PilgrimDuke Posted 3 May , 2006 Share Posted 3 May , 2006 I haven't been able to find anyone else posting about this. There was an article in the " New York Times" dated May 2, 2006 about the sedition laws in the state of Montana during the Great War. Thc current governor has pardoned 75 men and 3 women who were convicted of sedition. 41 of these people went to prison for terms of 1-20 years and were fined $200-20,000. There was a reference to one guy that got 7-20 years for calling food regulations a "big joke." There was also a reference to a book by Clemens P. Work, who wrote Darkest Before Dawn: Sedition and Free Speech in the American West. The newspaper article discusses anti-German sentiment in the U.S. and speculates that the Montana law was a means for the Anaconda Mining Corp. to control labor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andigger Posted 3 May , 2006 Share Posted 3 May , 2006 I think this was covered a few months back (definitely since the 1st of the year). Neil Burns (I think) suggested sedition in Mt might be hard to come by. I relied that there might be a group of German immigrants out there. Not sure where the thread went literally and figuratively, but I am certian it was similar. Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Burns Posted 3 May , 2006 Share Posted 3 May , 2006 Thread Here's the original thread. Certainly my failure to realize Montana had a thriving mining industry vital for war production was one of my more dazzling intellectual performances here on the GWF. Neil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John_Hartley Posted 3 May , 2006 Share Posted 3 May , 2006 Guys I confess to being disappointed. I logged onto this thinking, nay hoping, that this might be a "current politics" thread. It raises a question in my mind though. My understanding is that the usual definition of "sedition" is to do with acts against the "nation state" (for want of a better phrase). Surely one could only be seditious against the government of the USA and not just Montana? Or is there a different definition in the US? John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andigger Posted 3 May , 2006 Share Posted 3 May , 2006 Nation State... I like the innocous troll there John. Mention to any southern sympathizers there is only one 'nation state' in the great union of states and I think you will find the modern political discussion you were after. Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John_Hartley Posted 3 May , 2006 Share Posted 3 May , 2006 Troll? Me? Surely not? Yours from across the water John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jhill Posted 3 May , 2006 Share Posted 3 May , 2006 snip, snip It raises a question in my mind though. My understanding is that the usual definition of "sedition" is to do with acts against the "nation state" (for want of a better phrase). Surely one could only be seditious against the government of the USA and not just Montana? Or is there a different definition in the US? John Those of us living in 'Federal" states are quite comfortable with this sort of confusion. The general gist is that both levels of the federation, the federal government and the States ( or Provinces) are 'sovereign' in their respective spheres. Thus, it is quite possible to be 'seditious' against the State (or Province) as well as against the federal state. Our most beloved political punch-ups concern the obvious fuzzy edges of this arrangement. You people who live in those wee little European countries have no idea what you are missing! Pardon the levity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andigger Posted 3 May , 2006 Share Posted 3 May , 2006 John - Of ocurse not. Actually I am interested in Neil's perspective on sedition against the state. I assume the patriotic fervor and gov't loyalty isn't as prevelant in New Jersey since things there pale in comparison to Virginia's long list of STRAIGHT talking illustious governors - just as one example. Andy jhill's comment posted at the same time as mine. Actually you are right, at least in the US (I assume the same is true in Canada) but the 10th Amendment to the US constitution clearly states all powers not explicitly delegated to the federal gov't by the constitution are the rights of the states. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John_Hartley Posted 3 May , 2006 Share Posted 3 May , 2006 Actually I am interested in Neil's perspective on sedition against the state. I assume the patriotic fervor and gov't loyalty isn't as prevelant in New Jersey since things there pale in comparison to Virginia's long list of STRAIGHT talking illustious governors - just as one example. Andy You may be spending too much time amongst us Brits - your sense of irony is improving month on month. It won't be long before you won't be able to tell your Blair from your Bush. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob lembke Posted 5 May , 2006 Share Posted 5 May , 2006 I would like to post a question relating to a related matter. It seems that in 1917, in Columbus, Ohio, in Schiller Park, in a section of Cleveland formally known as Germantown, there was a patriotic ceremony that was principally held to re-name the park "Washington Park" (I believe), rather than be named for the great German poet Schiller. At the high point of the ceremony, I understand that a great number of dogs were dragged into the ceremony. The city had been combed for dogs of German breeds; Dashhunds, Dobermans, German Sheppards, Wimeraners (sp?), etc., etc., and the collected dogs were dragged to the site and shot, and their bodies were thrown into a pit that had been previously dug. Thus was Washington Park sanctified, with the blood of innocent dogs. A lot of crazy anti-German things occurred in the US during 1917-18, but this seems over the top, and I have only been able to find shadowy hints of this incident. Some years ago I read a detailed account, in a reputable source, but have not retained the reference. I think that this incident was so ugly that people do not want to refer to it, even if they detail lynchings, tarring and featherings, an Ohio inditement, in one document, of 167 pastors and bishops of a church denomination for sedition for, I gather, speaking German in church services, etc., etc. But the dog incident has been hard to track down. Any one have a lead on this? I have a friend who has an important need for this information. Bob Lembke PS: The park has been re-named "Schiller Park". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John_Hartley Posted 5 May , 2006 Share Posted 5 May , 2006 But the dog incident has been hard to track down. Any one have a lead on this? Excellent. Truly excellent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now