New Orleans Begins Process of "Removing History"

[USS Monitor]

they fought to defend their home lands from the invading Northerners

the majority of them did not own slaves, they fought the war to protect their homes, not to protect slavery

Yes, those poor Southerners being invaded by relentless, aggressive Northerners!

Please do not pretend to know about US history where you do not.

Hey, man. Some people get off fantasizing about Northern aggression. Don't spoil the mood by bringing facts into it.

Now who wants a look at my guns?

[Kanadorika]

Bullshit they fought to protect their homeland. They started the war, and complained when the North retaliated and crushed them in response to their aggression. What did they think was going to happen? If anything, the Union was protecting itself from a hostile South, who made a long history of never being appeased and making constant demands upon the North.

In my view attacking Fort Sumter is not an act of war (since its on Southern soil). However, the North was the first to cross the line and actually invade. So I would say they started the war.

Let's put it this way. The United States of America is the biggest pimpin' mack daddy around with some 34 hoes. One of 'em, a bitch named South Carolina, attempted to leave him and tried stealin America's sweet wheels, so America smacked that hoe and told her she ain't ever gunna be independent and that she works for him.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

In my view attacking Fort Sumter is not an act of war (since its on Southern soil). However, the North was the first to cross the line and actually invade. So I would say they started the war.

Let's put it this way. The United States of America is the biggest pimpin' mack daddy around with some 34 hoes. One of 'em, a bitch named South Carolina, attempted to leave him and tried stealin America's sweet wheels, so America smacked that hoe and told her she ain't ever gunna be independent and that she works for him.

Dat visual tho

[Australian rePublic]

--EDITED-OUT--

[Neutraligon]

In my view attacking Fort Sumter is not an act of war (since its on Southern soil). However, the North was the first to cross the line and actually invade. So I would say they started the war.

Let's put it this way. The United States of America is the biggest pimpin' mack daddy around with some 34 hoes. One of 'em, a bitch named South Carolina, attempted to leave him and tried stealin America's sweet wheels, so America smacked that hoe and told her she ain't ever gunna be independent and that she works for him.

... Oh man.

[Neutraligon]

I know this is not the thread for it, but they really do us a disservice in the way they teach about US history in high school. I was out of high school before I really started learning more then the shiny version of what happened in the civil and revolutionary war. History is so much more interesting then the way it is portrayed in high school history classes.

If you like history at the college level, I'd suggest finding good historical fiction novels that stick to original sources, and also micro-history books on a particular subject you might be interested in.

They're oddly satisfying to get to know things about history and culture of the period when they're well done.

Right now I am enjoying 11 nations of the United States. Must say it is rather fascinating even if I think the author places a bit too much emphasis on the founder effect. That being said it really is eye opening when it comes to things like the civil war.

[USS Monitor]

In my view attacking Fort Sumter is not an act of war (since its on Southern soil). However, the North was the first to cross the line and actually invade. So I would say they started the war.

The act of firing upon Fort Sumter, which was federal property, started the war and it was the duty of the United States (the North) to put down the treasonous rebellion.

Not specifically the North. All of the United States. There were Southerners who fought for the Union, and we really ought to do a better job of remembering and honoring them rather than allow the Confederate apologists to turn the whole war into North vs. South.

[Neutraligon]

The act of firing upon Fort Sumter, which was federal property, started the war and it was the duty of the United States (the North) to put down the treasonous rebellion.

Not specifically the North. All of the United States. There were Southerners who fought for the Union, and we really ought to do a better job of remembering and honoring them rather than allow the Confederate apologists to turn the whole war into North vs. South.

Hmm very true, especially since entire Southern states (even slave states) fought for the union.

[Luminesa]

In my view attacking Fort Sumter is not an act of war (since its on Southern soil). However, the North was the first to cross the line and actually invade. So I would say they started the war.

