DOCSLIB.ORG

Cornerstone Speech

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Cornerstone Speech en.wikipedia.org https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornerstone_Speech Cornerstone Speech The Cornerstone Speech, also known as the Cornerstone Address, was an oration delivered by Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens at the Athenaeum in Savannah, Georgia, on March 21, 1861. Delivered extemporaneously a few weeks before the Confederacy would start the American Civil War by firing on the U.S. Army at Fort Sumter, Stephens' speech explained the fundamental differences between the constitutions of the Confederacy and that of the United States, enumerated contrasts between U.S. and Confederate ideologies and beliefs, laid out the Confederacy's causes for declaring secession, and defended the enslavement of African Americans. Background The speech was given weeks after the secession of South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and then Texas and less than three weeks after the inauguration of Abraham Lincoln as the 16th United States president. The war itself would not begin until Fort Sumter was attacked in mid-April, so open large-scale hostilities between the two sides had not yet begun (there had been isolated incidents such as the attack on the Star of the West steamship). Referring to the general lack of violence, Stephens stated that the seceding states' declarations of secession had been accomplished without "the loss of a single drop of blood". The 'Cornerstone' Stephens' speech declared that African slavery was the "immediate cause" of secession, and that the Confederate Constitution had put to rest the "agitating questions" as to the "proper status of the negro in our form of civilization". The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away... Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it—when the "storm came and the wind blew, it fell." Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition. look with confidence to the ultimate universal acknowledgement of the truths upon which our system rests? It is the first government ever instituted upon the principles in strict conformity to nature, and the ordination of Providence, in furnishing the materials of human society. Many governments have been founded upon the principle of the subordination and serfdom of certain classes of the same race; such were and are in violation of the laws of nature. Our system commits no such violation of nature's laws. The phrase "all men are created equal", from the United States Declaration of Independence, had formed part of the basis of Abraham Lincoln's assertion that he was defending the principles of the Founders of the United States (many of whom owned slaves themselves).[2] John C. Calhoun had contended that the idea was peculiar to Thomas Jefferson, and not a universal principle.[2] Stephens' assertion, in this context, has been read as validating Lincoln's reading of the Founders' principles and countering with an assertion of "racial inequality".[2] After the Confederacy's defeat at the hands of the Union in the Civil War and the abolition of slavery, Stephens attempted to retract the opinions made in his speech. Denying his belief that slavery was the Confederacy's cause for leaving the Union, he contended, to the contrary, that he thought that the war was rooted in constitutional differences.[3] Economic The speech also outlined how the Confederate constitution eliminated the tariff and prohibited the central government from spending on internal improvements. The reasoning was on a States Rights argument with the Georgia Railroad as a first example: The cost of the grading, the superstructure, and the equipment of our roads was borne by those who had entered into the enterprise. Nay, more not only the cost of the iron — no small item in the aggregate cost — was borne in the same way, but we were compelled to pay into the common treasury several millions of dollars for the privilege of importing the iron, after the price was paid for it abroad. What justice was there in taking this money, which our people paid into the common treasury on the importation of our iron, and applying it to the improvement of rivers and harbors elsewhere? ... If Charleston harbor needs improvement, let the commerce of Charleston bear the burden. If the mouth of the Savannah river has to be cleared out, let the sea-going navigation which is benefited by it, bear the burden. Stephens believed that the new country would have a clear delineation between federal and state responsibilities, and took the position similar to that of South Carolina during the nullification crisis that the federal government should not pay for internal improvements. Stephens, in effect, accuses the North of slavemongering in its attempt to retain the border states for their tax revenues derived from slavery. Procedural The first change was apparently very important to Stephens and he would have made the constitution even closer to the British system, but he felt it was still an improvement over the old constitution. That cabinet ministers and heads of departments may have the privilege of seats upon the floor of the Senate and House of Representatives and may have the right to participate in the debates and discussions upon the various subjects of administration As an example, in the U.S. Constitution, the Secretary of the Treasury had no chance to explain his budget or to be held accountable except by the press. Also, the president was to serve a single six-year term in the hope that it would "remove from the incumbent all temptation to use his office or exert the powers confided to him for any objects of personal ambition." Future The Confederate constitution allowed new states to join easily. Stephens said that surely North Carolina, Tennessee and Arkansas would be members in the near future, and that Virginia, Kentucky and Missouri would eventually join. Stephens expected the swift evacuation of Fort Sumter, a Union stronghold in South Carolina, but what "course will be pursued toward Fort Pickens, and the other forts on the gulf, is not so well understood." Since the new republic had been born bloodless, he wanted that to continue and to make peace "not only with the North, but with the world." Finally, Stephens predicted that the new nation would succeed or fail based on the character of its constituent body politic..
