New Orleans To Remove Excremental Rebel Monuments

[TakeYouToTasker]

1 minute ago, billsfan89 said:

 

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

Because many of those groups don’t intentionally teach a warped revisionist history, in order to drive an agenda.

 

And I assume these groups are empowered to speak for all black people when they express these views, and that no blacks feel differently or have no opinion on the issue?

 

You don’t support “black people’s” choice.  I know this to be true because you just asserted them to be a monolith; and devalued the position of those blacks who would dissent.

 

What you support is the choice of black people who conform to your ideas about what black people should think, and to hell with the rest of them. 

[DC Tom]

12 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

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? 

 

I'm talking about contemporary letters from soldiers on both sides of the lines who were fighting for their respective states/countries.  Including no small number of Southern blacks who fought for the Confederacy, frequently in mixed-raced units (a book of whose letters I have next to me on my desk.)

 

And why do I give a ***** what Prager U says?  I've studied this myself, I don't need a half-assed online university to speak for me.

 

 

10 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

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

 

Thomas J. Jackson taught slaves to read, in order to emancipate them.  Should his statues be removed?

[billsfan89]

12 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

Because many of those groups don’t intentionally teach a warped revisionist history, in order to drive an agenda.

 

And I assume these groups are empowered to speak for all black people when they express these views, and that no blacks feel differently or have no opinion on the issue?

 

You don’t support “black people’s” choice.  I know this to be true because you just asserted them to be a monolith; and devalued the position of those blacks who would dissent.

 

What you support is the choice of black people who conform to your ideas about what black people should think, and to hell with the rest of them. 

 

I have no better way to gauge how local people feel about such statues other than listening to the communities leaders and groups as to how they feel about an issue. There is no issue that produces universal consent from any group and there is no group that is empowered to speak for everyone so please stop stating that though that is a thing. You are being disingenous to state that because there might be some black people that have a different view disproves the polling and community support that states most want the statues removed. Please stop being purposefully obtuse. I have also not devolved the opinions of others in those communities who disagree. It doesn't invalidate the idea that if most people in a community feel a way that it is fair to characterize that position as having the communities support. 

Edited December 27, 2019 by billsfan89

[billsfan89]

14 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

I'm talking about contemporary letters from soldiers on both sides of the lines who were fighting for their respective states/countries.  Including no small number of Southern blacks who fought for the Confederacy, frequently in mixed-raced units (a book of whose letters I have next to me on my desk.)

 

And why do I give a ***** what Prager U says?  I've studied this myself, I don't need a half-assed online university to speak for me.

 

 

 

Thomas J. Jackson taught slaves to read, in order to emancipate them.  Should his statues be removed?

 

Letter from soldiers are only one piece of evidence. I don't dismiss it but I also can find a lot of other evidence that states otherwise. Local Papers, wartime propaganda, articles of secession, quotes from leaders and representatives, and letter from soldiers that state otherwise. I only bring up Prager U because even a right wing organization supports the simple and historically true idea that the Civil War was about slavery. The guy in the video was also the leading professor of military history at West Point, so someone with a decent perspective. 

 

Even if the average Southern person who fought was ignorant to that reasoning most of these statues are to generals and other high up leaders of the confederacy. Those people most definitely knew. Also you guys keep ignoring two very obvious points. 

 

1- How do these statues preserve history by being public more than they would in being in a museum? 

2- Almost all of these statues were erected 50-80 years after the war ended and were erected as a counter symbol to the Civil Rights movement. In what world do those statues which were put up for that purpose serve as anything other than a negative symbol for black people and Americans? 

Edited December 27, 2019 by billsfan89

[DC Tom]

5 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

I have no better way to gauge how local people feel about such statues other than listening to the communities leaders and groups as to how they feel about an issue.

 

And there's your problem.  "Community leaders" frequently do not represent the community. 

 

The antebellum South, for example, was run by a landed aristocracy that was not representative of the community at large.  Likewise, the abolitionist North was limited largely to New England, and not representative of the Union at large, which is why four slave states remained in the Union, and why slavery wasn't abolished in 1863 with the Emancipation Proclamation but remained legal in the Union until the end of the war (and why captured slaves in the South remained slaves in Union hands.)

[billsfan89]

1 minute ago, DC Tom said:

 

And there's your problem.  "Community leaders" frequently do not represent the community. 

 

The antebellum South, for example, was run by a landed aristocracy that was not representative of the community at large.  Likewise, the abolitionist North was limited largely to New England, and not representative of the Union at large, which is why four slave states remained in the Union, and why slavery wasn't abolished in 1863 with the Emancipation Proclamation but remained legal in the Union until the end of the war (and why captured slaves in the South remained slaves in Union hands.)

