New Orleans Begins Process of "Removing History"

[Hurdergaryp]

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.

Indeed. Also that remark about British forces in WWII and Poland... seriously? Granted, it's the best example of absurdism I've seen thus far today, but the day isn't over yet.

[Neutraligon]

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.

I am neither a secessionist nor a patriot. I am saying that there is no reason for any government to recognize those that act in a way that is traitorous to that government. Even if the North had been the worst government in existence, even if it had been the South leaving the union to get rid of slavery, I do not see why the government in power should have statues to those who where in essence traitors.

[Purpelia]

I am neither a secessionist nor a patriot. I am saying that there is no reason for any government to recognize those that act in a way that is traitorous to that government. Even if the North had been the worst government in existence, even if it had been the South leaving the union to get rid of slavery, I do not see why the government in power should have statues to those who where in essence traitors.

In order to not appear massively disgustingly hypocritical when they start supporting rebellions across the globe. You can't go looking at half the middle east going "Oh support those rebels! It's for a good cause!" but at the same time quash any memory of the rebellion you had back home. It's bad enough that you would pick and choose when to support the principal of self determination and when to oppose it. But if you are going to do that at the very least you should invest the time to actually prove the case why one is good and one is bad rather than erasing those you dislike from history and pretending they newer happened.

[Ifreann]

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.

The civil war indicates a clash of thinking of what anti-American ideas were, so it is false to state that the confederates had 'anti-American ideas.'

American Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Vice-President of the Confederacy: "Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. "

[Purpelia]

The civil war indicates a clash of thinking of what anti-American ideas were, so it is false to state that the confederates had 'anti-American ideas.'

American Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Vice-President of the Confederacy: "Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. "

You do realize that the men who wrote those words were slave owners and most definitively did not consider blacks to count under "all man". Furthermore, you do realize that many of the northern states were slave states? Right?

The whole thing was not some sort of morality crusade as people these days seem to want to make it out to be. It was a civil war like that in the ukraine. The people of the south felt their political power slipping away and realized that in the future this might lead to someone taking the source of their wealth away so they decided to break off. The people of the north who saw their political power rising decided not to not let half their country just go. The whole slavery thing is only relevant in so much that it happened to be the source of said wealth. If it had been anything else like say mining gold from moon rocks or something things would have played out exactly the same.

[Vassenor]

American Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Vice-President of the Confederacy: "Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. "

You do realize that the men who wrote those words were slave owners and most definitively did not consider blacks to count under "all man". Furthermore, you do realize that many of the northern states were slave states? Right?

The whole thing was not some sort of morality crusade as people these days seem to want to make it out to be. It was a civil war like that in the ukraine. The people of the south felt their political power slipping away and realized that in the future this might lead to someone taking the source of their wealth away so they decided to break off. The people of the north who saw their political power rising decided not to not let half their country just go. The whole slavery thing is only relevant in so much that it happened to be the source of said wealth. If it had been anything else like say mining gold from moon rocks or something things would have played out exactly the same.

So why does every article of secession talk about the importance of preserving slavery then?

[The Batorys]

Why should they?

No, the burden here lies firmly on the backs of the people who want to remove historical monuments. It's obvious why they should, because people have a right to pay respects to their war dead whatever they fought for. Now give me a reason why they shouldn't, apart from 'I don't like their cause!'

It literally says that it's a monument to white supremacy.

[The Batorys]

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

It isn't a war memorial, though.

It's a monument to a mob of white supremacists who lynched black cops.

[The Batorys]

If the city wanted them gone then sure. Funny thing except those tourists who are going about taking pictures, no one really pays much attention to those statues except those that are within say museums or in national monuments like the Lincoln Memorial). No change that they are ignored except as a good place to stop or to meet friends as. And once again why is them having fought for ideals that are contrary to the current American ideals not sufficient?

Because victors justice is a bad thing? Regardless of what we think of the ideals now, they are still the ideals for which hundreds of thousands gave their lives.

