions last night.

While I am excited to see so many young Cincinnati starting to get involved in local politics, it's hard to say whether it will result in increased voter turnout in a May (?) 2021 primary or a November 2021 general election. I would not say that Mann's mayoral hopes are crushed. A lot of Cincinnatians probably agree with Mann's description of the crowd last night as a "mob."

1 hour ago, Dev said:

 

In theory, does he have a chance by running to PG's right? I am assuming there are plenty of upper class and upper middle class folks who are liberal but not progressive and would empathize with his actions last night.

 

I don't think so. The party realignment is accelerating. Folks in Hyde Park are putting up BLM signs and showing up at protests. Those upper class and upper middle class liberals (a category which I guess I fall into) are moving sharply left. They're tired of the respectability politics stuff. They want elected officials that will actually listen to their constituents. 

 

And I'm not even sure that the few right wingers left in the city would sympathize with him much. Even Jason Williams tweeted that it was shameful. I think any reasonable person (and in Jason's case, even unreasonable ones) would agree that the response a leader should take in that situation is to regain control of the meeting and keep it going. Not get up like a baby and run away.

The people who booed so much the meeting had to be adjourned then went outside to burn an American flag. These people had no intention of participating in a Democratic process and Mann had no choice but to end the meeting. It was futile from the get-go:

 

Protesters burn American flag, spray paint outside convention center after budget hearing goes awry

https://www.fox19.com/2020/06/18/protesters-burn-american-flag-outside-convention-center-after-budget-hearing-goes-awry/

 

 

2 hours ago, DEPACincy said:

 They want elected officials that will actually listen to their constituents. 

 

Every public comments period attracts a few nut jobs. Anyone who has been to just a few meetings knows this. The mob completely overreacted to the guy who supported the police. What's more, the speakers tended to not understand even the rudiments of municipal budgets. It was fools arguing with fools.  

 

 

 

 

On 6/18/2020 at 11:46 AM, ucgrady said:

 

We beat this tweet by 48-72 hours:

 

 

 

 

^ you cant just do that, because then you will just have a bunch of statues of racist horses who represent their racist owners and the perpetuation of racism will just continue into perpetuity. It would be chaos. Also, if you were part of the marginalized group, how uncomfortable would it be to have to walk into a park and see a horse that is immortalized in a statue who was only bred to be a successful horse because of slavery. In fact, Jake, you could probably research the history books and find that even Secretariat came from horse ancestors who rode in the fields at the time of slavery and that he only won the triple crown years ago because he came from a privilege line of horses that was only there because of the horses genealogical line can be traced back to slavery at some point. If anything it should invalidate his Triple Crowns. 

Can you now see the problem with just leaving the horse up? 

2 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Can you now see the problem with just leaving the horse up? 

 

Yeah these people will never be happy, or rather, they'll never let up with their flamboyant act.  We get it - you don't like your real family so you're forming a new one with your fellow wannabe revolutionaries.  We've all seen this movie before. 

 

They ought to be careful what they wish for as well - sure, the French Revolution killed off the royal family in short order, but the progenitors ended up being killed a year or two later by those who hijacked the movement.  Then the military ended up taking over.  In the absence of a king and a god Napoleon got to declare himself both - coronated in Notre Dame, no less. 

 

 

 

 

^After snatching the crown from the Pope and doing the coronation himself. 

5 hours ago, jmecklenborg said:

 

Yeah these people will never be happy, or rather, they'll never let up with their flamboyant act.  We get it - you don't like your real family so you're forming a new one with your fellow wannabe revolutionaries.  We've all seen this movie before. 

 

They ought to be careful what they wish for as well - sure, the French Revolution killed off the royal family in short order, but the progenitors ended up being killed a year or two later by those who hijacked the movement.  Then the military ended up taking over.  In the absence of a king and a god Napoleon got to declare himself both - coronated in Notre Dame, no less. 

Yes, removing statues of people who are, upon closer examination, vile people that we should not be celebrating will obviously lead to revolution, that will then be usurped by a far more sinister revolution, that will then be followed by a military coup. That’s a strong, perfectly reasonable argument. 
 

Or maybe removing statues of bad people is a simple, inexpensive way of showing that we are learning from our historical mistakes and are willing to take the smallest steps towards a better society. 
 