Let's put it this way. The United States of America is the biggest pimpin' mack daddy around with some 34 hoes. One of 'em, a bitch named South Carolina, attempted to leave him and tried stealin America's sweet wheels, so America smacked that hoe and told her she ain't ever gunna be independent and that she works for him.

ALRIGHT THEN. XD

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

The act of firing upon Fort Sumter, which was federal property, started the war and it was the duty of the United States (the North) to put down the treasonous rebellion.

Not specifically the North. All of the United States. There were Southerners who fought for the Union, and we really ought to do a better job of remembering and honoring them rather than allow the Confederate apologists to turn the whole war into North vs. South.

Indeed, you're right.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

The committee that voted on this subject was primarily black, so it is not quite surprising that this happened.

So, with this acknowledgement, and by wishing for this white supremacist monument to remain standing, you are admitting you support shoving a horrific history of institutionalized racism and dehumanizing enslavement into the faces of minorities?

[Kubra]

Most of those really are either in museums or str8 up dismantled.

Read what I wrote about the Moscow metro

I did. And responded.
Again, Lenin is popular is Russia. The White League is not a popular historical association these days.

[Datlofff]

Good riddance to bad rubbish.

The only confederacy I support is the iroquois confederacy.

Damn right. Out of the two, the Iruqois were the most democratic. They treated their women right.

Never forget that a lot of the soldiers of the south were basically forced to fight or be killed, not all of the soldiers were evil, not all of the generals were evil. Lee wasnt evil, he thought he had a duty to his state, so he fought for the south, he was against slavery and wanted to be a union general, but because of this duty to his state, he fought for a cause he didn't believe in, because he thought it was his duty to help his state. In actuality, we should be leaving the monuments to people like Lee, and the divisions under the confederacy, because lots of good men died under the confederate flag, racist or not, most of which simply wanted to defend their states from the union generals like Sherman who were literally destroying their towns, killing their civilians, or were simply drafted in with not decision other than, fight and die for your homeland, or die on a gallows with a noose knot around your neck.

Disclamer: I am not defending the entire south as a whole, simply the right for some of the monuments to be left in their place, and that NOT EVERY confederate general/soldier was evil most were as described above, I am a staunch Ohioan, and I will defend the union to my dying breath, as all ohioans have before me (I have a relative who served in the 1st ohio cavalry, C company, and fought in every major battle from Bull Run to Gettysburg) , even against those filthy Michigans for toledo bay.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Disclamer: I am not defending the entire south as a whole, simply the right for some of the monuments to be left in their place...

I get where you're coming from, I genuinely do. But a monument originally dedicated to literal verbatim "white supremacy" is extremely not okay.

[USS Monitor]

Damn right. Out of the two, the Iruqois were the most democratic. They treated their women right.

Never forget that a lot of the soldiers of the south were basically forced to fight or be killed, not all of the soldiers were evil, not all of the generals were evil. Lee wasnt evil, he thought he had a duty to his state, so he fought for the south, he was against slavery and wanted to be a union general, but because of this duty to his state, he fought for a cause he didn't believe in, because he thought it was his duty to help his state. In actuality, we should be leaving the monuments to people like Lee, and the divisions under the confederacy, because lots of good men died under the confederate flag, racist or not, most of which simply wanted to defend their states from the union generals like Sherman who were literally destroying their towns, killing their civilians, or were simply drafted in with not decision other than, fight and die for your homeland, or die on a gallows with a noose knot around your neck.

Disclamer: I am not defending the entire south as a whole, simply the right for some of the monuments to be left in their place, and that NOT EVERY confederate general/soldier was evil most were as described above, I am a staunch Ohioan, and I will defend the union to my dying breath, as all ohioans have before me (I have a relative who served in the 1st ohio cavalry, C company, and fought in every major battle from Bull Run to Gettysburg) , even against those filthy Michigans for toledo bay.

Oh, bullshit. Lee was not against slavery in any meaningful way. He said it was necessary for the negroes "instruction as a race" and he was fine with it lasting another thousand years. He kept the slaves he inherited for as long as he was allowed to keep them under the terms of the will. He wasn't a hero and he doesn't deserve any monuments.

