New Orleans Begins Process of "Removing History"

[The Batorys]

As a someone from Louisiana I would have appreciated if the issue of removing the statues had been put up to vote and if there and been the smallest bit of transparency involved in the dealing with the statues. The New Orleans government has refused to tell us anything involving the removal of the statues.

It was put to a vote. By the elected representatives. That's how representative democracy works.

[The Batorys]

I think all history, good or bad, should be remembered and protected for future generations to learn from.

Right, so Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia were wrong to tear down Soviet monuments?

[The Batorys]

Everyone knows about the Confederacy. If you live in the South, there is no possible way you can escape learning about it. Whether this be through the flag being flown by Southerners, through history lessons, or through memorials, you'll find out about it and the war between the CSA and the USA. But this is the 21st Century, a time where people support removing history because of their feelings. But anyway, here is the story:

After years of legal wrangling and intimidation, New Orleans has begun the process of dismantling four monuments of the Confederate and Jim Crow eras.

The first monument, which honors members of a white supremacist paramilitary group who fought against the city's racially integrated, Reconstruction-era police force in 1874, was dismantled and removed before the sun rose Monday.
Debate Rages In Southern States Over Whether To Remove Confederate Symbols

Following death threats, the contractors wore flak jackets and helmets as they broke down the Battle of Liberty Place monument, as WWNO's Tegan Wendland reports.

"We will no longer allow the Confederacy to literally be put on a pedestal in the heart of our city," New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu was quoted as saying by The Associated Press.

Landrieu has called for the statues to be removed since 2015. He described the Liberty Place monument as the "most offensive" of the four, according to The Times-Picayune.

Last month, as The Two-Way reported, a federal appeals court greenlighted the city's plans to remove the monuments, including statues of Confederate leaders Robert E. Lee, Jefferson Davis and P.G.T. Beauregard.

Relocating these confederate statues is not about taking something away from someone else. It’s about choosing a better future.
— Mitch Landrieu (@MayorLandrieu) April 24, 2017

In 1989, the Liberty Place monument was removed from its prominent location on Canal Street due to construction, and repositioned to a location off the main drag in 1993.

The mayor's office said that in 1932, the city placed a plaque on the monument stating that the battle memorialized was intended to "overthrow of carpetbag government, ousting the usurpers," and "the national election of November 1876 recognized white supremacy in the South and gave us our state."
New Orleans Can Remove Confederate Statues, Federal Appeals Court Says

When the monument was moved in 1993, that plaque was covered with a new one that said: "In honor of those Americans on both sides who died in the Battle of Liberty Place. ... A conflict of the past that should teach us lessons for the future."

The Advocate newspaper reports that "no statue in New Orleans has had as slow or tortured an exit from the public stage as the monument to the Battle of Liberty Place." Here's more on the long, contested history:

"Up through the 1970s, respectable opinion held that the battle really had nothing to do with race. As one newspaper editorial put it after the obelisk was defaced with black paint in 1970, it was a battle against 'interlopers ... sent to the community to loot, to confiscate lands and to otherwise misrule Louisiana.'

"Like the obelisk itself, this view has been largely discarded, at least among professional historians."

About a dozen protesters gathered as the workers began to dismantle the monument, according to the Times-Picayune. "Supporters of the monuments say they're part of the city's history," Wendland added.

But Mayor Landrieu said that "relocating these Confederate monuments is not about taking something away from someone else. ... This is about showing the whole world that we as a city and as a people are able to acknowledge, understand, reconcile — and most importantly— choose a better future."

The four statues will be initially moved to storage, then the city will look into relocating them to a museum or other location.

The city isn't releasing details about the other statues' removals due to security concerns, but has said that it has secured private funding for the jobs as of Monday. It did not state the source of the funding.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/24/us/new-or ... e-statues/
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/24/us/n ... .html?_r=0
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/ ... -monuments

Now, I believe that this is a horrible action on the part of New Orleans. The committee that voted on this subject was primarily black, so it is not quite surprising that this happened. This is quite reminiscent of how Nazi Germany rewrote history and removed certain historical objects to support their beliefs. There is no reason for these to be removed because of people acting foolishly with them and them representing a historical point in US history. So NSG, are we approaching a time where the South will have to remove all traces of the Confederacy, and will this move elsewhere in the world where governments will have to remove anything pertaining to a "bad" point in their nation's history?

Trying to erase history because muh feewings. Vile and disgusting.

I imagine you must find it similarly appalling that monuments erected by the Third Reich were torn down after WWII. And various monuments to Stalin were removed, in time, as well.

[The Batorys]

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?

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.

