CSNbbs

Full Version: Charles McMicken
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
University of Cincinnati grapples with the legacy of slave-owning founder Charles McMicken

Quote:CINCINNATI — Following a student government vote to remove the name of Charles McMicken from the University of Cincinnati’s college of arts and sciences, the university will spend a semester examining whether it should continue to honor and commemorate the slave-owner who founded it.

McMicken, an early 19th century businessman from Pennsylvania, bequeathed the city of Cincinnati money and property “ to found an institution where white boys and girls might be taught ” when he died in 1858. The cause was personal to him, according to his will’s writer, because he had never obtained much education himself.

Pages later, the will also included provisions to free his slaves and send them to a parcel of land in Liberia -- an idea common across the country in that era , when many believed peaceful coexistence between free white and black people in the United States was impossible. Not mentioned at all were the two black children he is rumored to have fathered by slave mothers.
Copying something I said elsewhere on this topic

Seems like a waste of time and energy to remove the name of a guy who died in 1858. I don't believe we should necessarily hold people of past era's to our current day values. His views have not affected UC students for generations.

Meanwhile Marge Schott's name adorns one of our stadiums. I know most students likely were not alive when Schott owned the Reds as she was forced out in 1999. She was full of controversy and existed within most of our lifetimes... Famously she:

Believed Jap was not an insensitive term
Would not allow players to wear earrings because only "fruits" wore them
Adolf Hitler was initially good for Germany
Had a Nazi Swastika armband in her home
Called Eric Davis and Dave Parker her "million-dollar *******."
And this was all in the 1990's, not in the 1850's.
(12-13-2018 10:59 AM)Banter Wrote: [ -> ]Seems like a waste of time and energy to remove the name of a guy who died in 1858. I don't believe we should necessarily hold people of past era's to our current day values. His views have not affected UC students for generations.

Meanwhile Marge Schott's name adorns one of our stadiums. I know most students likely were not alive when Schott owned the Reds as she was forced out in 1999. She was full of controversy and existed within most of our lifetimes... Famously she:

Believed Jap was not an insensitive term
Would not allow players to wear earrings because only "fruits" wore them
Adolf Hitler was initially good for Germany
Had a Nazi Swastika armband in her home
Called Eric Davis and Dave Parker her "million-dollar *******."
And this was all in the 1990's, not in the 1850's.

I think both points are exactly correct. Your views are shaped by the times you live in. If you were an extremist in your time then you should not be commemorated. McMikken seems to have views that were consistent with his time while Schott certainly did not as her views got her banned from baseball.
Being a slaveowner who started a school for "white boys and girls" was not necessarily "consistent" with his time. As you recall, they fought a war over it.

My criteria for these things is whether or not their contribution to the advancement of some field, whether it be science, civil rights, etc. outweighs their questionable lives. McMicken was a complex person. It's true that we don't hold him to the same standards as today, duh, but even looking at him in the context of his era, what exactly should we honor him for? He seemed somewhat charitable, and obviously played a big part in the founding of our University. Is that enough to overcome his status as a slaveholder who never intended for minorities to benefit from his will?
It's "McChicken." Don't trust anyone who actually calls it "McMicken Hall."
(12-13-2018 11:21 AM)Cataclysmo Wrote: [ -> ]Being a slaveowner who started a school for "white boys and girls" was not necessarily "consistent" with his time. As you recall, they fought a war over it.

Plessy v. Ferguson which was decided in the late 1800s which created the separate but equal precedent many decades after his death. Brown vs. Board of education which ruled segregation of schools was not decided until a century after his death. So I don't think his views supporting segregated education were at all out of touch with his times.

Schott by the way I never really thought about, that needs to go.
(12-13-2018 11:21 AM)Cataclysmo Wrote: [ -> ]Being a slaveowner who started a school for "white boys and girls" was not necessarily "consistent" with his time. As you recall, they fought a war over it.

My criteria for these things is whether or not their contribution to the advancement of some field, whether it be science, civil rights, etc. outweighs their questionable lives. McMicken was a complex person. It's true that we don't hold him to the same standards as today, duh, but even looking at him in the context of his era, what exactly should we honor him for? He seemed somewhat charitable, and obviously played a big part in the founding of our University. Is that enough to overcome his status as a slaveholder who never intended for minorities to benefit from his will?

McMicken's will freed his slaves. So it does seem at least some minorities benefited from his will... 04-cheers

He also apparently had children with his slaves, much like another famous slaveholder who we still hold in high regard in this country... When are we gonna get around to removing his name from things too?
(12-13-2018 11:35 AM)RealDeal Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-13-2018 11:21 AM)Cataclysmo Wrote: [ -> ]Being a slaveowner who started a school for "white boys and girls" was not necessarily "consistent" with his time. As you recall, they fought a war over it.

