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 ...
Yes really.
Those taxes and tariffs were placed on goods the south bought from Europe in trade with their cotton...
Why didn't they buy American then?
The north already had those industrial products and charged the south MORE for them than did Europe...
They also charged consumers in the north MORE for them than did Europe. Tariffs were applied equally North and South. Northern consumers paid the same inflated prices for domestically produced goods and the same prices inflated by tariffs for imported goods that Southerners did. They did not hit the South any harder than they did the North.
BS, the tariff effected Northern Industry also. One example is wool. The Tariff acts raised the tariff on wool just as it did on other raw materials imported into the United States. The Northern cloth manufacturers imported in large quantities from England. The South had little use for wool, because they could not manufacture it into cloth. The Northern cloth manufactures had to pay higher prices for the wool because of the tariffs. What manufacturing there was in the South benefited from those tariffs. Tredegar Iron in Richmond, VA benefited from the tariffs on iron plate, and finished machinery, things that they could manufacture, and sell.
Now I will agree that the tariffs drove up the prices of French lace, fine English riding saddles & Boots, French perfumes, British sterling silver, Spode China and a lot of the finery that the Slave holding Aristocracy in the South desire, but the few manufacturing operations in the South benefited, and some Northern manufacturers were hurt by tariffs. Tariffs are Constitutionally legal and those acts were passed by the Congress of the United States.
There were far more committed by the union as one would expect of an invader. In any event, Lincoln started the war, not the Confederates. He is the one who sent a heavily armed flotilla into confederate territory.
I was just thinking that Stan Watie isn’t gonna like this - not one bit!
Leaving aside for a moment the bald-faced lie about “indiscriminate bombing of Southern cities”, had it actually happened then what was this international law you speak of that outlawed it?
Leaving aside the fact that he actually did it (which he did) and thus your claim of it being a lie is itself a lie, the US Army’s own Lieber code forbade the deliberate targeting of civilians.
This is wrong and is the refrain of war criminals from time immemorial. There very much were conventions governing the deliberate targeting of civilians both in the conduct of war among western powers for centuries beforehand as well as the Lieber Code which was supposed to govern the conduct of the US military in the conflict. There is no doubt that by both convention of the time as well as the Lieber Code Sherman was a war criminal - not that I expect you to admit the obvious truth of this.
If that sort of thing is what's going on, I don't have a problem with it, but I suspect the changes proposed will go much further than that.
and let it be known that men were convicted and hanged at Nuremburg on less evidence of war crimes than exists for the war criminal Sherman. His own words damn him. Its hardly surprising a PC Revisionist would try to make excuses for him.
Isn’t it ironic that Franz Lieber had jeff davis in mind (for his treatment of black POW’s) than Sherman?
OK...Y’all win...I’m tired of going over and over this...
Your unsupported claim and opinion delivered as fact are duly noted.
Its far more ironic that federals were far more likely to break the traditional rules of war than Confederates were.
Its far more ironic that federals were far more likely to break the traditional rules of war than Confederates were.
His written order to shoot people at random are ample evidence. Let alone his openly genocidal policy toward natives.
It’s not any more true when you say it twice (as a matter of fact, it isn’t true at all). But I’ll take it as a article of faith that you suck it all down - dry.
My favorite Sherman quote is so succinct: “War is hell”
Name ONE property that the South claimed ownership of after they seceded that was in the north. They paid the majority of the taxes which had gone to building the railroad system of the north yet left that behind when they seceded. The north had NO claim to anything in the South after the secession except the claim that you and your modern-day friends insist is northern ownership of the entire South and it’s people as well as THEIR chosen future. What arrogance. Killing all those young men in the prime of their lives wasn’t good enough. You have to live with the guilt of massaging the truth to justify what was done even to this day. What Lincoln and the north did to the South was pure evil driven by greed. That you continue the farce of arguing it’s merits says a lot about who you are and it isn’t pretty.
What Lincoln did to the south was almost a bad as what the south did to africans
Really? Leaving aside the fact that the Leiber Code is not an international agreement, where does it forbid that?
General Order No. 100: The Lieber Code
There very much were conventions governing the deliberate targeting of civilians both in the conduct of war among western powers for centuries beforehand as well as the Lieber Code which was supposed to govern the conduct of the US military in the conflict.
Name one.
There is no doubt that by both convention of the time as well as the Lieber Code Sherman was a war criminal - not that I expect you to admit the obvious truth of this.
I've noticed that there is seldom much truth in anything you post.
Why do these threads always bring out the BS and exaggeration?
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.