It's worth pointing out that despite changes in governments, China still honored the terms of the lease for Hong Kong with the British, and Cuba does not attack the US naval base at Guantanamo Bay. Cuba would love to have it back, but so far they have only peacefully asked for the return of said territory, because they're not idiots like the Confederates.

[The Batorys]

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

Irrelevant.

Indeed. International law recognizes them.

[The Batorys]

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?

Exactly. Once the Confederates started shooting on Fort Sumter, the legality of secession became irrelevant. Even if one recognizes the CSA as a legitimate government (a position I find somewhat dubious), they started a war with a country larger and stronger than them. When countries do that, they typically get the shit kicked out of them.

[New Clearland]

I don't see the big deal. They are just removing monuments to racists that fought for slavery from public areas. Don't worry, their deplorable acts of villainy will still be immortalized in history books.

[The Batorys]

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.

Exactly. They were itching for a fight. Otherwise they would have tried for far longer to come to a peaceful resolution to the issue of US government property in the CSA.

Other nations have done so, because they were capable of acting like rational adults.

[The Batorys]

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?

The USA has a base in Cuba. And the communist revolutionary government that kicked out the previous US-backed one has not been stupid enough to attack it, even though they've made it known that they would prefer the return of jurisdiction over that land to Cuba.

[Ifreann]

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.

I declare independence for your computer. Any further use of it by you will be considered an act of war.

[Timsvill]

History is history. We can't ignore slavery. We have to accept what happened. Learn from are mistakes. Repair the damaged caused by it. Remember what happened and realize we must never go back to that way. Removing confederate statues is removing history and thereby ignoring what happened. Teaching kids what happened in Textbooks isn't enough, there needs to be statues so parents can go up to it with their kids and say "Little Timmy. This statues is a statue of the confederate general Robert E. Lee. At the time, he fought for what he thought was right. Even though that's admirable, slavery is and will never be right. We have this statue here to remember him and what the south use to be. It's a reminder that we should and will never go back to that way again".

Removing history, even if it's on the wrong side of history, is wrong. Those who don't know history, tend to repeate it.

I'm not a pro confederate. I'm just against removing any type of history. If we remove monuments but have a mueseum dedicated to what happened and the causes and it teaches people than that's fine.

[The Batorys]

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.

The USA has tons of bases in other countries. And if any of those countries attacked the bases, we would consider that an act of war and retaliate. And international law supports this.

So even if one recognizes the CSA as an independent country, attacking Fort Sumter was still an act of war.

[Wallenburg]

I don't see what's legal about firing artillery on federal troops.

After exercising the right to secession, those became foreign troops refusing to leave sovereign soil

No, they became national troops refusing to leave their own soil. For fuck's sake, how many times do we need to explain the idea of federal land to you? Do you think the federal government doesn't own any land? Do you not understand that shelling troops for 34 hours is an act of war and, when committed against your own nation's troops, is an act of treason? Do you think it is perfectly fine to just attack federal troops because you want their military base? What kind of anarchist hellscape do you think we live in?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

History is history. We can't ignore slavery. We have to accept what happened. Learn from are mistakes. Repair the damaged caused by it. Remember what happened and realize we must never go back to that way. Removing confederate statues is removing history and thereby ignoring what happened. Teaching kids what happened in Textbooks isn't enough, there needs to be statues so parents can go up to it with their kids and say "Little Timmy. This statues is a statue of the confederate general Robert E. Lee. At the time, he fought for what he thought was right. Even though that's admirable, slavery is and will never be right. We have this statue here to remember him and what the south use to be. It's a reminder that we should and will never go back to that way again".

Removing history, even if it's on the wrong side of history, is wrong. Those who don't know history, tend to repeate it.

I'm not a pro confederate. I'm just against removing any type of history. If we remove monuments but have a mueseum dedicated to what happened and the causes and it teaches people than that's fine.

Actually, they are being translated to a museum. Right now they are being moved to private storage to decide where to move it without pressure.

[Wallenburg]

History is history. We can't ignore slavery. We have to accept what happened. Learn from are mistakes. Repair the damaged caused by it. Remember what happened and realize we must never go back to that way. Removing confederate statues is removing history and thereby ignoring what happened. Teaching kids what happened in Textbooks isn't enough, there needs to be statues so parents can go up to it with their kids and say "Little Timmy. This statues is a statue of the confederate general Robert E. Lee. At the time, he fought for what he thought was right. Even though that's admirable, slavery is and will never be right. We have this statue here to remember him and what the south use to be. It's a reminder that we should and will never go back to that way again".

Removing history, even if it's on the wrong side of history, is wrong. Those who don't know history, tend to repeate it.

I'm not a pro confederate. I'm just against removing any type of history. If we remove monuments but have a mueseum dedicated to what happened and the causes and it teaches people than that's fine.

