William McKinley was the 25th president of the USA - from 1897-1901. While before becoming president his political career was focused on Ohio, there was a status of McKinley in Arcata, California until it was toppled in February 2019. Here, Victor Gamma returns and looks at the case for and against the removal of the statue.
In part 1 we provide the background to the statue removal and look at how McKinley treated Native Americans.
William McKinley is sworn in as US president by Chief Justice Melville Fuller. To the right is outgoing President Grover Cleveland.
Introduction
With media attention focused on statues of former slave-owners, very little media coverage has focused on the removal of a 111-year old statue that took place on the west coast of America. It was not Father Serra or Columbus. In fact, little information got to the general public about this statue to a figure not usually linked with California history: William McKinley, 25th president of the United States. In the small town of Arcata, California a diverse group of activists and city officials targeted the statue for removal beginning in 2017. The average American has not even heard of McKinley let alone that a statue of our 25th president graced the Golden State. He clearly is famous, or infamous, enough, though, to have stirred the wrath of the residents of this lovely seaside community.
The illustrious career of William McKinley Jr. came to a sudden and untimely end at the hands of an assassin. This pointless act of violence took place on September 6, 1901 at the Pan American Exposition in Buffalo, New York. McKinley was greeting a long line of visitors at the Temple of Music. He liked people and, to the consternation of his security service, insisted on shaking everyone’s hand. Among those who waited in line to meet the president was an anarchist named Leon Czolgosz. When his turn came McKinley reached out but instead of an open hand Czolgosz presented a revolver. The assassin fired at the president at point blank range twice. Taken to a nearby house for medical attention, McKinley, despite rallying briefly, succumbed on September 14 due to infections caused by the wound. The death of the popular McKinley was immediately met by a widespread and genuine outpouring of national grief.
As if that terrible ending of his life were not bad enough, he has recently been condemned to a “second death” by character assassination. The questions the article seeks to consider are:
· Was the decision to remove this statue appropriate?
· What standards were used to justify the statue’s removal?
· Did the standards have merit?
This article will attempt to answer these questions by examining the arguments of those that demanded the removal of the McKinley statue. The facts of the case will be submitted to the candid readers that they may decide if our 25th president deserved his “second death.” Let’s begin!
Copy-Cat Statue Topplers?
In this small community of 17,000, overlooking the Pacific only two-hours’ drive from Oregon, debate over the statue can be traced to the 1970s. Discussion turned into a demand for action after the Charlottesville, Virginia riots over the removal of a statue of Robert E. Lee in 2017. With a reputation for being one of the most left-wing cities in the country, any statue politically to the right of Ho Chi Minh would probably have not survived long in these extremist times. Inspired by Charlottesville, local Native American activists began a petition drive to remove the statue. Protests became a fixture on the plaza where the statue was located. Normally dull City Hall meetings came alive as both defenders and opponents of McKinley’s removal generated lively public debate. A common rationale amongst the protestors was that after seeing Confederate statues fall, they became convinced that their remote city needed to take care of its own “statue-problem.” Rapidly all the real and alleged grievances of Native American activists and other marginalized groups were projected onto the silent, long-suffering 8 ½’ image. Essentially, McKinley became a symbol of everything the protestors opposed or disliked.
What holds Water?
Now let’s look at each accusation in turn and weigh their merits. As lovers of history I invite you to be deeply concerned that history is “done right.” The standard we use is not whether it is right or wrong to topple a statue or whether McKinley took actions that are deemed morally wrong by the protestors. Was McKinley actually guilty of the charges brought against him? Also, the issue is whether McKinley’s actions were justified in the context of the 19th century given the norms of the time and the information McKinley possessed. For example, a nineteenth-century factory owner whose employees contracted illness due to exposure to chemicals cannot be condemned if no one at the time was aware of the effects of those chemicals, and he otherwise treated them fairly.
McKinley and Indigenous Americans
Now, on to the accusations: first, Chris Peters, head of the Arcata-based Seventh Generation Fund for Indigenous People called McKinley a proponent of “settler colonialism” that “savaged, raped and killed.” He furthermore claimed that McKinley was responsible for "directing the slaughter of native peoples."