Hundreds of thousands gave their lives for Hitler's ideals. Someone giving their life for an ideal doesn't make the ideal more worthwhile.

[The Batorys]

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.

No, he wasn't. That's been pretty thoroughly debunked already.

[The Batorys]

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.

That's called war. The south shouldn't have started one.

[The Batorys]

Even better, who the hell are you to judge American values? You're not even from this country.

This memorial is dedicated to a bunch of white nationalist rabblerousers. Not even Confederate veterans (who in my view, as a Southerner, are still white nationalist rabblerousers). The entire monument should be destroyed, neo-Confederates should be happy it's being put in a museum.

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.

You really have no idea what you're talking about.

Stop romanticizing the uglier parts of our history.

[Ifreann]

American Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Vice-President of the Confederacy: "Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. "

You do realize that the men who wrote those words were slave owners and most definitively did not consider blacks to count under "all man". Furthermore, you do realize that many of the northern states were slave states? Right?

Of course. The point is that the values expressed are opposite. And since the first is of America, i.e. American, the second can only be anti-American.

---

Because victors justice is a bad thing? Regardless of what we think of the ideals now, they are still the ideals for which hundreds of thousands gave their lives.

Hundreds of thousands gave their lives for Hitler's ideals. Someone giving their life for an ideal doesn't make the ideal more worthwhile.

And of all the memorials to Nazi war dead, I don't think that any are statues of Hitler. Certainly none are obelisks promoting the superiority of the Aryan race.

[The Batorys]

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.

A massive change to their way of life meaning that owning other human beings as property would no longer be legal.

But sure, white feel feels are more important than black people being freed from slavery.

[Neutraligon]

I am neither a secessionist nor a patriot. I am saying that there is no reason for any government to recognize those that act in a way that is traitorous to that government. Even if the North had been the worst government in existence, even if it had been the South leaving the union to get rid of slavery, I do not see why the government in power should have statues to those who where in essence traitors.

In order to not appear massively disgustingly hypocritical when they start supporting rebellions across the globe. You can't go looking at half the middle east going "Oh support those rebels! It's for a good cause!" but at the same time quash any memory of the rebellion you had back home. It's bad enough that you would pick and choose when to support the principal of self determination and when to oppose it. But if you are going to do that at the very least you should invest the time to actually prove the case why one is good and one is bad rather than erasing those you dislike from history and pretending they newer happened.

I fail to see how it is hypocritical at all. A nation will do what it thinks is in it's best interests (please note I do not say that I support this necessarily). If that interest involves fomenting rebellion abroad that is what it will do. What is not in a nations best interest is to have rebellion at home or to celebrate those who rebel. Oh and removing these statues does not erase this from history, particularly since they are being moved to museums. Finally, since when did I say I support rebellions abroad? You seem to think I hold positions I do not hold and have not said I hold.

[The Batorys]

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.

An economy that depends on enslaving people is one that needs to be changed.

[The Batorys]

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.

I maintain that we should have hanged Jeff Davis.

Right in front of the national Capitol building, preferably.

[The Batorys]

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?

Freedom.

[The Batorys]

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.

How would you feel if I told you it was necessary to sell you as livestock "for the economy"?

[The Batorys]

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.

But they were scum.

Also the southerners shot first. So secession's legality didn't matter after that.

[The Batorys]

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.

Not really the the north's fault that the southerners chose to sink their wealth in a brutally oppressive, inefficient economic system.

[The Batorys]

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.

Stop pretending that you know shit about the US.

[The Batorys]

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.

Izandai said EVIL.

Not ILLEGAL.

Something can be both legal and deeply evil at the same time.

You know what else was legal? Stalin's purges.

[The Batorys]

Legal =/= moral.

Immoral by todays values.

And the values of much of the country at the time.

[The Batorys]

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

Only the more populous half of it.

That's how democracy fucking works.