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 ...
“That was exactly what the States agreed to when they ratified the constitution while reserving the right to unilateral secession.”
Where is this right stated? In what citation or ratification document or papers?
There is no such right. Neoconfederates have been trotting out this argument for years and it has no basis. It is a matter of settled law.
Andrew Jackson: “The Constitution ...forms a government, not a league....operates directly on the people individually, not upon the States....
“The right to make treaties, declare war, levy taxes, exercise exclusive judicial and legislative powers, were all functions of sovereign power. The States, then, for all these important purposes, were no longer sovereign. The allegiance of their citizens was transferred in the first instance to the government of the United States”
“How then, can that State be said to be sovereign and independent whose citizens owe obedience to laws not made by it”
https://studycivilwar.wordpress.com/2012/11/15/there-is-no-right-to-unilateral-secession/
Think about this. Treason is a crime against sovereignty.
There are no state laws against treason, only a national law.
States aren’t sovereign.
My Irish were slaves. The Irish were put into bondage by the British and Irish Protestants. And I’m born and raised here 62 years, asshole.
You present your opinion as fact, why not them?
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.
So you would have us believe.
Fair enough. So what international conventions?
LOL! Not accepting your opinion as fact is not a bad assumption.
He cites many sources. You just don’t like the acts he turned up.
I'm looking at the statistics in question, which are on page 27 of my book, Chapter 2 - A Useless Fort? - and while I see where he claims the South paid 87% of the taxes there are no sources for that. The only footnote on the entire page is when he claims the South paid $36 million in shipping to the North, and that footnote accepts one source as gospel and dismisses one that contradicts it as an "unsubstantiated Northern view..." So no, Adams does not source his claim. And no, I don't like it but it's because it's opinion masquerading as fact. Same reason why I have problems with most of your posts.
84 to 87 percent of all tariffs were paid by Southerners. - not Southern Consumers. Southerners owned the goods that were being tariffed
So you would have us believe. But to say the South paid those tariffs would be the same as saying the North paid the cost of shipping the cotton and it's plantation owner to Europe. In both cases the costs are passed along to whoever was purchasing the item, so the end consumer is the one who pays the tariff and the transportation costs.
Correct! I did not say bartered. They arrived and sold cash crops and bought manufactured goods. That was the exchange.
Of course they did, no doubt sitting on their bales of cotton all the way across the pond. But just out of curiosity, why didn't they just sell the cotton to a broker in the U.S.? That way they have their money, someone else is bearing the risk of getting the goods to Europe, and they can stay on their porch sipping their juleps and watching their slaves work. Were they too dumb to think of doing that?
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.
So? That's the ship owners problem. What you are suggesting that if I take a cab from the airport to a hotel for $50 then I have to pay the cab another $50 to get back to the airport. It makes no sense now and makes no sense under the conditions you outline.
Your people had nothing to do with the US Civil War because they weren’t here yet, that’s why your opinions on the subject are so completely unhinged. Ignorance.
My great-great grandfather served with the Army of The Potomac from 1864-65. Christ, you’re an idiot.
You have no connection to or understanding of the colonial era then, your opinions are unhinged.
"If the day should ever come, (may Heaven avert it,) when the affections of the people of these states shall be alienated from each other; when the fraternal spirit shall give away to cold indifference, or collisions of interest shall fester into hatred, the bands of political association will not long hold together parties no longer attracted by the magnetism of conciliated interests and kindly sympathies; and far better will it be for the people of the disunited states, to part in friendship from each other, than to be held together by constraint.
"Then will be the time for reverting to the precedents which occurred at the formation and adoption of the Constitution, to form again a more perfect union, by dissolving that which could no longer bind, and to leave the separated parts to be reunited by the law of political gravitation to the centre."
http://discerninghistory.com/2013/07/john-quincy-adams-on-secession/
John Quincy Adam's grandson Charles Francis Adams Jr, a Union Officer, wrote an essay circa 1902 called variously "The constitutional ethics of secession" or "Shall Cromwell Have a Statue".
It was based upon his research into the whether or not those who signed the Constitution believed in the right of secession. His conclusion is that they did. He also concluded that the North came to believe in compulsory union somewhere around 1830, as a result of their loss of identification to their states; whereas in the South people still felt a primary allegiance to their States as had the founders.
