New Orleans to remove historic statues and markers
- Thread starter J-Eagle
- Start date
Might be a while before it happens
http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/12/lawsuit_filed_to_halt_monument.html
http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/12/lawsuit_filed_to_halt_monument.html
Weird - I thought this was a Southern Miss message board?
Not liking part of history doesn't give you liberal schmucks the right to erase it.
Most of the time it's more a case of not knowing history and the liberals changing it to fit their agenda.
Yes, because all records of the Confederacy are being removed from textbooks, all documents removed from archives and museums to be burned in a pile.
The sad thing is that liberal idiots would do exactly that if they could get away with it. Look at the Yale incident the other day where 50 students signed a petition to abolish the 1st Amendment. These "safe space", PC liberals are utterly clueless.
It's the same shit from the liberal left reparation black community: treat me different when I want to be treated different (affirmative action), treat me the same when I want to be treated the same (color-blind, non-race biased college campus). White people, you be on notice and submit mf's.
What's next, you ask? The Fleur-de-lis! My daughter's boyfriend has a business in the CBD in NOLA. He said a business acquaintance received notice from City Hall that said in the future, be prepared to remove the fleur-de-lis symbol from business-related items. Apparently it is a racist symbol. It seems that runaway slaves were branded with that symbol on the forehead. I just can't see how this could happen. It is the symbol of New Orleans and the entire state. And the Saints?? PC gone amuck!
You can not erase history..whether it is good or bad in the eyes of the current be-holders. Removing these statues is a shame. Should we remove memorials for Vietnam heros because we lost that conflict???
Glad they took it down. Besides, When this message board become about politics, I thought biggoldnation was suppose to talk about sports. If I wanted to watch poltics , I would turn to Fox.
Fair point, but the version of Civil War history being taught in most high schools and college Civ courses is pretty awfully one-sided and routinely seeks to paint the southern US as negatively as possible while conveniently skipping over important contextual facts. And for the record, I'm a pretty open-minded person on these subjects. I just think it's dangerous to start trying to "tailor" history, and I think it's sad that we continue to just actively seek things to divide, rather than see how much has been done to unite.
You seem like more of an MSNBC type of guy.
.
The Vietnam veterans were not rebellious traitors to the United States, the Confederates were. I guess I will never understand glorifying such ....Black/Gold
Hard to understand something when you intentionally misrepresent it out of hate.
Fair point as well. But that cuts both ways. The "lost cause"/Gone with the Wind type narratives dominated mainstream Civil War and Reconstruction historiography for some time. It still permeates throughout classrooms, particularly in the South. And I feel comfortable assuming that is what many of the posters in this forum received growing up. That said, I essentially agree with your first point. History is complex and nuanced, which unfortunately does not often jive with popular education and even less so with pop culture. The reality is an ugly legacy of four centuries of brutal white supremacy that the entire country and the European colonizers before it must own. Often slavery, and racism generally, is depicted as a Southern problem rather than an American problem and that ignores reality and is counterproductive to the kind of reconciliation and healing I believe we can agree is needed.
As for your second point, I believe symbols DO matter. I also do not think removing statues or flags necessarily means a tailoring or erasure of history, though it could. I don't see how any legitimate harm comes from their removal and I suspect the outrage by some over it is about more than statues. But personally, I think these debates usually miss the forest for the branches. There already are divisions in our society. I don't think these statue and flag debates get at the root causes or help solve them.
I appreciate your comments. Interesting discussion, though most of the comments are awfully sad yet unintentionally hilarious in a way.
Traitors my Butt!
When the colonies came together to defeat the British in the Rev.War, they all knew it was a voluntary association which any of them (states) were free to separate from whenever they chose. They would Never have agreed to anything less than that! That was the constitutional argument that Jeff Davis and the rest of the leaders from the seceding states, I believe correctly, made.
President Lincoln however, suspended Habeas Corpus(Sp) and imprisoned roughly ~ 20,000 northerners (politicians too) who disagreed with him on his war policies.
So just who was acting illegally here?!?
Southerners fired at US troops in a federal fort, Fort Sumter. From that moment they were traitors to the United States of America.
The federal troops & the cdr (Anderson) had been appropriately ordered by the SC gov't to leave Ft Sumter. They refused and instead were in the process of building it up and threatening the city with its cannons (aimed at the city not at the Atlantic).
