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 ...
Exactly...No matter how much they try to whitewash it, what happened, happened...
Thank Goodness God put some smart people here on earth to make wonderful fruits and vegetable more attractive and edible. We are so fortunate to live at this time. I love carrots, bananas, and absolutely LOVE corn. In fact, I’m getting ready to plant some corn, one month late, here, in central Texas. Actually, I love any food that doesn’t get me first. Yes, hubby holds an armful.
WHERE is Humboldt State. What kind of a school is it?
What gave the north ownership of the South such that they could FORCE them to remain in a union where they were being financially raped by northern interest? The South left, peacefully. That wasn't good enough for the northern financiers who were profiting from the slanted trade and tariff rules resulting in one fourth of the population paying 90 percent of the funding for the federal government. Your monster government today is who won the war. Be proud.
LOL, how do you think we lost to the European Invaders? We, in some instances, were to busy arguing with one another and the Europeans took advantage of that. It’s history...Don’t gripe.
In the olden days, before we even thought up the name of millinians, baby boomers, and those names in between, anyone who removed something because someone was offended, we called that person or organization, “CS”. I loved The Dukes of Hazzar.
Then the “southeners” had better stand up for their Flag and Statues. Don’t knuckle under to a bunch of loud mouth foreigners who are offended and want to destroy you.
In the olden days, before we even thought up the name of millinians, baby boomers, and those names in between, anyone who removed something because someone was offended, we called that person or organization, “CS”. I loved The Dukes of Hazzard. (OOPS)
As I said, there some that would consider it treason, some do not. Some consider secession legal, some do not.
“The north had imposed it’s opinion of blacks in the South by having them count as 3/5’s of a person for representational purposes.”
The South’s position was that slaves would count one for one for the purposes of representation in Congress. The Northern position was that slaves would not count at all for the purposes of representation. The solution was not “imposed” it was a compromise, agreed to by all that slaves would count for only 3/5ths of a person for representative purposes.
“The South left, peacefully”. Then proceeded to steal several million dollars of United States Property, fire on ships flying the flag of the United States, fire on a United States Amy installation and issue letters of Marque allowing southern sea captains to capture American flagged ships. All of this done without the United States having fired a shot.
The primary cause, as enunciated by the slaver’s themselves, was the Peculiar Institution. All other considerations took a far distant second place to slavery.
“When one starts a war, one should understand the possible consequences of not winning it.”
So murder and rape are dandy as candy, if you’re on the winning side. I never knew.
Actually there were very good economic reasons for the south seceeding and slavery wasn’t the big one
https://www.americancivilwarforum.com/the-north/south-controversy-was-an-economic-one-470.html
And you do realise that New England talked about secession over the War of 1812.
https://www.americancivilwarforum.com/the-north/south-controversy-was-an-economic-one-470.html
Thus proving yourself no better than those you criticize.
“...The 8th Census of the United States, conducted in 1860, which you can look through here, put the percentage of Americans who owned slaves at just under 5%. Of those, the vast majority owned only a handful of slaves or less. Slave ownership was concentrated in the hands of a small subset of the Southern population, usually referred to as the “Planter Class”....”
Sure...All the others were more concerned about slaves than they were concerned about the exorbitant price of goods needed from the north...Prices set by the taxes and tariffs instilled by the industrial north...
The non slave owners weren’t worried about their own living expenses, only about slavery that they had no hand in....
Yeah.....Right...
Thus proving yourself no better than those you criticize.
Not at all. He was a war criminal. If anybody’s statues deserve to come down, its his. Its disgraceful any were ever put up in the first place.
Only if you factor in all the states of the United states:
State.......Number of Slaves....Percentage
Alabama - 435,080 - 35%
Arkansas - 111,115 - 20%
Florida - 61,745 - 34%
Georgia - 462,198 - 37%
Louisiana - 331,726 - 29%
Mississippi- 791,305 - 49%
N. Carolina -331,059 - 28%
S. Carolina- 402,406 - 46%
Tennessee - 149,335 - 25%
Texas - 182,566 - 28%
Virginia - 490,865 - 26%
That puts the average closer to 33%
jeff davis was a war criminal, not Sherman.
Nope. Davis did not deliberately target civilians. Sherman did.
The pillaging and plundering of private property and the murder and rape of civilians was so widespread that even the pro-Sherman biographer Lee Kennett wrote in Marching through Georgia (page 286) that “had the Confederates somehow won . . . they would have found themselves justified . . . in stringing up President Lincoln and the entire Union high command for violation of the laws of war, specifically for waging war against noncombatants.”
In Citizen Sherman Michael Fellman describes how Sherman’s chief engineer, Captain O.M. Poe, advised that the bombing of Atlanta was of no military significance (the Confederates had already abandoned the city) and implored Sherman to stop the bombardment after viewing the carcasses of dead women and children in the streets. Sherman coldly told him the dead bodies were “a beautiful sight” and commenced the destruction of 90 percent of all the buildings in Atlanta. After that, the remaining 2,000 residents were evicted from their homes just as winter was approaching.