Plessy v. Ferguson which was decided in the late 1800s which created the separate but equal precedent many decades after his death. Brown vs. Board of education which ruled segregation of schools was not decided until a century after his death. So I don't think his views supporting segregated education were at all out of touch with his times.

Schott by the way I never really thought about, that needs to go.

My point is that these were contested issues and segregationists/slaveowners were obviously on the wrong side of history. We act like being a slaveowner was somehow the norm at the time--it wasn't. The country was bitterly divided, yes. But it's not as though everyone was a slaveholder, or anything to that effect. That's the extreme of a dark point in history. Many, many Americans supported the right to own slaves, but it wasn't some overwhelming majority, as many like to insinuate when discussing these matters.

Compare that to Lincoln, who would never pass the modern standard of racial equality, but is revered nonetheless. He was frequently attacked in debates as being a "negro lover." And his defense? “I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races." But Lincoln's views evolved over time, and before his death he was much closer to the staunch moral abolitionist that he's portrayed as today. Why then, should Lincoln be celebrated? Because his contribution to racial equality was monumental, and it's completely reasonable to ignore his views on "negro equality" due to the moral relatively of his time.

So finally, where does it end? Being a slaveowner wasn't common, but there was obviously stringent support for the right to own slaves. In the case of McMicken, or someone like George Washington, you have to ask, why are they celebrated. Washington is easy--he won the war, he liberated his people from persecution, and he ultimately contributed to a much brighter future. As such, the moral relativism of being a slaveowner should be perceived in a different context. Was McMicken's contribution the same? I really don't know.
(12-13-2018 11:35 AM)RealDeal Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-13-2018 11:21 AM)Cataclysmo Wrote: [ -> ]Being a slaveowner who started a school for "white boys and girls" was not necessarily "consistent" with his time. As you recall, they fought a war over it.

Plessy v. Ferguson which was decided in the late 1800s which created the separate but equal precedent many decades after his death. Brown vs. Board of education which ruled segregation of schools was not decided until a century after his death. So I don't think his views supporting segregated education were at all out of touch with his times.

Schott by the way I never really thought about, that needs to go.

Good points, pretty much everything was segregated back then although surely there are exceptions to that. I went through his will and he also authorized freedom for any slaves that he owned at the time of his death and cash payment to them. Being in Cincy at the time he would have been an absentee landlord relative to whatever he owned in Louisiana. He also early on funded the costs to purchase land and fund the trips to Liberia for free blacks in Ohio, Kentucky and Illinois. And in general "to protect it's population of the dire consequences of the renewal of the slave trade".

He clearly was anti slavery as he aged and had a similar position as Linclon did relative to free slaves and those yet to be freed. It was very common theme that it might be better for free slaves to build up Liberia or move to the Caribbean countries that had large black populations and were largely run by Blacks and mixed race people. Future assimilation/discrimination people were thinking about that well before the Civil War. Another example would be free Blacks who moved to and founded Samana in the Dominican Rep.
I don't believe it was ever established that McMicken was "anti-slavery".
https://libraries.uc.edu/content/dam/lib...n-will.pdf

Charles' McMicken's will. Its rather lengthy, but I think it is worth a read. Section XXX1 is the portion that refers to money left in Cincinnati for a university. I don't think it is as clear cut as some make it out to be.

I've studied a lot of history (my undergraduate degree was in History). People today have a hard time grasping the mindset of people in 18th and 19th century US as it pertains to race relations. It's actually pretty complex compared to our perceived notions. Also, many of us don't quite grasp that by the late 18th and early 19th century a lot of slave owners were conflicted about the "peculiar institution" because on one hand they didn't think it was right, but on the other hand they held this warped sense of belief that the slaves lacked the education/intelligence, skill and ability to survive on their own outside the walls of the plantation.

Many people, including Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln, during this period believed a society comprised of mixed races could not flourish (note: It should be noted black leaders such as Marcus Garvey, Elijah Muhammed, and others believed the same thing and later started their own movements). Further, they thought the best way to put an end to the slave trade was to remove them to a place where free labor existed. It is clear from this will that McMicken championed this-- at least later in life. He put money towards the colony and freed his slaves.

With respect to his language "a college for white boys and girls", I suspect that has to do with a) his contention that the races could not flourish together and b) that people of African ancestry and origin need to return back to Africa.
Take a look at Wikipedia regarding the namesake of one of the most respected private schools in the country, Rice University:

"The history of Rice University began with the untimely demise of Massachusetts businessman William Marsh Rice, who made his fortune in real estate, railroad development and cotton trading in the state of Texas. In 1891, Rice decided to charter a free-tuition educational institute in Houston, bearing his name, to be created upon his death, earmarking most of his estate towards funding the project. Rice's will specified the institution was to be "a competitive institution of the highest grade" and that only white students would be permitted to attend."

