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 ...
And so while making false accusations against me, you self-identify as American Taliban, eager to destroy monuments you dislike.
It is entirely the PC Revisionists who have done that. Meanwhile the statue of an infamous war criminal like Sherman stands unmolested in NY’s Central Park as well as several sites in Ohio.
This debate/discussion is much wider than just Free Republic. There is no doubt it is the South’s legacy, history, traditions and culture that has been demonized by the Left. Meanwhile even more conservative Midwesterners and those few Northeasterners who are not actually part of the Leftist PC Revisionist cabal sit back and say nothing while the South is constantly unfairlyvdenigrated. Why is that? Do you really think YOUR history is safe? They are already moving on to Thomas Jefferson now.
“conservative Midwesterners ....... sit back and say nothing”
I couldn’t be more conservative or Midwestern.
Its just this, the north considers the matter settled, many in the south do not.
I have many cousins, Dems and Reps, in the south, they have many of your same views. Our family reunions had to ban race and Civil War talk. I will never forget my grandfather and Pensacola Uncle having a fierce argument, never saw Grandpa so angry.
I remember my son in basic training talking about the recruits from the “dirty south” picking fights with recruits they thought were “Yankees”. When they found out my son was from the State of WA, he didn’t matter to them, only Civil War states had Yankees.
That’s how silly the debate gets.
Why do you tell such godawful lies about people like WT Sherman?
Its just this, the north considers the matter settled, many in the south do not.
The South considered the matter settled....until PC Revisionists in Academia in the last generation started trying to demonize the South and Southerners all over again. Suddenly we were told the Confederate battle flag which was used by bikers and Rock bands like Lynyrd Skynyrd and on the most popular TV show of the 80s, The Dukes of Hazard, suddenly became a “racist hate symbol” by Leftist Yankees. Then, we were told that various monuments including those in cemeteries needed to be removed. Now they have moved on to Thomas Jefferson. Guess what. Many of the Founding Fathers including George Mason, including Patrick Henry including Madison and Monroe and George Washington were all Southerners.
You think the debate “silly” because its not your history and culture and heritage and ancestors who are demonized constantly be PC Revisionist Leftists.
He mentioned it 24 times in his address to the Confederate Congress on April 29, 1861.
“If you bring these [Confederate] leaders to trial it will condemn the North, for by the Constitution secession is not rebellion."
Thank you for that blinding flash of the obvious. Secession itself is not rebellion. Secession itself is not treason, even when done illegally. Rebellion is rebellion. Waging armed rebellion against the government is treason. Davis was certainly guilty of that.
Davis had hung around in Washington DC after resigning from the US Senate after Mississippi seceded hoping to be arrested and tried for treason.
Davis had not. He resigned from the Senate on January 21, 1861 and immediately returned home.
Why do you tell such godawful lies about people like WT Sherman?
I don’t. You tell lies in denying that he was a war criminal.
Nonsense, unless you define the words "war criminal" to mean: "whatever I personally dislike".
In fact, Sherman did nothing in Confederate states which Confederate troops had not already done in Union states.
Nor did either sides' armies commit the kinds of atrocities which killed tens of millions in 20th century wars & revolutions.
So by any reasonable standards both armies' troops were good Christian soldiers.
That's why the claim here of pro-Confederate propagandists like FLT-bird are pure lies.
He mentioned it 24 times in his address to the Confederate Congress on April 29, 1861.
But never once in his inaugural address.
https://jeffersondavis.rice.edu/archives/documents/jefferson-davis-first-inaugural-address
Secession is perfectly legal and is not rebellion. One cannot rebel against a government one is no longer legally a part of.
Just because you shove a knife in her back and shout that you’re done doesn’t mean that you’re no longer part of something you committed to.
Nonsense, unless you define the words “war criminal” to mean: “whatever I personally dislike”.
No, I mean quite literally, he was a war criminal.
I am unaware of an order by Lee or any other high ranking Confederate general to indiscriminately bombard Northern cities or to randomly shoot civilians. The same cannot be said for Sherman.
So by any reasonable standards both armies’ troops were good Christian soldiers.
That’s why the claim here of pro-Confederate propagandists like FLT-bird are pure lies.
If your defense of the war criminal Sherman is to say his atrocities did not rise to the level of the Nazis or the Communists...well you are right about that. That is hardly a ringing endorsement considering those were the bloodiest regimes in human history. But of course BroJoeK went further and just simply lied in claiming Sherman did not commit war crimes when even his own records show that he did.
But 24 times in his address to the Confederate Congress on the occasion of the ratification of the constitution: Link
Secession is perfectly legal and is not rebellion.
If done legally. But legally or illegally it is not treason as defined by the Constitution.
One cannot rebel against a government one is no longer legally a part of.
Key clause being "no longer legally part of." The Southern war was a war of rebellion, and those waging it committed treason.
Let me guess? Based on those "commonly accepted rules of war" you reference but can never provide a link to?
I am unaware of an order by Lee or any other high ranking Confederate general to indiscriminately bombard Northern cities...
