New Orleans Begins Process of "Removing History"

[Nulla Bellum]

Why are these automatically declared "monuments to white supremacy?" Do they actually have signage explicitly declaring that?

Or is that just so much caustic language for "argument supremacy?"

I look at a statue of a guy on a horse and don't see advocacy of anything.

The following inscription was added in 1932:

"[Democrats] McEnery and Penn[11] having been elected governor and lieutenant-governor by the white people, were duly installed by this overthrow of carpetbag government, ousting the usurpers, Governor Kellogg (white) and Lieutenant-Governor Antoine (colored).
United States troops took over the state government and reinstated the usurpers but the national election of November 1876 recognized white supremacy in the South and gave us our state."

That's the info I was missing. Yeah, wreck that shit.

Still doesn't change my negative opinion of the syphilitic psychopath Abraham Lincoln.

[Audioslavia]

We're working under the assumption that were they not moved they would just not be maintained by the city, and instead will have a 24/7 guard/cleaning crew of white southern blokes.
For some reason....

A lefty takes it to the extreme, example #1375. The lefty lunacy counter will now be my sig.

I gave you the benefit of the doubt, earlier, and assumed that your first edit (removing the word 'lunatic') was an acknowledgement that your original post was out of order. This second edit tarnishes that somewhat.

This is an unofficial warning. Please don't do that thing that you did.

Cheers,

Audio.

[Wallenburg]

The South fucking seceded and started seizing Federal installations! What the fuck?!

were those Federal installations not located in the South? It wouldn't be a successful secession if those forts remained in Northern hands now would it?

See what I mean?

Ah, I see. So their intent to commit treason and violently seize federal land justifies their treason and seizing of federal land. That makes so much sense. Thank you for enlightening me.

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.

well if it was located in the North and it was fired upon, I would agree that the South started the war. But I don't see this here.

Who moves armies over the line first?

The North marched armies into the South, not the other way around.

Actually, the Confederacy marched their troops into all kinds of federal territory in the South, and fired on Fort Sumter for 34 hours before the Union engaged in any kind of attack. Get your facts straight.

They may be in the south but they were on federally owned land. With federally owned ammunition and guns and all that other stuff. The southerners who attacked the fort trespassed against on other people's lands in an attempt to steal other people's stuff.

Well the USA claims to own all of the land in the South.

No, it doesn't. It claims jurisdiction over all land in the South. If it claimed to own all land, then we would live in a propertyless, communist society.

So when the South declared independence, it claimed all of that land. Now its just a matter of which army crosses the north-south line first. That was decidedly the North.

No, it wasn't. I don't know what part of federal land you do not understand. Does the Canadian government not own land of its own? Is it all divided between the provinces and private citizens?

Fort Sumter is just a prelude.

Yes, it is a prelude in that it was the first battle of the Civil War, in which the Confederate armies attacked federal troops without provocation.

[Infected Mushroom]

were those Federal installations not located in the South? It wouldn't be a successful secession if those forts remained in Northern hands now would it?

See what I mean?

Ah, I see. So their intent to commit treason and violently seize federal land justifies their treason and seizing of federal land. That makes so much sense. Thank you for enlightening me.

well if it was located in the North and it was fired upon, I would agree that the South started the war. But I don't see this here.

Who moves armies over the line first?

The North marched armies into the South, not the other way around.

Actually, the Confederacy marched their troops into all kinds of federal territory in the South, and fired on Fort Sumter for 34 hours before the Union engaged in any kind of attack. Get your facts straight.

Well the USA claims to own all of the land in the South.

No, it doesn't. It claims jurisdiction over all land in the South. If it claimed to own all land, then we would live in a propertyless, communist society.

So when the South declared independence, it claimed all of that land. Now its just a matter of which army crosses the north-south line first. That was decidedly the North.

No, it wasn't. I don't know what part of federal land you do not understand. Does the Canadian government not own land of its own? Is it all divided between the provinces and private citizens?

Fort Sumter is just a prelude.

Yes, it is a prelude in that it was the first battle of the Civil War, in which the Confederate armies attacked federal troops without provocation.

Just one question (and this really decides everything): were those federal lands not located in the South?

Yes? Ok.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Just one question (and this really decides everything): were those federal lands not located in the South?

Yes? Ok.

Federal lands are still lands managed and (at least on paper) owned by the Federal government.

By your logic, I could enter Fort Hood and nobody could tell me shit because the lands are located in Texas.

[Hurdergaryp]

Also I do not understand the argument that this will somehow erase the Confederacy from history.

This is pretty much the same as the removal of statues of Franco in Spain in the years after the dictator died and democracy was restored, or how large amounts of communist monuments were removed in the former Comecon countries in Europe. It could be said that the South is a bit slow in comparison.

[Kulonia]

*imo*

Museums cost money to get in. Why should they profit off of the "evil" slavers, who by the way weren't responsible for slavery, the natives in Africa were (sold their POWs). Back to the profit part: if they were so evil, why profit off of them?

Slavers aren't responsible for slavery.

Wow.

(By the way, I am not defending slavery, here. Both sides of the US had slaves, so there was no good guy.)

I don't think you really understand which states had slavery.
Here is a map of the free states vs. the slave states. Here is a map of the North vs. the South.

The African tribes were responsible for slavery. Blame them, not the people who bought them for their economy.

[Kulonia]

Still, those statues should stay in the city. A museum just isn't right, imo. They should be kept outdoors in one of the confederate cities.