In October of 1864 Sherman even ordered the murder of randomly chosen citizens in retaliation for Confederate Army attacks. He wrote to General Louis D. Watkins: “Cannot you send over about Fairmount and Adairsville, burn ten or twelve houses . . ., kill a few at random, and let them know that it will be repeated every time a train is fired upon . . .” (See John Bennett Walters, Merchant of Terror: General Sherman and Total War, p. 137).
Brigadier General Edward M. McCook, First Cavalry Division of Cavalry Corps, at Calhoun, Georgia, on October 30, 1864, reported to Sherman, “My men killed some of those fellows two or three days since, and I had their houses burned....I will carry out your instructions thoroughly and leave the country east of the road uninhabitable.”
The indiscriminate bombing of Southern cities, which was outlawed by international law at the time, killed hundreds, if not thousands of slaves. The slaves were targeted by Union Army plunderers as much as anyone. As Grimsley writes, “With the utter disregard for blacks that was the norm among Union troops, the soldiers ransacked the slave cabins, taking whatever they liked.” A typical practice was to put a hangman’s noose around a slave’s neck and threaten to hang him unless he revealed where the household’s jewelry and silverware were hidden. Some slaves were beaten to death by Union soldiers.
“The government of the U.S. has any and all rights which they choose to enforce in war - to take their lives, their homes, their land, their everything...war is simply unrestrained by the Constitution...to the persistent secessionist, why, death is mercy, and the quicker he or she is disposed of the better...” Mjr. Gen. W. T. Sherman, Jan. 31, 1864.
“The more Indians we can kill this year the fewer we will need to kill the next, because the more I see of the Indians the more convinced I become that they must either all be killed or be maintained as a species of pauper. Their attempts at civilization is ridiculous...” Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman
This war on citizens was not simply restrained to be applied against men and women but also children. Gen. Sherman in a June 21, 1864, letter to Lincoln’s Sec. of War, Edwin Station wrote, “There is a class of people men, women and children, who must be killed or banished before you can hope for peace and order.”
in 1862 Sherman was bothered that “the country” was “swarming with dishonest Jews” (see Michael Fellman, Citizen Sherman, p. 153). He got his close friend, General Grant, to expel all Jews from his army. As Fellman writes, “On December 17, 1862, Grant . . . , like a medieval monarch . . . expelled The Jews, as a class,’ from his department.” (Grant’s infamous General order #11) Sherman biographer Fellman further writes that to Sherman, the Jews were “like n****rs” and “like gr****rs (Mexicans) or Indians” in that they were “classes or races permanently inferior to his own.”
He was also a railroad investor and he lobbied his brother, Senator John Sherman, to allocate federal funds for the transcontinental railroad. “We are not going to let a few thieving, ragged Indians stop and check the progress of the railroad,” he wrote to General Grant in 1867 (Fellman, p. 264). As Fellman writes:
[T]he great triumvirate of the Union Civil War effort [Grant, Sherman and Sheridan] formulated and enacted military Indian policy until reaching, by The 1880s, what Sherman sometimes referred to as “the final solution of the Indian problem,” which he defined as killing hostile Indians and segregating their pauperized survivors in remote places . . . .
Sherman wrote to Grant: “We must act with vindictive earnestness against the Sioux, even to their extermination, men, women and children.” Writing two days later to his brother John, General Sherman said: “I suppose the Sioux must be exterminated . . .” (Fellman, p. 264).
With this attitude, Sherman issued the following order to his troops at the beginning of the Indian Wars: “During an assault, the soldiers cannot pause to distinguish between male and female, or even discriminate as to age. As long as resistance is made, death must be meted out . . .” (Marszalek, p. 379).
Most of the raids on Indian camps were conducted in the winter, when families would be together and could therefore all be killed at once. Sherman gave Sheridan “authorization to slaughter as many women and children as well as men Sheridan or his subordinates felt was necessary when they attacked Indian villages” (Fellman, p. 271). All livestock was also killed so that any survivors would be more likely to starve to death.
Sherman was once brought before a congressional committee after federal Indian agents, who were supposed to be supervising the Indians who were on reservations, witnessed “the horror of women and children under military attack.” Nothing came of the hearings, however. Sherman ordered his subordinates to kill the Indians without restraint to achieve what he called “the final solution of the Indian problem,” and promised that if the newspapers found out about it he would “run interference against any complaints about atrocities back East” (Fellman, p. 271).
By 1890 Sherman’s “final solution” had been achieved: The Plains Indians were all either killed or placed on reservations “where they can be watched.” In a December 18, 1890 letter to the New York Times Sherman expressed his deep disappointment over the fact that, were it not for “civilian interference,” his army would have “gotten rid of them all” and killed every last Indian in the U.S. (Marszalek, p. 400).
The north proved that secession was legal.
God bless William T. Sherman - the right man for the job.
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.