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 ...
Had nothing to do with Southerners thinking that black slaves were fully human. A southerner would not let his dog or his horse vote, he would not let his slave vote either. But if that slave counted for representation purposes, that would mean the South would have been able to count over 3,000,000 in population for representative purposes. Pure cold blooded politics, no humanity involved.
You keep running on about SC legally seceding.
You are wrong:
The Preamble of the Constitution states, “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union…” As a result, the Constitution was a direct creation of the body of people in the nation themselves.
Thus, the states have no prior claim, via the compact theory, to sit in judgment upon any federal acts.
Only the people themselves, through the federal government, may do so by voting any state out of the Union.
Each state in the confederacy asked the Federal Government to be admitted into the Union.
The Federal Government, afterwards then agreed, and states were admitted and became part of the Federal Government.
Only the Federal Government can undo itself.
The war that followed and all of its consequences are the responsibility of the confederacy, they caused it.
It is time for confederacy supporters to accept that they were wrong and that they lost. You are a part of the United States of America. Deal with it.
If you want to pretend that the war-torn, short lived Confederacy that by that time could barely feed it’s own residents let alone it’s own troops, somehow conspired to mistreat prisoners of war, then you’re free to imagine whatever you want. You’re also free to imagine that Confederates who were prisoners of war in the north had a walk in the park. I have a second great uncle who died of peritonitis at Pt. Lookout, Maryland. He’d been gut shot and lingered untreated. So, pardon me if I don’t join in on being aghast at Andersonville. Your man Sherman, how did he put it? Oh, that’s right, war is hell and he was talking about civilians.
You avoided to address the Southern treatment of black Union Soldiers of War. Southerners stated they would treat captured black soldiers as they would treat run away slaves, execute them or send them back to the cotton fields. Sorta like the Germans sending American Jewish prisoners of war to the Concentration Camps instead of the Stalag.
Why didn’t they buy American then?
Why didn’t they buy Northern? Because it was more expensive and not as good.
This is false. They were not doing the exporting. The Southern states were responsible for the overwhelming majority of exports...and thus the overwhelming majority of imports since the cash crops were exchanged for manufactured goods the Southern owners of those cash crops having already paid for the ships. So when those manufactured goods were shipped back in, it was they who were hit especially hard by the tariffs.....the Northern states then saw fit to apportion themselves 80% of all federal expenditures for corporate subsidies and infrastructure projects.
As Adams notes, the South paid an undue proportion of federal revenues derived from tariffs, and these were expended by the federal government more in the North than the South: in 1840, the South paid 84% of the tariffs, rising to 87% in 1860. They paid 83% of the $13 million federal fishing bounties paid to New England fishermen, and also paid $35 million to Northern shipping interests which had a monopoly on shipping from Southern ports. The South, in effect, was paying tribute to the North. When in the Course of Human Events: Arguing the Case for Southern Succession Charles Adams
So, what was the difference? Oh, that's right, they were black and they were slaves. So by all means, feel free to count them as less than a person.
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.
Exactly. It was ALL about greed. Congressman Lincoln thought secession fine and dandy for everyone...”a principle to liberate the world” as he put it. When he became president and was told by his corporate supporters how much MONEY they stood to lose if their cash cow ie the Southern states left, well then he decided that government no longer derived its legitimacy from the consent of the governed. Northern Newspapers were filled with calls for war based strictly on their financial interest. A sampling:
The predicament in which both the government and the commerce of the country are placed, through the non-enforcement of our revenue laws, is now thoroughly understood the world over....If the manufacturer at Manchester (England) can send his goods into the Western States through New Orleans at less cost than through New York, he is a fool for not availing himself of his advantage....if the importations of the country are made through Southern ports, its exports will go through the same channel. The produce of the West, instead of coming to our own port by millions of tons to be transported abroad by the same ships through which we received our importations, will seek other routes and other outlets. With the loss of our foreign trade, what is to become of our public works, conducted at the cost of many hundred millions of dollars, to turn into our harbor the products of the interior? They share in the common ruin. So do our manufacturers. Once at New Orleans, goods may be distributed over the whole country duty free. The process is perfectly simple. The commercial bearing of the question has acted upon the North. We now see whither our tending, and the policy we must adopt. With us it is no longer an abstract question of Constitutional construction, or of the reserved or delegated power of the State or Federal Government, but of material existence and moral position both at home and abroad. We were divided and confused till our pockets were touched.” New York Times March 30, 1861 The Old Gray Lady makes it clear it was all about MONEY.
