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 ...
Who in the Union Army High Command?
Grant primarily though Stanton and Scott must have had input as well. There was Congressional investigation/testimony about this in later years.
In refutation of the charge that prisoners were starved, let it be noted that the Confederate Congress in May, 1861, passed a bill providing that the rations furnished to prisoners of war should be the same in quantity and quality as those issued to the enlisted men in the army of the Confederacy. And the prisoners at Andersonville received the same rations that were furnished the Confederate guard.
During the amnesty debate in the House of Representatives in 1876, Hill, of Georgia, replying to statements of Blaine, discussed the history of the exchange of prisoners, dwelling on the fact that the cartel which was established in 1862 was interrupted in 1863, and that the Federal authorities refused to continue the exchange of prisoners. “The next effort,” he said, “in the same direction was made in January, 1864, when Robert Ould, Confederate agent of exchange, wrote to the Federal agent of exchange, proposing, in view of the difficulties attending the release of prisoners, that the surgeons of the army on each side be allowed to attend their own soldiers while prisoners in the hands of the enemy, and should have charge of their nursing and medicine and provisions; which proposition was also rejected.”
Continuing, Mr. Hill said: “In August, 1864, there were two more propositions. The cartel of exchange had been broken by the Federals under certain pretences, and the prisoners were accumulating on both sides to such an extent that Mr. Ould made another proposition to waive every objection and to agree to whatever terms the Federal Government would demand, and to renew the exchange of prisoners, man for man, and officer for officer, just as the Federal Government might prescribe. That proposition was also rejected. In the same month, August, 1864, finding that the Federal Government would neither exchange prisoners nor agree to sending surgeons to the prisoners on each side, the Confederate Government officially proposed, in August, 1864, that if the Federal Government would send steamers and transports to Savannah, the Confederate Government would return the sick and wounded prisoners on its hands without an equivalent. That proposition, which was communicated to the Federal authorities in August, 1864, was not answered until December, 1864, when some ships were sent to Savannah. The record will show that the chief suffering, the chief mortality at Andersonville, was between August and December, 1864. We sought to allay that suffering by asking you to take your prisoners off our hands without equivalent, and without asking you to return a man for them, and you refused.”
Mr. Hill quoted a series of resolutions passed by the Federal prisoners at Andersonville in 1864, September 28th, in which all due praise is given the Confederate Government for the attention paid them, and in which it was said that the sufferings which they endured were not caused intentionally by the Confederate Government, but by the force of circumstances. Commenting, Mr. Hill said: “Brave men are always honest, and true soldiers never slander; I would believe the statement of those gallant soldiers at Andersonville, as contained in those resolutions, in preference to the whole tribe of Republican politicians.”
Cite correspondence by Grant to the “high Command” Grant was up to his ass at Vicksburg at the time the prisoner of war negotiations were going on.
How many black Confederate soldiers were held as prisoners of war by the Union Army.
The colony/states that collectively fought the Brits were sovereign until they collectively agreed to the Constitution four years later on September 17th 1787.
The founding states were obviously highly protective of their prized independent and sovereign status.
Yet, all of them collectively wrote and agreed to the Constitution without a word of any way to leave the Federal Government and regain their sovereignty.
They knew what they were giving up. As Franklin stated “We must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately.”
Cite correspondence by Grant to the “high Command” Grant was up to his ass at Vicksburg at the time the prisoner of war negotiations were going on.
When Ulysses S. Grant became overall commander of the Union Army in March, 1864, he brought an end to exchanges. He told General Benjamin F. Butler that “He said that I would agree with him that by the exchange of prisoners we get no men fit to go into our army, and every soldier we gave the Confederates went immediately into theirs, so that the exchange was virtually so much aid to them and none to us.”
The decision of Ulysses S. Grant obviously increased the suffering of prisoners held by both sides but his defenders argued that this policy helped to reduce the length of the war. Grant’s policy was also partly responsible for the disaster at Andersonville. The Confederate Army was so burdened with Union prisoners that by November, 1864, they began to send them back to the North without gaining anything in exchange.