How does this accusation hold up? First, clarity is needed on the terms “settler colonialism.” Settler colonialism is a form of colonialism that results, often unintentionally, in the replacement of the original population of the colonized territory with a new society of settlers. This phenomenon has been going on since Ancient Egypt. It also includes what amounts to “settler colonialism” among American indigenous tribes themselves. For instance, the Lakota Sioux undertook a migration to the south in the same century that McKinley lived, in which they pushed aside the Omaha tribe. In the words of one source “Attacks from the Sioux Tribe and disease often meant the relocation of the villages.” Following Peter's logic, every statue created since the days of the Pharaohs should be removed and the statue of Crazy Horse, near Mount Rushmore, as well. This is the first reason the accusation is unfair: one cannot apply different standards to different people for the same crime.
Second, McKinley is absolutely innocent of this charge for the following reasons. The Homestead Act was passed when McKinley was a 19-year-old sergeant in the Union Army and thus he had nothing to do with that measure. During the post-Civil War period he was busy establishing a career in Ohio as a lawyer and raising a family and had nothing to do with anything remotely akin to “settler colonialism.” Elected to congress in 1876, the up-and-coming politician ultimately gravitated toward the Ways and Means Committee and became an expert on the tariff. His focus was on policies that would encourage national prosperity, which he felt would benefit all people. Once again, he was not known for any overt statements or actions promoting “settler colonialism.” From 1892 to 1896 he was Governor of Ohio and continued to have nothing to do with policy towards indigenous peoples. On the other hand, since McKinley served as president for several years, he did ultimately direct policy affecting Native Americans. Is it here that McKinley committed the alleged misdeeds? Let’s look at the McKinley presidential record with regard to Native Americans.
President McKinley and Native Americans
Counted among his many friends were two men who were themselves great friends of Native Americans: Senator Matt Quay and Ethan Allan Hitchcock. Mr. Quay was part Native American, and an official member of the Delaware tribe. He was also a champion of both Native American and African-American rights. Hitchcock served as McKinley’s Secretary of the Interior from February 20, 1899. He has been called the most effective leader of the department in its first half century of existence. Among other things, the Department handled issues related to Native Americans. As Secretary, Hitchcock set a new standard for the department, vigorously prosecuting land fraud and assisting Native American peoples and protecting their rights. This represented a turning point in the Office of Indian Affairs, which had been notoriously inept. Additionally he fully embraced the conservation movement, influencing McKinley in taking many measures to expand and protect forests and other resources.
One example of McKinley’s attitude towards indigenous people regards the Navajo Tribe. A bill was sent to the chief executive’s desk which involved a group of white entrepreneurs scheming to open up what was left of the Navajo lands to exploitation. McKinley and Hitchcock saw through the scheme and flatly rejected it, ruling in favor of the tribe. In fact, this was the most important veto the 25th president ever issued. In a careful and strongly worded message, McKinley explained why he would not sign the bill. He began by describing the condition of the tribe and the land, that, under the treaty of June 1, 1863 and subsequent executive orders, was reserved for the Navajo people. He next declared that those boundaries were inadequate for the tribe. He had thus, by executive order on January 8, 1899, enlarged the tribe’s boundaries. The territory of the Navajo was therefore significantly extended so as to, in his own words, provide “sufficient grass and water for their flocks and herds, and avoiding the prior contention and friction between them and the whites.” The president’s opinion was that it would be neither “just nor possible” to confine them to the previous smaller reservation. McKinley next noted that the Navajo had accepted the new, revised boundaries. He then turned to the proposed bill, which desired to open a substantial amount of the Navajo land to mining operations. McKinley protested that no effort had been made to gain the permission of the Navajo people. He stated that the inevitable effect of the law would be to take the remaining land from the Navajo and asked why such a bill was being proposed that made no effort to negotiate with the tribe in question. He also praised the Navajo’s “habits of industry and husbandry.” More than once he mentioned his concern for the Navajo’s flocks of sheep, which are, by the way, an extremely important part of Navajo culture and economy.
This doesn’t really sound like “savagery, raping and killing” does it? In studying the career of McKinley one will find the same pattern of fairness, high standards and broadmindedness in most of his dealings. When McKinley had the facts, in this case given to him by the vigilant Hitchcock, he was eager to do what was just. His Secretary of the Interior Hitchcock was alert to prevent further injustices to Native Americans. He knew his boss McKinley shared his views and so the two worked as a team to do what they believed was right by the Native Americans.
Now you can read part 2 on McKinley’s relationship with Native Americans here.
