Bellingham takes a stand for civil rights by removing Confederate general’s name from a bridge

pickett bridge

The bridge and the city of Bellingham are now safe!

Glad the city thought to do this so quickly. Poof, racism gone!

From the City of Bellingham’s website:

In light of Saturday’s violent clash in Charlottesville, Virginia, between a group identified as white supremacist and counter-protesters, the City of Bellingham has removed signs identifying Pickett Bridge at Prospect and Dupont streets.

On Monday Aug. 14, the Bellingham City Council requested the administration to look into the possible renaming of the Pickett Bridge, in coordination with the Historical Preservation Commission and other local stakeholders. Some members of the community have expressed concerns that the designation is not truly historical and that it honors a military leader for the Confederacy during the Civil War. Captain George E. Pickett was a U.S. Army officer who built Fort Bellingham in the 1850s and supervised construction of the first bridge across Whatcom Creek. He left the area in 1861 to fight for his home state of Virginia in the Civil War. 

A motivating force behind the “Unite the Right” event organizers at Charlottesville was removal of statues of Civil War leaders. New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu is among those who have led removal of what he calls monuments to “the lost cause of the Confederacy.” He noted that a great nation does not “hide its history [but] faces its flaws and corrects them.”

Bellingham City Council members acknowledged local citizens and Western Washington University students who are uncomfortable with a local landmark named in honor of a military leader who served during a war marked as “a pinnacle of America’s racist history.” 

“Bellingham does not tolerate hate speech, white supremacy or the neo-Nazi movement,” Mayor Kelli Linville said. “We have heard reports of local businesses being vandalized with swastikas and hate speech. This is unacceptable. We are a city committed to civil rights for all people, and we need to stand up to hate and take steps towards healing our country and our communities.”

Until the Council takes final action, the Pickett Bridge signs will stay down.


25 responses to “Bellingham takes a stand for civil rights by removing Confederate general’s name from a bridge

  1. Can’t wait for them to remove all monuments to those evil white racists and put up additional statues to Marx. What a bunch of communists and racists.

    Liked by 4 people

  2. Just wondering…is Dupont Street named for the infamous Dupont family?

    Liked by 1 person

    • Don’t know, but Dupont Circle in Washington, D.C is named for them and up into recent memory—maybe until 20-30 years ago, the DuPont family owned the historic home of James Madison, a founder, a president, and the author of our US Constitution. One Dupont was a sort of “rebel” against her family….so maybe she earned them some decency back by fighting to turn the home over to the American public instead of keeping it in the family (her family did really fight in court against her plans and she had to arrange for some high-“falutin” legal footwork to out-do them): Renee Dupont arranged for the home (upon her death) Montpelier, in Orange, VA, to be used or donated in perpetuity by the Historic Trust…and restoration to its original (after centuries of add-ons, re-organizations, etc) architecture and grounds as Madison built/developed it. After centuries as a private estate, it is now open to the public. You can honor his gravesite, which is on the grounds. You can sit in the very room in which Madison studied literal wagon-loads of books and documents about the structure of governments from all over the world, past and present in his time, and then penned the Constitution. All of this was owned by a private citizen/family up until recently. NOW, you, a “regular citizen” can finally study this man, his achievements, his family, through his daily life in the place that he lived it. I did 5 years ago. Awesome feeling.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. Well, in Seattle’s Fremont District is a statue of Lenin. It looks like that one’s safe.

    Liked by 4 people

  4. “Mayor Mitch Landrieu is among those who have led removal of what he calls monuments to “the lost cause of the Confederacy.” He noted that a great nation does not “hide its history [but] faces its flaws and corrects them.”
    Isn’t HE quite the hypocrite-saying a great nation doesn’t “hide its history”,but isn’t that EXACTLY what he’s doing? What a maroon!! Since he’s choosing to crawl down this particular rat-hole,he should at LEAST complete the destruction.
    I’m sure there were Soldiers fighting for the South that had MANY other last names,and the City officials need to go through and purge the City of ANY reference to those Soldiers. They could just go alphabetically from A to Z,and remove or change the names of any street,bridge,building or highway that correspond to Southern Soldiers’ names. Fair is fair,right? Failing to follow through on this would be DISCRIMINATING against thousands of Soldiers of the South who fought bravely for the privilege of being part of History,and thus,this drive to re-write American History. In the name of “reparations”,it would probably be the fair thing to do for them to also assess an additional tax on residents who share the last names of those Confederate Soldiers.

    Liked by 3 people

    • No one said liberal logic was going to make sense…

      Liked by 1 person

    • He personally has a lot of “history” to hide. Diddling little kids, for example. Setting himself up as an example of righteousness is pretty sick.

      Liked by 3 people

    • What, precisely, would that “lost cause” be, avoiding price gouging? The South, with no money, was prohibited by the North for trading agricultural products for manufactured equipment. The North imposed big tariffs on those to force the South to buy the North’s manufactured products for more than they were worth.

      That doesn’t sound like a “lost cause” to me. It sounds like political thievery.

      Liked by 2 people

  5. The attached pretty much sums the whole thing up. It’s right there. The only question is what, if anything, are we going to do about it?

    Liked by 3 people

  6. Part of the country has gone nuts. The left knows if they inspire violence into their followers, they can control them.
    Those statues have been around the country for hundreds of years and never bothered a soul until the left told their followers they are bad. This is a distraction to hide from the real issues and an investigation going nowhere.
    Many of the now attacked statues are innocent of any crime.

