New Orleans Begins Process of "Removing History"

[Izandai]

Ever been to that cemetery? Before you say one thing about it, make sure you know what it is like first.

Yes, it's an extremely solemn, rather awe-enspiring place to visit, which makes you think of the sort of sacrifice people made for their country. It's a war cemetery, in other words.
However, the fact that it was built to piss off southerners is still as true as ever.

And I'm sure the Holocaust Museum pisses off antisemites and neo-nazis.

[Neutraligon]

Ever been to that cemetery? Before you say one thing about it, make sure you know what it is like first.

Yes, it's an extremely solemn, rather awe-enspiring place to visit, which makes you think of the sort of sacrifice people made for their country. It's a war cemetery, in other words.
However, the fact that it was built to piss off southerners is still as true as ever.

And yet it no longer does so, and instead acts as the very memorial you where asking for. Oh and...you think those statues weren't built to piss northerners or African Americans off?

[CoraSpia]

Yes, it's an extremely solemn, rather awe-enspiring place to visit, which makes you think of the sort of sacrifice people made for their country. It's a war cemetery, in other words.
However, the fact that it was built to piss off southerners is still as true as ever.

And I'm sure the Holocaust Museum pisses off antisemites and neo-nazis.

Was the holocaust museum built for that purpose? Arlington, however, certainly was built because some nutjob thought 'Hey! We've got this land which belongs to Robert E. Lee. Let's plant our war dead here, that'll piss him off lol.'

[Neutraligon]

Whatever their personal reasons for joining the fight were, the fact remains that by fighting they were defending slavery.

It's not how the majority of them would have seen it. After all, in an age of poor education when you're being told by the priest and the newspaper that it's your patriotic duty to fight for your state (and their's a draft from the mid-point of the war), what are you going to do?

Do what many did and join the union or not join at all.

[USS Monitor]

Considering that they attempted to leave the union which is America you are incorrect.

And at that time their was no precedent to state that that wasn't all just well and good. Wanting to leave the union and not wanting to be governed by Northerners (who had more seats in congress, more votes and could therefore push on the south whatever laws they wanted) are different things entirely.

The seats in Congress were decided by population. There was no favoritism to the North, nor was there ever any sign that the North was unwilling to compromise.

The only thing the North was unwilling to do was roll over and play dead while the Southern aristocracy walked all over everyone.

[Izandai]

Whatever their personal reasons for joining the fight were, the fact remains that by fighting they were defending slavery.

It's not how the majority of them would have seen it. After all, in an age of poor education when you're being told by the priest and the newspaper that it's your patriotic duty to fight for your state (and their's a draft from the mid-point of the war), what are you going to do?

Go fight a war that exists to defend the institution of slavery I suppose. I find it hard to believe that any sort of significant portion of the country didn't know what the war was about, but even if they didn't, I don't see how it matters.

[CoraSpia]

Yes, it's an extremely solemn, rather awe-enspiring place to visit, which makes you think of the sort of sacrifice people made for their country. It's a war cemetery, in other words.
However, the fact that it was built to piss off southerners is still as true as ever.

And yet it no longer does so, and instead acts as the very memorial you where asking for. Oh and...you think those statues weren't built to piss northerners or African Americans off?

I'm far less willing to defend the white league statue, however Robert E. Lee and P.G.T. boregard were people who joined the CSA to fight for the south and defend it from what many in the south saw, rightly or wrongly, as northern aggression. I don't see how those statues can be conveyed as something designed to piss people off.

[CoraSpia]

It's not how the majority of them would have seen it. After all, in an age of poor education when you're being told by the priest and the newspaper that it's your patriotic duty to fight for your state (and their's a draft from the mid-point of the war), what are you going to do?

Do what many did and join the union or not join at all.

And be seen as betraying your family. That'll sit well with everyone.

[Izandai]

Oh yeah, that's right. The first military action of the Civil War was the Confederacy attacking a fort that Lincoln specifically told them was not being resupplied with ammunition because he didn't want a fight. I forgot that. Good point.

maybe if he'd just evacuated it...

So you think the appropriate response to the secession of the South was for the Union to just let them get away with it? Are you sure you're not a Georgian?

[Izandai]

Do what many did and join the union or not join at all.

And be seen as betraying your family. That'll sit well with everyone.

Better than betraying your species.

[CoraSpia]

maybe if he'd just evacuated it...

So you think the appropriate response to the secession of the South was for the Union to just let them get away with it? Are you sure you're not a Georgian?

Well, I think they've got reason not to want a big naval fort from another country sitting in their harbour.

[USS Monitor]

The Liberty Place monument was honoring rioters, not dead soldiers. The two statues are memorializing two specific individuals -- Lee and Beauregard -- not the whole army.

And therefore I'm guessing that, since it's just ancient history, statues of Sherman also need to fall? Because Sherman was more of a butcher than Lee or Boregard ever were.

