First it was Confederate monuments. Now statues offensive to Native Americans are poised to topple.

Los Angeles Times ^ | 04/01/2018 | Jaweed Kaleem

[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.

[FLT-bird]

Non sequitur

Not at all. All powers not delegated to the federal government reside where they originated - the states.

---

They delegated the disposition of states to Congress. That doesn’t in and of itself preclude the act of secession, but it certainly gives power to congress to fight states in a condition of insurrection - which occurred in 1861.

No. There was no insurrection in 1860-61. Several states lawfully seceded.

---

No need.

Absolute need. Any powers not delegated to the federal government are retained by the states.

[rockrr]

No. There was no insurrection in 1860-61. Several states lawfully seceded.

Yes there was. It was in all the papers.

[FLT-bird]

Yes there was. It was in all the papers.

No. It was lawful secession, not insurrection. The states had every right to secede.

[rockrr]

If there is no law that either allowed or prevented the act it can’t logically be “legal”. At best it could have been characterized as “extra-legal”. That they did so in defiance of the rest of the union showed their true illegal intent. And a Supreme Court decision put the question of unilateral secession to rest. For reasonable people at any rate.

[FLT-bird]

If there is no law that either allowed or prevented the act it can’t logically be “legal”. At best it could have been characterized as “extra-legal”. That they did so in defiance of the rest of the union showed their true illegal intent. And a Supreme Court decision put the question of unilateral secession to rest. For reasonable people at any rate.

Of course its legal. The states had that right from the start and never surrendered it. EACH state is sovereign and EACH has that right. The Chase court’s decision was a laughable might makes right decision we are no more bound to respect than Dred Scott or Plessy vs Ferguson...at least for reasonable people.

[BroJoeK]

2nd Amendment: "Natchez Mississippi 20,000 freedman deaths during reconstruction 'The Devil’s Punchbowl' "

I can't find any real history on "The Devil's Punchbowl", but plenty of propaganda from both pro-Confederate and black history sites.
The most frequent quote is this:

"...as researcher Paula Westbrook**, who has extensively studied Devil’s Punchbowl, noted,
'When the slaves were released from the plantations during the occupation they overran Natchez.
And the population went from about 10,000 to 120,000 overnight.' "

Supposedly a camp was set up in a geological formation called "the Devil's Punchbowl" due to its shape, surrounded by high cliffs.
This camp is called variously a "contraband camp" or "refugee camp" or "concentration camp" or "death camp" depending on the authors' biases.
"Contraband camp" implies during the Civil War while "refugee camp" suggests post-war and it's never stated just exactly when it happened, or how long it lasted.

Conditions were said to be crowded & unsanitary with deaths ("killed" say propagandists) put at 20,000 (out of 120,000?) by some, 1,000 by others.

Bottom line: serious histories don't touch these claims, suggesting the documentation is too poor to confirm any of it.

Claimed to be "the Devil's Punchbowl" near Natchez, Mississippi:

**Is Paula Westbrook a paranormal investigator?

[BroJoeK]

2nd Amendment: "The North was just as hypocritical about African Americaqns as the South!"

Pure fantasy, at best a modern anachronism.
In fact, there was no "hypocrisy" on either side.
Confederates were clear that they wanted Africans as slaves, no "hypocrisy" in that.
Northerners were also clear, they wanted no slaves in western territories or even, via the SCOTUS Dred Scott decision, in their own states.
Most Northerners had no objections to slavery in the South where it was legal, until Confederates started & declared war on the Union.
Then the advantages of abolition in Confederate states quickly became obvious.

As for freed-blacks, in 1860, the US had about 400,000 total, half in the South (i.e., Maryland 83,000 & Virginia 58,000) half in the North (i.e., PA 56,000 & NY 49,000).
But several states (North & South) were hostile to freed-blacks and had very few.
Florida, Mississippi & Texas each had fewer than 1,000 freed blacks, while Illinois, Michigan & California each had fewer than 10,000.

Yes, the huge cotton trade made some Northern cities like New York effectively outposts for the Confederacy, opposed to the draft and blaming blacks for war.
But "hypocrisy" was never the real issue.

2nd Amendment: "Many of the yeoman Southern fighters could care less about slavery and were fighting for individual rights against yankee encroachment and for their property and land."

It's important to understand exactly how that worked because the truth of it is not so simple.

