New Orleans To Remove Excremental Rebel Monuments

[3rdnlng]

Taking down statues is just part of the Left's insidious attempt to change history, just like they've been doing with the altering of history via new schoolbooks eliminating traditional history and pushing the Left's values. 

[row_33]

Just now, 3rdnlng said:

Taking down statues is just part of the Left's insidious attempt to change history, just like they've been doing with the altering of history via new schoolbooks eliminating traditional history and pushing the Left's values. 

always fun to run across another bright student getting conflicted about Lee not seen as a national traitor.

 

i smile and shrug and tell them it’s a good puzzle, how Lincoln wanted it

 

 

[billsfan89]

17 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

Taking down statues is just part of the Left's insidious attempt to change history, just like they've been doing with the altering of history via new schoolbooks eliminating traditional history and pushing the Left's values. 

 

What idea do statues in public spaces represent? That the Confederacy was not bad and something that should be glorified? The actual history (transcripts of speeches, propaganda, and articles of succeeding the union) show that the war was over preserving the states rights to slavery. The South years after the war are the ones who were pushing this "states rights" and "Tariffs" narrative trying to change history. The statues themselves weren't even put up until the early to mid 20th century as a response to civil rights movements. 

[TakeYouToTasker]

3 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

What idea do statues in public spaces represent? That the Confederacy was not bad and something that should be glorified? The actual history (transcripts of speeches, propaganda, and articles of succeeding the union) show that the war was over preserving the states rights to slavery. The South years after the war are the ones who were pushing this "states rights" and "Tariffs" narrative trying to change history. The statues themselves weren't even put up until the early to mid 20th century as a response to civil rights movements. 

Two points, the second built on top of the first:

 

1)  It is the peak of foolishness to attempt to understand history or to understand the motives of the men who lived it through the prism of modern morality and custom.

 

2). The Civil War was not fought over slavery.  It was fought over state’s rights, which at the time included slavery, but also most other things.  Slavery was the catalyst for some of the states, but for most is was the simple recognition that if the Federal government was willing to shatter the covenant over one issue, and to make war in it’s usurpation of power, that it would certainly be willing to do it again.  Men of that time held a deeper loyalty to their individual states than they did their nation; and generally viewed the Federal government with a deep distrust, and in many cases, outright contempt.

[billsfan89]

14 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

Two points, the second built on top of the first:

 

1)  It is the peak of foolishness to attempt to understand history or to understand the motives of the men who lived it through the prism of modern morality and custom.

 

2). The Civil War was not fought over slavery.  It was fought over state’s rights, which at the time included slavery, but also most other things.  Slavery was the catalyst for some of the states, but for most is was the simple recognition that if the Federal government was willing to shatter the covenant over one issue, and to make war in it’s usurpation of power, that it would certainly be willing to do it again.  Men of that time held a deeper loyalty to their individual states than they did their nation; and generally viewed the Federal government with a deep distrust, and in many cases, outright contempt.

 

The Civil War was fought over slavery. That was the prominent states right that they fought over. There is no arguing this as the evidence only points to that. Any attempt to say otherwise is whitewashing history and buying into a post war Southern narrative to paint their own history in a better light. 

 

The evidence of slavery being at the forefront of the war are in the Propaganda used to get the public for the war, the articles of secession published by the state governments themselves, the speeches transcribed from the time, the diaries of those who were alive at the time and the political maneuvers of the Southern senators and states from the time that are on record. This isn't guessing what lies in the hearts of man. This is historic fact brought on by the artifacts that have been verified from the time. I don't need to put myself in at the time to read these pieces of evidence and make a very sensible conclusion. The apartheid state that existed for black people for 100 years after the war is also further evidence. Hell the fact that the statues were erected 50-80 years after the war in response to civil rights movements is further evidence the Confederacy was built off of the idea of states rights to slavery. 

 

Once again do you feel that the Confederacy is something that should be celebrated with statues in public spaces? 

Edited December 27, 2019 by billsfan89

[DC Tom]

1 hour ago, billsfan89 said:

 

Would you blame Germany for tearing down statues of Nazi generals and placing them in museums? The Confederacy is literally a rebellion against the USA, why should they be memorialized? The analogue that removing statues from public spaces is akin to not teaching history makes no sense. 

 

There were no statues of Nazi generals.  

 

There are statues of Frederick the Great, von Moltke, and even Ludendorf (I believe).  The Germans don't tear them down, giving the explicit reason of them being part of their history, and they don't wish to divorce themselves from and hide the negative aspects of their history.

 

But nice try.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Just now, billsfan89 said:

 

The Civil War was fought over slavery. That was the prominent states right that they fought over. There is no arguing this as the evidence only points to that. Any attempt to say otherwise is whitewashing history and buying into a post war Southern narrative to paint their own history in a better light. 

 

The evidence of slavery being at the forefront of the war are in the Propaganda used to get the public for the war, the articles of secession published by the state governments themselves, the speeches transcribed from the time, the diaries of those  and the political maneuvers of the Southern senators and states from the time that are on record. This isn't guessing what lies in the hearts of man. This is historic fact brought on by the artifacts that have been verified from the time. 