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Antislavery Violence and Secession, October 1859
    ANTISLAVERY VIOLENCE AND SECESSION, OCTOBER 1859 – APRIL 1861 by DAVID JONATHAN WHITE GEORGE C. RABLE, COMMITTEE CHAIR LAWRENCE F. KOHL KARI FREDERICKSON HAROLD SELESKY DIANNE BRAGG A DISSERTATION Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of History in the Graduate School of The University of Alabama TUSCALOOSA, ALABAMA 2017 Copyright David Jonathan White 2017 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ii ABSTRACT This dissertation examines the collapse of southern Unionism between October 1859 and April 1861. This study argues that a series of events of violent antislavery and southern perceptions of northern support for them caused white southerners to rethink the value of the Union and their place in it. John Brown’s raid at Harpers Ferry, Virginia, and northern expressions of personal support for Brown brought the Union into question in white southern eyes. White southerners were shocked when Republican governors in northern states acted to protect members of John Brown’s organization from prosecution in Virginia. Southern states invested large sums of money in their militia forces, and explored laws to control potentially dangerous populations such as northern travelling salesmen, whites “tampering” with slaves, and free African-Americans. Many Republicans endorsed a book by Hinton Rowan Helper which southerners believed encouraged antislavery violence and a Senate committee investigated whether an antislavery conspiracy had existed before Harpers Ferry. In the summer of 1860, a series of unexplained fires in Texas exacerbated white southern fear. As the presidential election approached in 1860, white southerners hoped for northern voters to repudiate the Republicans. When northern voters did not, white southerners generally rejected the Union.
    [Show full text]
  • Distribution Agreement in Presenting This Thesis As A
    Distribution Agreement In presenting this thesis as a partial fulfillment of the requirements for a degree from Emory University, I hereby grant to Emory University and its agents the non-exclusive license to archive, make accessible, and display my thesis or in part in all forms of media, now or hereafter know, including display on the World Wide Web. I understand that I may select some access restrictions as part of the only submission of this thesis. I retain all ownership rights to the copyright of the thesis. I also retain the right to use in future works (such as articles or books) all or part of this thesis. Benjamin D. Leiner April 11, 2014 Rebelling Against the King: Opposition to the Confederate Cotton Embargo in 1861 by Benjamin D. Leiner Dr. James L. Roark Adviser Department of History Dr. James L. Roark Adviser Dr. Patrick Allitt Committee Member Dr. Thomas D. Lancaster Committee Member 2014 Rebelling Against the King: Opposition to the Confederate Cotton Embargo in 1861 By Benjamin D. Leiner Dr. James L. Roark Adviser An abstract of a thesis submitted to the Faculty of Emory College of Arts and Sciences of Emory University in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of Bachelor of Arts with Honors Department of History 2014 Abstract Rebelling Against the King: Opposition to the Confederate Cotton Embargo in 1861 By Benjamin D. Leiner In the early days of the Confederacy, Southern politicians, planters, and everyday citizens were discussing how the seceded states would successfully break away from the North and cement their independence.