Just burn them, as they did at Chambersburg and Lawrence.
If your defense of the war criminal Sherman is to say his atrocities did not rise to the level of the Nazis or the Communists...well you are right about that.
Didn't rise to the level of Arthur Harris, Carl Spaatz, or Curtis LeMay either. You must really be down on them.
Let me guess? Based on those “commonly accepted rules of war” you reference but can never provide a link to?
Under what laws of war is randomly shooting civilians legal?
General Sherman also wrote to U.S. Brigadier General Louis Douglass Watkins at Calhoun, Georgia, on Oct. 29, 1864: “Can you not send over to Fairmount and Adairsville, burn 10 or 12 houses of known secessionists, kill a few at random and let them know it will be repeated every time a train is fired upon from Resaca to Kingston.”
Brigadier General Edward M. McCook, First Cavalry Division of Cavalry Corps, at Calhoun, Georgia, on October 30, 1864, reported to Sherman, “My men killed some of those fellows two or three days since, and I had their houses burned....I will carry out your instructions thoroughly and leave the country east of the road uninhabitable.”
This alone would have earned a death sentence at Nuremburg.
What Confederate general ordered that? You as well as I know the war in Missouri and Kansas was particularly nasty on both sides and that much of this was carried out by guerillas who weren’t under the control of their nominal superiors....and Lawrence was in response to Osceola.
as a matter of fact, yes. Of course it was the Axis which started the indiscriminate bombings of civilians in Warsaw, Rotterdam, London, Shanghai, etc.
I undertstand, the same white guilt that got Obama elected.
Confederate symbols are very rare in the north, so I was surprised over the protests, just unaware of the issue.
What is silly is to physically fight over the Civil War again and again.
People can have their beliefs, but running over people and rioting on both sides is moronic and divisive, serves no good.
It is forums like FR, like we are doing, healthy debate, respect for each others views, agree to disagree.
Action means, work politically, run for office, donate, campaign. Healthy freedom of speech.
In your dreams.
What Confederate general ordered that?
McCausland in the case of Chambersburg. The commander on the scene at Lawrence which was Quantrell. During his campaign in Pennsylvania, Lee's commanders made several threats to burn towns unless their demands for supplies were met.
as a matter of fact, yes. Of course it was the Axis which started the indiscriminate bombings of civilians in Warsaw, Rotterdam, London, Shanghai, etc.
Well then if turnabout is fair play, just consider the burning of Atlanta revenge for burning Chambersburg and I guess that makes it all OK in your eyes, right?
That's a fairy tale you made up. Post a reference.
Lee always went out of his way to NOT to harm civilians or destroy private property. It was his standing order.
The one-off Chambersburg incident was so unusual for the CSA that it was the exception that proved the rule.
OK. Link
Lee always went out of his way to NOT to harm civilians or destroy private property. It was his standing order.
Of course it was. The whole purpose of the 1863 Pennsylvania campaign was to strip the area of food and supplies that would help Lee's army make it through the winter.
The one-off Chambersburg incident was so unusual for the CSA that it was the exception that proved the rule.
Not so one-off, as the good people of Lawrence could tell you.
In your dreams.
Nope. Death sentences were handed out for less evidence.
The war in Missouri-Kansas was particularly nasty and on the Confederate side, not really under the control of the high command. As for the campaign in Pennsylvania, here are Lee’s orders:
Robert E. Lee,
General Orders, No. 73
Headquarters, Army of Northern Virginia
Chambersburg, Pennsylvania
June 27, 1863
The commanding general has observed with marked satisfaction the conduct of the troops on the march, and confidently anticipates results commensurate with the high spirit they have manifested.
No troops could have displayed greater fortitude or better performed the arduous marches of the past ten days.
Their conduct in other respects has with few exceptions been in keeping with their character as soldiers, and entitles them to approbation and praise.
There have however been instances of forgetfulness on the part of some, that they have in keeping the yet unsullied reputation of the army, and that the duties expected of us by civilization and Christianity are not less obligatory in the country of the enemy than in our own.
The commanding general considers that no greater disgrace could befall the army, and through it our whole people, than the perpetration of the barbarous outrages upon the unarmed, and defenceless [sic] and the wanton destruction of private property that have marked the course of the enemy in our own country.
Such proceedings not only degrade the perpetrators and all connected with them, but are subversive of the discipline and efficiency of the army, and destructive of the ends of our present movement.
It must be remembered that we make war only upon armed men, and that we cannot take vengeance for the wrongs our people have suffered without lowering ourselves in the eyes of all whose abhorrence has been excited by the atrocities of our enemies, and offending against Him to whom vengeance belongeth, without whose favor and support our efforts must all prove in vain.
The commanding general therefore earnestly exhorts the troops to abstain with most scrupulous care from unnecessary or wanton injury to private property, and he enjoins upon all officers to arrest and bring to summary punishment all who shall in any way offend against the orders on this subject.
R. E. Lee
General
No because it was the Federals which started deliberately targeting civilians and who did so on a vastly larger scale and with more consistency than the Confederates ever did.
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.