Yes, please. Lets discuss destroying monuments.

Trump instructed Interior Secretary David Bernhardt to re-erect a statue of Gen. Albert Pike, the only Confederate monument in Washington, D.C., after protesters tore it down and set it on fire on Juneteenth

He better get the statue mass produced because as soon as one goes up, it will come down.

"may also be used retroactively for destruction or vandalism already caused."

Does that not also make Trump liable, or is he protected due to his position?

He is until he leaves office I believe.  But after, I hope they can go after him.

great seed spotlighting the monumental hypocrisy of the white supremacist jerk-off that temporarily occupies the white house.

white supremacist

He didn't hear the 'white power' yelling.

If the glove fits, you can't acquit.

when the hell is Trump gonna be convicted of aquiting on our country, as he has sold it out long ago, and is treasonous trash, that the GOP let ride, and because of their pussy foot in actions, Trump has thoroughly lowered our world standing as our whirled standing has been flushed as the liter(Except in Covid ) as we have a treasonous cheater Dividing the United States, for he puts HIMSELF, above any and all, and has kissed Putins' ass and fat tail, , denigrated our allies without fail, and asz he tweets of WHITE POWER, LIES about a pandemic KILLER, and his biggest worry is about fckn monuments, while our AMERICAN TROOPS have bounties on their heads, and Trump and Pence, Dumb est and Dumber, didn't feel it was worth mentioning to Putin, think on that , though I'm pretty sure about all Americans have a little bit, it's disgusting and sick, and the GOP has allowed a mental midget moron to remain this countries leader, they are SCUM, and deserve to go to Hell, as far as I'm not concerned, cause I'm not, but damn, those fckers suck

when the hell is Trump gonna be convicted

Just as soon as the GOP grows a spine.

Crustaceans one and all, with Romney the exception. They are treasonous fcks 

Amid a national uprising for racial justice and a deadly pandemic that's disproportionately impacting Black, Latinx and Native communities, President Donald Trump is promising lengthy prison sentences for anyone who destroys or dismantles a monument to a slave-owning president or leader of the Confederacy.

Trumps law also applies to all Federal War Memorials; which the leftist radicals have also vandalized and attempted to destroy. Hey the race card played, and a complete and utter lie all in one line. Great start to the article!

tRumps law?

That's telling.  

Ronin,

Either all our monuments are national monuments worthy of protection or none of them are. So you claim it's the race card being played, well then please tell me why only some monuments are worthy of saving. 

And please take this from someone who believes that 90% of our monuments have a proper place. 

At the conclusion of WW2 in Europe all monuments, public works, names of roads/bridges that had any connection to the defunct Nazi regime were destroyed except for some which were placed in museums to assure the public remembered.

I will comment on one statue in Layfette Square.  Andrew Jackson, the architect of 'The Trail of Tears.'  The reason he is honored would be----what? 

I will comment on one statue in Layfette Square.  Andrew Jackson, the architect of 'The Trail of Tears.'  The reason he is honored would be----what? 

Andrew Jackson was a founder of today's Democratic Party and was the first Democratic President.  Now you know why Andrew Jackson is honored.

Andrew Jackson was a founder of today's Democratic Party and was the first Democratic President.

Now I know I might piss off a few Dems here, but the party he stood for was one that stood for slavery. In fact, he was not only a slave owner, but also a slave trader. He also was involved in ethnic cleansing of the Indians. 

Nobody is 'peed' off.  Your statement is factual.  But times have changed.  The party has changed.  The democratic party even had to undergo an exorcism of sorts with the Dixiecrats.  As far as the Dixiecrats-----they migrated elsewhere into the American political system.  Where was that 'elsewhere.'  Dare to 'peed' off anyone on that?

Andrew Jackson was a founder of today's Democratic Party and was the first Democratic President.  Now you know why Andrew Jackson is honored.

Total nonsense.

Andrew Jackson is Trump's personal hero.   And you think Democrats admire him? lol. 