And therefore, taking Nazi flags down from the Reichstag was a terrible thing, because it was destroying history. Clearly, German government buildings should fly the Nazi flag everywhere, so that people will never forget what horrible things happened, and won't repeat history's mistakes.

[Timsvill]

History is history. We can't ignore slavery. We have to accept what happened. Learn from are mistakes. Repair the damaged caused by it. Remember what happened and realize we must never go back to that way. Removing confederate statues is removing history and thereby ignoring what happened. Teaching kids what happened in Textbooks isn't enough, there needs to be statues so parents can go up to it with their kids and say "Little Timmy. This statues is a statue of the confederate general Robert E. Lee. At the time, he fought for what he thought was right. Even though that's admirable, slavery is and will never be right. We have this statue here to remember him and what the south use to be. It's a reminder that we should and will never go back to that way again".

Removing history, even if it's on the wrong side of history, is wrong. Those who don't know history, tend to repeate it.

I'm not a pro confederate. I'm just against removing any type of history. If we remove monuments but have a mueseum dedicated to what happened and the causes and it teaches people than that's fine.

Actually, they are being translated to a museum. Right now they are being moved to private storage to decide where to move it without pressure.

I just don't like the idea that after so many years the monuments and such are JUST being taken down now. In former soviet states, their monuments and such towards the soviets were taken down immeditaly. But that didn't happen in the south. Now after so many years, us people in the south are getting mad at the northerns because "You guys didn't have a problem before! What gives now?" That's my problem. Why now? Shouldn't the north or anyone spoken up sooner?

[Ifreann]

History is history. We can't ignore slavery. We have to accept what happened. Learn from are mistakes. Repair the damaged caused by it. Remember what happened and realize we must never go back to that way. Removing confederate statues is removing history and thereby ignoring what happened.
Teaching kids what happened in Textbooks isn't enough, there needs to be statues so parents can go up to it with their kids and say "Little Timmy. This statues is a statue of the confederate general Robert E. Lee. At the time, he fought for what he thought was right. Even though that's admirable, slavery is and will never be right. We have this statue here to remember him and what the south use to be. It's a reminder that we should and will never go back to that way again".

Have you ever seen a statue of Adolf Hitler? Not a picture of one, an actual statue. I'm gonna bet no.

Do you know who Hitler is? Do you know what he did?

Removing history, even if it's on the wrong side of history, is wrong. Those who don't know history, tend to repeate it.

I'm not a pro confederate. I'm just against removing any type of history. If we remove monuments but have a mueseum dedicated to what happened and the causes and it teaches people than that's fine.

These statues are being removed to a museum.

[Ifreann]

Actually, they are being translated to a museum. Right now they are being moved to private storage to decide where to move it without pressure.

I just don't like the idea that after so many years the monuments and such are JUST being taken down now. In former soviet states, their monuments and such towards the soviets were taken down immeditaly. But that didn't happen in the south. Now after so many years, us people in the south are getting mad at the northerns because "You guys didn't have a problem before! What gives now?" That's my problem. Why now? Shouldn't the north or anyone spoken up sooner?

This decision was made by the city council of New Orleans.

[Timsvill]

History is history. We can't ignore slavery. We have to accept what happened. Learn from are mistakes. Repair the damaged caused by it. Remember what happened and realize we must never go back to that way. Removing confederate statues is removing history and thereby ignoring what happened. Teaching kids what happened in Textbooks isn't enough, there needs to be statues so parents can go up to it with their kids and say "Little Timmy. This statues is a statue of the confederate general Robert E. Lee. At the time, he fought for what he thought was right. Even though that's admirable, slavery is and will never be right. We have this statue here to remember him and what the south use to be. It's a reminder that we should and will never go back to that way again".

Removing history, even if it's on the wrong side of history, is wrong. Those who don't know history, tend to repeate it.

I'm not a pro confederate. I'm just against removing any type of history. If we remove monuments but have a mueseum dedicated to what happened and the causes and it teaches people than that's fine.

And therefore, taking Nazi flags down from the Reichstag was a terrible thing, because it was destroying history. Clearly, German government buildings should fly the Nazi flag everywhere, so that people will never forget what horrible things happened, and won't repeat history's mistakes.

It's not a terrible thing to remove the nazi stuff! We have muesums, we have concentration camps that have been converted to muesums, if there's a Nazi flag somewhere there's a sign telling you why it's there. Why can't it be the same here in the south? A plantation open for visitors to see the living conditions, what it was like. More muesumes. Take the statues and flags down if you want too! Just have something in it's place to teach people outside of school.

