REMOVAL OF CIVIL WAR MOMUMENTS IN NEW ORLEANS

FUCK that.

What's next, the founding fathers?

If anything needs removing from New Orleans, it's niggers, not statues.

>in New Orleans

appropriate....they were in the Civil War for all of 5 minutes. The city provided more troops for the Union than the Confederates.

>worshiping the traitorous losers who willingly seceded from the Union.

granted, I do think they should put the statues in museums, as an example to never go down the path of secession again.

Other than that, though, these people should not be admired or idolized. they are traitors to this nation. Lee especially. He served in the Union army for decades and when asked by the president to command the Union troops, he refused and sided with the Confederates. He should have been executed for his transgressions after the war.

But for anyone complaining about "m-muh historical significance" you can gain more knowledge and understanding about these confederate figures at your local library than by looking at some old statue in a park.

if its offensive remove it

it stops harmful movements in the long run

>Muh traitors
Hey, remember when the colonies betrayed Britain?

So long as the monuments are preserved in museums I think its fine not to have monuments that honor and commemorate the Confederate cause prominently displayed in the city squares.

I read the New Orleans mayor's speech about it and found myself agreeing with him. These aren't monuments to Confederate soldiers, they explicitly are monuments to the "lost cause" of white supremacy.

That was wrong too.

>These aren't monuments to Confederate soldiers, they explicitly are monuments to the "lost cause" of white supremacy.
Jesus fucking Christ.

>The city provided more troops for the Union than the Confederates.

that's not even remotely true. New Orleans was very pro-confederate and General Butler had a hard time controlling its population.

Is there anything more cancerous to civil war history than whining about this "lost cause" boogey man. The original Lost Cause argument was that the confederacy was doomed from the start because it didn't have the manpower to compete with the Union in a prolonged war, that's it. Now social "historians" try and weave some conspiracy bullshit around it.

It was popular to decorate and attempt to beautify cities during the progressive era. The north littered their cities with statues of union soldiers and generals and the south did the same with confederates. Not everything is some white supremacist conspiracy.

I'm from a former Confederate State and I believe they belong in a museum. This should have been done a long time ago IMO because doing it now just puts more fuel on the current racial tensions.

Read the sticky

The monuments in question literally say they are dedicated to "the lost cause of the Confederacy"

What was that cause exactly? Confederate VP Alexander Stephens characterized it thusly
>Our new government is founded upon exactly [this] idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.

Honor that? Never.

This point is completely moot when the founding father's had slaves and considered niggers to be 1/3 of a person.

muh modern buzzwords

Not my fave ones like Hamilton and Franklin.

>The monuments in question literally say they are dedicated to "the lost cause of the Confederacy"

source? Also like I said, the "lost cause" originally meant that the war was a lost cause i.e. almost impossible against superior odds. Not really "revisionist history". Even Mcpherson admits that the Confederacy didn't lose the war, the union won it. The CSA did about as best as they could, hence lost cause. None of this other shit historians attach to it.

>Honor that? Never.

Gee whiz, a 1800's politician believed in white supremacy. Stop the presses. It's funny the same damn quote from a historically insignificant speech gets regurgitated every time the Confederacy gets brought up. Stephens wasn't even supportive of secession and was hardly a ardent confederate.

Let's cherrypick what some other current presidents had to say on the matter.

>“I am not, nor even have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races—that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people…and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”
>Abraham Lincoln

>“a strong feeling of repugnance when I think of the negro (sic) being made our political equal and I would be glad if they could be colonized, sent to heaven, or got rid of in any decent way. . . “
>James Garfield

>“This is a country for white men, and by God, as long as I am President; it shall be a government for white men.”
>Andrew Johnson

>Franklin didn't have slaves

I have some bad news for you

If you have a point to make then make it, if not then leave.

Thats wrong, slaves were counted as 3/5 of a person for congressional districting, not 1/3. Freed blacks were counted as 1 person.

Are you implying that stephens' views were not representative of the wider CSA leadership?

>last night was 25 years ago
Damn time just flies by

Didnt you know, discussion of current events is & humanities

I'm implying that biased journalists, historians, and politicians specifically look for the most bombastic quote that would be purposefully offensive to modern ears in order to get a reaction. Yeah, obviously the CSA leadership supported white supremacy, but so would the vast majority of the north. Rhetoric like that wasn't uncommon in the north and just look at the quotes I provided to see that white supremacy was very much a national institution. Of course the same people would never print what Lincoln said on the matter. Just like they won't print that both Stephens and Davis were willing to sacrifice slavery in order to win Southern independence.

It genuinely isn't. And if you're seriously trying to claim that race-baiting Civil War threads are &humanities you really need to unfuck yourself.

>Just like they won't print that both Stephens and Davis were willing to sacrifice slavery in order to win Southern independence.
Show me that quote. Show me any quote where either of those people said anything close to abolishing slavery. What the hell is your problem.

Lol fuck em they lost.

But seriously, there's no reason why they should be on government property. They should be put on a museum.

>New Orleans
>Black majority city in one of largest black percentage state
You dixies just ask for trouble.
Seriously the ineptness of the population over there in not having damaged the monument already indicates that this monument represents a great obstacle to their collective consciousness that they need to overcome.

