New Orleans Begins Process of "Removing History"

[USS Monitor]

Yeah, forgetting history is a sure way to stop it from ever happening again. Let's all sit by and say nothing as Neo-Confederates tell themselves that their cause was noble and just, that the North were cruel oppressors, that one day they will rise again and reclaim the country that should rightfully be theirs. This will certainly not lead to any conflict.

Morgan freeman even said,the way to get rid of racism is not to talk about it

I've seen that interview, and taken in context I think he made a good point, but it was a different context from what you're saying here. Freeman was arguing against tokenism.

[USS Monitor]

Clearly the South had the technology to go to the moon in order to mine rocks back in the 19th century. This thread regularly descends into the realm of the absurd.

Well, the North had the technology to build ironclads equipped with wifi, so why not?

[Peace-Making Forces]

Would you also be in favor of keeping monuments to Saddam Hussein in Iraq?

[Neutraligon]

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?

If you go by pre-war definitions of North and South, all of the North except for Delaware had abolished slavery, or was in the process of doing so. Delaware is not "many states."

There were a handful of states in the Upper South that remained loyal to the Union. It's nice that they decided not to hop on the Confederate bandwagon, but they're not the North.

The slave states that remained loyal to the Union had lower slave populations than the Deep South, and their choice to remain in the Union was probably a reflection of slavery not being important to them.

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.

Not really because mining moon rocks wouldn't offend Northern sensibilities.

Well that and there was a lot of support for maintaining the union. There was even a political party about it that won a few states as far as the presidential election was concerned.

[Hurdergaryp]

Clearly the South had the technology to go to the moon in order to mine rocks back in the 19th century. This thread regularly descends into the realm of the absurd.

Well, the North had the technology to build ironclads equipped with wifi, so why not?

Flag signals are not an early form of wifi.

[The Batorys]

Well, the North had the technology to build ironclads equipped with wifi, so why not?

Flag signals are not an early form of wifi.

That's what you think.

[Nordengrund]

I've got mixed feelings about this. I believe such "erasing" should only occur if it is the will of the people in that community.

[Izandai]

I've got mixed feelings about this. I believe such "erasing" should only occur if it is the will of the people in that community.

There is no "erasing of history" being done. The statues are being moved into a museum. The only thing that's being changed is that the statues are no longer being used as memorials for people. Misleading title is misleading.

Actually, that's a thing. Would it be possible for a mod to change the title to this thread? The current one is objectively false and really isn't helping to keep the discussion on track.

[Nordengrund]

I've got mixed feelings about this. I believe such "erasing" should only occur if it is the will of the people in that community.

There is no "erasing of history" being done. The statues are being moved into a museum. The only thing that's being changed is that the statues are no longer being used as memorials for people. Misleading title is misleading.

Actually, that's a thing. Would it be possible for a mod to change the title to this thread? The current one is objectively false and really isn't helping to keep the discussion on track.

Fair enough, I just skimmed the OP.

I'm a Southerner, and see both sides. While the CSA certainly did support an evil institution and were possibly traitors, I do think we are taking somethings too far. If the people living in the community want the statues to be moved to a museum, then that should be up to them.

By too far, I mean that while the CSA was on the wrong side of the war, I don't think we should villify everyone who fought for the Confederacy. I think the main reason why the South is still so attached to its past is that is something that makes the region unique. It may be a dark part of their heritage, but what nation, culture or heritage doesn't have dark moments? They probably also see the criticism of the CSA as a criticism of them and their family whose ancestors fought for the Confederacy. I think it's one of those things where Southerners are okay with criticizing their own region and pointing out is flaws, but will viciously defend their region. From the outsiders.

[Izandai]

There is no "erasing of history" being done. The statues are being moved into a museum. The only thing that's being changed is that the statues are no longer being used as memorials for people. Misleading title is misleading.

Actually, that's a thing. Would it be possible for a mod to change the title to this thread? The current one is objectively false and really isn't helping to keep the discussion on track.

Fair enough, I just skimmed the OP.

I'm a Southerner, and see both sides. While the CSA certainly did support an evil institution and were possibly traitors, I do think we are taking somethings too far. If the people living in the community want the statues to be moved to a museum, then that should be up to them.

By too far, I mean that while the CSA was on the wrong side of the war, I don't think we should villify everyone who fought for the Confederacy. I think the main reason why the South is still so attached to its past is that is something that makes the region unique. It may be a dark part of their heritage, but what nation, culture or heritage doesn't have dark moments? They probably also see the criticism of the CSA as a criticism of them and their family whose ancestors fought for the Confederacy. I think it's one of those things where Southerners are okay with criticizing their own region and pointing out is flaws, but will viciously defend their region. From the outsiders.

