New Orleans Begins Process of "Removing History"

[Olerand]

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

And yet the Confederacy was going to war for slavery. Individuals in the South could have gone to war for any reason, maybe just for fun. Maybe they were conscripted. It doesn't matter, because that's not the issue. The treasonous country they fought for explicitly went to war for slavery.

[Infected Mushroom]

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

And yet the Confederacy was going to war for slavery. Individuals in the South could have gone to war for any reason, maybe just for fun. Maybe they were conscripted. It doesn't matter, because that's not the issue. The treasonous country they fought for explicitly went to war for slavery.

the Confederacy didn't want to go to war, they were invaded

remember what Davis said? "All we want, is to be left alone."

It was the North that invaded, not the other way around. There would have been no war otherwise.

[Olerand]

And yet the Confederacy was going to war for slavery. Individuals in the South could have gone to war for any reason, maybe just for fun. Maybe they were conscripted. It doesn't matter, because that's not the issue. The treasonous country they fought for explicitly went to war for slavery.

the Confederacy didn't want to go to war, they were invaded

remember what Davis said? "All we want, is to be left alone."

It was the North that invaded, not the other way around. There would have been no war otherwise.

They were invaded by a stationary, immobile, fort? The attack on Fort Sumter started the American Civil War. Was the Confederate army just passing through, and the Fort intercepted their route and fired on them?

[Tobiasia]

Why are some people genuinely confused and angry that a monument idolising a confederate leader is being removed? They wouldn't keep statues of Hitler etc up.

[Hurdergaryp]

the Confederacy didn't want to go to war, they were invaded

remember what Davis said? "All we want, is to be left alone."

It was the North that invaded, not the other way around. There would have been no war otherwise.

They were invaded by a stationary, immobile, fort? The attack on Fort Sumter started the American Civil War. Was the Confederate army just passing through, and the Fort intercepted their route and fired on them?

Despite all the vile attempts at revisionism, it is indeed still the South who started hostilities. The South was the initial aggressor, and the South got what it deserved. The message should probably have been hammered home a LOT harder, given the fact that we still have these conversations.

[Olerand]

They were invaded by a stationary, immobile, fort? The attack on Fort Sumter started the American Civil War. Was the Confederate army just passing through, and the Fort intercepted their route and fired on them?

Despite all the vile attempts at revisionism, it is indeed still the South who started hostilities. The South was the initial aggressor, and the South got what it deserved. The message should probably have been hammered home a LOT harder, given the fact that we still have these conversations.

I'm not advocating for this, but maybe I am advocating for this... You know, the First Republic and the work it did in the Vendée was pretty thorough. The Third Republic's rejection of Vendéen royalism and right-wing extremism has proven pretty sustainably successful. Obviously, it's too late to fix the past now, but consider it in case they want to go for round two.

[Sanctissima]

the Confederacy didn't want to go to war, they were invaded

remember what Davis said? "All we want, is to be left alone."

It was the North that invaded, not the other way around. There would have been no war otherwise.

They were invaded by a stationary, immobile, fort? The attack on Fort Sumter started the American Civil War. Was the Confederate army just passing through, and the Fort intercepted their route and fired on them?

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

And yet the Confederacy was going to war for slavery. Individuals in the South could have gone to war for any reason, maybe just for fun. Maybe they were conscripted. It doesn't matter, because that's not the issue. The treasonous country they fought for explicitly went to war for slavery.

the Confederacy didn't want to go to war, they were invaded

remember what Davis said? "All we want, is to be left alone."

It was the North that invaded, not the other way around. There would have been no war otherwise.

If they didn't want to go to war then they wouldn't have fired upon Fort Sumter.

[Auristania]

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 nation that forgets it's history is doomed to repeat it.

There should be statues etc. that we remember the time of slavery and treason. Those statues should glorify the Struggle for Liberty and pray for the dead of both sides.

Memorializing is necessary. Glorifying treason should be banned.

Gone with the Wind is an xcellent movie. I don't want it banned but it needs a huge for entertainment purposes only label.

Therefore if a treasonous statue has artistic merit, then leave it, but slap a huge plaque with Patriotic message.