    [Show full text]
  • COURSE SYLLABUS POLS 2306: ​Texas Government Prof. Tony Bartl, Fall 2020 ​[email protected] (325) 486-6107 Course Descri
    COURSE SYLLABUS POLS 2306: Texas Government ​ Prof. Tony Bartl, Fall 2020 [email protected] ​ (325) 486-6107 Course Description: THE PEOPLE OF TEXAS, speaking through their State ​ ​ ​ Constitution, have determined that all citizens, in order to properly perform the duties of citizenship, need to be familiar with the Constitution of the United States and the Texas State Constitution. To fulfill this need, Texas Law requires that six semester hours dedicated to that purpose be completed by all students attending institutions of higher learning receiving state funds. Here at Angelo State University, this requirement is met by taking POLS 2305 and 2306. Constitutions are the central legitimating symbols of Texan and American political life. Texan and American citizens therefore need to understand how their constitutions frame political controversy and how they influence political and social change. To that end, we will study important debates concerning democracy and the ​ ​ meaning of liberty and equality from the Founding until the present day. We will ​ ​ ​ ​ examine the important function of citizenship and of federalism in our democracy. We ​ ​ ​ ​ will also discuss the distinctive political culture of Texas. TEXTS AND READINGS Required Texts: 1. Miscellaneous readings related to DEMOCRACY IN TEXAS linked within each Lesson. 2. Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America Hackett Publishing, ISBN: ​ ​ 978-0-87220-494-2 (hereafter this text will be referred to as DA) ​ ​ 3. Lawler and Schaefer, American Political Rhetoric , Rowman and Littlefield, ​ ​ ISBN: 978-1-4422-3219-8 (hereafter this text will be referred to as APR) ​ ​ GRADING Journal 50% Midterm Exam 25% Final Exam 25% Extra Credit: Movie Blog JOURNAL Each week (except for exam weeks) students will be required to write a Journal entry reflecting on the questions, problems, ideas, etc., which arise from the readings assigned for that week.
    [Show full text]
  • Cornerstone Speech 575
    CORNERSTONE SPEECH 575 Cornerstone Speech Alexander Stephens (1812–1883) Former Senator Jefferson Davis became president of the Confederate govern- ment, while former Georgia Congressman Alexander Stephens became vice president. Three weeks after Abraham Lincoln’s inauguration, Stephens deliv- ered this speech in Savannah, identifying the cornerstone of the Confederacy as an idea opposite to the equality principle of the American founding. March 21, 1861 At half past seven o’clock on Thursday evening, the largest audience ever assembled at the Athenaeum was in the house, waiting most impatiently for the appearance of the orator of the evening, Honorable A. H. Stephens, Vice- President of the Confederate States of America. The committee, with invited guests, were seated on the stage, when, at the appointed hour, the Honorable 5 C. C. Jones, Mayor, and the speaker, entered, and were greeted by the immense assemblage with deafening rounds of applause. The Mayor then, in a few pertinent remarks, introduced Mr. Stephens, stating that at the request of a number of the members of the convention, and citizens of Savannah and the State, now here, he had consented to address them upon 10 the present state of public affairs.... Mr. Stephens rose and said: ...[W]e are passing through one of the greatest revolutions in the annals of the world. Seven States have within the last three months thrown off an old government and formed a new. This revolution has been signally marked, up 15 to this time, by the fact of its having been accomplished without the loss of a single drop of blood.
    [Show full text]
  • Oregon Commission on Historic Cemeteries
    Oregon Commission on Historic Cemeteries Position Paper The Oregon Commission on Historic Cemeteries has created several position papers to convey their opinion of best practices on various topics related to historic cemeteries. Recommendations Concerning the Use of Confederate Flags in Historic Cemeteries October 2020 The following paper addresses the placement of confederate flags in historic cemeteries, but may apply to all cemeteries, more generally. Flags are seen in historic cemeteries for many reasons including, to recognize the purpose of the cemetery, as in a Federal veteran cemetery, to recognize veterans during Memorial Day, and as decoration for individual burials. While it may not be common in Oregon, the Confederate flag can be found in many of these situations. With this paper, the Oregon Commission on Historic Cemeteries is reviewing the purpose of flags in cemeteries and the historical use of what has been become known as the Confederate flag. Memorial Day History and Commemoration: Memorial Day was established three years after the end of the Civil War on May 5, 1868, by the order of General John A. Logan (National Cemetery Administration 2020). It set forth that May 30, 1868 was to be “designated for the purpose of strewing with flowers or otherwise decorating the graves of comrades who died in defense of their country during the late rebellion, and whose bodies now lie in almost every city, village, and hamlet churchyard in the land..….We are organized, comrades, as our regulations tell us, for the purpose, among other things, “of preserving and strengthening those kind and fraternal feelings which have bound together the soldiers, sailors and marines who united to suppress the late rebellion.” What can aid more to assure this result than by cherishing tenderly the memory of our heroic dead who made their breasts a barricade between our country and its foes? Their soldier lives were the reveille of freedom to a race in chains and their deaths the tattoo of rebellious tyranny in arms.