After the conflict came to an end the War Department published figures to show that of the 200,000 members of the Confederate Army captured, over 26,500 died in captivity. Of the 260,526 prisoners that the Confederates took, 22,526 members of the Union Army died. This indicated that 13% of Confederate prisoners died compared to 8 per cent of Federal prisoners.
http://spartacus-educational.com/USACWexchange.htm
First link that came up. I’d read it before anyway. It was brutal but I don’t disagree with his math.
How many black Confederate soldiers were held as prisoners of war by the Union Army.
Since they were often murdered immediately upon arrival at camps like Camp Douglas.....
The colony/states that collectively fought the Brits were sovereign until they collectively agreed to the Constitution four years later on September 17th 1787.
The founding states were obviously highly protective of their prized independent and sovereign status.
Yet, all of them collectively wrote and agreed to the Constitution without a word of any way to leave the Federal Government and regain their sovereignty.
They knew what they were giving up. As Franklin stated “We must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately.”
The states not only never agreed to give up their sovereignty, the USSC has repeatedly continued to recognize their sovereignty in numerous decisions.
They did not need permission in the constitution to leave. That would presuppose they had agreed to surrender that right. The federal government would need permission in the constitution to stop them. Nowhere was it ever granted that power. The quote from Franklin was during the colonies’ war of secession from the British Empire and had nothing to do with later ratification of the constitution - which did not exist at the time he said that.
The exchange of prisoners ended in July 1863. Most of the Confederate prisoners of war from Gettysburg went to prison camps for the remainder of the war. Those Confederates that surrendered at Vicksburg were paroled upon surrender and had dispersed before Grant learned that the exchange of prisoners had ended. In his memoirs, Grant estimates that only half of the 29,000 Confederates soldiers paroled at Vicksburg ever returned to Confederate service.
Of course you can cite some reliable source to support your statement.
democrat election posters are offensive to me. Can we outlaw them also?
So, the widely taught reason necessitating the 13th Amendment, that the states of the former Confederacy under reconstruction were not accepting former slaves as citizens, is not exactly the whole truth, is it now? Fact was, slavery still existed in the Union slave states, slavery wasn't abolished by the war, slaves weren't all "freed" by the defeat of the Confederacy. Slaves remained in bondage in Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky and Missouri for eight months longer.
Why is that, if the Union fought to free the slaves as so many mistakenly insist? The reason for this is that the Union did not fight to free the slaves, that was a military ploy devised during the war to foment rebellion in the Confederacy. After the war's end, this wartime proclamation created certain difficulties in Union states, that required amending the Constitution of the United States to resolve.
So ya got nothing.
Why do you think Northern Manufacturers were screaming for protective tariffs? It was because France and especially Britain had first mover advantages. They had economies of scale already in place and could thus afford to undercut northern manufacturers on price.
For the same reason why manufacturers are screaming for tariffs today. To protect their bottom line, ensure they made money, and keep foreign competition from undercutting them. And yes, it helped promote business growth in the U.S.
They did. The Southern Planters had to charter the ships to sail to British ports. Sailing back empty would have been a huge waste. They needed to fill the holds with something to make the return journey economically viable. They filled the holds naturally, with manufactured goods.
That is by far the dumbest theory I've heard from you to date. And that's saying a lot.
So you have no response. Adams is a tax expert by the way
None is necessary. Adams, like you, makes a lot of claims without supporting sources.
You really need to read sources other than the Chief PC Revisionist McPherson.
How about "Statement Showing the Amount of Revenue Collected Annually", Executive Document No.33, 36th Congress, 1st Session, 1860" as quoted in "Lifeline of the Confederacy: Blockade Running During the Civil War" by Stephen Wise? Is that source OK?
Who cares where a ship docks? Who pays? Does the port pay? Does the state pay out of the goodness of its heart? Or does the owner of the goods pay a tariff? I think we both know the answer to that.
It matters. Tariffs are paid where the goods enter the U.S. They are paid by the importer, and no doubt the price is passed on to the consumer. So back to the original question: if 84% to 87% of all imported goods were destined for Southern consumers then why did 95% of imported goods go to Northern ports instead of to their intended consumers?
I never said the imported goods were only for Southerners.
You said the South paid 84 to 87 percent of the tariffs. If they paid the tariffs then the goods were obviously intended for them.
Shipping at that time was routed through New York primarily.