 

I was referring to gauging how black people in those communities that have statues feel about the statues. The polling, voting and what community groups say about the issue I think is a fair way to judge what the general (not universal) consensus is on an issue within that community. 

 

Also please address these points.

1- How do these statues preserve history by being public more than they would in being in a museum? 

2- Almost all of these statues were erected 50-80 years after the war ended and were erected as a counter symbol to the Civil Rights movement. In what world do those statues which were put up for that purpose serve as anything other than a negative symbol for black people and Americans? 

[TakeYouToTasker]

Just now, billsfan89 said:

 

I was referring to gauging how black people in those communities that have statues feel about the statues. The polling, voting and what community groups say about the issue I think is a fair way to judge what the general (not universal) consensus is on an issue within that community. 

 

Also please address these points.

1- How do these statues preserve history by being public more than they would in being in a museum? 

2- Almost all of these statues were erected 50-80 years after the war ended and were erected as a counter symbol to the Civil Rights movement. In what world do those statues which were put up for that purpose serve as anything other than a negative symbol for black people and Americans? 

What percentage of the black community in those areas vote?  How about on the state and local level?

 

What percentage of Americans whom have reached the age of majority vote?

[billsfan89]

3 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

What percentage of the black community in those areas vote?  How about on the state and local level?

 

What percentage of Americans whom have reached the age of majority vote?

 

So please enlighten me as to how you would gauge how a community in general (not universally) feels about an issue? 

Edited December 28, 2019 by billsfan89

[DC Tom]

11 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

Letter from soldiers are only one piece of evidence. I don't dismiss it but I also can find a lot of other evidence that states otherwise. Local Papers, wartime propaganda, articles of secession, quotes from leaders and representatives, and letter from soldiers that state otherwise. I only bring up Prager U because even a right wing organization supports the simple and historically true idea that the Civil War was about slavery. The guy in the video was also the leading professor of military history at West Point, so someone with a decent perspective. 

 

Even if the average Southern person who fought was ignorant to that reasoning most of these statues are to generals and other high up leaders of the confederacy. Those people most definitely knew. Also you guys keep ignoring two very obvious points. 

 

1- How do these statues preserve history by being public more than they would in being in a museum? 

2- Almost all of these statues were erected 50-80 years after the war ended and were erected as a counter symbol to the Civil Rights movement. In what world do those statues which were put up for that purpose serve as anything other than a negative symbol for black people and Americans? 

 

Why'd it take 50 years to start building statues to George Washington, or 30-40 for most of the statues of Lincoln, or 50-80 years for the Gettysburg memorials to be set up?  Why is the timing of only Confederate statues significant, when statues to Confederate and Union figures were going up all over the country at the same time?

 

I mean, it took 135 years to put up a statue to Confederate general James Longstreet and Confederate soldiers of the 11th Mississippi at Gettysburg.  If the timing of statuary is definitive, why are Confederate memorials going up in US National parks during the Clinton administration?  

[Chef Jim]

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. 

Oh how progressive of you to be the one to determine what others should or shouldn’t see. 

[billsfan89]

4 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

Why'd it take 50 years to start building statues to George Washington, or 30-40 for most of the statues of Lincoln, or 50-80 years for the Gettysburg memorials to be set up?  Why is the timing of only Confederate statues significant, when statues to Confederate and Union figures were going up all over the country at the same time?

 

I mean, it took 135 years to put up a statue to Confederate general James Longstreet and Confederate soldiers of the 11th Mississippi at Gettysburg.  If the timing of statuary is definitive, why are Confederate memorials going up in US National parks during the Clinton administration?  

 

Because the argument they are to preserve history is undermined when the entire context is as a racial response to the civil rights movement. 

4 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

Oh how progressive of you to be the one to determine what others should or shouldn’t see. 

 

The local communities are the ones that want those statues removed. I am only supporting their decision. 

[row_33]

1 minute ago, billsfan89 said:

 

Because the argument they are to preserve history is undermined when the entire context is as a racial response to the civil rights movement. 

 

The local communities are the ones that want those statues removed. I am only supporting their decision. 

no it’s three people from out of town raising a fake protest 

 

[TakeYouToTasker]

46 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

So please enlighten me as to how you would gauge how a community in general (not universally) feels about an issue? 

I certainly wouldn’t appeal to false metrics stacked on top of a false choice dilemma which pretends at reflecting public sentiment, even though it’s actual participation rate is far less than 50%.

Edited December 28, 2019 by TakeYouToTasker

[snafu]

30 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

I was referring to gauging how black people in those communities that have statues feel about the statues. The polling, voting and what community groups say about the issue I think is a fair way to judge what the general (not universal) consensus is on an issue within that community. 