Tomato, tomahto. 

2 hours ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

Yes, removing statues of people who are, upon closer examination, vile people that we should not be celebrating will obviously lead to revolution, that will then be usurped by a far more sinister revolution, that will then be followed by a military coup. That’s a strong, perfectly reasonable argument. 
 

Or maybe removing statues of bad people is a simple, inexpensive way of showing that we are learning from our historical mistakes and are willing to take the smallest steps towards a better society. 
 

Tomato, tomahto. 

While we are at it, we should change the city name of Cincinnati because somewhere thousands of years ago, Cincinnatus owned slaves. Also, we should remove Mary Emery's name from places around town because she hated Catholics. The Taft name should probably be scrubbed too because they have been around long enough they have probably some tangental connection to slavery.  Since Marge Schott was such a bad person, we need to disavow any of her ancestors because of their connections to her. Their money is just as tainted. 

 

Only after we purify ourselves and our society we can truly be saved, and create that perfect utopia that comrade Marx preaches about. 

Do you see the absurdity in your idea of creating what you deem a "better society"?

 

How about just promote individual liberty. People will be much happier in the long run 

The R's certainly have cornered the market on extrapolators

Just pointing out the absurdity of the whole thing.

5 hours ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

Yes, removing statues of people who are, upon closer examination, vile people that we should not be celebrating will obviously lead to revolution, that will then be usurped by a far more sinister revolution, that will then be followed by a military coup. That’s a strong, perfectly reasonable argument.

 

Well the protests allow Trump to position himself as the "law-and-order" President, and therefore win a huge number of votes, and possibly a second term.  People on the fence will vote Trump who are deeply resentful of the young college-educated protesters who are calling them (the undecided voters) old and stupid. 

 

What's more, the protests seem more and more to me like a Republican plant, especially Defund The PoliceTM.  Republicans have been trying to defund public schools for 30+ years in order to break the teacher's union.  Defund The PoliceTM means that local police unions will be broken nationwide, and with them, a dependable Democrat voting bloc. 

On 6/19/2020 at 3:48 PM, jmecklenborg said:

 

Every public comments period attracts a few nut jobs. Anyone who has been to just a few meetings knows this. The mob completely overreacted to the guy who supported the police. What's more, the speakers tended to not understand even the rudiments of municipal budgets. It was fools arguing with fools.  

 

I've been to many, many public meetings. The speakers had a much better command of municipal budgets than 99% of people that show up to these things. The idea they wished to convey was this: Spend less on cops, more on social services, parks, recreation, mental health, education, etc. And I'm going to beat you to the punch before you say "ah ha! The city doesn't fund education!" Education is more than just CPS. Education includes after school programs at rec centers and libraries. Education includes adult programs as well. Education is an umbrella term for lots of things. We could spend much more on education. 

As for whether the citizens overreacted to the guy? I wouldn't have booed him. But it was extremely mild. Mann made it very clear he had zero desire or ability to calm people down and continue the meeting. I've been at meetings where old racist white people trying to keep "those people" out of their neighborhoods actually started throwing things at the chair and he regained control and continued the meeting.

10 hours ago, jmecklenborg said:

What's more, the protests seem more and more to me like a Republican plant, especially Defund The PoliceTM.  Republicans have been trying to defund public schools for 30+ years in order to break the teacher's union.  Defund The PoliceTM means that local police unions will be broken nationwide, and with them, a dependable Democrat voting bloc. 

 

LOL 84% of police voted for Trump in 2020. The FOP may endorse Dems (they actually endorsed Trump in 2016 btw), but the rank and file have been reliably Republican for years.

8 minutes ago, DEPACincy said:

 

LOL 84% of police voted for Trump in 2020. The FOP may endorse Dems (they actually endorsed Trump in 2016 btw), but the rank and file have been reliably Republican for years.

 

That number could be higher, among the rank and file.

 

In liberal Democratic cities, the police unions become militant for the same reason the mainstream unions do dealing with callous corporate bosses.   Irony there.

On 6/21/2020 at 1:02 AM, jmecklenborg said:

 

We beat this tweet by 48-72 hours:

 

 

 

 

 

She's definitely read Lois McMaster Bujold LOL

20 minutes ago, DEPACincy said:

 

LOL 84% of police voted for Trump in 2020. The FOP may endorse Dems (they actually endorsed Trump in 2016 btw), but the rank and file have been reliably Republican for years.