Sherman was a nobody when the war started, and unless the Confederate Army was staffed with time-travelers you can't use Sherman's campaigns from 1864 and 1865 as a justification why people enlisted in the Confederate Army in 1861. Sherman also was much less brutal than the way Southerners like to imagine him in their BDSM Civil War fantasies. He went out of his way to scare people, even when he wasn't actually killing very many, and his scare tactics left a lasting impression.

As for the draft, it's hard to get drafted by the CSA if you've already enlisted in the Union Army -- which several Southern guys did.

[MERIZoC]

Disclamer: I am not defending the entire south as a whole, simply the right for some of the monuments to be left in their place...

I get where you're coming from, I genuinely do. But a monument originally dedicated to literal verbatim "white supremacy" is extremely not okay.

imo a lot of what makes this situation a bit awkward is that the monument has been there for decades. When it's been a part of the city for so long, people are gonna have attachment. Obviously it should be removed but it should've been removed ages ago, for more reasons than one.

[The Batorys]

The act of firing upon Fort Sumter, which was federal property, started the war and it was the duty of the United States (the North) to put down the treasonous rebellion.

Not specifically the North. All of the United States. There were Southerners who fought for the Union, and we really ought to do a better job of remembering and honoring them rather than allow the Confederate apologists to turn the whole war into North vs. South.

The commander of Fort Sumter's garrison was a southerner, if I recall correctly.

[San Marlindo]

Never forget that a lot of the soldiers of the south were basically forced to fight or be killed, not all of the soldiers were evil, not all of the generals were evil. Lee wasnt evil, he thought he had a duty to his state, so he fought for the south, he was against slavery and wanted to be a union general, but because of this duty to his state, he fought for a cause he didn't believe in, because he thought it was his duty to help his state. In actuality, we should be leaving the monuments to people like Lee, and the divisions under the confederacy, because lots of good men died under the confederate flag, racist or not, most of which simply wanted to defend their states from the union generals like Sherman who were literally destroying their towns, killing their civilians, or were simply drafted in with not decision other than, fight and die for your homeland, or die on a gallows with a noose knot around your neck.

Disclamer: I am not defending the entire south as a whole, simply the right for some of the monuments to be left in their place, and that NOT EVERY confederate general/soldier was evil most were as described above, I am a staunch Ohioan, and I will defend the union to my dying breath, as all ohioans have before me (I have a relative who served in the 1st ohio cavalry, C company, and fought in every major battle from Bull Run to Gettysburg) , even against those filthy Michigans for toledo bay.

Oh, bullshit. Lee was not against slavery in any meaningful way. He said it was necessary for the negroes "instruction as a race" and he was fine with it lasting another thousand years. He kept the slaves he inherited for as long as he was allowed to keep them under the terms of the will. He wasn't a hero and he doesn't deserve any monuments.

Sherman was a nobody when the war started, and unless the Confederate Army was staffed with time-travelers you can't use Sherman's campaigns from 1864 and 1865 as a justification why people enlisted in the Confederate Army in 1861. Sherman also was much less brutal than the way Southerners like to imagine him in their BDSM Civil War fantasies. He went out of his way to scare people, even when he wasn't actually killing very many, and his scare tactics left a lasting impression.

As for the draft, it's hard to get drafted by the CSA if you've already enlisted in the Union Army -- which several Southern guys did.

It wasn't that Sherman's "bummers" massacred civilians en masse, it's that they stole irreplaceable supplies that many families needed to survive the winter, dooming them by default.

They didn't just take the preexisting food - like hams curing in the smokehouse - they also stole the chickens, cows, horses and other livestock so the family had a much more difficult time replacing the food that was taken and replenishing their winter hoard.

Many foragers also stole valuables from the homeowners they plundered, like gold and jewelry.