1. In the Deep South, the first seven Confederate states, between a third and half of all white families owned slaves meaning, pretty much every young soldier had slave-holding family members or close neighbors and so were themselves fully invested in the "peculiar institution".

2. In the Upper South (North Carolina, Tennessee, Arkansas, Virginia) the overall was about 25% of families owning slaves but each of those states had huge regions with virtually no slaves -- western Virginia, eastern Tennessee, western North Carolina, northern Arkansas.
   Slave-free regions of those states remained loyal to the Union and suffered oppression from Confederates.**
   Regions with more slavery sent their sons to fight for the Confederacy.

3. As did slave-regions of Union states like Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky & Missouri.
   But the average in Border South states was only 15% slave-holding families which kept them out of the Confederacy and provided more than two-to-one Union troops versus Confederates.

So the bottom line is that most Confederate soldiers (and all of their leaders) came from families and neighbors who owned slaves and were fully committed to their "peculiar institution."
Southerners who lived in mostly slave-free regions more often served the Union army.

** 1864 illustration of October 1862, when over 40 Southern Unionists hanged by slave-holding Confederates in Gainesville, Northern Texas:

[BroJoeK]

from the article: "The push follows the rapid fall of Confederate memorials across the South...”

Bonemaker: "Take note all you haters of the Confedercy who is on you side."

wardaddy: "This forum has been infested with that vermin my 18 years here
Many were zotted
I try to keep a list on my homepage "

Fiji Hill: "I've crossed swords with some of those on your list."

I must be your typical "vermin" on wardaddy's list, uniquely mentioned twice, though only one comment: "cut and paste seminar type"
And have no idea what that means, though do confess to copying quotes such as wardaddy's here.

As for "confederate hater", well, who could love outlaws that started & waged an unnecessary war which killed, what, 700,000 soldiers?
One of my great-grandfathers was wounded & partially crippled in that war.
But what we really hate are the endless cockamamie nonsense Lost-Causer lies you people tell, shamelessly never correcting.
So nobody here bashes "the South", but your lies just can't go unchallenged, FRiends.

[BroJoeK]

2nd Amendment: "I’m just pointing out that the Black man had few friends anywhere, North or South."

More friends than you might imagine, both North and South.
Remember, along with 4-million slaves in 1860 the US had about 400,000 freed blacks, half in the North, half in the South.
Indeed the list of states with more than 25,000 freed-blacks includes Northern New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania & Ohio, but also Southern Maryland, North Carolina and Virginia.
States over 10,000 freed-blacks included Northern Indiana and Massachusetts, but also Southern Delaware, Kentucky, Louisiana & South Carolina.
Of course, nobody pretends that antebellum freed-blacks were treated like first class citizens, but their numbers were growing.

2nd Amendment: "Lincolns original idea of compensated emancipation would have been the best solution..."

The first such plan was presented by President Jefferson and there were many similar.
Some included Federally supported recolonizing freed-blacks to Liberia, Africa, or elsewhere.
In 1820 Congress appropriated $100,000 for recolonizing, roughly $3 billion today, depending on how you calculate it.
And over the decades there were many such plans.
All failed because slave-holders would have none of it.

[BroJoeK]

JBW1949: "The premiums for the agriculture products shipped to the north were paid at a pitiful rate and the north was charging exorbitant rates and taxes for the building and industrial products the south needed..."

I suspect you're projecting post-Civil War depressed South conditions back onto the pre-war very prosperous South.
To see how wrong that is, consider this Mississippi "Reasons for Secession" explanation:

"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world.
Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth.
These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun.
These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization."

Note that Mississippians in 1861 were most concerned about protecting slavery.
They never mentioned "premiums", "rates" or "taxes".

[rockrr]

Learn about dual sovereignty - as practiced by the United states.

[Bonemaker]

“As for “confederate hater”, well, who could love outlaws that started & waged an unnecessary war which killed, what, 700,000 soldiers?”

Well you certainly have a lot of like-minded allies in the big city ghettos, BLM, antifa, democrats etc.

[rockrr]

Yeah, I was never much of a “list keeper” - but my little sister was, in the fifth grade.

[rockrr]

Offensively absurd. Where do you see “like-minded” in ANY FReeper comments?

[BroJoeK]

JBW1949: "There was the matter of the Tariff of Abominations, which became abominable for all concerned."

1828 "Tariff of Abominations" passed under President John Quincy Adams.
Originally supported by many Southerners including Vice President John C. Calhoun (SC) and Andrew Jackson (NC & TN) while opposed by many New Englanders, its passage ignited threats of nullification and secession from South Carolina.

