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 ...
Except for when it does.
Natchez Mississippi 20,000 freedman deaths during reconstruction “The Devil’s Punchbowl”
Except for when it does.
It never does. Having more men and more guns means....you have more men and more guns. It does not mean you’re right.
The Union is a confederation, not a coalition. Member states may likely benefit unequally from the combined resources of the Union.
Secession allows members to take the money and run. When any member leaves, the entire confederation is broken, that’s not fair to the other members, and it is not right that any member can dictate to the majority. That destroys majority rule.
Only if a member’s rights are violated can secession be allowed but the members of the confederation have to be unanimous or there is war.
The bottom line is that states are not sovereign, that was proven not by judicial or legislative methods, but by the might of arms.
Might did make right, the Union survived and slavery abolished.
The Civil War was anything but civil, but it resolved a fundamental conflict that had endured since the Constitution was written.
It’s a rough way to settle a legal issue but it is effective and ...... permanent.
Reconstruction? Most accounts have it happening during the war while the Union troops occupied Natchez. Regardless of the when, the fact is that there is no reputable documentation that it ever existed much less that tens of thousands of blacks were killed there.
The problem being that the source you gave for the quote, the source you linked to in your reply 351, contains this notation: "However, the prisoner exchange issue was far more complicated, and the timeline of exchanges does not support the notion that Grant stopped the prisoner exchange."
You really need to read what you link to before you link to it.
Something that our Founding Fathers correctly understood.
If any compact of any kind of members constantly had the spectre of a cheap and easy secession by any member, that member could constantly dictate to the majority.
Any minority could have its way on legislation if they could constantly threaten to take their marbles and go home.
There would be few marriages that would last. Look at the idiocy of the 60 vote rule in the Senate, constant stalemate caused by the minority.
Majority rule would be gone, resulting in chaos and anarchy and instability. Madison and the others all knew it and that is why secession was so indirectly talked about. Common sense forbade it , no need to legislate such a chaotic idea.
Sure you did. Reply 118: "The indiscriminate bombing of Southern cities, which was outlawed by international law at the time, killed hundreds, if not thousands of slaves."
What international laws were you referring to?
You have a pathetically naive worldview but far be it for me to intrude upon your delusions...
Sheer nonsense.
Then you failed to understand what you were reading.
I failed to find any sources for much of what Adams claimed. His documentation is somewhat lacking and like you he's prone to presenting opinion as fact.
Once again, NO, I did NOT SAY “destined for Southern consumers”. How many times do I have to correct you on this? The goods were destined for all consumers.
What you did say was that 84 to 87 percent of all tariffs were paid by Southern consumers, quoting Adams. The only way that could be true is if Southern consumers bought the goods.
You have a vivid imagination and very poor reading comprehension skills. I simply have not said the various things you are claiming I’ve said here. Go back and READ what I’ve written instead of trying to use strawman arguments.
Your reply 225: "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."
Note: I did not say formal barter. I never said they accompanied their goods. I did not say end consumers were exclusively Southerner.
Again your reply 225: "..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."
The concept of chartering the ship only one way not having occurred to Southern planters apparently.
Secession allows members to take the money and run. When any member leaves, the entire confederation is broken, that’s not fair to the other members, and it is not right that any member can dictate to the majority. That destroys majority rule.
Quite the contrary. The right of Unilateral secession for each member means the central government cannot become too abusive of some for the benefit of others. It helps prevent the tyranny of the majority. Was it unfair to the other parts of the British Empire that the 13 colonies left?
No that was not proven. Might does not make right
Might did not make right. The union was converted from one based on consent to one based on violence. Its very nature was changed - and for the worse. Slavery would have been abolished anyway as it was peacefully in practically every other country in the Western world over the 19th century.
The problem being that the source you gave for the quote, the source you linked to in your reply 351, contains this notation: “However, the prisoner exchange issue was far more complicated, and the timeline of exchanges does not support the notion that Grant stopped the prisoner exchange.”
You really need to read what you link to before you link to it.
That was of course their opinion. One complains about the source. The other cites the source’s opinion as though it were gospel. Y’all need to make up your minds.
Grant ran the numbers and made the obvious conclusion. The prisoner exchanges were helping the Confederacy more than they were helping the Union because the Union simply had more men and thus could afford to lose more.
If any compact of any kind of members constantly had the spectre of a cheap and easy secession by any member, that member could constantly dictate to the majority.
No they couldn’t dictate to the majority....but they could prevent the majority from dictating to them. It would be impossible to adopt policies that were too abusive toward any single member or minority of members. Government would have to rule by consent.
No they couldn’t. They could however prevent others from adopting legislation that was too harmful toward them or they could leave if the others insisted on doing so.
Marriages work on exactly this basis - ie consent. If one partner can’t leave, that is an open invitation to those so inclined to be abusive in the relationship.
No majority rule would not be gone. The majority however would have to temper its demands upon the minority. That was exactly what the States agreed to when they ratified the constitution while reserving the right to unilateral secession.
Sure you did. Reply 118: “The indiscriminate bombing of Southern cities, which was outlawed by international law at the time, killed hundreds, if not thousands of slaves.”
What international laws were you referring to?
Mea culpa. I should have said international convention at the time. There was not yet a formal international treaty codifying the laws of war.
You have a pathetically naive worldview but far be it for me to intrude upon your delusions...
Whereas I would say you have a laughably authoritarian view of the world yet somehow expect things to work out anyway. That’s the ultimate naivette.
Sheer nonsense.
Nope! You simply made several bad assumptions.
He cites many sources. You just don’t like the acts he turned up.
84 to 87 percent of all tariffs were paid by Southerners. - not Southern Consumers. Southerners owned the goods that were being tariffed
Correct! The South. Southerners owned those goods being imported and hit with the tariff.
Correct! I did not say bartered. They arrived and sold cash crops and bought manufactured goods. That was the exchange.
That was not offered or at least was not offered on economical terms. Sailing ships back empty would have been a huge waste. They needed to be filled with something for the return journey that would generate a profit to pay for the transport cost. That something was manufactured goods.
You say that like it’s a bad thing.
You say that like it’s a bad thing.
It is. Its unAmerican.
Baloney.
We’re a nation of laws but they aren’t worth the paper they’re drawn on without cops to enforce them.
We’re a sovereign nation but without our armed forces we would be overrun in a heartbeat. It’s the implied promise of the use of force that keeps the wolves at bay.
If someone breaks into your house and starts helping themselves to your Milli Vanilli records are you going to wave your rent receipt and insist that they aren’t being good citizens or are you meet force with force?
Nevermind - I think I’ve discovered the answer...
“the central government cannot become too abusive”
In our Federation, the minority has to accept a subservient role, but not be abused, as you say.
That’s why there exists our Federal Court and Supreme Court, to address grievances by the minority out of power.
Secession ignores that right of the minority and destroys the Federation.
The King and/or British Empire abused the rights of the colonies. Americans had a minimal ability for redress of grievances and no effective British court system to appeal to. That whole taxation without representation thing......
OK, I’ll rephrase, might became right. The Union was delivered out of a gun barrel. No other country in the world had as many valuable slaves producing such a valuable cotton crop. Their owners would never have given up their property for free without a fight.
Jefferson Davis was one of the clearest thinkers on the issue of secession and changed his anti-secession views when he realized that an abolitionist President and Congress would eventually end slavery. Secession really kicked in when Lincoln was elected.
Davis understood the military mismatch would go against the CSA if the war could not be won within a year or so, and only with the capture of WA DC. Lincoln quickly mobilized for war so the CSA knew they had to act fast.
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.