Posted on 04/01/2018 9:05:49 AM PDT by Simon Green
Over the decades, this quiet coastal hamlet has earned a reputation as one of the most liberal places in the nation. Arcata was the first U.S. city to ban the sale of genetically modified foods, the first to elect a majority Green Party city council and one of the first to tacitly allow marijuana farming before pot was legal.
Now it's on the verge of another first.
No other city has taken down a monument to a president for his misdeeds. But Arcata is poised to do just that. The target is an 8½-foot bronze likeness of William McKinley, who was president at the turn of the last century and stands accused of directing the slaughter of Native peoples in the U.S. and abroad.
"Put a rope around its neck and pull it down," Chris Peters shouted at a recent rally held at the statue, which has adorned the central square for more than a century.
Peters, who heads the Arcata-based Seventh Generation Fund for Indigenous People, called McKinley a proponent of "settler colonialism" that "savaged, raped and killed."
A presidential statue would be the most significant casualty in an emerging movement to remove monuments honoring people who helped lead what Native groups describe as a centuries-long war against their very existence.
The push follows the rapid fall of Confederate memorials across the South in a victory for activists who view them as celebrating slavery. In the nearly eight months since white supremacists marched in central Virginia to protest the removal of a Robert E. Lee statue, cities across the country have yanked dozens of Confederate monuments. Black politicians and activists have been among the strongest supporters of the removals.
This time, it's tribal activists taking charge, and it's the West and California in particular leading the way.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Now I know you’re pulling my lariat. Dilorenzo is universally panned by respectable historians on both sides. Only the lamest of lost causers will openly cite him.
Cuz he’s a hack.
ah yes the ad hominem. Lorenzo had tons of cites from other sources leaving the only avenue of those who didn’t like what he wrote to try to slime him.
Name one.
Name one what? You’ll have to include the previous quote. There have been too many posts in this thread for me to know exactly what post you are responding to.
Neither army wasted competent officers or disciplined infantry units in guarding prisoners. Neither side was willing to expend resources to take care of prisoners.
Had the South been willing to accept captured black Union soldiers as legitimate prisoners of war, the exchange system that had been in place early in the war would have continue after July 1863. Places like Camp Douglas and Andersonville would not have been needed.
Nice dodge.
If your argument is valid, why refer to the Federalist Papers?
Secession is impossible. There is no right of secession in the Constitution. It is not a power that exists for the states. Any states rights are called out, that ain’t one of them.....
The Constitution did not explain how to commit Federal government suicide. Why would it?
Because the Federalist Papers show what the parties - ie the states - were agreeing to at the time.
Secession is the right of each sovereign state. Secession is not forbidden in the constitution and any power not delegated to the federal government is reserved to the states according to the 10th amendment. Your reading of the constitution is exactly backwards. The states predate the constitution. The federal government - which they created - has only the powers they delegated to it and no more. Not vice versa.
So, in other words, it was a military document, intended to foment a slave revolt in Confederate territories only. There was no abiding interest in freeing slaves, since slaves in Union held territories, even in Confederate states, remained slaves.
Thank you, you've been more than helpful in demolishing the weird indoctrination of so many people who otherwise seem to be relatively intelligent human beings.
When were slaves in Union held territories actually freed by the way, Bull Snipe? Can you share this with us? What was the date as well as the proximate cause? It wasn't the end of the war, I do know that.
Lincoln actively lobbied behind the scenes for the amendment. But he didn’t “push it through”. It was Seward and others that authored it and drove the votes.
Lincoln was a careful politician.
You’re shocked that a politician was less than truthful?
I stated that he supported it and that the South buried themselves in a war they could never win instead of accepting victory at the hand of President Lincoln.
Neither army wasted competent officers or disciplined infantry units in guarding prisoners. Neither side was willing to expend resources to take care of prisoners.
Had the South been willing to accept captured black Union soldiers as legitimate prisoners of war, the exchange system that had been in place early in the war would have continue after July 1863. Places like Camp Douglas and Andersonville would not have been needed.