Think about it. If the season isn't right for growing enough new crops, you have no animals to produce milk, eggs, and meat, at least two thirds of your preexisting food supply including what was saved up for the winter months is gone, you have no horse to travel to look for food, and you have no valuables to trade for food, you are in trouble.

The American side of my family was living in the South during the civil war, ironically having just moved down from Pennsylvania and later Indiana. It was a big mistake. They bought a farm and invested their lives into it. There was only one man of fighting age in the family between 1860 and 1865, and he was not fit for military service because he was deaf and dumb.

Of course, despite not owning slaves or participating in the rebellion they were not spared Sherman's March. They lost their food supply and narrowly staved off starvation by picking pokeweed, which is no better than eating grass. Needless to say there was insufficient food for the winter.

I don't entertain BDSM fantasies about Sherman. Nobody in my family thinks about him today, but until my great-grandmother's generation they were still extremely bitter about him as an individual because of what his army did. I'm sure Sherman's troops needed that food themselves, but to my ancestors it looked like a calculated act of treachery, condemning them to near starvation, taking what little valuables they possessed, and ruining their livelihood (through the theft of the livestock).

It's easy to imagine that all the individuals who suffered as a result of Sherman's army were traitors and slave owning scumbags who got a well-deserved comeuppance when he showed up and kicked their asses. But nothing in history is ever absolute. My ancestors weren't traitors. They didn't fight for either side. They were just people who invested everything into a farm they weren't willing to give up when the war started after having just moved there less than a decade earlier. They didn't deserve to get reduced to abject poverty and malnourishment.

And in this case it wasn't as simple as sending their sons away to join the federal army, either.

Like I said I don't hate Sherman, but I can understand where that sentiment comes from. For the same reason I don't particularly like him either.

As the man said, it was war, and war is cruelty.

[The Batorys]

Never forget that a lot of the soldiers of the south were basically forced to fight or be killed, not all of the soldiers were evil, not all of the generals were evil. Lee wasnt evil, he thought he had a duty to his state, so he fought for the south, he was against slavery and wanted to be a union general, but because of this duty to his state, he fought for a cause he didn't believe in, because he thought it was his duty to help his state. In actuality, we should be leaving the monuments to people like Lee, and the divisions under the confederacy, because lots of good men died under the confederate flag, racist or not, most of which simply wanted to defend their states from the union generals like Sherman who were literally destroying their towns, killing their civilians, or were simply drafted in with not decision other than, fight and die for your homeland, or die on a gallows with a noose knot around your neck.

Disclamer: I am not defending the entire south as a whole, simply the right for some of the monuments to be left in their place, and that NOT EVERY confederate general/soldier was evil most were as described above, I am a staunch Ohioan, and I will defend the union to my dying breath, as all ohioans have before me (I have a relative who served in the 1st ohio cavalry, C company, and fought in every major battle from Bull Run to Gettysburg) , even against those filthy Michigans for toledo bay.

Oh, bullshit. Lee was not against slavery in any meaningful way. He said it was necessary for the negroes "instruction as a race" and he was fine with it lasting another thousand years. He kept the slaves he inherited for as long as he was allowed to keep them under the terms of the will. He wasn't a hero and he doesn't deserve any monuments.

Sherman was a nobody when the war started, and unless the Confederate Army was staffed with time-travelers you can't use Sherman's campaigns from 1864 and 1865 as a justification why people enlisted in the Confederate Army in 1861. Sherman also was much less brutal than the way Southerners like to imagine him in their BDSM Civil War fantasies. He went out of his way to scare people, even when he wasn't actually killing very many, and his scare tactics left a lasting impression.

As for the draft, it's hard to get drafted by the CSA if you've already enlisted in the Union Army -- which several Southern guys did.

Indeed. Sherman targeted property primarily.

And the point was to make the population of the south realize the implications of the war that they chose to start.

[San Marlindo]

Oh, bullshit. Lee was not against slavery in any meaningful way. He said it was necessary for the negroes "instruction as a race" and he was fine with it lasting another thousand years. He kept the slaves he inherited for as long as he was allowed to keep them under the terms of the will. He wasn't a hero and he doesn't deserve any monuments.