 

I haven’t done ANY research on what you’re discussing.  I have a question (and I’m not even sure it is relevant): what did black people in community groups say at the time the statues were erected — as opposed to today?

 

 

 

[Chef Jim]

20 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

The local communities are the ones that want those statues removed. I am only supporting their decision. 

What local communities and what it the racial makeup of those demanding their removal? 

[Deranged Rhino]

3 hours ago, billsfan89 said:

 

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.

This is historically false and revisionist. 
 

Slavery was intertwined with a host of other issues, but the majority of people fighting for the south did not own slaves, they never would own slaves. They also were not concerned about being “replaced” by freed black folk. There’s mountains of evidence to demonstrate this. 

Most Northerners were not fighting to end slavery, the abolitionist movement was quite controversial all the way through. It’s only in recent interpretations of history (pushed by dishonest historians w political agendas) which tries to frame the north as “fighting the good fight for all the right reasons while the south was fighting for all the wrong reasons.” 
 

The civil war was fought because the founders knew they could not address the issue of slavery in the revolution without tearing the whole alliance asunder. They delayed the inevitable to get past step one of the process: freeing themselves from the yolk of Britain. 
 

3 hours ago, billsfan89 said:

 

. The artifacts of the time tend to back up that statement as a general term.

 

This is false. You keep citing the words of the elite/establishment/monied South, not who actually fought and died in the war. 
 

Why would any poor southerner fight for an institution that kept them destitute and assured they would never have upward mobility? The answer is they wouldn’t. The majority of Southerners were not driven to defend slavery, but to defend the ideals under which they fought the revolution for in the 18th century. Freedom from a central power. 
 

I disagree with those who say slavery played no role — it did. But only in the sense that it spoke directly to states rights and the fears of the Southerners (non slave holders) who saw the push by the north in economic terms — a threat to their way of life (not slavery), their economic history, and the rights they fought and died for several generations prior. 
 

 

[DC Tom]

4 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

I disagree with those who say slavery played no role — it did. But only in the sense that it spoke directly to states rights and the fears of the Southerners (non slave holders) who saw the push by the north in economic terms — a threat to their way of life (not slavery), their economic history, and the rights they fought and died for several generations prior. 
 

 

 

Not just economic, but in terms of a violent social revolution.  The disagreement between abolitionists and large slaveholders was...not cordial (as Bleeding Kansas demonstrates), but certainly not apocalyptic, until John Brown was interviewed after Harper's Ferry, and northeastern abolitionists found his call for a violent revolution in the South resonated with them.  That, and the resulting Republican victory in the Presidency, terrified the South like nothing before.

 

To the Southern aristocracy, secession was a necessary defensive step, because they had every expectation they'd be killed in a race war, because they were explicitly told so by sources such as Harper's Weekly and the New York Tribune.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

I got into an argument one day with a guy who was screaming about the insensitivity of people refusing to support the removal of Civil War monuments, how important it was to remember our history,  and how tone deaf people could be about the sins of  our past. I was confused, I was only upset that he parked his Toyota Camry in the handicapped space in front of the World War II memorial.   

[Koko78]

3 hours ago, DC Tom said:

 

Not just economic, but in terms of a violent social revolution.  The disagreement between abolitionists and large slaveholders was...not cordial (as Bleeding Kansas demonstrates), but certainly not apocalyptic, until John Brown was interviewed after Harper's Ferry, and northeastern abolitionists found his call for a violent revolution in the South resonated with them.  That, and the resulting Republican victory in the Presidency, terrified the South like nothing before.

 

To the Southern aristocracy, secession was a necessary defensive step, because they had every expectation they'd be killed in a race war, because they were explicitly told so by sources such as Harper's Weekly and the New York Tribune.

 

Nice to see very little has changed with the Democrats.

[Rob's House]

8 hours ago, billsfan89 said:

 

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? 

 

I know it's hard for a simple distinction to break through the cognitive dissonance created over a lifetime of indoctrination, but secession is not a declaration of war.

 

If you want to argue that secession was over slavery, I would say that's a gross oversimplification, but for the sake of argument, let's just assume that's correct.

 

It does not follow that Confederate generals were fighting to preserve slavery. Robert E. Lee, for example, opposed slavery, and said he'd free every slave to avoid war if it were up to him. 

 

They fought an opposing force that invaded them on their territory. That's not my opinion. That's an incontrovertible fact.

 

Secession is not a declaration of war. 

 

By the logic one must follow to get to the conclusion you're suggesting, Brexit is a declaration of war against the EU.

Edited December 28, 2019 by Rob's House