Of course Democrats admire Jackson, their party’s founder.  Jackson Jefferson day has until 2015  been the Democratic Party’s Biggest annual fundraising celebration.

of course if you are arguing the Democratic Party of 2020 bears no relationship to the Democratic Party of say 2008, I might agree with you. The Democrats should probably change their name. Maybe the “new stalinists” or “the racialist party” would be more fitting.

Total nonsense. Andrew Jackson is Trump's personal hero.   And you think Democrats admire him? lol. 

Donald Trump did not place the statue of Andrew Jackson in Lafayette Square.  And I do not know if Andrew Jackson is Trump's personal hero.

I do know that Andrew Jackson was one of the founders of today's Democratic Party.  And the Democratic Party honored Jackson's role in the history of the Democratic Party until recently.

The Democratic Party will hide its past by making superficial changes.  But those superficial changes won't change history.  Today's Democratic Party is the result of over 200 hundred years of political power in the United States.

What do you think systemic racism is about?  Do you really think the Democratic Party making superficial changes to hide its past will address systemic racism?

Nerm,

And one can say the same thing about the Republican party. It was a progressive party. Do you think that it is still that same party? I think not. 

Time changes everything, including parties. To me, parties are nothing more than a consensus ideology of the time, something I am not interested in. I think it's time for people to think for themselves, and stop being told what to think. 

And one can say the same thing about the Republican party. It was a progressive party. Do you think that it is still that same party? I think not.  Time changes everything, including parties. To me, parties are nothing more than a consensus ideology of the time, something I am not interested in. I think it's time for people to think for themselves, and stop being told what to think.

After the end of slavery, which was main reason the party had been established, the Republican Party emphasized industrial and economic progress.  The Republican plan for reconstruction was to industrialize the South to create jobs.  The Republican Party was making plans for a transcontinental railroad while the Civil War was being fought.

The Republican Party has always believed that industry and business provided the means to achieve progressive results.  That shouldn't be surprising since the Protestant work ethic was a prominent characteristic of the North when the Republican Party was founded.

Unfortunately the Republican Party did go off the rails in the late 19th century.  Republicans began rewarding private excess rather than pursuing progressive results.  Theodore Roosevelt did attempt to bring Republicans back to their founding principles of pursuing progressive results but did not succeed to any significant extent.  Franklin Roosevelt established the founding Republican progressive principles within the Democratic Party.  FDR did have better success than Teddy Roosevelt but the Democratic Party remained entrenched in racial politics.  The Democratic Party has twisted the Republican progressive principles into a system of redistribution justified by racial politics.

people tend to forget that there was Jeffersonian democracy , then jacksonian democracy , and a Roosevelt democracy,  lastly I would say would be Clintonian / Obama democracy In my view one evolved from the other to cover specific years and the actual true father of what passes for the democrat party today Would be B. Obama.

Now I can see from history jacksonian democrats were indeed racist , they spawned the likes of men within their party to dawn masks and hoods to terrorize their communities to conform to their wishes with threats of violence and destruction.

Interestingly enough , I see the same things happening today.

 And that perrie , is how to piss people off , state the truth and the history factually..

e reason he is honored would be----what? 

um...He saved the Union for starters. Sort of a big deal.

He saved the Union for starters. Sort of a big deal.

No that was Lincoln. 

He died in 1845.  He didn't even save the Alamo.  He committed genocide against the Native Americans.

1860 wasn’t the first time South Carolina threatened to secede. Jackson’s deft management of the nullification crises saved the union 30 years before the civil war.

Look up the nullification crises.

and he didn’t “commit genocide”  

and he didn’t “commit genocide”  

Depends on who's telling the history, doesn't it?

A lot of people are forgetting the New England states were on the verge of seceding during the War of 1812 and going to throw in with nova scotia , even had a convention to do so scheduled , the war ended before the convention could convene, their reason was economic s and how the war was costing those states money.