Sherman was a nobody when the war started, and unless the Confederate Army was staffed with time-travelers you can't use Sherman's campaigns from 1864 and 1865 as a justification why people enlisted in the Confederate Army in 1861. Sherman also was much less brutal than the way Southerners like to imagine him in their BDSM Civil War fantasies. He went out of his way to scare people, even when he wasn't actually killing very many, and his scare tactics left a lasting impression.

As for the draft, it's hard to get drafted by the CSA if you've already enlisted in the Union Army -- which several Southern guys did.

Indeed. Sherman targeted property primarily.

And the point was to make the population of the south realize the implications of the war that they chose to start.

The point was driven home to plenty of people who had nothing to do with starting the war, too.

[USS Monitor]

Not specifically the North. All of the United States. There were Southerners who fought for the Union, and we really ought to do a better job of remembering and honoring them rather than allow the Confederate apologists to turn the whole war into North vs. South.

The commander of Fort Sumter's garrison was a southerner, if I recall correctly.

He was born in Kentucky, which is kind of Southern, but not a Confederate state. I looked it up because I didn't know off the top of my head.

[USS Monitor]

Oh, bullshit. Lee was not against slavery in any meaningful way. He said it was necessary for the negroes "instruction as a race" and he was fine with it lasting another thousand years. He kept the slaves he inherited for as long as he was allowed to keep them under the terms of the will. He wasn't a hero and he doesn't deserve any monuments.

Sherman was a nobody when the war started, and unless the Confederate Army was staffed with time-travelers you can't use Sherman's campaigns from 1864 and 1865 as a justification why people enlisted in the Confederate Army in 1861. Sherman also was much less brutal than the way Southerners like to imagine him in their BDSM Civil War fantasies. He went out of his way to scare people, even when he wasn't actually killing very many, and his scare tactics left a lasting impression.

As for the draft, it's hard to get drafted by the CSA if you've already enlisted in the Union Army -- which several Southern guys did.

It wasn't that Sherman's "bummers" massacred civilians en masse, it's that they stole irreplaceable supplies that many families needed to survive the winter, dooming them by default.

They didn't just take the preexisting food - like hams curing in the smokehouse - they also stole the chickens, cows, horses and other livestock so the family had a much more difficult time replacing the food that was taken and replenishing their winter hoard.

Many foragers also stole valuables from the homeowners they plundered, like gold and jewelry.

Think about it. If the season isn't right for growing enough new crops, you have no animals to produce milk, eggs, and meat, at least two thirds of your preexisting food supply including what was saved up for the winter months is gone, you have no horse to travel to look for food, and you have no valuables to trade for food, you are in trouble.

The American side of my family was living in the South during the civil war, ironically having just moved down from Pennsylvania and later Indiana. It was a big mistake. They bought a farm and invested their lives into it. There was only one man of fighting age in the family between 1860 and 1865, and he was not fit for military service because he was deaf and dumb.

Of course, despite not owning slaves or participating in the rebellion they were not spared Sherman's March. They lost their food supply and narrowly staved off starvation by picking pokeweed, which is no better than eating grass. Needless to say there was insufficient food for the winter.

I don't entertain BDSM fantasies about Sherman. Nobody in my family thinks about him today, but until my great-grandmother's generation they were still extremely bitter about him as an individual because of what his army did. I'm sure Sherman's troops needed that food themselves, but to my ancestors it looked like a calculated act of treachery, condemning them to near starvation, taking what little valuables they possessed, and ruining their livelihood (through the theft of the livestock).

It's easy to imagine that all the individuals who suffered as a result of Sherman's army were traitors and slave owning scumbags who got a well-deserved comeuppance when he showed up and kicked their asses. But nothing in history is ever absolute. My ancestors weren't traitors. They didn't fight for either side. They were just people who invested everything into a farm they weren't willing to give up when the war started after having just moved there less than a decade earlier. They didn't deserve to get reduced to abject poverty and malnourishment.