No reasonable person of the 21st century would agree with that founding purpose, penned in the 19th century. Yet today, it's one of the most diverse and respected universities around.

Where does re-naming begin and end? Churchill said, "Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it." Keep these founders' names and use their words as opportunities for correctives going forward--teachable moments for today. To my way of thinking, purging names from the historical record, including those of former American Presidents, doesn't do much for improving the human condition going forward.
Frankly this is an issue I don't really care much about either way. It won't hurt to change the name and there are valid reasons to do so. Likewise, changing the name won't solve any big issue and there are valid reasons not to worry about. Not going to get myself worked up one way or the other.
(12-13-2018 03:33 PM)bearcatmark Wrote: [ -> ]Frankly this is an issue I don't really care much about either way. It won't hurt to change the name and there are valid reasons to do so. Likewise, changing the name won't solve any big issue and there are valid reasons not to worry about. Not going to get myself worked up one way or the other.

This is my contention as well.
(12-13-2018 03:26 PM)OKIcat Wrote: [ -> ]Take a look at Wikipedia regarding the namesake of one of the most respected private schools in the country, Rice University:

"The history of Rice University began with the untimely demise of Massachusetts businessman William Marsh Rice, who made his fortune in real estate, railroad development and cotton trading in the state of Texas. In 1891, Rice decided to charter a free-tuition educational institute in Houston, bearing his name, to be created upon his death, earmarking most of his estate towards funding the project. Rice's will specified the institution was to be "a competitive institution of the highest grade" and that only white students would be permitted to attend."

No reasonable person of the 21st century would agree with that founding purpose, penned in the 19th century. Yet today, it's one of the most diverse and respected universities around.

Where does re-naming begin and end? Churchill said, "Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it." Keep these founders' names and use their words as opportunities for correctives going forward--teachable moments for today. To my way of thinking, purging names from the historical record, including those of former American Presidents, doesn't do much for improving the human condition going forward.

The argument that we have to preserve Confederate statues and keep colleges named after slave owners and such to remind us how bad those things are is pretty rich. The name of a college is not the historical record, it's an honor. And by honoring a slaveowner who wanted to restrict the college to whites, the school associates itself with those things. No human is perfect and there will be edge cases that make line drawing difficult, but McMicken is not Thomas Jefferson; he's a dude who left money in his will. I can't imagine why anyone would care if his name were removed.

Also, Santayana is the one who said the doomed-to-repeat-it quote.
(12-13-2018 05:46 PM)levydl Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-13-2018 03:26 PM)OKIcat Wrote: [ -> ]Take a look at Wikipedia regarding the namesake of one of the most respected private schools in the country, Rice University:

"The history of Rice University began with the untimely demise of Massachusetts businessman William Marsh Rice, who made his fortune in real estate, railroad development and cotton trading in the state of Texas. In 1891, Rice decided to charter a free-tuition educational institute in Houston, bearing his name, to be created upon his death, earmarking most of his estate towards funding the project. Rice's will specified the institution was to be "a competitive institution of the highest grade" and that only white students would be permitted to attend."

No reasonable person of the 21st century would agree with that founding purpose, penned in the 19th century. Yet today, it's one of the most diverse and respected universities around.

Where does re-naming begin and end? Churchill said, "Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it." Keep these founders' names and use their words as opportunities for correctives going forward--teachable moments for today. To my way of thinking, purging names from the historical record, including those of former American Presidents, doesn't do much for improving the human condition going forward.

The argument that we have to preserve Confederate statues and keep colleges named after slave owners and such to remind us how bad those things are is pretty rich. The name of a college is not the historical record, it's an honor. And by honoring a slaveowner who wanted to restrict the college to whites, the school associates itself with those things. No human is perfect and there will be edge cases that make line drawing difficult, but McMicken is not Thomas Jefferson; he's a dude who left money in his will. I can't imagine why anyone would care if his name were removed.

Also, Santayana is the one who said the doomed-to-repeat-it quote.

It is really about how far one wants to take it. If one wanted to remove the names of buildings, cities, schools, streets, etc., associated with people who owned slaves or championed segregation you are talking about changing the names of these in the millions.
(12-13-2018 06:35 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-13-2018 05:46 PM)levydl Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-13-2018 03:26 PM)OKIcat Wrote: [ -> ]Take a look at Wikipedia regarding the namesake of one of the most respected private schools in the country, Rice University:

"The history of Rice University began with the untimely demise of Massachusetts businessman William Marsh Rice, who made his fortune in real estate, railroad development and cotton trading in the state of Texas. In 1891, Rice decided to charter a free-tuition educational institute in Houston, bearing his name, to be created upon his death, earmarking most of his estate towards funding the project. Rice's will specified the institution was to be "a competitive institution of the highest grade" and that only white students would be permitted to attend."

