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 then of course how can we forget the Confederate plot to burn New York City - Link
One relatively minor official who was fairly delusional and whose various schemes never really got off the ground. *yawn*
This is no more substantive than the Dahlgren affair.
A minor official chosen by Jefferson Davis and sent to Canada to plan attacks on New York and Chicago that could have killed thousands. How does that fit in with your international agreements against targeting civilians?
This is no more substantive than the Dahlgren affair.
Nice try at changing the subject. A head of state could be a legitimate military target. According to you civilians were not.
You are out of your mind. Delusional. Sick.
Sure they were. Though if memory serves some of the German officials were sentenced to death for their use of slave labor. Rebels leaders should be glad that there were no post rebellion Richmond Trials I guess.
General Orders, No. 73
Saw a humorous bumper sticker at a gun show awhile back; went like this, “great grandpappy said if I’da known things was gonna turn out this way I woulda picked my own cotton”. Funny with subtle statement within....
And there is where we get to the heart of the problem. Without slavery there would have been no civil war and most people understand this. I heard it said once that slavery was America’s “original sin”, and I think there is much truth to that statement. It still causes problems after being outlawed for over 100 years.
It is also one of the reasons that progressive’s are so emboldened today. They were right about the civil rights movement, and that makes them think they are right about all the other movement’s they have supported since then.
And a very good morning to you, too.
“And there is where we get to the heart of the problem. Without slavery there would have been no civil war and most people understand this. I heard it said once that slavery was America’s “original sin”, and I think there is much truth to that statement. It still causes problems after being outlawed for over 100 years.”
Well, I will certainly agree that the slavery issue was the catalyst. But, I don’t believe we can say with certainty that without slavery there would have been no civil war. The state rights/Federalism vs Federal Supremacy issue was still unsettled law at the time. Consequently, it’s quite possible there might have eventually been a civil war regardless. In fact, the limits or boundaries of Federalism vs Federal Supremacy is still somewhat unsettled. Example; California.....
Absent slavery what other state's rights issue would have caused the South to rebel?
Sorry, but I disagree. No other issue from the very start of our republic cause as much sectional conflict as slavery did. Heck, Georgia and South Carolina we’re threatening to not ratify the constitution over it. Slavery made a mockery of our Declaration of Independence. Many of the founding fathers knew this and wouldn’t even use the word slavery in our constitution.
Then over the course of our history the south’s attitude changed from one of slavery being a necessary evil to it being a positive good. In fact they Went so far as to become offended if other people wouldn’t ageee that it was a positive good. Meanwhile, the rest of the western world’s opinion had moved in the opposite direction.
To me an interesting what if is if we had stayed a colony to Britian and they had still outlawed slavery in 1833 would we have revolted then? Or would just the southern states revolt and the northern states sided with britian?
Yes, one can conjure up all sorts of scenarios for sure. However, during the early period of the war Lincoln’s first priority was preserving the union and was willing to allow slavery to continue to do so. And, although Frederick Douglas was pressuring him hard to make a declaration freeing the slaves it after the Battle of Antietam that he felt secure enough to take the minimalist step of writing and enacting the Emancipation Proclamation which as you I’m sure know only freed the slaves in the Confederacy. The constitution was amended after the war freeing all slaves. But, it’s not widely taught that Lincoln’s colalition was very fragile both within his administration and Congress but as well among some of the Union states especially in the upper Midwest. A good book I recommend to you that addresses Lincoln’s trials and tribulations in holding the Union together is Tried by War, author James McPhearson. Give it a go :)
For example?
“Yes, one can conjure up all sorts of scenarios for sure.
For example?”
For example, yours. Which btw, I don’t disagree with.
A minor official chosen by Jefferson Davis and sent to Canada to plan attacks on New York and Chicago that could have killed thousands. How does that fit in with your international agreements against targeting civilians?
You have proof he was sent to plan attacks against civilians? All the evidence I’ve seen is that he cooked up his hapless schemes which came to nothing on his own.
Nice try at obfuscation. You have yet to show that Jefferson Davis or anybody in the Confederate government planned or approved of any of these various plots and schemes this one minor intelligence official cooked up on his own way up in Canada - all of which came to nothing.
Sure they were. Though if memory serves some of the German officials were sentenced to death for their use of slave labor. Rebels leaders should be glad that there were no post rebellion Richmond Trials I guess.
It would have been awfully embarrassing to admit inconvenient facts like the Grants owning slaves at the time not to mention the many other unionists who owned slaves or work on the capital dome during the war being done by slaves.
President Jefferson Davis demanded a treason trial after he was incarcerated. It was decide that to put him on trial would put the issue of secession on trial. The USA thought they would lose the case and that would be to embarrassing. Davis was eventually let free.
Exactly.
“If you bring these [Confederate] leaders to trial it will condemn the North, for by the Constitution secession is not rebellion. Lincoln wanted Davis to escape, and he was right. His capture was a mistake. His trial will be a greater one.” Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, July 1867 (Foote, The Civil War, Vol. 3, p. 765)
“If you bring these leaders to trial, it will condemn the North, for by the Constitution, secession is not a rebellion. His [Jefferson Davis] capture was a mistake. His trial will be a greater one. We cannot convict him of treason.” [as quoted by Herman S. Frey, in Jefferson Davis, Frey Enterprises, 1977, pp. 69-72]
I'd be interested in seeing your evidence because all the evidence I've seen shows he was assigned and financed by the Confederate government to organize attacks in Northern cities. Here's one account: Link
Nice try at obfuscation. You have yet to show that Jefferson Davis or anybody in the Confederate government planned or approved of any of these various plots and schemes this one minor intelligence official cooked up on his own way up in Canada - all of which came to nothing.
If they came to nothing it was due more to rebel ineptitude than lack of desire.
It sure would...except that like so many other claims of yours there isn't a shred of truth to it. Grant owned a single slave which he freed in 1859. After 1864 Grant and his wife didn't live anywhere where slavery was legal. The claim that he owned slaves up until the ratification of the 13th Amendment - and some lost causers have even claimed he owned them after the ratification - is complete fantasy.
I’d be interested in seeing your evidence because all the evidence I’ve seen shows he was assigned and financed by the Confederate government to organize attacks in Northern cities. Here’s one account:
You’re the one who made the claim. It up to you, not me, to provide evidence that he was tasked with deliberately targeting civilians.
You have yet to show desire on anybody’s part but his.
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.