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 ...
Read about the “Yamashita Standard.” That is the modern concept of war crimes that Forrest would have been found guilty under.
The figures I have show that 30,218 Union prisoners died in Confederate captivity. In Union captivity 25,972 prisoners died.
We obviously have different figures then.
Four states where slavery was legal remained in the Union. Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland and Delaware.
You’ve made great points, my congratulations.
There were a great many free Blacks in the confederacy. Many of them fought for the confederacy. They thought they were defending home and family.
https://scveuropecamp.jimdo.com/nice-to-know/black-confederate-soldiers/
http://www.scv.org/new/contributed-works/black-confederates/
So WHY didn't they sign on? WHY did they secede in spite of this? Must have been something OTHER than slavery don't you think? Wake up and smell the coffee.
The exact figures will never be known. It does not matter, the vast majority of those prisoners of war that died in captivity should not have died accept for the callousness and indifference of the United States Government and the Confederate States Government toward the prisoners of war.
So, were Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland and Delaware somehow immune to the horrible hypnotic Slave Power, which made their behavior toward chattel slaves held in the Union altruistic or something?
How did that work? This is very intriguing.
And you base that on what?
Economic reality at the time. Why do you think Northern Manufacturers were screaming for protective tariffs? It was because France and especially Britain had first mover advantages. They had economies of scale already in place and could thus afford to undercut northern manufacturers on price.
They did. The Southern Planters had to charter the ships to sail to British ports. Sailing back empty would have been a huge waste. They needed to fill the holds with something to make the return journey economically viable. They filled the holds naturally, with manufactured goods.
So you have no response. Adams is a tax expert by the way
You really need to read sources other than the Chief PC Revisionist McPherson. Who cares where a ship docks? Who pays? Does the port pay? Does the state pay out of the goodness of its heart? Or does the owner of the goods pay a tariff? I think we both know the answer to that.
I never said the imported goods were only for Southerners. They were obviously to be sold to anybody. Shipping at that time was routed through New York primarily. The business of shipbuilders, factors (ie wholesalers), Insurers, and Bankers was based heavily on Southern export goods. New England exported next to nothing and Midwestern grain was only very lately becoming a valuable export.
here 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.
The union army record of Black Confederates is extensive.
The chief inspector of the U.S. Sanitary Commission, Dr. Lewis Steiner, reported that he saw about 3,000 well-armed black Confederate soldiers in Stonewall Jackson’s army in Frederick, Maryland, and that those soldiers were “manifestly an integral portion of the Southern Confederate Army.” Said Steiner,
“Wednesday, September 10—At four o’clock this morning the rebel army began to move from our town, Jackson’s force taking the advance. The movement continued until eight o’clock P.M., occupying sixteen hours. The most liberal calculations could not give them more than 64,000 men. Over 3,000 negroes must be included in this number. These were clad in all kinds of uniforms, not only in cast-off or captured United States uniforms, but in coats with Southern buttons, State buttons, etc. These were shabby, but not shabbier or seedier than those worn by white men in rebel ranks. Most of the negroes had arms, rifles, muskets, sabres, bowie-knives, dirks, etc. They were supplied, in many instances, with knapsacks, haversacks, canteens, etc., and were manifestly an integral portion of the Southern Confederacy Army. They were seen riding on horses and mules, driving wagons, riding on caissons, in ambulances, with the staff of Generals, and promiscuously mixed up with all the rebel horde. (Report of Lewis H. Steiner, New York: Anson D. F. Randolph, 1862, pp. 10-11)
* Union colonel Peter Allabach, commander of the 2nd Brigade of the 131st Pennsylvania Infantry, reported that his forces encountered black Confederate soldiers during the battle of Chancellorsville:
Under this disposition of my command, I lay until 11 o’clock, when I received orders from you to throw the two left regiments perpendicular to the road, and to advance in line of battle, with skirmishers in front, as far as to the edge of the wood bordering near the Chancellor house. This movement was explained to me as intended to hold the enemy in check long enough for the corps of Major-Generals Couch and Sickles to get into another position, and not to bring on an action if it could be avoided; and, should the enemy advance in force, to fall back slowly until I arrived on the edge of the wood, there to mass in column and double-quick to the rear, that the artillery might fire in this wood. I was instructed that I was to consider myself under the command of Major-General Couch.