Sherman killed relatively few people, all things considered. He is misunderstood.

[Neutraligon]

And yet it no longer does so, and instead acts as the very memorial you where asking for. Oh and...you think those statues weren't built to piss northerners or African Americans off?

I'm far less willing to defend the white league statue, however Robert E. Lee and P.G.T. boregard were people who joined the CSA to fight for the south and defend it from what many in the south saw, rightly or wrongly, as northern aggression. I don't see how those statues can be conveyed as something designed to piss people off.

Because that fight cannot exclude for any reason why the states left the union, namely slavery. Because no matter why they fought they did so against the government of the US so that they are in fact traitors to the US. Oh and about Arlington, while it was originally partially sue to it being Lees house that it was used (the rest was pragmatic grounds) the US government actually lost a law suit and had to return the lands to the successor, who then sold it back to the US. So no it no longer holds the implications you gave at all.

[CoraSpia]

And be seen as betraying your family. That'll sit well with everyone.

Better than betraying your species.

Calling the many men who fought for the south traitors to humanity is somewhat disrespectful to them, don't you think? The fact remains that the vast majority were not slaveowners and did not fight to defend slavery.

[CoraSpia]

I'm far less willing to defend the white league statue, however Robert E. Lee and P.G.T. boregard were people who joined the CSA to fight for the south and defend it from what many in the south saw, rightly or wrongly, as northern aggression. I don't see how those statues can be conveyed as something designed to piss people off.

Because that fight cannot exclude for any reason why the states left the union, namely slavery. Because no matter why they fought they did so against the government of the US so that they are in fact traitors to the US. Oh and about Arlington, while it was originally partially sue to it being Lees house that it was used (the rest was pragmatic grounds) the US government actually lost a law suit and had to return the lands to the successor, who then sold it back to the US. So no it no longer holds the implications you gave at all.

lol that successor was idiotic then. I'd have held out for an absolute fortune for it.

[Izandai]

So you think the appropriate response to the secession of the South was for the Union to just let them get away with it? Are you sure you're not a Georgian?

Well, I think they've got reason not to want a big naval fort from another country sitting in their harbour.

If they didn't want that they shouldn't've decided to be a different nation.

[Neutraligon]

So you think the appropriate response to the secession of the South was for the Union to just let them get away with it? Are you sure you're not a Georgian?

Well, I think they've got reason not to want a big naval fort from another country sitting in their harbour.

Which means they where still the aggressors. Once again put those goalposts back where you found them.

[Washington Resistance Army]

And be seen as betraying your family. That'll sit well with everyone.

Better than betraying your species.

Now you're just being kinda silly.

[CoraSpia]

Well, I think they've got reason not to want a big naval fort from another country sitting in their harbour.

If they didn't want that they shouldn't've decided to be a different nation.

I think they were trying to be a different nation and had made that quite clear. Not sure where you're coming from.

[Izandai]

Better than betraying your species.

Calling the many men who fought for the south traitors to humanity is somewhat disrespectful to them, don't you think? The fact remains that the vast majority were not slaveowners and did not fight to defend slavery.

Except that they did fight to defend slavery because that's why the war happened and what what it was about. I don't think it's disrespectful at all to call people who fought and killed to defend their ability to own other human beings as property traitors to humanity.

[Neutraligon]

Do what many did and join the union or not join at all.

And be seen as betraying your family. That'll sit well with everyone.

Considering my family I would not have been betraying them, and once again many people decided to fight for the union. There was a political party created about it, and that party actually won seats in the house and senate. This was a political party in slave owning states, namely ones like MD.

[Izandai]

If they didn't want that they shouldn't've decided to be a different nation.

I think they were trying to be a different nation and had made that quite clear. Not sure where you're coming from.

By deciding to be a different nation they caused that fort to belong to a nation other than theirs. So if they didn't want that to be the case, they shouldn't've rebelled.

[CoraSpia]

Calling the many men who fought for the south traitors to humanity is somewhat disrespectful to them, don't you think? The fact remains that the vast majority were not slaveowners and did not fight to defend slavery.

Except that they did fight to defend slavery because that's why the war happened and what what it was about. I don't think it's disrespectful at all to call people who fought and killed to defend their ability to own other human beings as property traitors to humanity.

How many times? Most of them did not own slaves. In fact big slaveowners were excluded from the draft. They weren't fighting so they could own slaves, which they didn't do. That's like saying that British forces in WWII were fighting so that they could own Poland.

[Izandai]

Better than betraying your species.

Now you're just being kinda silly.

I don't think I am. I don't think it's silly to call slavery a betrayal of one's fellow humans.

[CoraSpia]

I think they were trying to be a different nation and had made that quite clear. Not sure where you're coming from.

By deciding to be a different nation they caused that fort to belong to a nation other than theirs. So if they didn't want that to be the case, they shouldn't've rebelled.

So what would you suggest? They should have rolled over and let most of their capital be taken away by a tyranny by majority?