“The Southern Confederacy will not employ our ships or buy our goods. What is our shipping without it? Literally nothing. The transportation of cotton and its fabrics employs more than all other trade. It is very clear the South gains by this process and we lose. No, we must not let the South go.” The Manchester, New Hampshire Union Democrat Feb 19 1861
That either revenue from these duties must be collected in the ports of the rebel states, or the ports must be closed to importations from abroad. If neither of these things be done, our revenue laws are substantially repealed, the sources which supply our treasury will be dried up. We shall have no money to carry on the government, the nation will become bankrupt before the next crop of corn is ripe....allow railroad iron to be entered at Savannah with the low duty of ten percent which is all that the Southern Confederacy think of laying on imported goods, and not an ounce more would be imported at New York. The Railways would be supplied from the southern ports.” New York Evening Post March 12, 1861 article “What Shall be Done for a Revenue?”
December 1860, before any secession, the Chicago Daily Times foretold the disaster that Southern free ports would bring to Northern commerce: “In one single blow our foreign commerce must be reduced to less than one-half what it now is. Our coastwide trade would pass into other hands. One-half of our shipping would lie idle at our wharves. We should lose our trade with the South, with all of its immense profits. Our manufactories would be in utter ruins. Let the South adopt the free-trade system, or that of a tariff for revenue, and these results would likely follow.”Chicago Daily Times Dec 1860
A diet too rich in deloranzo?
More like a diet too rich in PC Revisionism. Ever notice that the Acadmics on the other side are big government worshiping Leftists?
I never said the north did nothing. I said the south did to africans worse than lincoln did to them. Bite on that reb
The North was only too happy to profit from it both in selling the slaves in the first place, then in servicing goods produced at least in part by slave labor (Insurers, Shippers, Bankers, etc) and in deriving most of the money to run the government and pay for corporate subsidies and infrastructure projects paid overwhelmingly by Southerners who were doing most of the importing once their cash crops were exchanged for manufactured goods in England and France.
As the 3 New England Journalists who wrote Complicity how the North Promoted, Prolonged and Profited from Slavery said “this was slavery the way the North liked it - most of the profits and none of the screams”.
No thank you
Goose, Gander, etc
False yourself.
They tried but failed. It was in all the papers.
Never claimed that being a Confederate prisoner in a Union prison was a walk in the park. Just that a more Union prisoners died in Confederate captivity, than Confederate prisoners in Union captivity. That is a fact. Both the Officials of the United States and Confederacy bear blame for the abhorrent treatment of prisoner of war. For what it is worth a lot of Union soldiers died at Point Lookout. It was also a major army hospital. Confederate prisoners captured in the Eastern theater normally spent a short time at Point Lookout, before being sent to camps in other parts
of the Union. The death toll at this camp is high because they received almost all of the wounded Confederate prisoners from front.
Slaves were murdered, tortured, crippled, and families split up. I never stated number, because their was on census question for what did you do to how may slaves this year? Being an apologist for inhumanity is not your best characteristic. I made a simple ,point and it was true and you are spinning and lashing out to try to make some point that is clearly irrelevant to how this started. Bye-bye. What are you a PR major?
The Federal Governments only cash payments to the railroads before the Civil War was for hauling Federal freight and the United States Mail. They paid those monies to the railroads in the North and to the railroads in the South. The Federal Government did not directly subsidize any railroad construction in the United States until the Transcontinental Railroad project, which started after the Southern States seceded from the Union.
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 the truth that Confederacy was created on the concept that it was justifiable to own people as one owned a dog or a horse. Creating a constitution that codified that principle to the point that it was illegal for any state of the Confederacy to outlaw the institution of slavery. To be a member of the Confederacy you had to recognize the legitimacy of the Slavery.
False. The Confederate Constitution allowed for states that did not have slavery. Had the Southern States been primarily concerned with preserving slavery they could have simply accepted the Corwin Amendment - the North’s “Slavery Forever” constitutional Amendment which Lincoln endorsed in his inaugural address. The Northern Dominated congress had already passed it with the required supermajority and the president had already signed it.