Until after the civil war , the idea of any state leaving the union was an open question that had yet to be answered 

One of the mass delegates to the constitutional convention when asked about it pretty much stated that if at any time a state or its people felt that belonging to the union was detrimental to the state and their well being , they of course would have the right to vote to leave the union, it was never put into the actual constitution though, which is why it was an open question for the time until the Civil War, That delegate was Rufus King. 

It was one of the ways he talked a couple of delegates from southern states  into signing the constitution, when the issue of slavey was being discussed then. 

I found those discussed in his personal papers kept at the Boston Historical society when I was a wee yonker.

Well, no, it’s the definition. 

So what do you call the death of 16,000 people because according to wiki:

The act has been referred to as a unitary act of systematic  genocide , because it discriminated against an ethnic group in so far as to make certain the death of vast numbers of its population. ^[4]  

en.wikipedia

Good stuff Mark.... Thanks.

Mark,

Always informative and thoughtful. Thank you! 

You should look up the definition of genocide, it's requires deliberate killing.  The very fact that the Act exists nullifies the idea that Jackson was trying to simply liquidate Indians. 

The Indian Removal Act was designed by Jackson as as an attempt to save the Indian and their way of life by giving them lands away from settlements.  That the execution of the act didn't live up to its ideals doesn't turn into genocide.  Intent matters.

he idea of any state leaving the union was an open question that had yet to be answered 

For sure, and prior to Andrew Jackson, the default answer both north and south was that it was legal. It's was Jackson's genius to counter that assumption with one of the most important proclamations ever issued by a President.  His argument that the Union was perpetual and secession illegal was so compelling and sound that Lincoln in 1861 and the Supreme Court in 1869 when formally announced secession was illegal simply followed it. 

Without Jackson's strong defense of the Union and his dismantling of the legal basis for secession, the Union might have ended in 1832 without a shot fired. America is very lucky he was President, and not someone like Buchanan.

Here's his justly famous proclamation asserting the eternalness of the Union:

memory.loc

Sean,

Maybe you should look up what the Turks did with the Armenians during their genocide. They made them march endlessly for hundreds of miles till they died. We call that a genocide. The Nazis did the same thing with the Jews. 

Tell me how is the Indian Removal Act any different from Hitler's Lebensraum. 

Again I am using the definition, you are not. You can call anything a genocide if you Want to, but the dentition is what it is.

you should probably read up on what happened in Armenia.  The Turkish government intentionally killed Armenians and tried to exterminate them, much like the Germans with the Jews.   The American government did not try to eradicate the Indians, it  tried to Save them by removing them to the west, which any person who has studied the era knows. 

but by all means provide any evidence that Jackson intended to eradicate the Indian race.  The evidence that he didn’t is overwhelming. 

You can say whatever you want, Sean, but history says it all, no matter what Jackson called it, his actions say it clearly. 

The law required the government to negotiate removal treaties fairly, voluntarily and peacefully: It did not permit the president or anyone else to coerce Native nations into giving up their land. However, President Jackson and his government frequently ignored the letter of the law and forced Native Americans to vacate lands they had lived on for generations. In the winter of 1831, under threat of invasion by the U.S. Army, the Choctaw became the first nation to be expelled from its land altogether. They made the journey to Indian Territory on foot (some “bound in chains and marched double file,” one historian writes) and without any food, supplies or other help from the government. Thousands of people died along the way. It was, one Choctaw leader told an Alabama newspaper, a “trail of tears and death.” history

Here’s an excerpt from Jackson’s award winning biography, written by the foremost expert on Jackson, dr. Robert Remini:

. “His objective was not the destruction of Indian life and culture. Quite the contrary. He believed that removal was the Indian’s only salvation against certain extinction. Nor did he despoil Indians. He struggled to prevent fraud and corruption”

Well, isn't that nice revisionist history. These are Jackson's own words:

One of the most bitterly debated issues on the floor of Congress was the Indian Removal Bill of 1830, pushed hard by then-President Andrew Jackson. Despite being assailed by many legislators as immoral, the bill finally passed in the Senate by nine votes, 29 to 17, and by an even smaller margin in the House. In Jackson’s thinking, more than three dozen eastern tribes stood in the way of what he saw as the settlers’ divinely ordained rights to clear the wilderness, build homes and grow cotton and other crops. In his annual address to Congress in 1833, Jackson denounced Indians, stating, “They have neither the intelligence, the industry, the moral habits, nor the desire of improvement which are essential to any favorable change in their condition. Established in the midst of another and a superior race… they must necessarily yield to the force of circumstances and ere [before] long disappear.”

history

So please explain to me how by his own words his intent was not to eradicate Indians. 

You can say whatever you want, Sean,

I'm just using words properly. You aren't. Genocide has an actual definition that you can't satisfy.. 

ut history says it all,

It absolutely does, which is why I cite it and you don't.  Again, where is the evidence Jackson intended to eradicate the Indian race through his removal policy? you accuse someone of genocide, you should have the decency to provide actual evidence to support your claim.  No one is disputing things did not go according to plan, which is all you can claim. That, of course, doesn't come close to the intent necessary to justify a claim of genocide. 

plain to me how by his own words his intent was not to eradicate Indians. 

You should probably read that again. If you still need help, I'll provide it, because it actually means the opposite of what you seem to think it means.  It might help if you read it in context as taking  isolated quotes  from biased sites can lead you astray if you don't read carefully.

Sean,

It absolutely does, which is why I cite it and you don't. 

I have cited every comment I have made here. What are you talking about?

The man actually said " “They have neither the intelligence, the industry, the moral habits, nor the desire of improvement which are essential to any favorable change in their condition. Established in the midst of another and a superior race…   they must necessarily yield to the   force of circumstances and ere [before] long disappear.” 

history

That is the very definition of eugenics and genocide. 

Not only that, but he also went against SCOTUS on this:

In 1830, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Worcester v. Georgia that Jackson was wrong. Chief Justice John Marshall wrote in the majority opinion that the Constitution gave to Congress, not the states, the power to make laws that applied to the Indian tribes. Despite this clear court victory for the Cherokees, Jackson openly refused to enforce it, and the Southern states ignored it.

Georgia settlers, gold miners, and land speculators swarmed onto Cherokee lands, often seizing or destroying Cherokee homes and other property. In 1832, Georgia ran a lottery to distribute Cherokee land.

crf-usa

Defending this man's actions would be as bad as defending the English actions to the Irish during the "potato famine". 

t is the very definition of eugenics and genocide. 

You need to read that quote again. You don't understand it, at all. 

No Sean, I'm afraid you are in denial. I read English quite fine. The goal was the genocide of a people he deemed less than. I mean it wasn't dubbed the "Trail of Tears" for no reason".  But let's leave it here and let the readers decide for themselves. 

Sorry Sean , but Jacksons proclamation was simply an act of closing the barn door after the horses had already bolted in my view . His policies of westward expansion and manifest destiny of the country had already set the die, on how others would be treated . 

 He is to me the actual father of manifest destiny policies and ideas that ran through this country at the time and continue to be used to this very day . Living on a reservation , I see it every day and deal with the results , every day.

No, let's read what he actually said. Words matter. You don't get to push your own opinions on words that mean the opposite. 

"It is to be hoped that those portions of two of the Southern tribes, which in that event will present the only remaining difficulties, will realize the necessity of emigration, and will speedily resort to it. My original convictions upon this subject have been confirmed by the course of events for several years, and experience is every day adding to their strength. That those tribes can not exist surrounded by our settlements and in continual contact with our citizens is certain. They have neither the intelligence, the industry, the moral habits, nor the desire of improvement which are essential to any favorable change in their condition. Established in the midst of another and a superior race, and without appreciating the causes of their inferiority or seeking to control them, they must necessarily yield to the force of circumstances and ere long disappear.

