New Orleans Begins Process of "Removing History"

[CoraSpia]

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.

No it really isn't. Slavery was very much legal in the South at the time, your analogy is bullshit.

[Ankhmer]

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.

No it really isn't. Slavery was very much legal in the South at the time, your analogy is bullshit.

Legal =/= moral.

[CoraSpia]

No it really isn't. Slavery was very much legal in the South at the time, your analogy is bullshit.

Legal =/= moral.

Immoral by todays values.

[Izandai]

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.

Two attempts at compromise had come and gone and seven states had seceded before Lincoln took office. As for Lincoln wanting to abolish slavery:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA–
No. Republican abolitionists were infuriated that their party was running a moderate.

[Neutraligon]

Legal =/= moral.

Immoral by todays values.

And for the most part immoral by standards back then. The US was late in stopping slavery.

[Izandai]

Legal =/= moral.

Immoral by todays values.

And the values of a majority of the country back then.

[Arkinesia]

Legal =/= moral.

Immoral by todays values.

Are you high?

[CoraSpia]

Immoral by todays values.

And the values of a majority of the country back then.

Only the more populous half of it.

[Izandai]

And the values of a majority of the country back then.

Only the more populous half of it.

*more populous*
*half*
*majority*
Yeah, you're high.

[Neutraligon]

And the values of a majority of the country back then.

Only the more populous half of it.

...which would suggest the majority of the country by population.

[CoraSpia]

Only the more populous half of it.

...which would suggest the majority of the country by population.

But that's not how we decide stuff, is it? Otherwise the belief of the majority of Rwandans that the minority should all be violently killed was wonderful.

[USS Monitor]

It really doesn't if the city does not want a monument within it's bounds on public property then they have the right to remove it, whatever that monument happens to be too. Then they can go to any of the battlefields and do that, or go to Arlington cemetery or to any of the other memorials or places that exist, those statues are not necessary. They have the right to pay respect, they do not have the right to having those statues on public land.

I'm sure you'd feel the same way if, without a referendum, the government of a northern city was to remove monuments to its union dead? Or is the fact that it's a southern war memorial somehow indicative of its lesser value

I can think of two Union Civil War monuments in Boston that the city could remove without offending me.

[Izandai]

...which would suggest the majority of the country by population.

But that's not how we decide stuff, is it? Otherwise the belief of the majority of Rwandans that the minority should all be violently killed was wonderful.

Have you ever before heard of this thing called "democracy?"

[Neutraligon]

...which would suggest the majority of the country by population.

But that's not how we decide stuff, is it? Otherwise the belief of the majority of Rwandans that the minority should all be violently killed was wonderful.

Those goalposts really need to be put back where they were.

[CoraSpia]

I'm sure you'd feel the same way if, without a referendum, the government of a northern city was to remove monuments to its union dead? Or is the fact that it's a southern war memorial somehow indicative of its lesser value

I can think of two Union Civil War monuments in Boston that the city could remove without offending me.

Well then, if it's tit-for-tat I guess they should be gotten rid of. However, I think people who died for the south have just the same rights as those who died for the north.

[Izandai]

I'm sure you'd feel the same way if, without a referendum, the government of a northern city was to remove monuments to its union dead? Or is the fact that it's a southern war memorial somehow indicative of its lesser value

I can think of two Union Civil War monuments in Boston that the city could remove without offending me.

Out of curiosity, which two are those?

[Neutraligon]

I can think of two Union Civil War monuments in Boston that the city could remove without offending me.

Well then, if it's tit-for-tat I guess they should be gotten rid of. However, I think people who died for the south have just the same rights as those who died for the north.

No rights are being violated by removing these statues.

[CoraSpia]

But that's not how we decide stuff, is it? Otherwise the belief of the majority of Rwandans that the minority should all be violently killed was wonderful.

Have you ever before heard of this thing called "democracy?"

Democracy is all well and good when it serves the interests of the whole country, rather than being used against one geographic region. It's the same logic behind quite a lot of scots wanting to leave the UK.

[Izandai]

I can think of two Union Civil War monuments in Boston that the city could remove without offending me.

Well then, if it's tit-for-tat I guess they should be gotten rid of. However, I think people who died for the south have just the same rights as those who died for the north.

Being memorialized after one's death is not a right. Access to clean food and water is a right. The ability to share one's views without government suppression is a right. The ability to practise the religion of one's choice, or none at all, is a right. Having a statue built to celebrate you is not a right.

[Neutraligon]

Have you ever before heard of this thing called "democracy?"

Democracy is all well and good when it serves the interests of the whole country, rather than being used against one geographic region. It's the same logic behind quite a lot of scots wanting to leave the UK.

While you ignore that the south had done precisely that before, that they had an incredible amount of influence over the government previously, all three branches of it. While you ignore the fact that elections have consequences.

[CoraSpia]

Well then, if it's tit-for-tat I guess they should be gotten rid of. However, I think people who died for the south have just the same rights as those who died for the north.

Being memorialized after one's death is not a right. Access to clean food and water is a right. The ability to share one's views without government suppression is a right. The ability to practise the religion of one's choice, or none at all, is a right. Having a statue built to celebrate you is not a right.

So I guess you think that all civil war monuments on both sides should fall?

[Izandai]

Have you ever before heard of this thing called "democracy?"

Democracy is all well and good when it serves the interests of the whole country, rather than being used against one geographic region. It's the same logic behind quite a lot of scots wanting to leave the UK.

The abolition of slavery was not an attack on a geographic region. It was an attack on an evil institution. The fact that it was concentrated geographically is irrelevant.

[CoraSpia]

Democracy is all well and good when it serves the interests of the whole country, rather than being used against one geographic region. It's the same logic behind quite a lot of scots wanting to leave the UK.

The abolition of slavery was not an attack on a geographic region. It was an attack on an evil institution. The fact that it was concentrated geographically is irrelevant.

Evil according to whom? Northern voters? Yes, but I'm sure that a lot of people in the south would disagree quite strongly with you back then.

[Izandai]

Being memorialized after one's death is not a right. Access to clean food and water is a right. The ability to share one's views without government suppression is a right. The ability to practise the religion of one's choice, or none at all, is a right. Having a statue built to celebrate you is not a right.

So I guess you think that all civil war monuments on both sides should fall?

When the fuck did I say that? You're allowed to do things and have things that aren't basic human rights. You're just also not allowed to complain too much if they're taken away.

[Izandai]

The abolition of slavery was not an attack on a geographic region. It was an attack on an evil institution. The fact that it was concentrated geographically is irrelevant.

Evil according to whom? Northern voters? Yes, but I'm sure that a lot of people in the south would disagree quite strongly with you back then.

And they would be wrong.