And yet the same source I quoted earlier showed that over 90% of all cotton exports left through Southern ports - $107 million from New Orleans alone. Why weren't they routed through New York?
posing the war as one to end slavery is what kept the Brits and the French from active involvement on the side of the Confederacy. A very pragmatic and smart move by the Lincoln administration.
I don’t doubt the military value of such “posing” Bull Snipe. My intent is to correct widespread mistaken impressions regarding the nature of that war. All too many people believe what they’ve been taught, that the north fought to free the slaves, that the south was uniquely evil in seeking to perpetuate slavery. Slavery continued on in former states of the Union after the war, however. There were Union slaves. Facts are difficult things.
preaching to the choir. I learned this 55 years ago.
Oh no, I assume you know the difference. But, in case you haven't noticed, there are going on several generations who were taught a Cliff Notes version of the US Civil War wherein the Union heroically fought to free the slaves and were victorious over those evil slavers in the south. Facts do not line up with such assertions, far from it. There were Union slaves, who were not "freed" at the conclusion of the Civil War. The Constitution of the United States was not amended due to mistreatment of former slaves in former Confederate states, it was amended because slaves were still legally held in former Union states. The freeing of slaves was not the motivation for war, it was a ploy in the form of a wartime proclamation intended to foment slave rebellion in Confederate states.
So you chose to quote from the Section 1 of the Lieber Code. Fine, let's look at that. Article 11. I'm not seeing the relevance. Disclaim cruelty and bad faith? As a wise man once said, "War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out." Civilians suffer in war, and civilians in Civil War tend to suffer worst of all. Did the Union armies deliberately set out to make Southern civilians suffer? In some cases perhaps, as Confederates did the same to Union civilians. But it wasn't established policy.
Article 16. Again, not sure of the relevance. While your opinions will no doubt lead you to the contrary I'm not sure what facts support your claim of this article's applicability.
Article 22. This has the disclaimer "as far as the exigencies of war will permit." Goods that supported the Confederate war effort were legitimate targets be they food, cotton, slaves, transportation infrastructure, or cities that the Confederate army barricaded themselves in.
Article 23. No doubt you are referring to the tale of the Roswell women, whose story has been so inflated over time that I have no idea what the real circumstances are. But considering the rebel army had a tendency to kidnap free blacks during their campaigns in Maryland and Pennsylvania and return them south to slavery then I believe this is an article that both sides could fairly be accused of ignoring. Partial credit to you.
Article 25. Protection of innocent civilians was the rule in the Union army. Were there exceptions? Certainly. To quote the great man once again, "If the people raise a great howl against my barbarity and cruelty, I will answer that war is war, and not popularity seeking." But for the most part civilians were protected. Their property was respected. And their suffering kept to a minimum. Your opinions to the contrary notwithstanding.
But, in case you haven’t noticed, there are going on several generations who were taught a Cliff Notes version of the US Civil War wherein slavery had absolutely nothing to do with secession or the Civil War. They were taught that “States Rights”, tariffs, taxes,internal improvements, cabals of New York bankers, and just about any other reason that one could conger up were the reasons for secession.
They were taught that Robert E. Lee was the greatest general in all the world, and the Ulysses S. Grant was nothing but a drunken, cold blooded butcher, without the least bit of military ability. They were taught that one Confederate soldier could easily whip ten of the pasty face, sausage eating foreign hirelings in the Yankee army. They were taught that the only reason the North won the Civil War was vast hoards of Yankee soldiers simply overpowering the brave, righteous, courageous Southern armies. The real facts do not line up with such assertions.
Unlike the tale of the virtuous north, which is enforced in practically every school and university, no school is indoctrinating people in those pro-south defensive assertions, which are not entirely without merit although they’re not entirely meritorious, either. The fact is that the US Civil War was entirely about secession, it was not about slavery. The end of slavery in the US was a mere side effect. Robert E. Lee was an honorable man, who was offered the command of the Union army but refused to go to war against his family, friends and neighbors. Grant actually was a drunk but a wiley one. We’d call him a high-functioning alcoholic these days, I suppose.
Why did they secede if not to protect slavery?
Grant actually was a drunk but a wiley one.
A drunk who beat every rebel general sent against him, even the virtuous ones. What does that say about them?
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.