    [Show full text]
  • Why the Civil War Happened
    10/11/2018 Why the Civil War Happened And What We Can Learn From It Day 3 WHAT WE’LL COVER ▪Day One: Setting the stage: - the late 1790s through the 1830s or so ▪Day Two: 1840 through mid-1850s ▪Day Three: Late 1850s-spring of 1861 Karen McPherson Fall 2018 89 DRED SCOTT DECISION -- 1857 •Dred Scott : slave of an Army surgeon •Taken from Missouri to Illinois and Minnesota and back to Missouri •Sued for his freedom Karen McPherson Fall 2018 90 1 10/11/2018 DRED SCOTT DECISION -- 1857 • Supreme Court ruled • Scott was not a citizen, had no right to sue • Congress had never had the right to prohibit slavery anywhere • Therefore, Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional Karen McPherson Fall 2018 91 Lincoln-Douglas Debate -- 1858 Karen McPherson Fall 2018 92 LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATES -- 1858 • Stephen A. Douglas (Dem) and Abraham Lincoln (Rep) were vying for an Illinois Senate Seat • 7 debates • Main issue – expansion of slavery • Douglas believed in “Popular Sovereignty” • Lincoln believed slavery should not be expanded • Neither of them was an abolitionist Karen McPherson Fall 2018 93 2 10/11/2018 Locations of Lincoln- Douglas Debates 1858 Karen McPherson Fall 2018 94 Fifth Debate, October 7, 1858, Knox College, Galesburg, Illinois Karen McPherson Fall 2018 95 John Brown’s Raid -- 1859 Karen McPherson Fall 2018 96 3 10/11/2018 Karen McPherson Fall 2018 97 JOHN BROWN’S RAID -- 1859 Consequences: • Northerners admired his zeal and courage • “Instant Martyr” • South was shocked and Karen McPherson Fall 2018 outraged 98 ELECTION OF 1860 Party Republican S.
    [Show full text]
  • States' Rights, Southern Hypocrisy, and the Crisis of the Union Paul Finkelman
    The University of Akron IdeaExchange@UAkron Akron Law Review Akron Law Journals June 2015 States' Rights, Southern Hypocrisy, and the Crisis of the Union Paul Finkelman Please take a moment to share how this work helps you through this survey. Your feedback will be important as we plan further development of our repository. Follow this and additional works at: http://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/akronlawreview Part of the Legal History Commons, and the State and Local Government Law Commons Recommended Citation Finkelman, Paul (2012) "States' Rights, Southern Hypocrisy, and the Crisis of the Union," Akron Law Review: Vol. 45 : Iss. 2 , Article 5. Available at: http://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/akronlawreview/vol45/iss2/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Akron Law Journals at IdeaExchange@UAkron, the institutional repository of The nivU ersity of Akron in Akron, Ohio, USA. It has been accepted for inclusion in Akron Law Review by an authorized administrator of IdeaExchange@UAkron. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Finkelman: States' Rights 11-FINKELMAN_MACRO AUTHOR.DOCM STATES’ RIGHTS, SOUTHERN HYPOCRISY, AND THE CRISIS OF THE UNION Paul Finkelman∗ I. Introduction ...................................................................... 449 II. The 1850s: The High Point of Proslavery Nationalism ... 452 A. Restrictions and Limitations on Slavery in 1850 ....... 453 B. The Great Proslavery Shift of the 1850s .................... 456 III. Secession and States Rights .............................................. 469 I. INTRODUCTION On December 20, 2010 we marked—I cannot say celebrated—the sesquicentennial of South Carolina’s secession. By the end of February 1861, six other states had followed South Carolina into the Confederacy.
