New Orleans Begins Process of "Removing History"

[Izandai]

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.

That's not even a little bit a valid comparison. WWII didn't start because Germany took Poland from Britain, it started because Germany took Poland from... Poland. So it's actually more like saying that British forces in WWII were fighting so that Poland could own itself again (among other things), which sounds about right.

[Aelex]

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

Kinda is.

[Izandai]

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?

Given that their capital was other humans who it is deeply evil to own as property, yes.

[Washington Resistance Army]

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.

Slavery was practiced around the world for thousands of years, hell it still is practiced to a degree. I find it a bit silly to claim that it's a "betrayal of our species" given how common it's been with our species. While it certainly is an awful institution and I'm glad we got rid of it that claim is just kinda silly.

[Izandai]

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

Kinda is.

How so?

[Neutraligon]

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?

Once again there is a school of thought that slavery was actually strangling the economy of the south. And once again elections have consequences. The fact that they lost an election does not mean that they then get to throw a tantrum, particularly when they made absolute use of the fact that they had been winning the elections previously and actually had a disproportionate amount of influence given the fact that they where less populous.

[Aelex]

How so?

If we start to consider slavery "betrayal of fellow human beings" then we will have to do the same for a whole lot of things going from Capitalism to Communism because they end up causing similar things.

[Neutraligon]

How so?

If we start to consider slavery "betrayal of fellow human beings" then we will have to do the same for a whole lot of things going from Capitalism to Communism because they end up causing similar things.

Not seeing how that is the case.

[Izandai]

How so?

If we start to consider slavery "betrayal of fellow human beings" then we will have to do the same for a whole lot of things going from Capitalism to Communism because they end up causing similar things.

I don't think that capitalism's tendency as a system to concentrate wealth and screw over the poor is all that similar to individual people buying and selling other humans and forcing them to work for no compensation of any sort. Also not sure why you put communism in there, you're gonna have to explain your reasoning there to me.

[Ankhmer]

Legal =/= moral.

Immoral by todays values.

Sorry, I don't believe in moral relativism.

It was also immoral by the standards of the time as well. Abolitionism was a thing. Many European countries had abolished slavery by the time of the Civil War. It was only those who benefited from the institution who were defending it.

[USS Monitor]

The difference is that Sherman was fighting on the side of ending slavery.

Which doesn't matter one little bit. He destroyed peoples crops and deliberately starved confederate cevillians. He also played a good part in setting the south far further back.

It's a little more complicated than that. The South was lagging behind the North economically and technologically even before the war started, and Sherman argued against treating the South harshly during Reconstruction.

Sherman had lived in Georgia and Louisiana before the war and was a great admirer of Southern culture. After the war, his attitude toward the South was very conflicted. Sometimes he'd rage against them for seceding and go on about how they deserved everything they got and then some. Other times he'd say how great they were and how much he enjoyed the culture. He had deep respect for certain individual Southerners, including Johnston, who had led the Confederate forces against him.

One thing to remember is that Sherman had some wild mood swings and may have been mentally ill. You have to be careful not to make judgements based on cherry-picked quotes because it can be very misleading. If you only look at what Sherman said when he was pissed off, he sounds like an absolute monster with a borderline-psychopathic disregard for Southern lives. If you only look at what he said when he was calm, he sounds like an upstanding gentleman. Nice-guy Sherman is probably closer to who he wanted to be, but he didn't always have the self-control to pull it off.

[Aelex]

I don't think that capitalism's tendency as a system to concentrate wealth and screw over the poor is all that similar to individual people buying and selling other humans and forcing them to work for no compensation of any sort. Also not sure why you put communism in there, you're gonna have to explain your reasoning there to me.

And yet wage slavery is akin to that, if not even worst. As for Communism, let's say it ended up causing worst exploitation of humans than slavery did.
I'm not particularly defending slavery but saying that it never had compensation of any sort is also wrong, slaves were clothed and housed and in some case paid a peculium. It wasn't a good situation, but it wasn't a "betrayal of humanity" neither. You should leave that term for actions that actually warrant to be called as so like Genocide.

[USS Monitor]

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.

Lincoln did not campaign on a platform of forcing the South to give up slavery. He only said he was going to prevent it from being expanded into the territories.

[USS Monitor]

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 wasn't trying to destroy the South's economy.

[USS Monitor]

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.

Did Sherman spit in your kool aid or something?

[Grenartia]

'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.

As much as I agree with you that it should be destroyed, its the only semblence of a concession that can be offered. Without that, there'd likely be even less support for taking them down. Besides, educating people about the hows and the whys behind the monuments going up is necessary to prevent similar monuments going up in the future.

[USS Monitor]

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.

They could have done like New Jersey and allowed people to keep the slaves they already owned, but emancipated future generations.

[Grenartia]

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

They could have done like New Jersey and allowed people to keep the slaves they already owned, but emancipated future generations.

Honestly, the South forfeited any right to a phased emancipation the moment they threw a secessionist temper tantrum, and especially the moment they started the war by firing on a federal military installation.

[USS Monitor]

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.

None because they're dead?

[USS Monitor]

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?

Statue of Butler in front of the state capitol, and one with a half-naked slave guy kneeling at Lincoln's feet that just looks wrong.

[Neanderthaland]

How so?

If we start to consider slavery "betrayal of fellow human beings" then we will have to do the same for a whole lot of things going from Capitalism to Communism because they end up causing similar things.

To the extent that they cause "similar things" to slavery, then... yeah.

[USS Monitor]

That and as I said earlier they are memorialized in a way that does not celebrate what they fought for, namely at Arlington cemetery. There is no reason to memorialize traitors to the United States.

Eh, as a not-particularly-patriotic person, it's the fact that they were fighting to defend slavery more than the secession from the country that pisses me off.

Same.

I think it's fine for states to secede, but they are still responsible for everything else they do. They are responsible for how they handle the secession -- whether they go about it in a calm and reasonable manner or just flip their shit and start shooting people -- and they are responsible for what sort of government they form. They are responsible for what values they preach and what principles they put in their laws.

I am actually a secessionist myself, but I still think the Union side of the Civil War had better values. That whole slavery thing is just hard to get past.

[USS Monitor]

When I find a Union Civil War memorial that I haven't seen before, I usually take a minute or three to admire it, read the inscriptions, and remember how awesome it is that they kicked the Confederacy's ass. I would be disappointed if a good one got taken down, and when I lived in Chelsea, I always thought it was sad that they had one that was falling apart and nobody was taking care of it.

OTOH, if it is honoring an individual who doesn't deserve it or if it's a shitty design with unfortunate racial implications, I don't mind seeing those moved to a more private location. Those problems are more common with Confederate memorials, but there are also a couple of bad Union ones.

I think, however, Robert E. Lee does deserve a memorial. As for Boregard, it was his home state and he wasn't the worst general in the world.

Lee deserves a memorial in Virginia, like the one where he's buried.

There's no reason why they need to have one in New Orleans.

[USS Monitor]

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.'

Lee got over it.

[USS Monitor]

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.

A lot of them were the sons of slaveowners who hadn't inherited the family slaves yet because they were still young.