There are no confederate cities. The Confederacy ceased being a country when it was conquered by the USA.

I meant a former confederate city lol. My bad for not clarifying.

[Hurdergaryp]

Slavers aren't responsible for slavery.

Wow.

I don't think you really understand which states had slavery.
Here is a map of the free states vs. the slave states. Here is a map of the North vs. the South.

The African tribes were responsible for slavery. Blame them, not the people who bought them for their economy.

Why not blame the African tribes merrily selling caught members of rival tribes and the Europeans who bought those Africans from Africans? Shifting the blame is just a vanity game when everybody is guilty.

[Kulonia]

The African tribes were responsible for slavery. Blame them, not the people who bought them for their economy.

Why not blame the African tribes merrily selling caught members of rival tribes and the Europeans who bought those Africans from Africans? Shifting the blame is just a vanity game when everybody is guilty.

I forgot Europeans had slaves as well as Muricans. My bad, again

[Aelex]

The African tribes were responsible for slavery. Blame them, not the people who bought them for their economy.

Why not blame the African tribes merrily selling caught members of rival tribes and the Europeans who bought those Africans from Africans? Shifting the blame is just a vanity game when everybody is guilty.

Don't forget Arabs nor Turks neither. The amount of people enslaved in the Arabic Slave trade was roughly equivalent to the one enslaved in the Triangular one.

[Infected Mushroom]

Just one question (and this really decides everything): were those federal lands not located in the South?

Yes? Ok.

Federal lands are still lands managed and (at least on paper) owned by the Federal government.

By your logic, I could enter Fort Hood and nobody could tell me shit because the lands are located in Texas.

Depends on if Texas is exercising a constitutional right to secede or not and whether or not you work for Texas.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Federal lands are still lands managed and (at least on paper) owned by the Federal government.

By your logic, I could enter Fort Hood and nobody could tell me shit because the lands are located in Texas.

Depends on if Texas is exercising a constitutional right to secede or not and whether or not you work for Texas.

That still doesn't mean that the land doesn't belong to the United States.

Embassies and foreign military bases also are presumed under international law to be the same as the territory of the foreign government occupying them, that's why embassies and foreign military bases receive some deference in so far as the lot of land they have decided to reside in.

[Infected Mushroom]

Depends on if Texas is exercising a constitutional right to secede or not and whether or not you work for Texas.

That still doesn't mean that the land doesn't belong to the United States.

Embassies and foreign military bases also are presumed under international law to be the same as the territory of the foreign government occupying them, that's why embassies and foreign military bases receive some deference in so far as the lot of land they have decided to reside in.

are you saying Fort Sumter was an embassy?

[Thama]

We don't keep huge statues honouring Hitler or Goebbels in Berlin. Why the fuck would you have traitors and racists in the US?

History doesn't get removed when you remove monuments to evil people. Your logic is a bunch of bullshit.

[Kubra]

That still doesn't mean that the land doesn't belong to the United States.

Embassies and foreign military bases also are presumed under international law to be the same as the territory of the foreign government occupying them, that's why embassies and foreign military bases receive some deference in so far as the lot of land they have decided to reside in.

are you saying Fort Sumter was an embassy?

>and foreign military bases
it was right there after
cmon IM

[Soldati Senza Confini]

That still doesn't mean that the land doesn't belong to the United States.

Embassies and foreign military bases also are presumed under international law to be the same as the territory of the foreign government occupying them, that's why embassies and foreign military bases receive some deference in so far as the lot of land they have decided to reside in.

are you saying Fort Sumter was an embassy?

Did you read?

Embassies and foreign military bases

Here, I highlighted it for you.

Even if it wasn't an embassy, it was a military base. The moment the South seceded didn't automatically make the land "not property of the United States".

[Infected Mushroom]

We don't keep huge statues honouring Hitler or Goebbels in Berlin. Why the fuck would you have traitors and racists in the US?

History doesn't get removed when you remove monuments to evil people. Your logic is a bunch of bullshit.

A statue of Hitler is questionable but can at least be considered (he did rebuild the German economy, he did oversee a war that, at least for a while, showed the world Germany was still a great power even if that's somewhat tainted by other things).

Goebbels though? I'd say him killing his own children disqualifies him decidedly.

[Kulonia]

Ok, this is defiantly my last post. I'm sure, this time. Good discussion/debates, everyone.

[Infected Mushroom]

are you saying Fort Sumter was an embassy?

>and foreign military bases
it was right there after
cmon IM

I'm not sure about foreign military bases though. Embassies I would agree.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

>and foreign military bases
it was right there after
cmon IM

I'm not sure about foreign military bases though. Embassies I would agree.

Irrelevant.

[Roosevetania]

This is good. Slavery shouldn't be memorialized. Treason shouldn't be memorialized. And it doesn't matter if the south didn't see it as treason, it was still treason.

[Shazbotdom]

As someone who has been following this from day 1, bring as I live here, they are not going to trash anything as the msm says. The plan is to move it where it will be more for teaching, in a historical sense. They have not announced the location yet.

[Infected Mushroom]

This is good. Slavery shouldn't be memorialized. Treason shouldn't be memorialized. And it doesn't matter if the south didn't see it as treason, it was still treason.

the majority of Southerners fought to defend their homes and their families, not to protect slavery (they didn't even own slaves)

so this is a mischaracterization

[Infected Mushroom]

I'm not sure about foreign military bases though. Embassies I would agree.

Irrelevant.

its relevant if your argument misrepresents the status of international law, if such a thing exists