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 ...
There comes the indoctrination again, you clearly believe that the north entered the war with the intent of freeing the slaves. Go ahead, admit it. This is what you believe. Never mind history, you actually believe this.
I’ve got news for you, you’re mistaken.
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?
There was no actual evidence against him. The reports at the time came from a Republican Party Newspaper hundreds of miles away in Ohio. Forrest was not at the forefront that day his horse having stumbled and rolled over him breaking a couple of his ribs a day or two before. Furthermore, Forrest was able to produce a receipt showing he had handed over the prisoners to be taken by riverboat to a POW camp. There was no evidence that he ordered any of them to be shot. Read the congressional testimony.
Next you are simply wrong about your claims about the POW camps. The union army’s own records show the death toll for Southern POW’s in Northern POW camps was greater despite there being no lack of food or medicine unlike in the South at the time.
You do realize the Confederate Mound in Chicago - a product of Camp Douglas holds 6,000 prisoners and is the largest mass grave in the entire western hemisphere right? Read “To Die in Chicago” written by a Northwestern Academic George Levy.
he 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.
No this is quite simply false as a reading of the federalist papers makes quite clear.
“...the act of the people, as forming so many independent States, not as forming one aggregate nation, is obvious from this single consideration, that it is to result neither from the decision of a majority of the people of the Union, nor from that of a majority of the States.... Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act” (Federalist 39).’ James Madison
There is no “whole people”. There were 13 sovereign states.
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.
And how exactly did northerners treat black Confederates?
go ahead make up the statement AND the response. You are so desparate for a win you’ll say anything. You don’t know shiff about me.
False yourself.
They tried but failed. It was in all the papers.
You don’t know what you’re talking about. Nothing new for you.
“Lincoln endorsed” That’s a bit revisionist.
In his inaugural address, Lincoln noted Congressional approval of the Corwin amendment and stated that he “had no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.”
Lincoln was following the Republican convention platform.
He believed that the major problem was the expansion of slavery.
Lincoln did not believe that he had the power to eliminate slavery where it already existed.
By not opposing Corwin’s amendment, Lincoln hoped to convince the South that he would not move to abolish slavery.
Lincoln wanted to keep the border states of Maryland, Virginia, Tennessee, Kentucky, and North Carolina from seceding.
Once the Confederacy seceded and started shooting the value of Corwin’s (13th) amendment ended.
The South could have protected and constitutionally legalized slavery and prevented the Civil War. The ratification votes were at hand. Lincoln believed the Constitution supported it.
Our FRiend birdie is well-versed in revisionism.
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.
False
26,436 Confederates died in Northern prisons and 22,576 Union soldiers died in Southern prisons. Considering the fact that the South held approximately fifty thousand more prisoners, the death rate in Northern prisons was about twelve percent whereas the death rate in Southern prisons was roughly eight percent.
“The Preamble of the Constitution ......... is quite simply false”
So, you think the Constitution is false and the Federalist Papers have the force of law????
Keep talking.
you failed to acknowledge a factual statement which was amazing in its simplicity. it has nothing to do with disagreeing., Then you prescribed several statements to me I did not state or imply and now you backhandedly try to make nice. Piss off.
There is no record I know of a single black confederate soldier being captured by Union Forces. There may have been, but I know of none. You can probably bet that they would not have been treated like run-away slave were treated in the South. Run-away slaves in the Union could enlist in the Union Army.
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.
Most currently do....PC Revisionism has taken hold since the 70s. Its funny you complain about Dilorenzo. His books were meticulously cited from other sources.
Charm will get you nowhere with me.
And you base that on what?
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.
You really want us to believe that the U.S. and Europe operated on a barter economy? Really? Your claims are getting crazier and crazier with every post.
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.
"When in the Course of Human Events" right? Can Tommy DiLorenzo be far behind?
So let me ask you this. If the South paid 84% of the tariffs then why do Congressional records show that in the year before the rebellion close to 95% of all tariff revenues were collected in Northern ports? Why did New York alone collect 9 times as much as the 10 busiest Southern ports combined? If 84% of the imports were destined for Southern consumers why did only 5% of them go to Southern ports? Can you explain that? Those same records show that 90% of all cotton exports left from Southern ports. If it was a barter economy as you say, why did those Southern cotton growers ride the ship to England, swap their cotton for those manufactured goods, and then bring them back to New York? Can you explain that?
The figures I have show that 30,218 Union prisoners died in Confederate captivity. In Union captivity 25,972 prisoners died.
Heck, even regular obedient slaves in Union states could join the Union Army. How many slave states were in the Union, Bull Snipe?
“Lincoln endorsed” That’s a bit revisionist.
Nothing revisionist about it. Hell, he is the one responsible for getting the thing pushed through Congress to begin with as his nauseating hagiographer and plagiarist Doris Kearns-Godwin wrote in Team of Rivals in which she praised him for it.
Our FRiend birdie is well-versed in revisionism.
Again, Pot. Kettle. Black.
Ironically, you cite ultra Leftist big government loving Academics who have put forth the “it was all about slavery” revisionist view in the last generation.
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.