Grew up learning and believing that the Civil War was about slavery and the South was wrong and was racist. Was taught Lincoln freed the slaves. Over time I began to learn things which did not match with what I was taught, like the Emancipation Proclamation only freed the slaves in areas in rebellion, not in the north or occupied areas. Also learned that the north, including Lincoln was willing at first to let the south go. Then they figured out that they would not have the money to run the government if this happened (if came in from tariffs imposed on the south). So Lincoln changed his mind and said the south could go if it would just pay the tariffs. I kept learning things that did not fit with what I was told: there were many black slave owners (and not just those who owned their relatives), the northern soldiers hated to serve with blacks, the northern soldiers would rape the black women on the streets in front of women and children. And it went on and on. I finally realized that the whole country had a problem with racism then and we had been sold a story that simply wasn't true. The war was about money. Just like all the others have been. The north wanted it from the south to run the government and they wanted to force the south to sell their cotton to them at lower prices than Europe, then be forced to buy inferior goods back at higher prices. And yes, the south wanted to have slavery which was a big part of secession. But slavery was not part of the reason for the Civil War. The south did not want war, the north did, for the reasons above.
If anyone remembers Dr. Gonzales from the History Dept, you might also remember that he would say Lincoln didn't free the slaves, Grant did....he had a point....Black/Gold
He also believed Grant was the best General in the Civil War...anyone remember why he felt this way?
Bullshit. Below is the official state issued document on why Mississippi withdrew from the Union.
Confederate States of America - Mississippi Secession
A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.
In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.
That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.
The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the Constitution, and was manifested in the well-known Ordinance of 1787, in regard to the Northwestern Territory.
The feeling increased, until, in 1819-20, it deprived the South of more than half the vast territory acquired from France.
The same hostility dismembered Texas and seized upon all the territory acquired from Mexico.
It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction.
It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.
It tramples the original equality of the South under foot.
It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain.
It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst.
It has enlisted its press, its pulpit and its schools against us, until the whole popular mind of the North is excited and inflamed with prejudice.
It has made combinations and formed associations to carry out its schemes of emancipation in the States and wherever else slavery exists.
It seeks not to elevate or to support the slave, but to destroy his present condition without providing a better.
It has invaded a State, and invested with the honors of martyrdom the wretch whose purpose was to apply flames to our dwellings, and the weapons of destruction to our lives.
It has broken every compact into which it has entered for our security.
It has given indubitable evidence of its design to ruin our agriculture, to prostrate our industrial pursuits and to destroy our social system.
It knows no relenting or hesitation in its purposes; it stops not in its march of aggression, and leaves us no room to hope for cessation or for pause.
It has recently obtained control of the Government, by the prosecution of its unhallowed schemes, and destroyed the last expectation of living together in friendship and brotherhood.
Utter subjugation awaits us in the Union, if we should consent longer to remain in it. It is not a matter of choice, but of necessity. We must either submit to degradation, and to the loss of property worth four billions of money, or we must secede from the Union framed by our fathers, to secure this as well as every other species of property. For far less cause than this, our fathers separated from the Crown of England.
Our decision is made. We follow their footsteps. We embrace the alternative of separation; and for the reasons here stated, we resolve to maintain our rights with the full consciousness of the justice of our course, and the undoubting belief of our ability to maintain it.
You might want to reread what I wrote before you reply "bullshit." What you copied supports what I said. Mississippi left the Union because of slavery and states rights too. Slavery was a major, if not the major cause of the deep southern states leaving the union. However, they did not want war. The North wanted the money and was willing to let them go if they would pay. Read Lincoln's inauguration speech where he states that. Lincoln's words not mine. Succession in the deep south was caused by slavery, the war was caused by the North wanting money.
I'm not sure it is possible to "erase" history. It is possible to shape it. However, anything that glorifies the the Confederacy should be put into a vacant building somewhere and forgotten. The true history is that the Confederacy was a blight on the story of man and a disgrace for the people who caused it. Any attempt to express otherwise is an effort to erase history.
LOL
"Precisely because southern states began seceding from December 1860 onwards, a number of southern senators had resigned that could otherwise have voted against the tariff bill. Had they not resigned, they would have had enough votes in the Senate to successfully block the tariff’s congressional passage."
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
Southern Miss Baseball Has Narrow But Still Doable Path To The Postseason...- Latest: CoastGuardEagle