    [Show full text]
  • Cornerstone Speech
    CONSTITUTION OF THE CONFEDERATE STATES OF AMERICA March 11, 1861 Preamble We, the people of the Confederate States, each State acting in its sovereign and independent character, in order to form a permanent federal government, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God do ordain and establish this Constitution for the Confederate States of America. Article I. Section 9. (4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves, shall be passed….1 Article IV. Section 2. (1) The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States, and shall have the right of [transport] and [travel] in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be…impaired…. (3) No slave or other person held to service or labor in any State or Territory of the Confederate States, under the laws thereof, escaping or lawfully carried into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor; but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such slave belongs, or to whom such service or labor may be due…. Source: Richardson, J. D. (1905). A compilation of the messages and papers of the Confederacy including the diplomatic correspondence 1861-1865. United States Publishing Company. Retrieved July, 1, 2020, from https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_csa.asp 1 Slavery can never be made illegal in the Confederate States of America.
    [Show full text]
  • Volume 23, Issue 1 Spring 2016
    Penn History Review Volume 23 Issue 1 Spring 2016 Article 1 May 2016 Volume 23, Issue 1 Spring 2016 Spring 2016 Penn History Review University of Pennsylvania Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/phr Recommended Citation Penn History Review, Spring 2016 (2016) "Volume 23, Issue 1 Spring 2016," Penn History Review: Vol. 23 : Iss. 1 , Article 1. Available at: https://repository.upenn.edu/phr/vol23/iss1/1 This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/phr/vol23/iss1/1 For more information, please contact [email protected]. Penn History Review Journal of Undergraduate Historians Volume 23, Issue 1 Spring 2016 Carly S. Mayer Aaron R. Senior on African Americans and Military on the Reaction of American National Intelligence During the Civil War Newspapers to the French Revolution Varun K. Menon Sahand K. Rahbar on the Statecraft of the United States on the Influence of the New York Times Congress in the Age of Democratic on Antiabortion Legislation in Revolutions New York Penn History Review Journal of Undergraduate Historians Volume 23, Issue 1 Spring 2016 Editor-in-Chief Aaron C. Mandelbaum 2017, American History Editorial Board Kate Campbell 2016, Intellectual History Leila Ehsan 2016, Diplomatic History Emma Leibowitz 2017, American History Andrés De Los Ríos 2017, European History Gregory Olberding 2017, Economic History Daniel Thompson 2017, European History Michael Torcello 2018, American History Alex Weissfisch 2018, Diplomatic History Editor-in-Chief Emeritus Taylor Evensen 2016, Diplomatic History ABOUT THE REVIEW Founded in 1991, the Penn History Review is a journal for undergraduate historical research.
    [Show full text]
  • Peter Robinson: Welcome to "Uncommon Knowledge." I'm Peter Robinson
    >> Peter Robinson: Welcome to "Uncommon Knowledge." I'm Peter Robinson. Follow us, by the way, on Twitter.com/uncknowledge. Twitter.com/uncknowledge. Our guest today is Dr. Harry Jaffa. According to Yale political scientist, Steven Smith, Harry Jaffa is, quote, "The greatest living scholar of Lincoln's political thought and Lincoln's greatest defender, period." Close quote. Now a distinguished fellow at the Claremont Institute, Dr. Jaffa majored in English at Yale, took his doctorate at The New School, where he studied with the legendary political philosopher, Leo Strauss. Fifty years ago, he published "Crisis of the House Divided: An Interpretation of the Issues in the Lincoln-Douglas Debates." And nine years ago, in 2000, he published the sequel, "A New Birth of Freedom: Abraham Lincoln and the Coming of the Civil War." In this 200th anniversary year since the birth of Abraham Lincoln, Professor Jaffa, welcome. Segment one, "1800 and 1860." You begin "A New Birth of Freedom" by contrasting these two election years, 1800 and 1860, possibly the most contentious in American history. Quote, "Why did those -- " Quoting you in "New Birth of Freedom," "Why did those who failed to carry the Presidential election of 1860 not accept the outcome, as did the defeated Federalists of 1800?" But you called the fact that the Federalists in 1800 accepted that outcome an astounding precedent. So let's begin with 1800. Why did they accept -- why did the defeated Federalists -- Adams versus Jefferson. Jefferson wins. Adams goes quietly home to Massachusetts and accepts the result. >> Harry Jaffa: Well, the -- one of the points that I make is that, to the best of my knowledge, the election of 1800 in the United States was the first time in human history that a government changed hands on the basis of a free election.