 

Yeah this is another modern case of Dem union bosses barking at the members to vote Democratic while all of the members' personal networks and chosen media are screaming at them to be Republicans. It's not like the old days where all these blue-collar union guys lived in town, heard few conservative voices, had the local cities' accent instead of a Southern/Applachain mix (regardless of city or trade) and walked/took transit to work instead of drove an F-250 in from two counties away.

11 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Just pointing out the absurdity of the whole thing.

 

I remember a few years ago, when folks first started tearing down statues of Robert E. Lee, some of us were keen enough to point out that it likely wasn't going to stop there. Half-jokingly, we asked "who's next, George Washington?" Well, here we are - in Portland George Washington was already toppled and here in Cincinnati the mob is after William Henry Harrison.

 

This is a good example of a slippery slope being real; we're well on our way down into the abyss and we only seem to be picking up speed. Uncle Ben and others were grasped at willy-nilly as we rode down the slide, and once the radical left realizes the Constitution was written, in part, by folks who had connections to slavery - the very foundation or our nation will need to be cancelled. The evidence supports the fact that with each inch given, a mile is taken. Chris Seelbach's demand here is a perfect example - Marge Schott was the low-hanging fruit - the inch that was given - Harrison is the mile he wants to take. It's reasonable to assume there's no end.

1 hour ago, DEPACincy said:

 

LOL 84% of police voted for Trump in 2020.

 

Most big city police departments are close to half minority if not a nonwhite majority.  No way are 84% of black police officers voting Republican.  

1 hour ago, DEPACincy said:

Mann made it very clear he had zero desire or ability to calm people down and continue the meeting

 

That's for mansplaining the Mann situation.  

 

They were looking to pick a fight and they picked one.  Now the trust funders who have plenty of time for such sport are down in Mt. Storm Park trying to intimidate him. 

51 minutes ago, GCrites80s said:

 

Yeah this is another modern case of Dem union bosses barking at the members to vote Democratic while all of the members' personal networks and chosen media are screaming at them to be Republicans. It's not like the old days where all these blue-collar union guys lived in town, heard few conservative voices, had the local cities' accent instead of a Southern/Applachain mix (regardless of city or trade) and walked/took transit to work instead of drove an F-250 in from two counties away.

I swear the "Ohio Twang" has become far more prevalent in the last decade. I never used to hear it in Cleveland, but it's taken over the suburbs. 

9 minutes ago, jmecklenborg said:

 

Most big city police departments are close to half minority if not a nonwhite majority.  No way are 84% of black police officers voting Republican.  

 

I said 84% of police officers, not 84% of black police officers. That includes every police officer in America. Not just the biggest cities. And the average police officer is a white man. 

 

Also, it isn't even true that "most big city police depts are close to half minority." Cincinnati is 66% white, despite the city being majority minority. LAPD is only 12% black. NYPD is only 16% black. Plus, non-white police officers are much more likely to vote Republican than other non-white people. 

12 minutes ago, jmecklenborg said:

 

That's for mansplaining the Mann situation.  

 

What??

48 minutes ago, Ram23 said:

 

the very foundation or our nation will need to be cancelled. 

You say this like that isn't what the amendment process was created for and like that's a bad thing. You know the 'foundation of our nation' didn't allow women or blacks to vote, and we "cancelled" that notion. The country was founded on many racist principles and I don't see how trying to fix those is a bad thing. 

Just to emphasize the last point about police demographics:

Only 12% of officers nationwide are black. 

 

Only 12% are Hispanic.

 

Only 4% are non-white "other."

 

Only 12% are female.

 

75% are white. 

 

https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/01/11/inside-americas-police-departments/

49 minutes ago, DEPACincy said:

Just to emphasize the last point about police demographics:

Only 12% of officers nationwide are black. 

 

Only 12% are Hispanic.

 

Only 4% are non-white "other."

 

Only 12% are female.

 

75% are white. 

 

https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/01/11/inside-americas-police-departments/

While diversity is good, we need to work to make sure we do not set arbitrary quotas to achieve a mix that may be "desired" by some.