 

Once again do you feel that the Confederacy is something that should be celebrated with statues in public spaces? 

You repeating the “slavery” trope doesn’t improve it as an argument.  It’s highly revisionist, and highlights my prior point that it is the peak of foolishness to attempt to characterize the motives of the men who lived through those times and events through a modern understanding of the relationship between the Federal government and the states.
 

The States themselves overwhelmingly believed that the right of secession was held exclusively by the states, and was part of the Constitutions of some.  When the Federal government asserted otherwise, it broke the covenant.  
 

It is unfathomable to me that someone would assert that the foundational understanding of the proper role and limits of government, when those limits were being violently tested, would have no bearing on men who viewed their states as their country, and whose fathers and grandfathers had fought to obtain such an arrangement.

 

 

[DC Tom]

8 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

You repeating the “slavery” trope doesn’t improve it as an argument.  It’s highly revisionist, and highlights my prior point that it is the peak of foolishness to attempt to characterize the motives of the men who lived through those times and events through a modern understanding of the relationship between the Federal government and the states.
 

The States themselves overwhelmingly believed that the right of secession was held exclusively by the states, and was part of the Constitutions of some.  When the Federal government asserted otherwise, it broke the covenant.  
 

It is unfathomable to me that someone would assert that the foundational understanding of the proper role and limits of government, when those limits were being violently tested, would have no bearing on men who viewed their states as their country, and whose fathers and grandfathers had fought to obtain such an arrangement.

 

 

 

You can relatively easily read contemporary letters that demonstrate most people were not fighting for or against slavery.  Or look at the summaries of the debates, particularly in border states (Virginia, Missouri, Maryland, Kentucky, etc.)  Hell, the Union Army nearly mutinied after the Emancipation Proclamation, because they were fighting to preserve the Union and were aghast at the idea that they might be fighting for black slaves (again, borne out in contemporary letters).  

 

It's interesting to note, too, that those contemporary letters show that the Confederate Army was less segregated than the Union Army.

[Deranged Rhino]

43 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

The Civil War was fought over slavery.

It’s interwoven — without question, but the vast majority of people did NOT fight for this cause, pro or con. 
 

Slavery existed since the beginning of time, it wasn’t invented in the USA, it wasn’t destroyed in the aftermath of the civil war. A specific form

of it was, chattel slavery, but not the institution itself. 

[Nanker]

Not our country's finest era. But to whitewash it and to boldly and slovenly label the South evil is to do an injustice to the tapestry of our nation's fabric. 

[billsfan89]

20 minutes ago, Nanker said:

Not our country's finest era. But to whitewash it and to boldly and slovenly label the South evil is to do an injustice to the tapestry of our nation's fabric. 

 

American Black people in the South shouldn't see statues glorifying the Confederacy figures who fought to keep their ancestors enslaved. This idea that taking statues out of public spaces whitewashes history ignore the fact that statues have little value in teaching history. It also ignores the actual history of why the statues were put up (as a response to the civil rights movement.) Whitewashing the Confederacy is a far greater travesty. 

23 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

It’s interwoven — without question, but the vast majority of people did NOT fight for this cause, pro or con. 
 

Slavery existed since the beginning of time, it wasn’t invented in the USA, it wasn’t destroyed in the aftermath of the civil war. A specific form

of it was, chattel slavery, but not the institution itself. 

 

No one should blame the USA and the American South as uniquely evil for slavery. That is silly and anyone doing that is wrong. The vast majority of recruiting was done under the opuses of race and slavery however. This idea that your average Southern was going to care about the federal government (an entity an average Southern person and zero contact with) or tariffs is out of touch with reality. But your average poor Southern was going to care about their place in society compared to blacks. That is why all the articles of secession mention slavery as the main cause. The main issue dividing the South was their right to slavery. I also ask once again if the Confederacy was not about slavery or race why were these statues put up 50-80 years after the war and in response to the civil rights movement? 

Edited December 27, 2019 by billsfan89

[billsfan89]

41 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

You can relatively easily read contemporary letters that demonstrate most people were not fighting for or against slavery.  Or look at the summaries of the debates, particularly in border states (Virginia, Missouri, Maryland, Kentucky, etc.)  Hell, the Union Army nearly mutinied after the Emancipation Proclamation, because they were fighting to preserve the Union and were aghast at the idea that they might be fighting for black slaves (again, borne out in contemporary letters).  

 

It's interesting to note, too, that those contemporary letters show that the Confederate Army was less segregated than the Union Army.

 

All the Articles of Secession mention slavery as the driving issue. Also if the Confederacy is just a symbol of Southern pride (or whatever) why were these statues put up 50-80 years after the war in direct response to the growing Civil Rights movement? 

[Deranged Rhino]

8 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

No one should blame the USA and the American South as uniquely evil for slavery. That is silly and anyone doing that is wrong.

