New Orleans Begins Process of "Removing History"

[USS Monitor]

'I don't agree with them so hundreds of thousands of dead soldiers don't deserve a memorial!'

If it was up to me, yeah, I'd take away a memorial celebrating anti-American ideas. You're damn right I would.

But it's going in a museum, regrettably. That particular memorial should be absolutely destroyed.

Keeping them in a museum is good because it can be used to educate future generations about the way Confederate sentiments lingered after the war. It's normal for museums to cover the darker elements of history, not only the things that deserve to be glorified. Even though the Confederacy was sick, their artefacts should still be preserved for educational purposes.

[CoraSpia]

I think with what reconstruction governments did to southern states, many poor whites who had no slaves at all had something of a reason to feel a little put out.

Oh, the poor snowflakes. Not being able to own other human beings.

Allow me to play the world's smallest violin in their honor.

Or, you know, having to accept a massive change to their way of life, and seing other people being helped back on their feet while they themselves were poor.

[Neutraligon]

Given that was true all the years before why does this matter? Did they have an issue with the rule of law?
Same as above, too bad. An, given that they attempted to rule over the north in previous years (fugitive slave act anyone) they where simply facing exactly what they did to others. Oh and 11 states attempted to leave, 23 stayed. of those 23, 5 where slave states, meaning that the number of slave to non slave states was pretty damned close.

Intentionally close, in fact. Keeping the number of slave and non-slave states in balance was a whole thing in the lead-up to the Civil War.

Yep, in fact if I recall two states that where made states where intentionally made so that one was slave and the other was non slave.

[CoraSpia]

The higher population still resulted in a serious imbalance. A president could be elected entirely on northern votes, but one could not be elected entirely on southern votes.

Once again to damned bad. The fact that the electoral map was lopsided does not mean you throw a tantrum and leave the nation. Especially after you have won the presidency the previous 6 times.

Well, I do actually believe that hundreds of very small independent countries would be better than the US, but the fact remains that the president was somebody intent on altering the southern way of life to such an extent it'd cripple their economy. They can hardly be blamed for being extremely unhappy with this.

[Neutraligon]

Oh, the poor snowflakes. Not being able to own other human beings.

Allow me to play the world's smallest violin in their honor.

Or, you know, having to accept a massive change to their way of life, and seing other people being helped back on their feet while they themselves were poor.

Once again too damned bad. Elections have consequences.

[Izandai]

Oh, the poor snowflakes. Not being able to own other human beings.

Allow me to play the world's smallest violin in their honor.

Or, you know, having to accept a massive change to their way of life, and seing other people being helped back on their feet while they themselves were poor.

Describing what was done for blacks in the South after the Civil War as "helping them back on their feet" is one of the most hilarious things I've read all day. Blacks were not being "helped back onto their feet", they were being allowed to have feet to be helped onto for the first time ever. Poor whites in the South had something. Former slaves had literally nothing.

[Ankhmer]

This is quite reminiscent of how Nazi Germany rewrote history and removed certain historical objects to support their beliefs

No, rather is reminiscent of how Germany removed Nazi monuments following the defeat of the Axis Powers. It's long past time monuments to a defeated, racist, slaver nation were torn down.

[CoraSpia]

Or, you know, having to accept a massive change to their way of life, and seing other people being helped back on their feet while they themselves were poor.

Once again too damned bad. Elections have consequences.

Elections which several of the old leaders (e.g. jeff davis) weren't even allowed to run in.

[Neutraligon]

Once again to damned bad. The fact that the electoral map was lopsided does not mean you throw a tantrum and leave the nation. Especially after you have won the presidency the previous 6 times.

Well, I do actually believe that hundreds of very small independent countries would be better than the US, but the fact remains that the president was somebody intent on altering the southern way of life to such an extent it'd cripple their economy. They can hardly be blamed for being extremely unhappy with this.

Sure they can be unhappy, just like the north can be unhappy when the south attempted and succeeded in forcing them to return escaped slaves against their will. Just like today Dems are unhappy that they lost the election. Once again though, they lost the election, and that has consequences.

[Neutraligon]

Once again too damned bad. Elections have consequences.

Elections which several of the old leaders (e.g. jeff davis) weren't even allowed to run in.

If he failed to meet the requirements to run in them once again to damned bad.

[Ankhmer]

Once again too damned bad. Elections have consequences.

Elections which several of the old leaders (e.g. jeff davis) weren't even allowed to run in.

Frankly, they got off easy. They were lucky they weren't executed.

[CoraSpia]

Or, you know, having to accept a massive change to their way of life, and seing other people being helped back on their feet while they themselves were poor.

Describing what was done for blacks in the South after the Civil War as "helping them back on their feet" is one of the most hilarious things I've read all day. Blacks were not being "helped back onto their feet", they were being allowed to have feet to be helped onto for the first time ever. Poor whites in the South had something. Former slaves had literally nothing.

What did poor whites have? Crops that had been destroyed, equipment that had either been stolen or destroyed by Sherman's hooligans?

[Arkinesia]

Oh, the poor snowflakes. Not being able to own other human beings.

Allow me to play the world's smallest violin in their honor.

Or, you know, having to accept a massive change to their way of life, and seing other people being helped back on their feet while they themselves were poor.

They did it to themselves by letting King George run roughshod over them. Jefferson was right.

If it was up to me, yeah, I'd take away a memorial celebrating anti-American ideas. You're damn right I would.

But it's going in a museum, regrettably. That particular memorial should be absolutely destroyed.

Keeping them in a museum is good because it can be used to educate future generations about the way Confederate sentiments lingered after the war. It's normal for museums to cover the darker elements of history, not only the things that deserve to be glorified. Even though the Confederacy was sick, their artefacts should still be preserved for educational purposes.