    Liked by 2 people

  7. Abraham Lincoln said war was over taxes, not slavery

    Also, look up Slavery or Tariffs: What Really Caused Secession? by Prof. Ray Goodwin

    Liked by 2 people

    • Also states rights. No doubt slavery was one of many factors, if not completely at the beginning of the war.


    • Yes, that’s precisely what I’ve been saying. The North did not want the South to import manufactured goods from England, France and Spain. The tariffs were so high they had to pay more for their necessities from the North than if they purchased them directly from foreign manufacturers.

      Being an agricultural society, they needed manufactured farm equipment. Britain, for example, was only too happy to trade cotton for manufactured goods. The North wouldn’t allow it.

      So this fantasy that these clowns march around spewing has about as much to do with reality as purple antelopes on fields of cream cheese.

      Liked by 2 people

      • History is tuff for some…

        Liked by 1 person

      • Exactly, Lo, & add to that…do these yahoos know as they march that Lincoln was a pragmatist ? This has been long-lost in the euphoria & gratitude & “beatification” of his steadfastness against great social/financial/governmental odds, against political odds & push-back, in saving Union, & subsequent banishment of slavery by his Immacipation Proclamation (WHICH..BTW…until war was successfully prosecuted by the North in 1865, ONLY freed slaves in states in rebellion against the Union—border states AND the District of Columbia still carried on slavery, legally, far AFTER this proclamation of 1863/4). The war for Union went on for 2 more years after that….. But initially, Lincoln admitted, and I paraphrase….that, if he could save the Union by upholding slavery, he would…and if he could save it by ending slavery…he would. He was all about keeping the United States–the United States. Period.

        And then, there was the weird and “distant galaxy” theory of the confederated South that they were defending the “right” of slave-owning into FUTURE states that MIGHT come into the Union. These “future states” that would keep the balance of free and slave states “even” in votes in Congress, were, besides Kansas/Nebraska—later the contention over CA coming into the Union FREE (that helped start the war in the first place), were the nearly barren and desert states of, for instance….the West and Southwest…..maybe even into (now) Mexico: can you imagine establishing a lush and traditional slave-supported “plantation” in the desert Southwest? For what crop? At what expense? For what financial gain? Even today with modern water systems attached to my existance, I can barely grow a tomato here in my micro-Sonoran Desert climate (SoCA). It was, again, a “distant galaxy” political position that fueled the “states rights” position of the South that made a “philopsophical argument” for the advent of Civil War. What today’s snowflakes don’t understand until, maybe they study their nation’s history for a year or two full-time…..everyone who fought in the Civil War, North or South, had their OWN personal reason, amongst myriad/many for choosing to fight for one side or the other. IT NEVER WAS ALL BLACK AND WHITE. But, I can expect this narrow mindset from this latest generation to reduce it to such.

        Liked by 2 people

        • Indeed. Nicely said. As I’m sure you’re capable of, I too could spend a lot more time on this. Besides having a mother, wife, wife’s grandmother, etc., all with UDC backgrounds discussing this with me almost on a daily basis, for years, I can attest that it isn’t as easy a subject as a few paragraphs in elementary school would suggest.

          To expand a little, in my life I’ve noted that whenever the bankers get involved, things go to Hell. I have quite a collection of statistics on slavery and many other related references. I also made quite a study of Mr. Lincoln in college.

          Hagiography is always easier when the subject is dead, especially prematurely. I have no proof of this but I suspect he would have died prematurely if Mr. Booth would have proved unsuccessful.

          I’m also certain that within a very few years slavery would have died a natural death. It is also true that had at least one group succeeded there would have been an “expanded” Confederacy that would have included your Sonoran Desert and more real estate to the South.

          But, that’s the difference between history and fortune telling. It keeps me awake at night wondering how these presstitutes can be so shameless. If they’re really that ignorant, why are they on TV? If not, how can they lie so relentlessly?

          Liked by 1 person

          • I think we all could spend a lot more time on this. Given what we’ve all read about history and the many interpretations, it would be interesting. I believe today’s “snowflakes” are not interested in truly finding or exploring the truth…whatever that may be of which we can come to understand after so many decades having been removed from living testaments.

            You are lucky to have females in your life w/UDC backgrounds. Must be some interesting opinions/history shared.


          • Lo–how exciting that you studied Lincoln in college! From something you said, I think we investigated the same sort of thing, & I just can’t let this go without seeing if you suspected an autosome-dominant congenital disease in Lincoln? As a “hobby” in most of one year, I tried to track down anything ever written by anyone who’d met in person with Lincoln, to specifically “drill down” into descriptions of Lincoln’s habitus, days he might have seemed ill…and so on. I called it a “literary autopsy.’ I also reviewed the (then terribly insufficient) autopsy done at his death, and a lot of other archived “stuff.” I pretty much agree with something you said—that Lincoln was within a year, or maybe a few, near death by the time Booth assassinated him. I suspect one or the other of two inheritable conditions. There have been speculations in the medical field for years about this…but I’ve never seen it annotated with primary source-notes from preserved first-hand accounts of meetings/acquaintance with Lincoln….which is why I did it. I was so curious to see if any peers of Lincoln had any observances that could relate to, in hindsight, what we understand today of certain familial/or congenital disease systems.

            Hope to hear what you might have suspected in this same topic…..

            Liked by 1 person

  8. hypocrites: continued bullying of the south while the north (owned slaves as well) gets a pass….this parallels the desecration of traditional, conservative values (nuclear family, marriage, childbirth, Christianity, etc.) by libtards while the progressives get a pass by the bought and sold media because what they are doing is “politically correct”, for “equality” (communism), and makes the useful idiot snowflakes “feel” better…this is a prime example of how the deliberate dumbing-down of america benefits TPTB.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s