(C) Daily Kos This story was originally published by Daily Kos and is unaltered. . . . . . . . . . . A senator said it in 1895 [1] ['This Content Is Not Subject To Review Daily Kos Staff Prior To Publication.'] Date: 2024-10-29 This my third time trying to write this. I won’t go conspiracy or other, but it was quite hinky. (A program blocking my whole screen even though it wasn’t open. A chat feature I’m not a member of, nor ever have been, blocking my screen, like I couldn’t even get through with CNT+Alt+Delete). So — the point, I was helping someone in my writing group (Historical stuff). I needed to make my National Geographic collection work. (I did) and testing it out after finding what she needed? I got stuck in an article from 1895. John Mitchell, a senator from Oregon. The speech is available on the the library of congress, as well as the National archive, so know I’m not blowing smoke up your ass. I compared what my AI helped me to achieve (Get it out of pix form to editable/highlight, etc. form) . So I read this piece, and that’s why I put the effort into getting to where I could highlight and comment. My first few drafts, were full of ‘Trump’ and his various associates. His lack of policies and how they correlated to what I was reading from 1895! I chose to take his name out (So not to be tagged, noted, in association). And let it be as it is. I really did go back to my ‘college days, and the five paragraph essay’ on this — it’s not my form of writing, but I’m kind of proud of myself, that I did it without naming names. (That was really the hardest part). If you’re searching for (Hashtag — Trump/Harris/Biden/ the issues, you’re not going to find this article.) So here it is, from my document. A Nation at a Crossroads: Lessons from John H. Mitchell’s 1895 Address In March 1895, Senator John H. Mitchell addressed the people of Oregon, reflecting on the state’s transformation from a remote frontier into a full member of the Union. His words carried lessons not just for his time, but for today. Governance, unity, and responsibility were central themes, and Mitchell’s reflections offer insights into the modern challenges facing the nation. Mitchell stressed the importance of sovereignty, reminding listeners that national strength depends on maintaining control over territory and governance. His warnings against joint arrangements with foreign powers, such as the Nootka Convention, resonate today in discussions about cybersecurity and election integrity. Just as Mitchell urged vigilance over territorial claims, modern governments must protect against external manipulation in the digital and political spheres. Governance, for Mitchell, was a moral obligation. He criticized entities like the Hudson Bay Company for prioritizing profit over people, cautioning that unchecked corporate influence could corrode public trust. Today, debates over lobbying, campaign finance, and regulatory oversight echo Mitchell’s concerns. Leaders, he argued, must serve the many, not the few—a principle that remains essential in efforts to ensure equitable governance and economic policy. Unity was another cornerstone of Mitchell’s message. He emphasized that cooperation among settlers enabled Oregon’s growth, warning that a nation fractured by ambition and personal interests cannot thrive. This theme is especially relevant today, as political polarization threatens to divide communities along social, racial, and economic lines. Mitchell’s call for unity reminds us that progress requires setting aside differences for the common good. Environmental stewardship was also central to Mitchell’s address. His admiration for Crater Lake reflected an early recognition of the need to preserve natural resources for future generations. This foresight applies today as societies confront climate change and balance economic growth with environmental conservation. Responsible governance, Mitchell believed, requires long-term thinking and sustainable practices. Mitchell understood that democracy depends on public trust. Without transparency and integrity, governance becomes illegitimate, he warned. This message is particularly relevant amid contemporary debates over misinformation and the erosion of institutional trust. Leaders, Mitchell believed, must act honestly to maintain the confidence of the governed. He also emphasized the importance of resilience against external manipulation. Just as the Hudson Bay Company tried to shape public opinion in Oregon, today’s governments face foreign interference through misinformation campaigns. Mitchell’s insistence on vigilance serves as a reminder that sovereignty must be actively defended. While Mitchell celebrated progress, he cautioned against reckless development. Rapid growth, he warned, could lead to unintended consequences if not guided by thoughtful policy. His call to temper ambition with wisdom mirrors today’s discussions about responsible technological and economic advancements. National identity and historical memory were also themes in Mitchell’s speech. He believed history should serve as a guide for future generations, helping them understand the values that bind a nation together. This message is relevant as modern societies grapple with the legacy of past injustices and strive for reconciliation and shared understanding. Mitchell celebrated the role of individual action in shaping the nation’s destiny, noting that civic responsibility is essential for democracy. His belief that the future depends on citizen engagement is a reminder that democracy requires active participation through voting, volunteering, and advocacy. Finally, Mitchell emphasized the need for ethical leadership, arguing that power is a duty, not a privilege. Leaders, he said, must prioritize the public good over personal gain—an idea that remains fundamental in discussions about accountability and governance today. Mitchell’s address offers enduring insights into the challenges of governance. His reflections on unity, sovereignty, environmental stewardship, and public trust provide a valuable framework for addressing the complexities of modern governance. As the nation faces new challenges, Mitchell’s words remind us that progress depends not only on innovation and development but also on integrity, responsibility, and a commitment to the common good. His message—delivered when the U.S. was just 44 states strong—remains a guiding light for a nation striving to fulfill its promise. (I’m bolding to separate) I can’t argue with his reasoning, or stances. This was 129 years ago, just as Oregon became a state. I don’t touch on it, but I really wanted to — How they let California in because it was money. How we let Texas in, Southern State slave state, needing the Cotton cheap labor income. He pointed out that slippery slope with the Hudson Bay Company. (And if you don’t know, don’t rely on the wiki’s when it comes to the Western US...it’s lame). Spain ‘owned it’ laid claim to it. (Oregon) The British didn’t like that. (Nor us). France with Napoleon he needed money, to fight — Oh! the British in Europe! He sold us the US the Louisiana purchase. Russia was in there as well, but they were kind of ‘shrug, we don’t care’. (Not the Russia we know, but Russia of the Czars, I hate saying it, but if ‘you don’t know history you are doomed to repeat it.’ On this one, I’m offering the warning. Those DC Politicians (Who’d never been west of the Rockies, and most didn’t even come close) just believed the rhetoric that it was a desert wasteland, give it to the British. (Yeah, complete and total opposite). That was influence to the governing body that wasn’t reality. I’m still running the numbers , but cursory? The Timber, agriculture, etc. That came out of Oregon (And when it was a territory Washington and Parts of Idaho and California). Superceded any value Texas had. Why did the Southern States need Land (And Texas had it). Cotton is a nutrient demanding bitch of a plant. (Go look it up). Unless you fertilize the fuck out of it, your crop depletes year after year. It’s labor intensive to harvest, so slave labor, and they weren’t going to give it up. Civil war and all the shit behind that. (Was it really about slavery for the North? And was it really protecting the slaves in the South? I will throw the premise, it was not, it was economic and humanitarian. Did it solve the issue when the war ended? No. Carpetbaggers. (I’ll just say corporate money grab, and politicians scrubbing the ugly). Sharecroppers, etc. If they knew, and had the choice to go west, they’d have been better off, but wait…you’re a former slave, you don’t have rights, you’re not part of the US. Same with the native population. If someone was smart enough back in the 1800’s on our westward expansion to actually ask what the indigenous people wanted — we wouldn’t be where we are today. All those treaties signed that we as a government didn’t follow through on? The plains? We killed the buffalo for sport and sport only. Was it a conspiracy to rob the natives of food supply? Probably, can’t prove it either way. But in hindsight — at the time, they didn’t get ‘renewable resources.’ US privileged settlers with our farms, barely eeking out an existence, we didn’t go ‘Karen’ the buffalo are trampling our crops. or ‘the Indians are killing us.” No, the truth is, the settlers, were often friendly with the native Americans. Our government sent troops when troops were not asked for. This is where I can lean ‘Republican’ in thinking. (In those days, not now). Small government, leave us to ourselves. Farm the land, eek out an existence, be friendly with our neighbors. --Oh, funny how most western states tend to be Repub. Don’t hate them because they are. Thanksgiving in 1621. (So not, but believe in the mis-truth there, it’s better than the truth). It’s a holiday completely overshadowed by Christmas. I mean come on people, Halloween is here. (but two weeks before we have X-mas shit, in the stores, etc). I’m not going to diss on the the background or X-mas. What I am is the capitalization of it. We have tons of movies, and the like, the personal gift, yeppers. But it is now, ‘you didn’t get me something that cost you a paycheck? I’m never talking to you again.” We as as a nation, capitalized a religious holiday. (Christmas). Federal holiday because the majority at the time were Christian? I’m okay with that. Black Friday? Should not be a thing. And my Christian? (The question mark there). This nation was built on religious refugees, how soon we forget that. Our constitution was debated and written to avoid that. Religious freedom was written into it. (NO! it was not God inspired, it was a bunch of old white dudes, sweating it out in the heat of summer, that were afraid of State churches — AKA the Church of England). They’d seen the horrors. (Spanish inquisition much — for the Non-Catholics). The Middle east, is about as easy to solve as the US and Slavery (You think it’s solved, it is so not) Many diaries on that, but you are dealing with thousands of years of stuff there. Jews, Christianity, Islam. Three religions, but really two related. We as ass-hats, colonizers, in the 1940’s created Isreal. (British problem, it was their colony). It just goes to show, we didn’t understand the nuances of the area. In the US, Isreal is the size of New Jersey. We could have easily offered space in a western state, (I’ll pick randomly, but not) Idaho. Oh, they’re away from the age old stuff, they aren’t BOMBING people, because they can’t they are a state. It is a nice place to be, with lots of grievances involved with the natives. But the tension is out of the middle east. Oh, all those historical places, they’ll destroy them? You’ve already done it. Just saying. But they are just as historical to them. Don’t get me started on the Mormons, for a nation that was about religious freedom, you kicked them out twice, and when they expanded the west, and helped your bad efforts, you sill treated them like shit. Just sayin’ — kettle black. Most of your miners wouldn’t have made it to California without Salt Lake, and the way stations they provided. They made friends with the Native Americans, they co-existed, We weren’t against the United States, you kicked us out on racist, bigoted, judgement against your own constitution. The Mormons chose not to engage. I know I dropped a lot there, but it is the way I see it. Let me know on the op-ed. It is geared towards my read state (Idaho) and it’s newspapers. [END] --- [1] Url: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2024/10/29/2280843/-A-senator-said-it-in-1895?pm_campaign=front_page&pm_source=more_community&pm_medium=web Published and (C) by Daily Kos Content appears here under this condition or license: Site content may be used for any purpose without permission unless otherwise specified. via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds: gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/dailykos/