The difference is that while most cultures have the decency to be ashamed of their dark times, the Civil War is something that much of the South is actively proud of. They see it as a glorious thing that this part of the country once rose up to throw off the Northern oppression... Of wanting them to stop enslaving people.

[The Batorys]

I've got mixed feelings about this. I believe such "erasing" should only occur if it is the will of the people in that community.

It is.

[NeoOasis]

He was also a bit of a drunk if I remember

He never had a problem with alcoholism. You might be thinking of Grant, who had some minor problems with it, especially when he was away from his wife for too long.

General Grant was no drunk from what I've read. I want to say he actually abstained from alcohol during his campaigns, but I'd have to double check my sources. Apparently a few of his political opponents tried to smear him with accusations of drunkenness on the battlefield. Ultimately most if not all have been debunked.

Granted (heh) he did drink other times, and he didn't seem to drink any more than other generals who were confirmed drunk on the battlefield on both the Confederate and Union sides.

Feel free to double check my research for me, but the books I've used in the past are "Battle Cry of Freedom" and "Lincoln and his Generals."


Personally I think the city did the right thing with accommodating these statues, and I hope they get a dedicated exhibit at the local museum. The Civil War and its reasons (as much as they elude Trump) should not be forgotten.

[Patridam]

He never had a problem with alcoholism. You might be thinking of Grant, who had some minor problems with it, especially when he was away from his wife for too long.

General Grant was no drunk from what I've read. I want to say he actually abstained from alcohol during his campaigns, but I'd have to double check my sources. Apparently a few of his political opponents tried to smear him with accusations of drunkenness on the battlefield. Ultimately most if not all have been debunked.

Granted (heh) he did drink other times, and he didn't seem to drink any more than other generals who were confirmed drunk on the battlefield on both the Confederate and Union sides.

Feel free to double check my research for me, but the books I've used in the past are "Battle Cry of Freedom" and "Lincoln and his Generals."

Personally I think the city did the right thing with accommodating these statues, and I hope they get a dedicated exhibit at the local museum. The Civil War and its reasons (as much as they elude Trump) should not be forgotten.

I don't know how true it is, but "Grant was an alchoholic" is one of those tales that has lived on through middle school history classes since time immemorial.

[Farnhamia]

General Grant was no drunk from what I've read. I want to say he actually abstained from alcohol during his campaigns, but I'd have to double check my sources. Apparently a few of his political opponents tried to smear him with accusations of drunkenness on the battlefield. Ultimately most if not all have been debunked.

Granted (heh) he did drink other times, and he didn't seem to drink any more than other generals who were confirmed drunk on the battlefield on both the Confederate and Union sides.

Feel free to double check my research for me, but the books I've used in the past are "Battle Cry of Freedom" and "Lincoln and his Generals."

Personally I think the city did the right thing with accommodating these statues, and I hope they get a dedicated exhibit at the local museum. The Civil War and its reasons (as much as they elude Trump) should not be forgotten.

I don't know how true it is, but "Grant was an alchoholic" is one of those tales that has lived on through middle school history classes since time immemorial.

Grant was assigned to a lonely outpust upon promotion to captain in 1853. He did start drinking and it was the reason for his being asked for his resignation. The Army did note in his record that "Nothing stands against his good name," however. After his return to his family, he did not drink more than any average person in the mid-19th century and probably drank less. The rumors of alcoholism followed him pretty much forever.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulysses_S ... esignation

[Breuckelen]

General Grant was no drunk from what I've read. I want to say he actually abstained from alcohol during his campaigns, but I'd have to double check my sources. Apparently a few of his political opponents tried to smear him with accusations of drunkenness on the battlefield. Ultimately most if not all have been debunked.

Granted (heh) he did drink other times, and he didn't seem to drink any more than other generals who were confirmed drunk on the battlefield on both the Confederate and Union sides.

Feel free to double check my research for me, but the books I've used in the past are "Battle Cry of Freedom" and "Lincoln and his Generals."

Personally I think the city did the right thing with accommodating these statues, and I hope they get a dedicated exhibit at the local museum. The Civil War and its reasons (as much as they elude Trump) should not be forgotten.

I don't know how true it is, but "Grant was an alchoholic" is one of those tales that has lived on through middle school history classes since time immemorial.