Such has been their fate heretofore, and if it is to be averted -- and it is -- it can only be done by a general removal beyond our boundary and by the reorganization of their political system upon principles adapted to the new relations in which they will be placed. "

Words matter. He's saying in plain English that if tribes are left in states, subject to state laws, they cannot survive. Removal is the only option that will allow  Indian tribes and their culture to survive.  It doesn't get any plainer than that. 

Again, this is exactly what I've been saying.Jackson saw removal as the way to save the indian tribes as opposed to being subsumed in American culture. You can't distort his words enough to support your claim.

lamation was simply an act of closing the barn door after the horses had already bolted in my view

I honestly  don't understand your point. Are you claiming Jackson was trying to exterminate the Indian race? Again, if you have proof of that I'd be interested in seeing it. 

Sean,

Do you not get what was being done? He broke treaties with these Indians. He went against SCOTUS. He by force, removed entire Indian populations from their homeland and put them on a forced march of almost a 1000 miles with no supplies, and actually says:

They have neither the intelligence, the industry, the moral habits, nor the desire of improvement which are essential to any favorable change in their condition. Established in the midst of another and a superior race, and without appreciating the causes of their inferiority or seeking to control them, they must necessarily yield to the force of circumstances and ere long disappear.

And you don't think that is a genocide. Those words could have come out of Hitler's own mouth. 

Yes, words matter as do actions.

Jackson simply took what was already being done , and put things on steroids so to speak, by using the color of lawful actions to cover what most would consider theft from those that at that time had little to no constitutional protections because they were not white and not considered citizens of the nation.

 And yes I think jacksons actions accelerated the idea of manifest destiny, and the actions that accelerated AND allowed the Native American genocide that followed.

ou don't think that is a genocide. T

Of course genocide  has a  definition other than "racist."  Different words means different things. 

Let's review. I asked for any evidence that Jackson tired to  exterminate the Indian race(the actual definition of genocide) To explain his attitude towards removal, I quoted the foremost Jackson scholar who said "his objective was not the destruction of Indian life and culture. Quite the contrary. He believed that removal was the Indian’s only salvation against certain extinction. Nor did he despoil Indians. He struggled to prevent fraud and corruption.”

You then called the scholar's opinion "revisionist history " and then provided a quote from Jackson that made Dr. Remini's exact point, apparently without understanding  you were doing so. 

Those words could have come out of Hitler's own mouth. 

 Being a racist isn't the same thing as committing genocide. In fact, it should be obvious but  if Jackson had actually wanted to exterminate the Indian race he wouldn't have adopted an Indian orphan and raised him as his own son. Did Hitler adopt any Jews?

Did Hitler try and save the Jews by removing them from the danger of close contact with the Nazis? No, he actually tried to exterminate them!  How can you compare the intentional murder of six million Jewish people with a misguided attempt to save Indians and their culture through the flawed process of removal? It boggles the mind. 

Intent matters. You still have provided zero evidence that Jackson's removal Act was designed to intentionally murder Indians. In fact, the only evidence you did provide demonstrates the exact opposite, namely that Jackson viewed removal as the only chance for Indian tribes their only chance to retain their separate identity.

and put things on steroids so to speak, by using the color of lawful actions to cover what most would consider theft from those that at that time had little to no constitutional protections because they were not white and not considered citizens of the nation

Jackson inherited a very messy situation.  John Qunicy Adams had supported removal for the reasons expressed by Jackson, but never got around to doing anything. States were not happy with independent, sovereign entities within their borders and certainly also coveted their land. Indians did not feel their rights were being respected.  As you mentioned earlier, the national government did not have the power it subsequently attained and Jackson had to worry about a state seceding if he was seen to overreach. 