In obedience to these orders, at about 11 o’clock I advanced with these two regiments forward through the wood, under a severe fire of shell, grape, and canister. I encountered their skirmishers when near the farther edge of the wood. Allow me to state that the skirmishers of the enemy were negroes. (Report of Col. Peter H. Allabach, 131st Pennsylvania Infantry, commanding Second Brigade, in Official Records, Volume XXV, in Two Parts, 1889, Chap. 37, Part I – Reports, p. 555, emphasis added)
None other than African-American abolitionist Frederick Douglass complained that there were “many” blacks in the Confederate army who were armed and “ready to shoot down” Union soldiers. He added that this was “pretty well established”:
It is now pretty well established, that there are at the present moment many colored men in the Confederate army doing duty not only as cooks, servants and laborers, but as real soldiers, having muskets on their shoulders, and bullets in their pockets, ready to shoot down loyal troops, and do all that soldiers may. . . . (Douglass’ Monthly, September 1861, online copy available at http://radicaljournal.com/essays/fighting_rebels.html)
In 1895 a former black Union soldier, Christian A. Fleetwood, who had been a sergeant-major in the 4th U.S. Colored Troops, acknowledged that the South began using blacks as soldiers before the Union did:
It seems a little singular that in the tremendous struggle between the States in 1861-1S65, the south should have been the first to take steps toward the enlistment of Negroes. Yet such is the fact. Two weeks after the fall of Fort Sumter, the Charleston Mercury records the passing through Augusta of several companies of the 3rd and 4th Georgia Regt. and of sixteen well-drilled companies and one Negro company from Nashville, Tenn. The Memphis Avalanche and The Memphis Appeal of May 9, 10, and 11, 1861, give notice of the appointment by the “Committee of Safety” of a committee of three persons “to organize a volunteer company composed of our patriotic freemen of color of the city of Memphis, for the service of our common defense.”
A telegram from New Orleans dated November 23, 1S61, notes the review by Gov. Moore of over 28,000 troops, and that one regiment comprised “1,400 colored men.” The New Orleans Picayune, referring to a review held February 9, 1862, says: “We must also pay a deserved compliment to the companies of free colored men, all very well drilled and comfortably equipped.” (Christian A. Fleetwood, The Negro as a Soldier, Washington, D.C.: Howard University Print, 1895, pp. 5-6, emphasis added)
In a Union army battle report, General David Stuart complained about the deadly effectiveness of the black Confederate soldiers whom his troops had encountered. The “armed negroes,” he said, did “serious execution upon our men”:
Col. Giles Smith commanded the First Brigade and Col. T. Kilby Smith, Fifty-fourth Ohio, the Fourth. I communicated to these officers General Sherman’s orders and charged Colonel Smith, Fifty-fourth Ohio, specially with the duty of clearing away the road to the crossing and getting it into the best condition for effecting our crossing that he possibly could. The work was vigorously pressed under his immediate supervision and orders, and he devoted himself to it with as much energy and activity as any living man could employ. It had to be prosecuted under the fire of the enemy’s sharpshooters, protected as well as the men might be by our skirmishers on the bank, who were ordered to keep up so vigorous a fire that the enemy should not dare to lift their heads above their rifle-pits; but the enemy, and especially their armed negroes, did dare to rise and fire, and did serious execution upon our men. The casualties in the brigade were 11 killed, 40 wounded, and 4 missing; aggregate, 55. Very respectfully, your obedient servant, D. STUART, Brigadier-General, Commanding. (Report of Brig. Gen. David Stuart, U. S. Army, commanding Fourth Brigade and Second Division, of operations December 26, 1862 - January 3, 1863, in Official Records, Volume XVII, in Two Parts. 1886/1887, Chap. 29, Part I - Reports, pp. 635-636, emphasis added)
In a letter published in the Indianapolis Star in December 1861, a Union soldier stated that his unit was attacked by black Confederate soldiers:
A body of seven hundred [Confederate] Negro infantry opened fire on our men, wounding two lieutenants and two privates. The wounded men testify positively that they were shot by Negroes, and that not less than seven hundred were present, armed with muskets. This is, indeed a new feature in the war. We have heard of a regiment of [Confederate] Negroes at Manassas, and another at Memphis, and still another at New Orleans, but did not believe it till it came so near home and attacked our men. (Indianapolis Star, December 23, 1861)
Union soldier James G. Bates wrote a letter to his father that was reprinted in an Indiana newspaper in May 1863. In the letter Bates assured his father that there were black Confederate soldiers:
I can assure you [his father,] of a certainty, that the rebels have Negro soldiers in their army. One of their best sharp shooters and the boldest of them all here is a Negro. He dug himself a rifle pit last night [16 April 1863] just across the river and has been annoying our pickets opposite him very much to-day. You can see him plain enough with the naked eye, occasionally, to make sure that he is a “wooly-head,” and with a spy-glass there is no mistaking him. (Winchester Journal, May 1, 1863)
A few months before the war ended, a Union soldier named James Miles of the 185th N.Y.V.I. wrote in his diary, “Saw several Negros fighting for those rebels” (Diary entry, January 8, 1865).
A Union lieutenant colonel named Parkhurst, who served in the Ninth Michigan Infantry, reported that black Confederate soldiers participated in an attack on his camp:
The forces attacking my camp were the First Regiment Texas Rangers, a battalion of the First Georgia Rangers . . . and quite a number of Negroes attached to the Texas and Georgia troops, who were armed and equipped, took part in the several engagements with my forces during the day. (Lieutenant Colonel Parkhurst’s Report, Ninth Michigan Infantry, on General Forrest’s Attack at Murfreesboro, Tennessee, July 13, 1862, in Official Records, Series 1, Volume XVI, Part 1, p. 805)
In late June 1861, the Illinois Daily State Journal, a staunchly Republican newspaper, reported that the Confederate army was arming some slaves and that in some cases slaves were being organized into military units. Interestingly, the newspaper also said that the North was not fighting to abolish slavery, and that the South was not fighting to protect slavery:
Our mighty armies are gathering for no purpose of abolition. Our enemies are not in arms to protect the peculiar institution [slavery]. . . .