And in this case it wasn't as simple as sending their sons away to join the federal army, either.

Like I said I don't hate Sherman, but I can understand where that sentiment comes from. For the same reason I don't particularly like him either.

As the man said, it was war, and war is cruelty.

You don't have to like Sherman, but eating pokeweed to survive the winter is not the same thing as being killed.

[San Marlindo]

It wasn't that Sherman's "bummers" massacred civilians en masse, it's that they stole irreplaceable supplies that many families needed to survive the winter, dooming them by default.

They didn't just take the preexisting food - like hams curing in the smokehouse - they also stole the chickens, cows, horses and other livestock so the family had a much more difficult time replacing the food that was taken and replenishing their winter hoard.

Many foragers also stole valuables from the homeowners they plundered, like gold and jewelry.

Think about it. If the season isn't right for growing enough new crops, you have no animals to produce milk, eggs, and meat, at least two thirds of your preexisting food supply including what was saved up for the winter months is gone, you have no horse to travel to look for food, and you have no valuables to trade for food, you are in trouble.

The American side of my family was living in the South during the civil war, ironically having just moved down from Pennsylvania and later Indiana. It was a big mistake. They bought a farm and invested their lives into it. There was only one man of fighting age in the family between 1860 and 1865, and he was not fit for military service because he was deaf and dumb.

Of course, despite not owning slaves or participating in the rebellion they were not spared Sherman's March. They lost their food supply and narrowly staved off starvation by picking pokeweed, which is no better than eating grass. Needless to say there was insufficient food for the winter.

I don't entertain BDSM fantasies about Sherman. Nobody in my family thinks about him today, but until my great-grandmother's generation they were still extremely bitter about him as an individual because of what his army did. I'm sure Sherman's troops needed that food themselves, but to my ancestors it looked like a calculated act of treachery, condemning them to near starvation, taking what little valuables they possessed, and ruining their livelihood (through the theft of the livestock).

It's easy to imagine that all the individuals who suffered as a result of Sherman's army were traitors and slave owning scumbags who got a well-deserved comeuppance when he showed up and kicked their asses. But nothing in history is ever absolute. My ancestors weren't traitors. They didn't fight for either side. They were just people who invested everything into a farm they weren't willing to give up when the war started after having just moved there less than a decade earlier. They didn't deserve to get reduced to abject poverty and malnourishment.

And in this case it wasn't as simple as sending their sons away to join the federal army, either.

Like I said I don't hate Sherman, but I can understand where that sentiment comes from. For the same reason I don't particularly like him either.

As the man said, it was war, and war is cruelty.

You don't have to like Sherman, but eating pokeweed to survive the winter is not the same thing as being killed.

Hey, you won't hear any argument from me about that. I wouldn't be around to post this if it were the case.

But at the same time bitterness due to malnutrition and the loss of one's livelihood isn't the same as a misplaced BDSM fantasy about a caricature of some butcher.

[USS Monitor]

You don't have to like Sherman, but eating pokeweed to survive the winter is not the same thing as being killed.

Hey, you won't hear any argument from me about that. I wouldn't be around to post this if it were the case.

But at the same time bitterness due to malnutrition and the loss of one's livelihood isn't the same as a misplaced BDSM fantasy about a caricature of some butcher.

The BDSM comment was referring to the people who accuse Sherman of leading his men on some kind of mass-rape spree across Georgia. Unlike setting things on fire or taking people's food, the rape stuff is just Confederate propaganda.

[Thermodolia]

Indeed. Sherman targeted property primarily.

And the point was to make the population of the south realize the implications of the war that they chose to start.

The point was driven home to plenty of people who had nothing to do with starting the war, too.

The point was to completely collapse the will of the CSA to fight and it worked damn well, so damn well that we did it again to the Germans during ww2 with Dresden