So Jackson had to walk a thin line. To leave the Indians to the states would have meant the end of the tribes. If he projected federal force, he ran the risk of provoking a state to secede and almost certainly failing in the attempt.. From Jackson's pov, removal offered the best chance to protect the Indians without provoking a possible civil war. 

cksons actions accelerated the idea of manifest destin

I don't think the concept of manifest destiny really drove Jackson. First, he was presented with a problem that Presidents had been ducking for years and being who he was he decided to solve it and wasn't considering any implications beyond the terms of the act. Second, Jackson was more likely driven by military motivations than anything else. he was profoundly bothered by the concept of hostile nations being able to work with the British and strike at the heart of the country. He wanted the Indians pushed west to remove that threat. 

 allowed the Native American genocide that followed.

Again, that certainly wasn't his intent, and there is no evidence to suggest that 's what he wanted. 

Sean,

You have no idea of his intent. Neither do I. I only have his actions. 

Btw.. what do you think were the British intent was during the potato famine? There are a lot of way to get to your ends. Walking thousands of people without food or shelter with just the clothes on their backs, for hundreds of miles was not doing them a favor, especially since it was against their will. I think that speaks to his intent.

And for the record, I didn't call the man Hitler. I said that it sounded like something Hilter would say. I don't think I am wrong about that either. Jackson got what he wanted at the time he wanted it. It only cost thousands of lives. No, he didn't wipe out all the Indians, he just wiped out the ones that were inconvenient to him and put the few that were left far away from where he had to look at them. 

Can anyone name any president that has not "inherited " a messy situation  from a preceding administration?

Every republican president since Bill Clinton.  

well tess, that's only 2 Bush and trump . 

 and I would beg to differ , bush inherited the dot com bubble pop from Clinton in the economy , and that little fiasco of appeasement of Saddam in Iraq and bin laden with limited responses to outright thumbing of a nose .

 As for trump , my opinion is he inherited the most divided  nation , incapable of supporting itself by means of its own  production , since the civil war, the nation had the lowest GDP growth and highest unemployment rate until recently ( last few  months ) in a couple generations with both going up until recently ,now I am of the thought that preceding admins only have an effect on an incoming one for the first year of a new admin, by that time the new admins policies and directives are in place 

So I think about the only president that has not inherited a mess or crisis was Geo Washington, and even then I think HE even stepped into office with a mess to clean up.

The Indian Removal Act was signed into law on May 28, 1830, by United States President Andrew Jackson . The law authorized the president to negotiate with southern Native American tribes for their removal to federal territory west of the Mississippi River in exchange for white settlement of their ancestral lands . ^{[1] [2] [3]} The act has been referred to as a unitary act of systematic genocide , because it discriminated against an ethnic group in so far as to make certain the death of vast numbers of its population

Call it what you will Sean, you are the only one not calling it genocide. But hey, be strong my man.

Jackson was famous for lots of things, the least known of which was his lawlessness. The Act called for negotiations. Jackson did no such thing. He simply ordered that the indians be rounded up and herded several thousand miles west. If they died, tough shit. The Indians had a name for Jackson, 'Sharp Knife', for his merciless killing of natives.

Applying what you call the 'definition' of the word, even the Nazis didn't commit genocide.

At the conclusion of WW2 in Europe all monuments, public works, names of roads/bridges that had any connection to the defunct Nazi regime were destroyed except for some which were placed in museums to assure the public remembered.

But..but...but..

How could they do that-- after all, the Nazi Regime was part of their history!

And if they destroy those monuments, no one will remember their history!

And in any even the Nazi soldiers fought bravely to protect their homes and country... and the  values they believed in . . .

Of course all of that is true.  But------------'Work will make you free' and all the rest forced a regret of the past and a change for the future which the vast majority of Germans embraced.

Today, there are museums in Germany with many Nazi artifacts.  One is in Augsburg I think which has an extensive gallery of Nazi propaganda art.  Many of the paintings are beautiful, well done, dwelling in Aryan Mythology---all with a clear message and all contracted by the Nazi regime. 

This too.  My father participated in The Normandy Invasion, June 6th, 1944---Second wave.  Later on he was assigned to a unit handling and interrogating German prisoners.  He told me when I was about ten years old that the regular army German soldiers weren't any different than the Allied soldiers.  They served their country as ordered, were fortunate not be killed, were captured and were 'Very glad that they were safe and finally---out of it.'