[Timsvill]

History is history. We can't ignore slavery. We have to accept what happened. Learn from are mistakes. Repair the damaged caused by it. Remember what happened and realize we must never go back to that way. Removing confederate statues is removing history and thereby ignoring what happened.
Teaching kids what happened in Textbooks isn't enough, there needs to be statues so parents can go up to it with their kids and say "Little Timmy. This statues is a statue of the confederate general Robert E. Lee. At the time, he fought for what he thought was right. Even though that's admirable, slavery is and will never be right. We have this statue here to remember him and what the south use to be. It's a reminder that we should and will never go back to that way again".

Have you ever seen a statue of Adolf Hitler? Not a picture of one, an actual statue. I'm gonna bet no.

Do you know who Hitler is? Do you know what he did?

Removing history, even if it's on the wrong side of history, is wrong. Those who don't know history, tend to repeate it.

I'm not a pro confederate. I'm just against removing any type of history. If we remove monuments but have a mueseum dedicated to what happened and the causes and it teaches people than that's fine.

These statues are being removed to a museum.

OK! There going to a museum! Than I have no problem. If they were going to be destroyed then I was going to have a problem.

[Timsvill]

I just don't like the idea that after so many years the monuments and such are JUST being taken down now. In former soviet states, their monuments and such towards the soviets were taken down immeditaly. But that didn't happen in the south. Now after so many years, us people in the south are getting mad at the northerns because "You guys didn't have a problem before! What gives now?" That's my problem. Why now? Shouldn't the north or anyone spoken up sooner?

This decision was made by the city council of New Orleans.

Doesn't matter. Their appealing to the people who have just recently been shouting for the removal of the history in the south. Again, they can't destroy this stuff. If anything, they should be moved to a muesum. They need to do that if they will remove stuff.

[The Batorys]

While South Carolina may have asked for the return of Fort Sumter, it was not their property to try to take.

The US government maintains property (embassies and military bases) in many countries. Despite changes in local governments, these bases and embassies remain the property of the US government.

And for another example, take Gibraltar. This British territory despite being located (geographically) in Spain. Were Spain to suddenly start shooting at Gibraltar to try to take it (they very much would like to have it), it would be entirely legal under international law for the UK to retaliate.

Also, Fort Sumter is on an island. While that might not seem relevant, there are other such cases. Long Island is only sort-of off NY; most of Long Island is closer to Connecticut. And yet, it's part of the state of NY. Most of Vancouver Island lies quite close to the US State of Washington, but it is part of Canada. Puerto Rico sits further south than Cuba, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, the Bahamas, and most of Mexico. And yet, it is part of the USA. Greenland sits off the coast of Canada, between it and Iceland, but is part of Denmark. Hong Kong was owned by the UK for a century, despite very obviously being in China.

Latitude lines mean nothing as far as ownership of territory goes (unless directly specified by treaty). Fort Sumter being located physically in a southern area, off Charleston, is irrelevant as to its ownership.

[Cannot think of a name]

This decision was made by the city council of New Orleans.

Doesn't matter. Their appealing to the people who have just recently been shouting for the removal of the history in the south. Again, they can't destroy this stuff. If anything, they should be moved to a muesum. They need to do that if they will remove stuff.

Jesus jumped up Christ, taking down a monument to a lost cause fiction from reconstruction is not "removing history " and there several posts on this page stating that they're going to a museum. At this point being this behind on the subject has to be regarded as performance art.

[Ifreann]

Have you ever seen a statue of Adolf Hitler? Not a picture of one, an actual statue. I'm gonna bet no.

Do you know who Hitler is? Do you know what he did?


These statues are being removed to a museum.

OK! There going to a museum! Than I have no problem. If they were going to be destroyed then I was going to have a problem.

But do you know who Hitler is? Were you taught about him without being in the presence of a statue of him?

---

This decision was made by the city council of New Orleans.

Doesn't matter.

You're getting mad at northerners for something that southerners are doing.

Their appealing to the people who have just recently been shouting for the removal of the history in the south.

Their own constituents?

I'm starting to think that you just want to be outraged.

[Wallenburg]

And therefore, taking Nazi flags down from the Reichstag was a terrible thing, because it was destroying history. Clearly, German government buildings should fly the Nazi flag everywhere, so that people will never forget what horrible things happened, and won't repeat history's mistakes.

It's not a terrible thing to remove the nazi stuff! We have muesums, we have concentration camps that have been converted to muesums, if there's a Nazi flag somewhere there's a sign telling you why it's there. Why can't it be the same here in the south? A plantation open for visitors to see the living conditions, what it was like. More muesumes. Take the statues and flags down if you want too! Just have something in it's place to teach people outside of school.

That kind of stuff already exists all over the South, and nobody makes a fuss over it. You want to know why? Because unlike monuments like these, they don't celebrate slavery, racism, or treason.