The original idea for the Statue of Liberty

1886 – The Statue of Liberty was dedicated on Bedloe’s Island in New York Harbor. The statue was a gift from the people of France commemorating the French-American alliance during the American Revolutionary War. Designed by Frederic Auguste Bartholdi, the entire structure stands 300 feet (92.9 meters) tall. The pedestal contains the words: “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

The Statue of Liberty is one of the most prominent monuments in the world, but few people know its connection to Civil Rights, slavery, and emancipation. Visitors travel from all over to see the magnificent structure in New York, bringing in roughly 4.5 million people every year. Yet the original meaning behind the Statue of Liberty may not be as well-known as Lady Liberty herself.

The statue came to New York in 1886 as a symbol of liberty and freedom two decades after the American Civil War. Most people associate the monument with immigrants arriving at the New York Harbor. However, many don’t know that the creators behind the statue originally wanted it to honor the end of slavery.

It wasn’t until six years after the statue was unveiled in New York that Ellis Island opened, allowing for millions of immigrants to make their way through the inspection station and into America. The bronze plaque along the pedestal of the statue was then later added in 1903, displaying the recognized line from “The New Colossus,” a poem by Emma Lazarus:

“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”

Source: statueoflibertytours.com for the complete article

Be bold and boycott

On October 26, 1866, the Texas Legislature passed two key statutes that were part of the state’s post‑Civil War Black Codes, designed to maintain racial hierarchy and control over African Americans

1. Restriction on Black Testimony in Court
The law amended the state’s Code of Criminal Procedure to state that “persons of color shall not testify” except in two limited situations:

• When the prosecution is against a person of color, or
• When the offense is alleged to have been committed against a person or property of a person of color Blackpast+1.

This meant that in civil cases between white parties, and in criminal cases involving white defendants not accused of crimes against Black people, Black individuals were legally barred from testifying. Even when allowed to testify, their words were often given little weight by white judges and juries A History of Racial Injustice. This continued the antebellum practice of excluding Black testimony in most cases, despite the new constitutional guarantees of citizenship.

2. Regulation of Labor Contracts
The same day, Texas enacted an Act regulating contracts for labor Blackpast+1:

• Labor contracts over one month had to be in writing, witnessed by a Justice of the Peace, County Judge, County Clerk, Notary Public, or two disinterested witnesses, and read aloud to the laborer before signing.
• Workers could choose their employer but could not leave before the contract ended without consent, unless for “harsh treatment” or “breach of contract” — otherwise, they forfeited all wages earned.
• One copy of each contract had to be filed with the County Court Clerk, creating a public record.
• Contracts were to be made with the head of a family and covered all able‑working members, including minors.
• Wages were to be a lien on half the crops, second only to rent claims.

These provisions effectively tied Black laborers to long‑term, controlled employment arrangements, limiting their mobility and reinforcing economic dependence U.S. History Scene.

Historical Context
The 1866 Texas Black Codes were part of a broader Southern effort to codify racial subjugation after the Civil War. While the state’s 1866 “Act to define and declare the rights of persons lately known as slaves, and free persons of color” granted some civil rights, it also retained restrictions such as bans on voting, jury service, intermarriage with whites, and testimony against whites TSHA+1. The October 26 laws reinforced these inequalities by legally limiting Black legal standing and controlling Black labor.

Impact
These statutes entrenched racial discrimination in Texas law, restricting Black participation in the justice system and binding freedpeople to exploitative labor arrangements. They reflected the legislature’s refusal to recognize full equality for African Americans in the immediate post‑war period A History of Racial Injustice+1.

blackpast.org for the complete article

Quork Walker Lewis died in October 1856

BY CONTRIBUTED BY: MICHAEL AGUIRRE

Quack Walker Lewis, black abolitionist, barber, AND elder (priest) in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, was born in Barre, Worcester County, Massachusetts, on August 3, 1798. His father, Peter P. Lewis, was a free black yeoman farmer in Middlesex County, Massachusetts, and his mother, Minor Walker Lewis, was born a slave in Worcester County. Peter and Minor had a total of eleven children, all of whom were born free and part of the black middle class in Massachusetts.

Walker Lewis’s involvement with abolitionism was a central component of his family’s history. He was named after his maternal uncle, Quacko (Kwaku) Walker. Quacko’s parents maintained Ghanaian naming practices (Kwaku means “boy born on Saturday”). Quacko and his parents were slaves in Worcester County, Massachusetts. In two legal cases in 1781 and 1783, Quacko obtained his freedom from Nathaniel Jennison. Quacko v. Jennison (1781) and Jennison v. Caldwell et al (1783) are cited as legal precedents for ending slavery in Massachusetts. With this genealogy of slavery and emancipation, Walker Lewis assisted in the formation of the Massachusetts General Colored Association (MGCA) in 1826.

That year, Lewis and other prominent black abolitionists, including David Walker (no relation), formed the MGCA, the first all-black abolitionist organization in the United States, and in 1829, it released David Walker’s Appeal to the Coloured Citizens of the World. This treatise called for complete emancipation of slaves, armed insurrection (if necessary), and disfavor of African colonization. The MGCA later merged with William Lloyd Garrison’s New England Anti-Slavery Society, which was then renamed the Boston Anti-Slavery Society.

blackfacts.com for complete article

On November 2, 1917, Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour writes an important letter to Britain’s most illustrious Jewish citizen, Baron Lionel Walter Rothschild, expressing the British government’s support for a Jewish homeland in Palestine. The letter would eventually become known as the Balfour Declaration.

Britain’s support for the Zionist movement came from its concerns regarding the direction of the First World War. Aside from a genuine belief in the righteousness of Zionism, held by Lloyd George among others, Britain’s leaders hoped that a statement supporting Zionism would help gain Jewish support for the Allies.

The influence of the Balfour Declaration on the course of post-war events was immediate: According to the “mandate” system created by the Versailles Treaty of 1919, Britain was entrusted with the administration of Palestine, with the understanding that it would work on behalf of both its Jewish and Arab inhabitants.

Source: history.com

I would say the idea that anyone thought giving Britain or Zionist control in the first place wasn’t offensive seems odd to me, not only because they decided without the Palestinians at the table or ahead of the table since the land, was theirs, but also because all the outliers assumed Britain would be entrusted with the administration of Palestine, with the understanding that it would work on behalf of both its Jewish and Arab inhabitants. Of course, that didn’t happen, and what could go wrong did go wrong, and decades later, genocide is taking place, and the question remains: Why did they think this mission could stay quiet? That is sarcasm … some always knew, and a whole lot of people stayed quiet.

How could Americans and NATO look the other way, and why weren’t the Brits held liable or accountable, btw they all could have done the right thing by correcting it all, but it seems as if supremacy and elitism are beyond humanity. We know every issue can have several sides, but facts should never, ever be ignored, especially when they are documented.