In May 1945 when the German High Command accepted Unconditional Surrender----It was over, friend and foe alike breathed a sigh of relief.

However, the Nazi Regime committed horrendous crimes which had to atoned.  The German people carried that badge of dishonor, in my opinion have atoned for it. 

On an aside, I am deeply disturbed to witness a resurgence of the ( travesty from the past. )  I have seen Nazi flags on our streets next to Confederate and Gadsden flags.  Forgive me. but I do not understand this.  Do you? 

He should get ten years per his own words.

Perhaps instead of focusing only on the subject of the statue, we might consider that the statue itself was constructed with slave labor.

Not every thing needs to be removed - but at least an obvious marker should proclaim "This symbol of freedom and liberty for some was constructed by an enslaved people ."

Say goodbye to Wash DC then because most of it as layed out by Lafeyette was constructed using slave labor in actual labor or in the procurement of the materials to build with , to include the Capitol dome and The Washington monument. let it revert back to swampland the whole 10 by 10 mile district.

Not talking about undoing all the labor that was done.  Undoing the whole district.  Just put up a marker.

Isn't there a push right now to make DC a state?

I thought they were made a state?  I put the question mark because I think so, but not sure.  

[Deleted - don't try to work around the no-reply restriction]

No Tess , they were not made a state , they WERE given a non voting member of the house of Reps if I remember correctly.  

And in order for DC to gain statehood , would require a constitutional amendment , since it was set up as a District , of federal government , that was to be beholden to no individual state, being considered a state would defacto create the situation that it would be beholden to itself as a state and not the federal entity .

My view is that statehood for the district is nothing more than a move of the political powers of the parties to gain numbers for congressional votes.

'No Tess , they were not made a state , they WERE given a non voting member of the house of Reps if I remember correctly.'  

Yes, I don't need to be told multiple times.  I can read.  I understand

Note, I had a question mark and said that I was unsure?

I didn't see someone had already answered , and I was typing my response and posted when I saw someone had already answered .

let it revert back to swampland the whole 10 by 10 mile district

Hmmmm... that's certainly something to think about!

But ya know...given the current state of affairs in this country...maybe we'd be better off that way!

The reason the WH is in DC was so that no state could claim The People's House as theirs.  DC was neutral ground.   It was carved from the states of Virginia and Maryland in 1790.

Thanks for that information Paula.  

Anytime.

Of course, Andrew Jackson's statue should be displayed in a prominent setting in Washington D.C. He did illegally tear thousands of Indians from their homeland and sent them on a horrific journey to present-day Oklahoma when thousands died. He did this to ensure more land for white settlers. That folks is the crux of the matter. The land was much more valuable than the deaths of thousands of Indians. So, to many his statue is a good thing. Regardless of the death and destruction that he caused.  

As for Bears Ears, unlike the Christian religions, we do not build monuments, churches, statutes, and the like to practice our beliefs. In 1978 congress passed the Naive American Religious Freedom Act. After decades of our religion being suppressed by the government that practiced ''religious freedom'' except if you were Indian. We had somewhat of a fighting chance to have our beliefs held equal to the dominant Christian religion in the US. We are for lack of a better term, a ''land-based religion''..To us what the great mystery, what Christian call God, created cannot be improved upon by building a church, or other Christian religious monuments. Bears Ears is only the latest in the ongoing battle to save our religious sites. Bears Ears is highly sacred to many tribes and it is an area of great beauty and architectural treasure trove to study the history of the people that lived, worked, and most importantly gathered plants for medicine and were able to practice their beliefs. 

But it seems that exploiting this beautiful land is much more important than respecting our beliefs and allowing for a piece of living history to remain untouched for all Americans.

statue should be

Should be or should not be?

Should be, I was being sarcastic. 

Well said, Kavika! 

Oh okay.