And yet, that’s the driving intellectual force right now. I give you the 1619 project. 
 

9 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

. This idea that your average Southern was going to care about the federal government (an entity an average Southern person and zero contact with) or tariffs is out of touch with reality. 

This just shows how off you are on your history. The average southerner did not own slaves. They could not afford it. Fighting to preserve a system that they themselves could not participate in is out of touch with reality. 

[billsfan89]

2 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

This just shows how off you are on your history. The average southerner did not own slaves. They could not afford it. Fighting to preserve a system that they themselves could not participate in is out of touch with reality. 

 

Southern's weren't fighting for their right to keep slaves but against the idea that blacks were equal to whites. You aren't getting average people to fight for "states rights" you can however get them to fight against the rights of people they feel are lower to them. To Whitewash the Civil War and slavery as anything else does a massive disservice to history. Even the history of why the statues were put up is racist. Did people forget the Civil Wars history for the 50-80 years after the war when the statues weren't up? 

[Deranged Rhino]

3 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

Southern's weren't fighting for their right to keep slaves but against the idea that blacks were equal to whites. You aren't getting average people to fight for "states rights" you can however get them to fight against the rights of people they feel are lower to them. 

The history disagrees with this statement. In the form of letters, correspondence, debates, and speeches of the time. 
 

This is an area of history I’ve studied extensively, it was my focus in undergrad (chattel slavery in the americas). I’m telling you that you’re grossly

misinterpreting the reality of their day. 
 

4 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

. To Whitewash the Civil War and slavery as anything else does a massive disservice to history. 
 

No one is whitewashing history but those trying to be revisionist and examine it with a modern lens. That’s not how it works. 

[billsfan89]

5 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

The history disagrees with this statement. In the form of letters, correspondence, debates, and speeches of the time. 
 

This is an area of history I’ve studied extensively, it was my focus in undergrad (chattel slavery in the americas). I’m telling you that you’re grossly

misinterpreting the reality of their day. 
 

No one is whitewashing history but those trying to be revisionist and examine it with a modern lens. That’s not how it works. 

 

I will go break it down in a much simpler manner as I think we are getting lost in the weeds. I understand that wars and large scale political events have many layers. But the entire underpinning and central issue of the war was slavery and race. The artifacts of the time tend to back up that statement as a general term. But putting a pin that for the moment as I don't think that it is even relevant as the statues were not put up to memorialize the war (thus undermining the argument they actually serve as any preservation of history.)

 

These statues were put up as a response to the Civil rights movement 50-80 years after the war ended. Do you think it is fair for local groups to call for the statues to be taken down? Do you understand why local groups feel as though these statues represent oppression of black people in the South? Why do you feel taking down these statues and putting them in museums means that history is lost? I would rather be much more sensitive to the people that are justifiably wanting to take down statues put up in response to the civil rights movement than keep them up for a rather arbitrary notion that taking down statues and putting them in museums erases history. 

 

I am honestly asking this question, what history do the statues preserve that they couldn't preserve in a museum? Why do they need to be in a public space? 

[DC Tom]

29 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

Southern's weren't fighting for their right to keep slaves but against the idea that blacks were equal to whites. You aren't getting average people to fight for "states rights" you can however get them to fight against the rights of people they feel are lower to them. To Whitewash the Civil War and slavery as anything else does a massive disservice to history. Even the history of why the statues were put up is racist. Did people forget the Civil Wars history for the 50-80 years after the war when the statues weren't up? 

 

Again, contemporary correspondence says otherwise.  

[billsfan89]

4 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

Again, contemporary correspondence says otherwise.  

 

It doesn't? Articles of Secession state other wise. Quotes from generals and leadership say otherwise. What is this evidence? 20 years after the war when Southerns looked to Whitewash what the war was about? 

 

"Alexander Stephens, vice president of the Confederacy, said the Southern states would fight to keep “the *****” in “his place” in a hard-to-misread statement on the day the Civil War began." 

 

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/civil-war-slavery_n_7639988

 

Mississippi explained, "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery — the greatest material interest of the world … a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization." 

 

Texas Stated "We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable."

 

South Carolina actually comes out against the rights of states to make their own laws — at least when those laws conflict with slaveholding. "In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals," the document reads. The right of transit, Loewen said, was the right of slaveholders to bring their slaves along with them on trips to non-slaveholding states.
 

https://www.livescience.com/13673-civil-war-anniversary-myths.html

 

Even Prager ***** U says that Slavery was the central issue. 

 

https://www.prageru.com/video/was-the-civil-war-about-slavery/

 

So I ask what the ***** are you talking about? 

[Koko78]

1 hour ago, billsfan89 said:

American Black people in the South shouldn't see statues glorifying the Confederacy figures who fought to keep their ancestors enslaved.

 

Who the ***** are you to decide that for them?

[billsfan89]

Just now, Koko78 said:

 

Who the ***** are you to decide that for them?

 

Local African American Groups are the ones that want the statues removed. I am not deciding for them I am supporting their choice.