I’m not an apologist for anything, what was, was. I have no need to sugarcoat the bad, nor do I have the need to paint my opponents as eeeevillll as you apparently do. I just think you’ve been indoctrinated, you respond in typical doctrinaire fashion by accusing me of being a bad person.
Keep on grunting “north gooooood, south baaaaaaad” I’m sure you’ll at least succeed in preaching to your fellow victims of public schools.
I’ve noticed that most historians lean to the left. So one has to take them ALL with a grain of salt and do your own research.
With dilorenzo however you have to take the whole shaker.
Unlike those altruistic Southerners, full of humanity for their chattel property, whom they could whip at will, rape at will, sell papa, or mama or any of the kids if they so chose to do so, when ever they chose to. Those same Southern slave owners that wanted their beloved property to count as a full human being for purposes of representation.
So by all means, feel free to count them as caring one whit about the humanity of slaves.
I had to come back and address the continuing misconceptions and accusations you make. I went to catholic schools for 12 years in the 50s and 60s when they were really catholic and made deans list in college. I learned to read and write and answer questions and respond to point as they were stated not make up stuff to try to defeat simple obvious facts as you weekly attempt to do.
I never said anything about the north being evil or not, but you might ask your moral friends what is more evil killing, raping, torturing, maiming, and casatrating or the people who try to stop,it.
I don’t preach or teach punic schools, i work dina place for 28 years keeping epoplefrom raping and murduring you and selling drugs to your kind.
Quote please. I’ve provided you with a link to the Lieber Code. Quote the article or articles that you are referring to.
Art. 11.
The law of war does not only disclaim all cruelty and bad faith concerning engagements concluded with the enemy during the war, but also the breaking of stipulations solemnly contracted by the belligerents in time of peace, and avowedly intended to remain in force in case of war between the contracting powers.
It disclaims all extortions and other transactions for individual gain; all acts of private revenge, or connivance at such acts.
Offenses to the contrary shall be severely punished, and especially so if committed by officers.
Art. 16.
Military necessity does not admit of cruelty - that is, the infliction of suffering for the sake of suffering or for revenge, nor of maiming or wounding except in fight, nor of torture to extort confessions. It does not admit of the use of poison in any way, nor of the wanton devastation of a district. It admits of deception, but disclaims acts of perfidy; and, in general, military necessity does not include any act of hostility which makes the return to peace unnecessarily difficult.
Art. 22.
Nevertheless, as civilization has advanced during the last centuries, so has likewise steadily advanced, especially in war on land, the distinction between the private individual belonging to a hostile country and the hostile country itself, with its men in arms. The principle has been more and more acknowledged that the unarmed citizen is to be spared in person, property, and honor as much as the exigencies of war will admit.
Art. 23.
Private citizens are no longer murdered, enslaved, or carried off to distant parts, and the inoffensive individual is as little disturbed in his private relations as the commander of the hostile troops can afford to grant in the overruling demands of a vigorous war.
Art. 25.
In modern regular wars of the Europeans, and their descendants in other portions of the globe, protection of the inoffensive citizen of the hostile country is the rule; privation and disturbance of private relations are the exceptions.
All of these sections can fairly be considered to be violated by an order to shoot civilians AT RANDOM without any showing that they were in any way involved in guerilla activity.
As awful as it sounds to modern ears, they were valuable property as was their work product. So, envisioning some sort of system wherein such valuable property was routinely killed, maimed and otherwise devalued is overwrought emotionalism.
Recall that slavery had existed since the dawn of written history at the time, practiced practically the world over with the exception being English Protestants beginning in the seventeenth century. The Caribbean Isles had it, South America had it, Africa certainly had and still has it. Can people mistreat their property, even destroy it? Yes and sometimes they did and do. However, to depict this as the normal state of things just flies in the face of logic.
So, those altruistic, pure as the driven snow northerners, planning to ride in on their white horses to save the slaves from the evil southerners, insisted that those same slaves were not fully human for some strange reason. Those same northerners who profited from the slave trade both directly early on, and later indirectly had a mysterious desire to diminish the personhood of black people. Now why might that be? Was it caring about their humanity? No, it was an exercise in political power and they cared not one whit about the humanity of slaves.
See how that works?
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.