Grant did not particularly drink anymore than his peers. It's just that he was a lightweight and thus got drunk off less.

[Farnhamia]

I don't know how true it is, but "Grant was an alchoholic" is one of those tales that has lived on through middle school history classes since time immemorial.

Grant did not particularly drink anymore than his peers. It's just that he was a lightweight and thus got drunk off less.

Source (or "sauce," since we're talking about drinking)?

[Farnhamia]

Grant did not particularly drink anymore than his peers. It's just that he was a lightweight and thus got drunk off less.

Source (or "sauce," since we're talking about drinking)?

Source: my roommate

[Farnhamia]

Source (or "sauce," since we're talking about drinking)?

Source: my roommate

Well, why didn't you say so?

[Breuckelen]

Source: my roommate

Well, why didn't you say so?

What?

[NeoOasis]

I don't know how true it is, but "Grant was an alchoholic" is one of those tales that has lived on through middle school history classes since time immemorial.

I can assure you they are false. I remember more than a few things from middle school and high school history being flat out wrong. Looking back I have few kind words to say to my public school education. (Like World War II starting in 1942, North starting the Civil War due to tax reasons, Columbus being a great all around guy, FDR being evil for pushing the TVA through (that bit is Alabama history), President Jackson being a swell president...) The list goes on.

I should probably clarify. Yes, he did drink heavily before the war, and it was involved in his resignation from the army, but by the time the Civil War started, the man had become cleaner than his peers. What was amazing was how Grant dealt with his haters. To say Grant was a shrewd man would probably be shorting him of credit. Granted his brilliance as a general is partially built on the failures of everyone else.

James McPherson noted that “Grant probably drank less than his peers, but he could not hold his liquor well.”

Took that line from here: Lincoln and Grant

tl;dr: We should totally replace all those monuments with statues of Grand and Sherman.

[USS Monitor]

Well, the North had the technology to build ironclads equipped with wifi, so why not?

Flag signals are not an early form of wifi.

Have I been using flag signals to post in this thread?

[USS Monitor]

There is no "erasing of history" being done. The statues are being moved into a museum. The only thing that's being changed is that the statues are no longer being used as memorials for people. Misleading title is misleading.

Actually, that's a thing. Would it be possible for a mod to change the title to this thread? The current one is objectively false and really isn't helping to keep the discussion on track.

Fair enough, I just skimmed the OP.

I'm a Southerner, and see both sides. While the CSA certainly did support an evil institution and were possibly traitors, I do think we are taking somethings too far. If the people living in the community want the statues to be moved to a museum, then that should be up to them.

By too far, I mean that while the CSA was on the wrong side of the war, I don't think we should villify everyone who fought for the Confederacy. I think the main reason why the South is still so attached to its past is that is something that makes the region unique. It may be a dark part of their heritage, but what nation, culture or heritage doesn't have dark moments? They probably also see the criticism of the CSA as a criticism of them and their family whose ancestors fought for the Confederacy. I think it's one of those things where Southerners are okay with criticizing their own region and pointing out is flaws, but will viciously defend their region. From the outsiders.

This decision was made by the city, not outsiders.

[USS Monitor]

He never had a problem with alcoholism. You might be thinking of Grant, who had some minor problems with it, especially when he was away from his wife for too long.

General Grant was no drunk from what I've read. I want to say he actually abstained from alcohol during his campaigns, but I'd have to double check my sources. Apparently a few of his political opponents tried to smear him with accusations of drunkenness on the battlefield. Ultimately most if not all have been debunked.

Granted (heh) he did drink other times, and he didn't seem to drink any more than other generals who were confirmed drunk on the battlefield on both the Confederate and Union sides.

Feel free to double check my research for me, but the books I've used in the past are "Battle Cry of Freedom" and "Lincoln and his Generals."


Personally I think the city did the right thing with accommodating these statues, and I hope they get a dedicated exhibit at the local museum. The Civil War and its reasons (as much as they elude Trump) should not be forgotten.

Grant got himself in trouble before the war for reporting to duty while drunk. During the Civil War, he did a better job of keeping the drinking under control and not letting it get in the way of his work.

[USS Monitor]

What was amazing was how Grant dealt with his haters. To say Grant was a shrewd man would probably be shorting him of credit.

Could not agree more. Grant was very good at dealing with difficult personalities and keeping things calm.

[Patridam]

tl;dr: We should totally replace all those monuments with statues of Grand and Sherman.

I feel like replacing a statue of Lee with a statue of Grant in New Orleans is just asking for it to get vandalized.