    [Show full text]
  • “A Pledge of a Nation”: Charting the Economic Aspirations, Political Motivations, and Consequences of Confederate Currency Creation
    “A Pledge of a Nation”: Charting The Economic Aspirations, Political Motivations, and Consequences of Confederate Currency Creation Master’s Thesis Presented To American History Department Brandeis University Jane Kamensky, Advisor In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master’s of Arts By Jordan Rothman May 2009 Table of Contents Introduction Page 1 Chapter One: The Economic Benefits and Aspirations of Confederate Currency Creation Page 5 Chapter Two: Political Aspirations and the Iconographical Benefits of Confederate Currency Creation Page 28 Chapter Three: Patriotism, Disloyalty, and the Use of Confederate Currency Page 59 Chapter Four: Currency Creation and the Failure of Southern Nation-Building Page 74 Epilogue: The Legacy of Confederate Money Page 98 Bibliography Page 104 i. Introduction At his death, Abraham Lincoln had a Confederate $5 note in his wallet. The bill may have been taken as a memento from his trip to Richmond, which occurred just over one week before Lincoln died. The note showed a picture of the Capitol building in Richmond in the foreground, while a portrait of C.G. Memminger, the Confederate Secretary of the Treasury, was placed at the right. The bill had a reddish tint and, like may other notes the Confederates printed during the war, did not have a printed back due to the difficulties involved with manufacturing two-sided bills.1 1864 $5 Note Found in Abraham Lincoln’s Wallet After His Assassination It seems extremely odd that a U.S. President would possess Confederate currency. In fact, Lincoln had been determined throughout the war to prove that the Confederacy was not a legal political entity, as he believed its secession to be both morally wrong and unconstitutional.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction and Background
    City of Bellingham 210 Lottie Street Bellingham, WA 98225 DRAFT FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS TO: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION FROM: KATIE FRANKS DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST CC: RICK SEPLER, AICP PLANNING & COMMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR SUBJECT: PICKETT BRIDGE (A.K.A. DUPONT STREET BRIDGE) RENAMING RECOMMENDATION HPC APPLICATION NUMBER: HIS2019-0001 DATE: OCTOBER 10, 2019 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND On Monday August 14, 2017, in light of the violent clash in Charlottesville, Virginia on August 12 between a group identified as white supremacist and counter-protesters, the City of Bellingham removed signs identifying the “Pickett Bridge” at Prospect and Dupont streets. On August 18, 2017, the Mayor's Office issued a statement that the Pickett Bridge signs would be removed until further notice, and that the Mayor would work with City Council and the Historic Preservation Commission regarding next steps. Following this action, City Council requested that staff look into the possible renaming of the Pickett Bridge, in coordination with the Historic Preservation Commission and other local stakeholders. Some members of the community had expressed concerns that the designation was not truly historical, and that it honored a military leader for the Confederacy during the Civil War. Captain George E. Pickett was a U.S. Army officer who was stationed in Bellingham during the 1850s, supervising the construction of Fort Bellingham as well as that of the first bridge across Whatcom Creek – also referred to as the “Military Road Bridge.” Pickett left the area in 1861 to fight for the Confederacy in his home state of Virginia in the Civil War. Bellingham City Council members acknowledged local citizens and Western Washington University students who were uncomfortable with a local landmark named in honor of a military leader who served during a war marked as “a pinnacle of America’s racist history.” "Bellingham does not tolerate hate speech, white supremacy or the neo-Nazi movement," Mayor Kelli Linville asserted at that time.
    [Show full text]