The North ended the parole and exchange system because they calculated that due to their huge manpower advantage, any Southern soldier taken out of circulation was well worth leaving one of their own in captivity.
It was a brutal calculation but one that is rational. Anything else was just an excuse the Union Army leadership needed to give their own civilian population for leaving their sons and brothers to starve in POW camps.
Nice dodge.
Again, you’ll have to make it clear what post you’re responding to.
Lincoln actively lobbied behind the scenes for the amendment. But he didn’t “push it through”. It was Seward and others that authored it and drove the votes.
Lincoln was a careful politician.
You’re shocked that a politician was less than truthful?
I stated that he supported it and that the South buried themselves in a war they could never win instead of accepting victory at the hand of President Lincoln.
C’mon. He was effectively the leader of the party after his election. He didn’t just hear about it shortly before his inaugural address. He pulled the strings.
If the Confederacy was so gung-ho on black soldiers, why did they refuse to treat captured Union black soldiers as prisoners of war. Instead the Confederate Government’s position was that black Union prisoners would be executed or returned to slavery. Funny that the Confederates would be willing to do this to black soldiers from the Union army while they had so many black soldiers in the Confederate Army.
Wrong, the discussions on prisoner exchange were broken off because the Confederate representatives refused to accept black Union soldiers as legitimate prisoners of war.
You don’t understand what it means to be a Federal Government.
When colonies or territories or independent countries like Texas ask to join the Union they do so acknowledging the supremacy of the Union.
The other members vote them in and only the other members can vote them out.
Otherwise a Federal Government like ours is nothing. What if Puerto Rico, after we’ve spent billions on them, votes to become a state. Then after we’ve financed all the modernizations they need, what if they say “Adios!” and take the money and run?
Texas v. White
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/74/700
Ya, I can agree to that.
about 30,000 slaves were freed when the proclaimation became effective. As the Union army advanced into the South, their presence freed the slaves in the areas they occupied. Any slave that could run away from his master and entered Federal lines was no longer a slave, but a free man. Those slaves in the four loyal states remained slaves until the states outlawed slavery or when the 13th amendment was ratified. Those slaves that had been in Union held territory when the proclamation became effective, remained slave until the 13th amendment was ratified.
“Secession is the right of each sovereign state.”
I forgot to address that point. Once any political entity asks to and is allowed into a Federal Government....it is no longer sovereign.
Sovereign means “possessing supreme or ultimate power”. States don’t have that. There is (thankfully) a supremacy clause.
That kind of thinking would allow “Sanctuary States”.
You’re not in favor of that are you?
If the Confederacy was so gung-ho on black soldiers, why did they refuse to treat captured Union black soldiers as prisoners of war. Instead the Confederate Government’s position was that black Union prisoners would be executed or returned to slavery. Funny that the Confederates would be willing to do this to black soldiers from the Union army while they had so many black soldiers in the Confederate Army.
The Union Army’s treatment of Black Confederates was no better.
Wrong, the discussions on prisoner exchange were broken off because the Confederate representatives refused to accept black Union soldiers as legitimate prisoners of war.
That was a pretext. The union army high command (correctly) calculated that ending the prisoner exchange would benefit them due to their much larger population.
Who in the Union Army High Command?
You don’t understand what it means to be a Federal Government.
When colonies or territories or independent countries like Texas ask to join the Union they do so acknowledging the supremacy of the Union.
The other members vote them in and only the other members can vote them out.
Otherwise a Federal Government like ours is nothing. What if Puerto Rico, after we’ve spent billions on them, votes to become a state. Then after we’ve financed all the modernizations they need, what if they say “Adios!” and take the money and run?
You don’t understand. The states were recognize as sovereign in the 1783 Treaty of Paris. They were not about to give up that hard won sovereignty just 8 years later. Had anybody at the time stated that the states could never leave or had that been a term in the constitution, not one state would have ratified it. 3 states including the two biggest and most important ones expressly reserved the right to unilaterally secede just as they had done from the British Empire. Every state understood itself to have that right.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.