In response, the new President, Andrew Jackson, rather than repealing the Tariff of Abominations, sent warships to Charleston, SC, and a threat:

"...please give my compliments to my friends in your State and say to them, that if a single drop of blood shall be shed there in opposition to the laws of the United States, I will hang the first man I can lay my hand on engaged in such treasonable conduct, upon the first tree I can reach.[68]"

But over the following years, with Southern Democrats in control of Congress & Presidency, tariffs steadily fell until by 1860 they remained as low as ever:

[BroJoeK]

Uncle Sham: "Congress, the Supreme Court, AND the Executive branch have all proved that to secede is LEGAL by continuing to recognize West Virginia as a separate state from Virginia."

The US constitution requires approval by voters of the new state, by Congress and any "mother states" for one state to be created out of another.
For examples, when Maine was created out of Massachusetts and when West Virginia was created out of Virginia.

In each case the required approvals were granted.

For those who might claim that Virginia's legislature only approved "under duress", the fact remains that no later Virginia legislature ever withdrew its previous approval.

This procedure defines what our Founders intended by "mutual consent" for the union or disunion of political regions.

[Fiji Hill]

Yeah, I was never much of a “list keeper” - but my little sister was, in the fifth grade.

Her older brother keeps a list of interesting URLs.

[rockrr]

Thanks for posting that - I had never seen it before and didn’t know it existed. Needless to say I wasn’t the one who posted those links and (now that I know of the page) they have been removed.

[BroJoeK]

Uncle Sham: "Once the South left the Union and established it's OWN country there was ZERO possibility of treason against the United States, only the possibility of DEFENDING itself against a northern aggressor."

Only even arguable in the case of 11 declared seceding states.
But there were four slave-states which did not declare secession but did provide thousands of soldiers to the Confederacy.
Those soldiers, their families & friends ("aid & comfort") were inarguably treasonous, though all pardoned at war's end.

But Confederates sent armies into those Union states as well as many Northern states, so they clearly did wage aggressive war against the United States, in the United States.
It was never just an issue of "northern aggression"

Uncle Sham: "The South had no plans to invade the north..."

But it did, many times, including: Maryland, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico & Arizona.
Confederate guerilla units also operated in California, Colorado & Vermont.
In 1863 RE Lee urged a larger invasion of Ohio and in 1864 Jefferson Davis wanted Hood's Army of Tennessee to invade Illinois.
So there is no possible way to pretend it was only about "Northern Aggression".

Uncle Sham: "What gave the north ownership of the South such that they could FORCE them to remain in a union where they were being financially raped by northern interest?
The South left, peacefully."

But they didn't leave peacefully.
From Day One Confederates were violent & aggressive.
As Jefferson Davis said in his February 1861 Inaugural Address:

"if...the integrity of our territory and jurisdiction be assailed, it will but remain for us with firm resolve to appeal to arms and invoke the blessing of Providence on a just cause. "

On April 12, 1861 Jefferson Davis demonstrated exactly what he meant by the words "integrity" and "assailed".
But there were innumerable other examples of Confederate aggression against the Union both before and after Fort Sumter.

Uncle Sham: "That wasn't good enough for the northern financiers who were profiting from the slanted trade and tariff rules resulting in one fourth of the population paying 90 percent of the funding for the federal government."

A total lie.
Statistically, cotton represented roughly 50% of total US exports.
Other "Southern products" may have added some, but here's the real proof of the matter: when Confederate exports were 100% deleted in 1861, the result was 70% reduction in "Southern Products" but total US exports fell by only 35%.

Think of it this way: if it were true that "Southern Products" represented "90%" of Federal revenues, then why did those revenues not fall 90% when Confederates seceded?

[BroJoeK]

Bonemaker: "Well you certainly have a lot of like-minded allies in the big city ghettos, BLM, antifa, democrats etc."

Sorry, but you have it backwards.
Those are all Democrats, just like Confederates & Dixiecrats, and they all believed in their Democrat party first, the Union be damned.
What do you think "resist" is all about, "sanctuary cities" and now we have a "sanctuary state"??
When it suits them Democrats nullify Federal drug laws (marijuana) and anything else they don't like.

It's what being a Democrat has always been all about: "It's my way or F.U. United States."

So those are your friends, pal, not mine.