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 ...
I suspect you'd need a mirror.
Only ones that killed 700,000 Africans was other Africans....
Are you drunk NOW?!
So ya got nothing
Not at all. I already laid out the economic reality to you.
Britain and France industrialized first. They already had economies of scale. Northern manufacturers could not compete on price or quality. That’s why they were screaming for protective tariffs.
Sorry you are incapable of grasping basic economic reality.
Adams has ample support. Try reading his books to see.
Sure it shows WHERE the ships landed and WHERE taxes were collected. It does not show WHO owned the goods and thus paid the tariff. As I already explained to you last time, the port does not pay the tariff. The owner of the goods does.
I never said that percent of goods was destined for Southern Consumers. They sold the goods to anybody obviously...after paying the tariffs.
No. They exchanged their cash crops for manufactured goods. Those goods were then assessed the tariff rate. You obviously don’t understand even basic economics.
New Orleans was a major exporting port. Otherwise though, shipping was routed through New York. Read up on the shipping routes at the time.
Ooh, so preachy and now you done gone all Carrie Nations on me. The left has turned very prissy and Victorian of late so it stands to reason, I suppose. No, these lips have not touched liquor, lol.
“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
Declaration of Independence
The Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in areas (states) rebelling against the Federal government. Slaves in slave states loyal to the Federal government remained in their status for example Delaware. (Yes Delaware was a slave state! Slave population in Delaware was something like 120 slaves.) It took the 13th amendment(Ratified 12/06/1865) to abolish slavery everywhere in the US.
You’re never going to post those international agreements you referenced, are you? Ah well, not surprising.
International agreements? I did not say agreements. It was commonly accepted among European nations what the laws of war were. There were not yet formal international agreements a la the Geneva Conventions.
This is all a pile of nonsense. There is no question that union policy was to deliberate target civilians as evidenced by how frequently it occurred and by how many different commanders. That was generally not the policy (though yes there were exceptions especially in Missouri) of the Confederate Army. Lee’s orders when entering Pennsylvania for example are very explicit about how civilians must be treated honorably and according to the laws of war and their property must not be stolen or wantonly destroyed.
Yes its clear this again was completely disregarded over and over again.
I did not even mention the Roswell women though yes, that was a particularly egregious example of a war crime by Sherman.
This is simply false as anybody who has actually bothered studying the march to the sea or the Bummers or any of the rest of Sherman’s campaign or indeed the burning of the Shenandoah Valley by Sheridan will instantly know.
Of course you would since they are unsourced and bear little resemblance to the truth.
Of course you would try to BS your way out of what has been reported and sourced numerous times.
Of course you oh so conveniently ignore the executions carried out by the union side be they by Benjamin Butler or Sherman or in Missouri etc etc. The reality is the calculus of war made it advantageous for the union side to end prisoner exchanges so they chose to end them. The rest is pretext and BS.
How does one explain the docility of a warrior class of people who overwhelmingly outnumbered the plantation owners? Sure, there were a handful of slave rebellions but nothing resembling a general uprising. Conclusion: “slavery” was nowhere near the brutal reality that has been portrayed and there was general contentment.
Do you have an original (primary) source for this imaginary quote?
I already provided you a link. Even the national park service (not exactly an unbiased source) admits it.
https://www.nps.gov/ande/learn/historyculture/grant-and-the-prisoner-exchange.htm
By asking to join the Union, the member states gave up their sovereignty. Take a look at the Virginia Plan of 1787. That plan was the result of the constitutional convention held by every one of the original 13 member states:
Uhhh no. Patently false. The states were assured repeatedly in the federalist papers that they were not surrendering their sovereignty. They expressly reserved the right to secede when they ratified the Constitution.
That only pertained to those powers DELEGATED by Virginia to the federal government so long as it chose to remain in. Otherwise they would hardly have passed an express resolution at the time of the ratification of the constitution reserving the right to unilateral secession.
odder, I always thought killing in a just war was moral, murder, not so much.
“Grant was no more of a drunk than Churchill was. “
Or just about anyone else who has been through college, a blue collar/tradesman career, military experience etc.
“A drunk who beat every rebel general sent against him, even the virtuous ones. What does that say about them? “
He wasn’t like Foster Brooks 24/7 Jack.
“So, the north did not go to war to end slavery. Say it. “
The north did not go to war to end slavery.
That’s not a primary source.
Just white soldiers.
I don't care what Obama calls it. I call it Mt. McKinley.
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.