His view of the Civil War- both sides were right, it was a collision of conflicting views of the nature of the United States. To use your marriage analogy, the South was violently compelled to remain in the marriage.
John Quincy Adams saying “to part in friendship from each other” today looks a bit delusional, given the consequences of such a bitter uncivil war.
Secession has its place, I’ve posted on that, but only when the lawful rights of a minority are abused without relief by the courts.
Secession cannot be used when the interests are about self-determination.
Many early leaders, such as Jefferson had secessionist leanings under some conditions.
Many abolitionists wanted the North to secede, New York City wanted to secede. There was the Hartford Convention, etc.
In 1856, Lincoln told southerners wanting to secede: “We won’t let you. With the purse and sword, the army and navy and treasury in our hands and at our command, you couldn’t do it.”
Lincoln founded a new Americanism grounded in the centralization and consolidation of power. Fair, legal, right, or not, the North imposed it’s economic might through a new national army on the South.
The legality of states’ sovereignty has many good points on both sides.
One of the great fears of the Unionists was that if the Constitution were treated as no more than a treaty between sovereign states, what would stop any state from having a treaty with a foreign power, say England.
That state could then secede and allow foreign troops into that state to protect it and expand its foreign influence.
If states were sovereign, what would stop them from seceding and naming a monarch to rule themselves?
Here is a very key point:
The Confederate Constitution purposely did not put a right to secession in their own constitution.
Many southern states were not in total internal agreement about secession. Confederate leaders feared breakaways to the Union.
LOL!
LOL! Not accepting your opinion as fact is not a bad assumption.
LOL! Going on a long blather filled post about Southern Consumers when I never said Consumers or Barter when I never said barter are assumptions on your part - bad ones as it turns out.
South Carolina Congressman Robert Barnwell Rhett had estimated that of the $927,000,000 collected in duties between 1791 and 1845, the South had paid $711,200,000, and the North $216,000,000. South Carolina Senator James Hammond had declared that the South paid about $50,000,000 and the North perhaps $20,000,000 of the $70,000,000 raised annually by duties. In expenditure of the national revenues, Hammond thought the North got about $50,000,000 a year, and the South only $20,000,000. When in the Course of Human Events: Arguing the Case for Southern Succession Charles Adams
There were several Northern newspaper articles at that time saying the same thing. For example here is one though there are many more:
“The South has furnished near three-fourths of the entire exports of the country. Last year she furnished seventy-two percent of the whole...we have a tariff that protects our manufacturers from thirty to fifty percent, and enables us to consume large quantities of Southern cotton, and to compete in our whole home market with the skilled labor of Europe. This operates to compel the South to pay an indirect bounty to our skilled labor, of millions annually.” - Daily Chicago Times, December 10, 1860
This is a completely nonsensical reply but one that does not surprise me given your other responses. The Southern producers owned the cash crops. They paid the transport cost of the ships to send it to market in Europe. They sold those crops and bought manufactured goods to fill the holds of the ships they had already paid for. Those goods which they owned were then subject to high tariffs. They had to pay those tariffs since they owned the goods. This resulted in a huge cost in money as well as lost sales since Northern manufacturers could now undercut them on price thanks to the tariff. It does not matter where the ships landed or to whom the goods were sold. Money was drained from their pockets and put in pockets of northern manufacturers as well as the pockets of the federal government. The northern states then used their greater representation in Congress to vote themselves the lion’s share of the money Southern export/importers had paid to the federal government in tariffs.
You have some strange fixation with sitting on bales of cotton which nobody but you ever said. Why not sell to a broker in the US? No doubt they’d have gotten less for their cash crops as that broker then arranged transatlantic shipment and factored that in as well as an additional fee for going to the trouble of arranging shipping. Obviously you’re incapable of grasping economics.
Its not the ship owner’s problem if they won’t offer a one way contract or will only offer one at exorbitant rates. Shipping at that time did not work like taxicabs going to the airport in a modern city. Read up on the shipping of the time.
Fair enough. So what international conventions?
The conventions European nations had been following since about the end of the 30 years war. Civilians were not deliberately targeted. Capture soldiers were accorded honorable treatment etc.
