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

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.

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.

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.

Do you deny that many unionists owned slaves or that slaves built the capital dome during the war too?

Nice try at obfuscation but as usual, you fail.

Do you deny that many unionists owned slaves or that slaves built the capital dome during the war too?

I have no doubt that there were Unionist slave owners in Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri. Grant's in-laws were two of them. As for the capitol dome, whether slaves worked on that is unknown. There is no evidence that they did and no evidence that they did not. Link

Nice try at obfuscation but as usual, you fail.

Pointing out yet another example of your false claims and bald-faced lies is not "obfuscation". It's looking like a full-time career.

I have no doubt that there were Unionist slave owners in Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri. Grant’s in-laws were two of them. As for the capitol dome, whether slaves worked on that is unknown. There is no evidence that they did and no evidence that they did not

The US Congress commissioned a study in 2005 that concluded that they did....though yes the exact records are spotty. They certainly were used to build much of the rest of Washington DC and Lincoln was in no hurry to free them.

Pointing out yet another example of your false claims and bald-faced lies is not “obfuscation”. It’s looking like a full-time career.

Pointing out your BS and lies takes up a considerable amount of time. Fortunately, I enjoy it so I’ll just keep right on doing it.

The US Congress commissioned a study in 2005 that concluded that they did....though yes the exact records are spotty.

The 2005 study found that slave labor was used to build the Capitol building between 1793 and 1826. You specifically referred to slaves being used to build the Capitol dome thirty-odd years later. There is no evidence showing slaves worked on that, and no evidence that they didn't either so your claim that they did may or may not be true. But that didn't stop you from making the claim without evidence to support it.

They certainly were used to build much of the rest of Washington DC and Lincoln was in no hurry to free them.

Congress freed them in D.C. in April 1862.

Pointing out your BS and lies takes up a considerable amount of time. Fortunately, I enjoy it so I’ll just keep right on doing it.

Well let's see. In the one original post I pointed out that you lied when you claimed Grant owned slaves through the Civil War and you lied on your blanket claim that slaves built the Capitol dome. And you're fighting my lies?

The 2005 study found that slave labor was used to build the Capitol building between 1793 and 1826. You specifically referred to slaves being used to build the Capitol dome thirty-odd years later. There is no evidence showing slaves worked on that, and no evidence that they didn’t either so your claim that they did may or may not be true. But that didn’t stop you from making the claim without evidence to support it.

I’ve seen accounts that they were used. No doubt the definitive proof is scant since slaves were not considered to be of any importance so their names were not noted for work performed. There was slavery in Washington DC during the war at the time the capital dome was completed. Slave labor had been used to construct several other government buildings including the White House.

Congress freed them in D.C. in April 1862.

Yes as I said, Lincoln was in no hurry.

“I am a little uneasy about the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia” Abe Lincoln March 24 1862 in a letter to Horace Greeley, New York Tribune editor

Well let’s see. In the one original post I pointed out that you lied when you claimed Grant owned slaves through the Civil War and you lied on your blanket claim that slaves built the Capitol dome. And you’re fighting my lies?

Well let’s see, you just lied when you claimed I lied by saying slaves built the capital dome since you have failed to provide any evidence that they did not. We know there was still slavery in Washington DC during the war.

As for the Grants, here is a source saying they did own slaves who were not freed until 1865.

http://www.american-presidents.org/2007/02/grant-was-slave-owner.html

Here is another saying his wife inherited 4 slaves.

https://www.answers.com/Q/Did_US_Grant_own_slaves

Any more BS and lies you want to spew?

I’ve seen accounts that they were used. No doubt the definitive proof is scant since slaves were not considered to be of any importance so their names were not noted for work performed.

Yet they were documented as part of the workforce used to build the Capitol itself but not noted as part of the dome? Odd.

Yes as I said, Lincoln was in no hurry.

Since Congress exercised legislative control over the district Lincoln had little to do with it.

As for the Grants, here is a source saying they did own slaves who were not freed until 1865.

A blog? Really? Why go to sources like biographies and histories when you can rely on a blog? The question of whether Grant owned slaves during the Civil War is settled. Grant owned a single slave which he freed in 1859. Julia Grant had the use of four slaves for much of her married life. Ownership of the slaves remained with her father. In his Grant biography, Ron Chernow details that Federick Dent disliked his son-in-law. He thought he was beneath his daughter and distrusted his abolitionist family. Because of that he never transferred ownership of the slaves to his daughter because under the laws in effect at the time Grant legally controlled them and could free them if he wished. Most accounts have the Dent family slaves, including those used by Julia, running away from the Dent plantation early in 1863. In any event there is no evidence of Julia Grant being seen with the slaves during her visits to her husband in 1863 through 1865.

Here is another saying his wife inherited 4 slaves.

Actually it says Grant inherited the slave, which is a neat trick considering Frederick Dent didn't die until 1873. The slave was given to him by Dent. The site says Julia Grant owned four slaves. But I've given my source for showing why she didn't own them and the website gives no source for the claim that she did. But there is no doubt as to which you will say is accurate.

Any more BS and lies you want to spew?

Can't. Too busy disputing your's.

Yet they were documented as part of the workforce used to build the Capitol itself but not noted as part of the dome? Odd.

None of it was very well documented at all....but the accounts of witnesses were that slaves were used. There was slavery in Washington DC during the war. That is indisputable.

Since Congress exercised legislative control over the district Lincoln had little to do with it.

Not directly...nevertheless he sure didn’t push for it or favor it.

You claimed I was “lying”. I provided you two sources right away. Now you pivot smoothly from that to whining about the sources. LOL!

Can’t. Too busy disputing your’s.

and lying in the process yourself since you claimed I was “lying” yet I was able to provide two sources after a quick net search.

None of it was very well documented at all....but the accounts of witnesses were that slaves were used. There was slavery in Washington DC during the war. That is indisputable.

At least until 1862.

Not directly...nevertheless he sure didn’t push for it or favor it.

There you go with the blanket and factually incorrect statements. Lincoln first offered a compensated emancipation plan in 1849 when he was a congressman. When the plan was offered again in 1861 Lincoln offered a several changes, some which were added to the bill and some which were not. He was fully behind the bill that was passed.

You claimed I was “lying”. I provided you two sources right away. Now you pivot smoothly from that to whining about the sources. LOL!

Two sources which do not support your blanket claims and which are also refuted by other sources. The fact that neither Grant or his wife owned slaves after 1859 is well documented by Grant biographers. Since you like online sources, be they blogs or whatever, then here are some. This source mentions how all the slaves at White Haven had run off over the course of the rebellion. Since you like blogs then here is a blog that also disputes it. Or you could read a Grant biography but that might be too much like work for you.

and lying in the process yourself since you claimed I was “lying” yet I was able to provide two sources after a quick net search.

And I was able to provide sources that refuted yours.

The two sources do back what I had said. Thus disproving your claim that I was “lying”....but of course I am not the least bit surprised you can’t bring yourself to admit that.

And I was able to provide sources that refuted yours.

Ah so we have a battle of sources.....not that I was “lying” as you claimed.

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.