Han shot first and he is the hero.
Fort Sumter is irrelevant: Pro-slavery = bad guys; Anti-slavery = good guys, iik.
If North had shot first, they would still be the good guys.

Cuba declared independence in 1956, but USA still owns Guantanamo.
Spanish Inquisition keeps trying to conquer Gibraltar and failing.
Britain owned Calais for centuries.

From South POV, Fort Sumter is a foreign military base. From South POV every Post Office and Census Bureau is a foreign institution.

[Hurdergaryp]

the Confederacy didn't want to go to war, they were invaded

remember what Davis said? "All we want, is to be left alone."

It was the North that invaded, not the other way around. There would have been no war otherwise.

If they didn't want to go to war then they wouldn't have fired upon Fort Sumter.

But Fort Sumter was looking really intimidating and had to pay for all that Northern arrogance and the equally irritating Northern tendency to frown upon slavery.

[Kubra]

the Confederacy didn't want to go to war, they were invaded

remember what Davis said? "All we want, is to be left alone."

It was the North that invaded, not the other way around. There would have been no war otherwise.

They were invaded by a stationary, immobile, fort? The attack on Fort Sumter started the American Civil War. Was the Confederate army just passing through, and the Fort intercepted their route and fired on them?

"sir, on the horizon, it's fort sumter! she's gaining on us, we can't evade!"

[Hurdergaryp]

They were invaded by a stationary, immobile, fort? The attack on Fort Sumter started the American Civil War. Was the Confederate army just passing through, and the Fort intercepted their route and fired on them?

"sir, on the horizon, it's fort sumter! she's gaining on us, we can't evade!"

All those mint juleps must have gotten to their heads.

[Infected Mushroom]

the Confederacy didn't want to go to war, they were invaded

remember what Davis said? "All we want, is to be left alone."

It was the North that invaded, not the other way around. There would have been no war otherwise.

If they didn't want to go to war then they wouldn't have fired upon Fort Sumter.

And as I've said, that's not an invasion nor an act of war, since its located in the South. Had it been located in the North, you would have a point.

Ownership is irrelevant since the South declared independence. It goes with the entire territory.

[Olerand]

If they didn't want to go to war then they wouldn't have fired upon Fort Sumter.

And as I've said, that's not an invasion nor an act of war, since its located in the South. Had it been located in the North, you would have a point.

Ownership is irrelevant since the South declared independence. It goes with the entire territory.

It was under the authority of the American State and was manned by Americans. By what logic is attacking a position held by another country and firing on its soldiers not a declaration of war?

[Infected Mushroom]

And as I've said, that's not an invasion nor an act of war, since its located in the South. Had it been located in the North, you would have a point.

Ownership is irrelevant since the South declared independence. It goes with the entire territory.

It was under the authority of the American State and was manned by Americans. By what logic is attacking a position held by another country and firing on its soldiers not a declaration of war?

It depends on the context

though the first question that would jump out at me would be; what are those foreign soldiers doing in my land in the first place?

[Hurdergaryp]

It was under the authority of the American State and was manned by Americans. By what logic is attacking a position held by another country and firing on its soldiers not a declaration of war?

It depends on the context

though the first question that would jump out at me would be; what are those foreign soldiers doing in my land in the first place?

If they were truly foreign soldiers, the incident wouldn't have escalated into the clusterfuck of the Civil War.

[Olerand]

It was under the authority of the American State and was manned by Americans. By what logic is attacking a position held by another country and firing on its soldiers not a declaration of war?

It depends on the context

though the first question that would jump out at me would be; what are those foreign soldiers doing in my land in the first place?

Well... They were there when your land was... Theirs. Before you committed treason. And then you moved on them... And fired on them. Which is, according to international law (not that that was relevant in 1860) an act of war.

[Infected Mushroom]

It depends on the context

though the first question that would jump out at me would be; what are those foreign soldiers doing in my land in the first place?

If they were truly foreign soldiers, the incident wouldn't have escalated into the clusterfuck of the Civil War.