No reasonable person of the 21st century would agree with that founding purpose, penned in the 19th century. Yet today, it's one of the most diverse and respected universities around.

Where does re-naming begin and end? Churchill said, "Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it." Keep these founders' names and use their words as opportunities for correctives going forward--teachable moments for today. To my way of thinking, purging names from the historical record, including those of former American Presidents, doesn't do much for improving the human condition going forward.

The argument that we have to preserve Confederate statues and keep colleges named after slave owners and such to remind us how bad those things are is pretty rich. The name of a college is not the historical record, it's an honor. And by honoring a slaveowner who wanted to restrict the college to whites, the school associates itself with those things. No human is perfect and there will be edge cases that make line drawing difficult, but McMicken is not Thomas Jefferson; he's a dude who left money in his will. I can't imagine why anyone would care if his name were removed.

Also, Santayana is the one who said the doomed-to-repeat-it quote.

It is really about how far one wants to take it. If one wanted to remove the names of buildings, cities, schools, streets, etc., associated with people who owned slaves or championed segregation you are talking about changing the names of these in the millions.

That's of course a silly slippery-slope argument. It also doesn't address the actual issue. Surely you can think of instances in which it would be inappropriate to keep someone's name on a college. What if it turned out that the guy was a Xavier fan?

The Marge Schott Stadium is illustrative. On the one hand, who cares, it's just some name on a plaque. But it shows that UC cares about money more than principles.

If UC keeps McMicken's name up, sure, it's not a huge deal, most people don't even know who the guy was (I didn't; so much for preserving history . . .). Life will go on. But it shows that UC cares more about not offending the anti-PC folks than offending minorities, and that it just doesn't mind honoring some slaveowner who wanted to start a school for whites. And again, this isn't George Washington. It's some guy who gave some money 150 years ago. It shouldn't be a close case, IMO. That's why the slippery slope gets trotted out, I guess.
(12-13-2018 05:46 PM)levydl Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-13-2018 03:26 PM)OKIcat Wrote: [ -> ]Take a look at Wikipedia regarding the namesake of one of the most respected private schools in the country, Rice University:

"The history of Rice University began with the untimely demise of Massachusetts businessman William Marsh Rice, who made his fortune in real estate, railroad development and cotton trading in the state of Texas. In 1891, Rice decided to charter a free-tuition educational institute in Houston, bearing his name, to be created upon his death, earmarking most of his estate towards funding the project. Rice's will specified the institution was to be "a competitive institution of the highest grade" and that only white students would be permitted to attend."

No reasonable person of the 21st century would agree with that founding purpose, penned in the 19th century. Yet today, it's one of the most diverse and respected universities around.

Where does re-naming begin and end? Churchill said, "Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it." Keep these founders' names and use their words as opportunities for correctives going forward--teachable moments for today. To my way of thinking, purging names from the historical record, including those of former American Presidents, doesn't do much for improving the human condition going forward.

The argument that we have to preserve Confederate statues and keep colleges named after slave owners and such to remind us how bad those things are is pretty rich. The name of a college is not the historical record, it's an honor. And by honoring a slaveowner who wanted to restrict the college to whites, the school associates itself with those things. No human is perfect and there will be edge cases that make line drawing difficult, but McMicken is not Thomas Jefferson; he's a dude who left money in his will. I can't imagine why anyone would care if his name were removed.

Also, Santayana is the one who said the doomed-to-repeat-it quote.

Correct, paraphrased by Churchill who is most often associated with it in common usage.

No one here is arguing in favor of Confederate statues. But college and university names abound in this country for 19th century Presidents who were either slaveowners or chose to ignore or overturn the desipicable institution.

If a litmus test must be created for all of America's philanthropic naming, many of the nation's most respected institutions will be rendered nameless. Carnegie, Ford, and Rockefeller--each come to mind as brilliant, yet flawed. Stanford University's founding donor is considered by many to have been a robber baron (He named SU to honor his deceased son). Leland Stanford's Central Pacific Railroad was built in large part by Chinese workers paid $24 a month, living in horrible conditions while performing the most dangerous work. Ironically, Stanford opposed Chinese immigration to the United States. Nearly a quarter of Stanford's students today are Asian American--among the brightest and best students in the world. Should that school be renamed?
Reference URL's