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 ...
I have no mistaken impressions, just know clearly the south did a lot of murder and harm to africans. That is my point. Admit it cleanse yourself and move on. Stop trying to give history lessons to a US history major
As was Bedford Forrest at Fort Pillow, Wirz at Andersonville, and the Confederate Government for their refusal to treat captured black soldiers as prisoners of war.
You DO realize Forrest was cleared of any wrongdoing at FT Pillow by a congressional investigation right? By Wirz I assume you mean Henry Wirtz? What exactly did he do that was not surpassed many times over by say, Hoffman at Elmira aka Hellmira. Let alone other infamous federal death camps like Camp Douglas or Point Lookout?
“Ft. Sumter no longer belonged to the United States when South Carolina left the union.”
It was federal property, built by te Federal Government to protect Charleston from the British in the War of 1812.
Setting aside that SC seceded illegally, did SC offer to buy the property from the Union? Nope, check your facts.
In fact, SC seceded on 12/20/1860.
Then, on 1/9/1861 cadets from the Citadel fired on the fort, preventing the steamer Star of the West from transportiung supplies to Fort Sumter.
Only 3 weeks later, on 1/31/61 did SC Governor Pickens demand the surrender of Fort Sumter because “I regard that possession is not consistent with the dignity or safety of the State of South Carolina.”
Quote please. I've provided you with a link to the Lieber Code. Quote the article or articles that you are referring to.
You’re arguing that the deliberate targeting of civilians had been acceptable as general practice among Western powers and by the Lieber Code?
I am asking you to identify the international agreements that you keep referring to. How about it?
That’s funny. This is precisely what I’ve noticed of you.
Now is your chance to prove me wrong.
Lieber Code, Article 85: “War-rebels are persons within an occupied territory who rise in arms against the occupying or conquering army, or against the authorities established by the same. If captured, they may suffer death, whether they rise singly, in small or large bands, and whether called upon to do so by their own, but expelled, government or not. They are not prisoners of war; nor are they if discovered and secured before their conspiracy has matured to an actual rising or armed violence.”
Except that it was never proven that any of the people shot were risen in arms. He ordered his subordinate to simply show up and shoot people at random which is what he did.
Except that never was it established that any of the people which his troops shot had anything to do with the attacks on federal supply trains.
How do you know?
Except that never was it established that any of the people which his troops shot had anything to do with the attacks on federal supply trains.
How do you know that? For that matter how do you know that General Watson shot anyone in response to Sherman's suggestion to begin with?
They decided not to prosecute - not exactly the same thing.
The Slave trade was ended in 1808 by Act of Congress. The last slaves brought into the country were owned and operated by Southerners.
“forcing the South to count blacks as 3/5’s of a person for representational purposes.” At the Constitutional Convention Southern representatives insisted that slaves count one for one for the purposes of representation. The Northern representatives insisted slaves not count at all for the purposes of representation. The compromise agreed to, by the conventions was that slaves would not count one for one or not count at all, but would count as 3/5ths of a person for representation. The compromise was agreed to all, the South was not “forced” to accept it. Stick it.
Fact of the matter is, pure-as-the-driven-snow northerners, who are depicted as the Great White Hope of black slaves riding to the rescue were the ones who insisted that they were not fully human, whereas the south did. That should tell you something, but it obviously doesn’t.
I know facts rather than your revisionist history. I know the South had no plans to attack or invade the north. I know that the north claiming ownership of part of the harbor of a Southern state that had left the union was a direct provocation to force a war. South Carolina had every right to defend itself after it was no longer part of the United States. I know that slavery was NOT the determining factor for the secession because slavery in the South was legal and in no danger, in fact the north had offered an amendment to the Constitution enshrining it forever as legal. I know that the north invaded and laid waste to the South resulting in the deaths of 750,000 young men from both sides for financial reasons rather than moral, high-ground reasons, and then since that time has tried to continue the lie about wanting to free the slaves, etc. I know that the north spent another 12 years rubbing the South through the dirt in the name of “reconstruction”. Yea, those pure as snow northerners. I know all about them. Must be some of your ancestors for you to lie so much about them and what they really did. I know that.
Those who don’t know history are doomed to repeat it. Has any one asked these agitprops why they want to repeat what they are calling slaughter?
Actually this is just more of the Commie plans as discovered and read into the Congressional Record a long time ago:
22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to “eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms.”
30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the “common man.”
31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of the “big picture.” Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over.
You seem to know a lot of things. Some of them are partly true but most of them are not true at all.
When that’s all you’ve got it’s what you bring out. And that’s basically all the Bird has.
Pot. Kettle. Black
How do you know?
Because he ordered civilians to be shot AT RANDOM.
Because his correspondence confirmed it.
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).
General Sherman also wrote to U.S. Brigadier General Louis Douglass Watkins at Calhoun, Georgia, on Oct. 29, 1864: “Can you not send over to Fairmount and Adairsville, burn 10 or 12 houses of known secessionists, kill a few at random and let them know it will be repeated every time a train is fired upon from Resaca to Kingston.”
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.”
They decided not to prosecute - not exactly the same thing.
They weren’t exactly favorably disposed towards him. If they had had any evidence, they would have been only too happy to convict him.
Under the modern definition of war crimes. Forrest would have been found guilty for the actions at Fort Pillow.
The number of deaths of Confederate prisoners combined at the three camps you mention do not equal the total of the number of Union prisoners deaths at Andersonville. At Andersonville 12,900 Union prisoner died. At Camp Douglass, 4454 prisoners died. At Point Lookout 3803 prisoners died. At Elmira 2993 prisoners died. Which was the death camp?
I called Godwin’s law but he thought it was a compliment ;’}
He knew you were full of it is the real explanation. Sherman’s own written order to shoot civilians at random was more evidence than existed for several who were convicted at Nuremburg.
Not true - not in the slightest. The land upon which the fortifications were constructed - using FEDERAL monies BTW - was deeded to the federal government by the State Of South Carolina in perpetuity.
While physical control was in question for a short period, the ownership was never in doubt.
False. South Carolina lawfully seceded.
And like a good liberal you seem addicted to fake news.
Like any good liberal, you worship centralize power.
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.