The USA and the CSA are different entities at that point, since the CSA had exercised its right to self-determination (and presumptively, it wasn't barred by the Constitution)

[Infected Mushroom]

It depends on the context

though the first question that would jump out at me would be; what are those foreign soldiers doing in my land in the first place?

Well... They were there when your land was... Theirs. Before you committed treason. And then you moved on them... And fired on them. Which is, according to international law (not that that was relevant in 1860) an act of war.

Did the Constitution say explicitly secession wasn't allowed? Was there a Supreme Court ruling AT THE TIME saying it wasn't allowed?

Its presumptively allowed. And seems logical to infer that if states voluntarily entered to form the Union, they had a right to leave.

[Olerand]

Well... They were there when your land was... Theirs. Before you committed treason. And then you moved on them... And fired on them. Which is, according to international law (not that that was relevant in 1860) an act of war.

Did the Constitution say explicitly secession wasn't allowed? Was there a Supreme Court ruling AT THE TIME saying it wasn't allowed?

Its presumptively allowed. And seems logical to infer that if states voluntarily entered to form the Union, they had a right to leave.

Presumptively, it was either or. There was nothing saying it couldn't happen, and nothing saying it could. Lincoln said no, then the Supreme Court agreed.

So... The South still fired the first shot, and started the war. And their treason, which was not explicitly forbidden, nor explicitly allowed at the very moment they did it, was judged forbidden by the government; then the Supreme Court, and thus the Constitution, concurred. So...

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

If they didn't want to go to war then they wouldn't have fired upon Fort Sumter.

And as I've said, that's not an invasion nor an act of war, since its located in the South. Had it been located in the North, you would have a point.

Ownership is irrelevant since the South declared independence. It goes with the entire territory.

The fort was property of the United States government, so the point still stands. The Confederacy had no legal claim to it.

[Hurdergaryp]

If they were truly foreign soldiers, the incident wouldn't have escalated into the clusterfuck of the Civil War.

The USA and the CSA are different entities at that point, since the CSA had exercised its right to self-determination (and presumptively, it wasn't barred by the Constitution)

Still an amazingly brazen and stupid act of aggression against the North, but that is to be expected from traitors.

[Infected Mushroom]

Did the Constitution say explicitly secession wasn't allowed? Was there a Supreme Court ruling AT THE TIME saying it wasn't allowed?

Its presumptively allowed. And seems logical to infer that if states voluntarily entered to form the Union, they had a right to leave.

Presumptively, it was either or. There was nothing saying it couldn't happen, and nothing saying it could. Lincoln said no, then the Supreme Court agreed.

So... The South still fired the first shot, and started the war. And their treason, which was not explicitly forbidden, nor explicitly allowed at the very moment they did it, was judged forbidden by the government; then the Supreme Court, and thus the Constitution, concurred. So...

and how did the Supreme Court justify this (if there was a decision at the time)?

Where did it say explicitly in the Constitution that secession wasn't allowed? If its politically motivated legal wrangling than in my view it must be disregarded. On its face there's nothing to suggest secession was unconstitutional (in fact, the Constitution itself was the result of secession from the Empire).

[Infected Mushroom]

The USA and the CSA are different entities at that point, since the CSA had exercised its right to self-determination (and presumptively, it wasn't barred by the Constitution)

Still an amazingly brazen and stupid act of aggression against the North, but that is to be expected from traitors.

Again, how can it be against the North if it took place in the South?

[Olerand]

Presumptively, it was either or. There was nothing saying it couldn't happen, and nothing saying it could. Lincoln said no, then the Supreme Court agreed.

So... The South still fired the first shot, and started the war. And their treason, which was not explicitly forbidden, nor explicitly allowed at the very moment they did it, was judged forbidden by the government; then the Supreme Court, and thus the Constitution, concurred. So...

and how did the Supreme Court justify this (if there was a decision at the time)?

Where did it say explicitly in the Constitution that secession wasn't allowed? If its politically motivated legal wrangling than in my view it must be disregarded. On its face there's nothing to suggest secession was unconstitutional (in fact, the Constitution itself was the result of secession from the Empire).

I wasn't on the Court then, nor am I there now. In fact, I don't want to be, nor would I qualify. Here is their ruling, however, and you can see what they said for yourself.