You present your opinion as fact, why not them?
This has been cited numerous times by numerous sources. I provided a source for this already. I’m simply not going to play this game of digging up more and more sources and you saying you deem this or that source unacceptable. If you choose not to believe it fine. As I said, it has been widely reported.
That was the basis of Grant’s strategy. He well understood the numerical reality. That was why he kept pressing on despite taking staggering losses.
Where is this right stated? In what citation or ratification document or papers?
There is no such right. Neoconfederates have been trotting out this argument for years and it has no basis. It is a matter of settled law.
NOwhere is such a right denied in the constitution and any power not delegated to the federal govt is reserved by the states by terms of the 10th amendment. This was also consistent with the express reservations of the states when ratifying the constitution. The “settled law” argument made by the Chase court after the fact is laughable no matter how much PC Revisionists want to claim it.
“The right to make treaties, declare war, levy taxes, exercise exclusive judicial and legislative powers, were all functions of sovereign power. The States, then, for all these important purposes, were no longer sovereign. The allegiance of their citizens was transferred in the first instance to the government of the United States”
“How then, can that State be said to be sovereign and independent whose citizens owe obedience to laws not made by it”
https://studycivilwar.wordpress.com/2012/11/15/there-is-no-right-to-unilateral-secession/
Think about this. Treason is a crime against sovereignty.
There are no state laws against treason, only a national law.
States aren’t sovereign.
That was Jackson’s opinion. I’ve already provided the opinions of multiple other presidents that secession was perfectly constitutional.
States are sovereign. They are described as such in the 1783 treaty of paris. They are described as such in the federalist papers. They have been described as such in numerous supreme court cases right up to the modern era.
It was based upon his research into the whether or not those who signed the Constitution believed in the right of secession. His conclusion is that they did. He also concluded that the North came to believe in compulsory union somewhere around 1830, as a result of their loss of identification to their states; whereas in the South people still felt a primary allegiance to their States as had the founders.
Adams never got over his experience leading an African-American regiment in the war. He became a convinced racist and a bitter opponent of Reconstruction. So he wasn't necessarily an unbiased analyst.
Secession ignores that right of the minority and destroys the Federation.
Secession does not destroy the federation. It merely makes it smaller. There are costs to it and it is almost never undertaken lightly. For a state to resort to that, they will only do so if they really feel as though their grievances are not being addressed.
The Brits offered representation - just not enough to prevent the colonies from being economically exploited for others’ benefit just as the Southern states were being economically exploited for others’ benefit.
Might does not make right. Other than Haiti in the 18th century, almost every other western country got rid of slavery more or less peacefully in the 19th century. It wouldn’t have been cheap but everybody else managed to do it. There is no reason to think it would not have worked the same way in the US. But of course, slavery is not the reason for secession and war. Had it been the big concern, the original 7 seceding states would have simply accepted the Corwin Amendment.
Had fear for the continuation of slavery been the big concern, the original 7 seceding states could have simply accepted the North’s slavery forever constitutional amendment.
Peaceful Secession would have led to the rapid collapse of slavery. The border from South Carolina to the west of Texas was about 1500 miles long. The seceding states would no longer enjoy the protection of the fugitive slave clause of the constitution. Any slave could have simply crossed that long border and been free in a different country with no obligation to return him. None other than Lincoln made that argument and nobody could refute it.
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...
HEY!!!! You Take that back! Them’s fightin’ words!
I have NEVER and I mean NEVER owned a milli vanilli record.
:^)
Really? And about six years after the end of the Southern Rebellion when Prussia invaded France, laid siege to Paris and bombarded it? Did they forget that they weren't supposed to do that since the 30 Years War? Or did they just make an exception?
Really? And about six years after the end of the Southern Rebellion when Prussia invaded France, laid siege to Paris and bombarded it? Did they forget that they weren’t supposed to do that since the 30 Years War? Or did they just make an exception?
Yes really. The Paris Commune would not surrender the city after having been given warning to do so, the communards were also not exactly scrupulous in their adherence to the traditional conventions of war. You will notice that Napoleon III and his army that were forced to lay down their arms and surrender at Sedan were treated in accordance with the traditional standards of European warfare for a couple centuries.
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.