They [the Confederates] are using their Slave property as an instrument of warfare against the Union. Their slaves dig trenches, erect fortifications, and bear arms. Slaves, in some instances, are organized into military companies to fight against the Government. (“Slaves Contraband of War,” Illinois Daily State Journal, June 21, 1861)
After the battle of Gettysburg, Union forces took seven black Confederate soldiers as prisoners, as was noted in a Northern newspaper at the time, which said,
. . . reported among the rebel prisoners were seven blacks in Confederate uniforms fully armed as soldiers. (New York Herald, July 11, 1863)
During the battle of Gettysburg, two black Confederate soldiers took part in Pickett’s charge:
Color Corporal George B. Powell (14th Tennessee) went down during the advance. Boney Smith, a Black man attached to the regiment, took the colors and carried them forward. . . . The colors of the 14th Tennessee got within fifty feet of the east wall before Boney Smith hit the dirt -—wounded. Jabbing the flagstaff in the ground, he momentarily urged the regiment forward until the intense pressure forced the men to lie down to save their lives. (John Michael Priest, Into the Fight: Pickett’s Charge at Gettysburg, White Mane Books, 1998, pp. 128, 130-131)
During the battle of Chickamauga, slaves serving Confederate soldiers armed themselves and asked permission to join the fight—and when they received that permission they fought commendably. Their commander, Captain J. B. Briggs, later noted that these men “filled a portion of the line of advance as well as any company of the regiment” (J. H. Segars and Charles Barrow, Black Southerners in Confederate Armies, Atlanta, GA: Southern Lion Books, 2001, p. 141)
One of the last Confederate charges of the day included the Fourth Tennessee Calvary, which participated dismounted in the assault. Among the troopers of the regiment were forty African Americans who had been serving as camp servants but who now demanded the right the participate in the last combat of the day. Captain J. B. Briggs gave his permission for them to join his command on the front line. Organized and equipped under Daniel McLemore, the personal servant of the colonel of the regiment, the black troops had collected dropped weapons from battlefields during the regiment’s campaigns. . . . (Steve Cottrell, Civil War in Tennessee, Gretna, Louisiana: Pelican Publishing Company, 2001, p. 94)
Where did I say that the conditions of slavery were any different in those states where slavery was legal that remained in the Union. Not sure why you are intrigued. Slaver where ever practiced is wrong. Doesn’t matter if that slave is held in Delaware or Mississippi.
“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.
No that is not what I said. There is nothing in the preabmle of the constitution which says that a state may not unilaterally secede. In fact there is nothing in the entire constitution which says that.
“he (Lincoln) is the one responsible for getting the thing pushed through Congress”
Really?
Lincoln’s inaugural address, March 4, 1861, states:
“I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution—which amendment, however, I have not seen—has passed Congress”
He pushed through an amendment he hadn’t seen?
Keep talking.
The exact figures will never be known. It does not matter, the vast majority of those prisoners of war that died in captivity should not have died accept for the callousness and indifference of the United States Government and the Confederate States Government toward the prisoners of war.
The treatment of POW’s was awful. In the case of the CSA, it was mostly the result of the blockade and of hunger and want of medical supplies suffered by the entire region. The difference is one of intent.
“he (Lincoln) is the one responsible for getting the thing pushed through Congress”
Really?
Lincoln’s inaugural address, March 4, 1861, states:
“I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution—which amendment, however, I have not seen—has passed Congress”
He pushed through an amendment he hadn’t seen?
Keep talking.
LOL! yes really. He....brace yourself....was LYING. Read Team of Rivals or any of a number of other sources. He orchestrated the Corwin Amendment.
6 Union states did ratify it.
The confederacy didn’t because they wanted war.
So, tell me Bull Snipe, did the north enter the war with the intent of freeing the slaves? Doesn’t seem likely since four Union states were in fact slave states. Were the slaves in Union states freed by the Emancipation Proclamation? Why, no they weren’t. Wonder why? It’s a real puzzler, that one.
Now I know you’re pulling my lariat. Dilorenzo is universally panned by respectable historians on both sides. Only the lamest of lost causers will openly cite him.
Cuz he’s a hack.
Name one.
If your argument is valid, why refer to the Federalist Papers?
Secession is impossible. There is no right of secession in the Constitution. It is not a power that exists for the states. Any states rights are called out, that ain’t one of them.....
The Constitution did not explain how to commit Federal government suicide. Why would it?
Never claimed that the North entered the war to free the slave. Since those states remained loyal to the Union, the Emancipation proclamation did not apply to them. Just as it did not apply to 13 Parishes in Louisiana, the Tidewater region of Virginia, a large portion of Northern Tennessee, and some of coastal North Carolina. All these areas were under Union control.
The proclamation applied only to those areas in active rebellion against the United states. Not a puzzler if you will take the time to actually read the proclamation.
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.