Right, and I have no problem with the dark history of the South being memorialized in an educational setting, that is not only acceptable, it is necessary, so that those awful lessons are not forgotten.

When Reagan attended the laying of the first cornerstone of the Holocaust Museum, he said “[w]e must make sure that from now until the end of days all humankind stares this evil in the face...and only then can we be sure it will never arise again.” I feel the same way about slavery, racial oppression, and the Confederacy.

[Izandai]

Once again to damned bad. The fact that the electoral map was lopsided does not mean you throw a tantrum and leave the nation. Especially after you have won the presidency the previous 6 times.

Well, I do actually believe that hundreds of very small independent countries would be better than the US, but the fact remains that the president was somebody intent on altering the southern way of life to such an extent it'd cripple their economy. They can hardly be blamed for being extremely unhappy with this.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA–
No. Lincoln specifically said he was not going to try to end slavery in the South. His first priority was preserving the Union above all else. The South threw a tantrum anyway.

[CoraSpia]

Well, I do actually believe that hundreds of very small independent countries would be better than the US, but the fact remains that the president was somebody intent on altering the southern way of life to such an extent it'd cripple their economy. They can hardly be blamed for being extremely unhappy with this.

Sure they can be unhappy, just like the north can be unhappy when the south attempted and succeeded in forcing them to return escaped slaves against their will. Just like today Dems are unhappy that they lost the election. Once again though, they lost the election, and that has consequences.

Obviously I don't agree with the fujative slave act, but I don't see how it is at all comparable to one part of the country wishing to destroy another parts economy.

[Izandai]

Describing what was done for blacks in the South after the Civil War as "helping them back on their feet" is one of the most hilarious things I've read all day. Blacks were not being "helped back onto their feet", they were being allowed to have feet to be helped onto for the first time ever. Poor whites in the South had something. Former slaves had literally nothing.

What did poor whites have? Crops that had been destroyed, equipment that had either been stolen or destroyed by Sherman's hooligans?

Oh please, Sherman hardly rampaged across the entire South. His campaign was rather more limited in its range. Most of the South was fine.

[CoraSpia]

Well, I do actually believe that hundreds of very small independent countries would be better than the US, but the fact remains that the president was somebody intent on altering the southern way of life to such an extent it'd cripple their economy. They can hardly be blamed for being extremely unhappy with this.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA–
No. Lincoln specifically said he was not going to try to end slavery in the South. His first priority was preserving the Union above all else. The South threw a tantrum anyway.

and with his past, that's about as believeable as Trump saying 'I love Obamacare' in a drunken interview. Lincoln had a perfectly good way to preserve the union, and that was to meet with southern leaders rather than treating them like scum.

[Izandai]

Sure they can be unhappy, just like the north can be unhappy when the south attempted and succeeded in forcing them to return escaped slaves against their will. Just like today Dems are unhappy that they lost the election. Once again though, they lost the election, and that has consequences.

Obviously I don't agree with the fujative slave act, but I don't see how it is at all comparable to one part of the country wishing to destroy another parts economy.

The North didn't want to destroy the South's economy. They just wanted them to stop owning slaves.

[Neutraligon]

Sure they can be unhappy, just like the north can be unhappy when the south attempted and succeeded in forcing them to return escaped slaves against their will. Just like today Dems are unhappy that they lost the election. Once again though, they lost the election, and that has consequences.

Obviously I don't agree with the fujative slave act, but I don't see how it is at all comparable to one part of the country wishing to destroy another parts economy.

Slavery was already bankrupting the south. Your not agreeing with the fugitive slave act is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that before Lincoln won the south had an incredible amount of influence not only in Congress but also in the presidency, and in the Supreme Court. When they lost the election they threw a tantrum because they where no longer in power.

[CoraSpia]

What did poor whites have? Crops that had been destroyed, equipment that had either been stolen or destroyed by Sherman's hooligans?

Oh please, Sherman hardly rampaged across the entire South. His campaign was rather more limited in its range. Most of the South was fine.

Georgia, Mississippi and south Carolina certainly weren't, neither was new Orleans with Butler's looting.

[Arkinesia]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA–
No. Lincoln specifically said he was not going to try to end slavery in the South. His first priority was preserving the Union above all else. The South threw a tantrum anyway.

and with his past, that's about as believeable as Trump saying 'I love Obamacare' in a drunken interview. Lincoln had a perfectly good way to preserve the union, and that was to meet with southern leaders rather than treating them like scum.

Multiple Presidents before Lincoln had done that, and the South violated every single one of those agreements.

[CoraSpia]

Obviously I don't agree with the fujative slave act, but I don't see how it is at all comparable to one part of the country wishing to destroy another parts economy.

The North didn't want to destroy the South's economy. They just wanted them to stop owning slaves.

And a large percentage of southern capital was tied up in slaves.

[Izandai]

Oh please, Sherman hardly rampaged across the entire South. His campaign was rather more limited in its range. Most of the South was fine.

Georgia, Mississippi and south Carolina certainly weren't, neither was new Orleans with Butler's looting.

Like I said, most of the South was fine.

[Izandai]

The North didn't want to destroy the South's economy. They just wanted them to stop owning slaves.

And a large percentage of southern capital was tied up in slaves.

That's their fault for basing their economy on a deeply and fundamentally evil practice like slavery. It's like basing your economy on human sacrifice and then getting all uppity when the police arrest you for all the murders.

[CoraSpia]

Georgia, Mississippi and south Carolina certainly weren't, neither was new Orleans with Butler's looting.

Like I said, most of the South was fine.

Texas and florida were a little far away, Virginia was ravaged by being the site of most of the action, and well...their wasn't a whole lot in Arkansas to start with.