As a southerner, this is a prickly situation. It's much more nuanced than "muh slavery" or "muh heritage." Blacks don't want a statue glorifying someone who fought to keep them enslaved and a lot of whites don't want the culture of the south eroded more than it already is. And before you start spouting "lol what culture," the south absolutely does have a distinct culture that is extremely independence centered. A good compromise would probably be take the monuments down that glorify the cause and place them in museums. The ones that are there for remembrance of fallen soldiers, leave up. Things like Stone Mountain and the Stars and Bars should be left alone though. The former because it is a work of art carved into a fucking mountain and the second because the meaning behind the rebel flag has changed along with time. Most don't equate it to the civil war at all anymore and more towards the south as a whole.

It wouldn't have been black in the first place if southerners hadn't decided importing niggers was a good idea

I was wrong about Stephens, I thought He said something to that effect at Hampton Roads. However Davis (and Lee) were pretty strong advocates of freeing and arming slaves during the later half of the war. They finally convinced the CSA congress to pass it but the war was pretty much over at that point.

You only have one flag and that is the stars and stripes.

>there's no reason why they should be on government property.

I never got this argument. The southern states voted to secede and send their men to war, why would they memorialize them on state property? It's not like it's federal property or anything.

why wouldn't*

fuck

Two things that never make it into the history books: one) The war was not about slavery until Abraham Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation (which did not free a single slave)
Two) The Confederate States of America would have prevented communism's spread into Cuba and possibly served as a fast reaction force against the rise of facism.

hey 'member when the southern states agreed to a constitution and then willfully violated it by seceeding unlawfully? Remember how this is different than a union of states asking for a representation in government andbeing denied outright, giving them the natural right rebel? Notice how breaking from a foreign power across the ocean that won't represent you is different from breaking away from the domestic government you agreed to because things didn't go your way? If northern Ireland unlawfully broke away from England it would be a similar situation, but your comparison is a logical fallacy. We were justified just like every other colony was justified when their rights weren't respected. They are literally all independent now, obviously one of things has legitimacy and the other does not. Thing is, you have to be strong enough or being justified doesn't matter even if the south was, which is wasnt.

>The war was not about slavery until Abraham Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation

Literally every state which seceded stated that they were seceding primarily because of slavery, not to mention the CSA constitution was barely different from the USA constitution except that is strengthened slavery.

The only thing that can be said was that the Union was primarily concerned with preserving the Union instead of ending slavery.

>why don't the history books talk about this alternate history hypothetical
for all you know if the CSA survived it would have become the first communist state

nonsense, go back to Shreveport...some of the women were very rude to the soldiers and some spies tried to blow some stuff up.

New Olreans was liberated by the USN literally without a fight.

Louisiana provided 23 regiments of Union troops, most of them raised in and around New Orleans:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Louisiana_Union_Civil_War_units

>a lot of whites don't want the culture of the south eroded more than it already is. And before you start spouting "lol what culture," the south absolutely does have a distinct culture that is extremely independence centered.

true, but New Olreans has it's own distinct culture and history from the rest of the South. the Civil War was a smallish part of that history and had less impact on the city than conflicts like the Seven Years War and World War 2.

so it's probably ok to take the statutes down there...fucking weird they had a Lee statue to begin with.

Don't be a cunt, every state has their own flag. The south just has an extra one that identifies then as a subculture.

True, I was speaking more about the south as a whole, because this isn't isolated to New Orleans. They were trying to make a petition to destroy Stone Mountain recently, which I thought was fucking stupid.

This is not accurate. The war was about slavery in that the Southern states were defined by slavery, but so we're the border states of Delaware, Maryland, Missouri, and Kentucky. Slavery was also legal in Washington DC at the time as well. IT was constitutional, as well as recently reaffirmed in 1857 to be legal and constitutional. It was upheld as a right by Abraham Lincoln, as is corroborated by his decision to remove General John C. Frémont from his position for his active refusal to rescind a proclamation confiscating the property and freeing the slaves of active Confederate, during the Federal occupation of Missouri in 1861.

Abraham Lincoln affirmed this much in his first inaugural address (March 4, 1861) when he declared "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." This was Lincoln's constant policy, if you read further about him.

those were all black troops. The whites of Nola were staunchly confederate. Why are you even pretending they weren't?

yeah but they won
get over it

>Delaware, Maryland, Missouri, and Kentucky

they made the smart choice to not push their luck, the southern states should have done the same. They ceceeded because they believed their slaves would eventually be taken as soon as the nonslave states constituted 2/3rds of the population and could legally act in that way. The south ceceeded before that could happen. It was a preemptive move with slavery at its heart. Furthermore it was advertised as such, serving as propaganda regardless of the actual history of lincoln's policies, which everyone knows is fairly moderate and compromising. It's like when one politician says something like this: "my opponent will do all sorts of evil stuff as soon as he gets the chance, don't give him that chance!"

Just because there existed slave states that didn't seceed doesn't mean the states that did cedeed did not do so because of slavery. It merely means that those states weighed the options and decided the potential emancipation of slaves was a preferrable future to being traitors and potentially hanged as such.

They were only built by revisionists in the f Rat place, fuck em

As the son of Sikh immigrants I can't really bring myself to care about this too much but on the other hand I can't really help but perceive it as anything else other than another episode of "fuck whitey". Idk what to think.

This is also incorrect. It was not a view held by the Confederate government. The aim of Lincoln's administration in 1861 was NOT slavery, but forcible reunification of the Union. Indeed, Lincoln viewed the war as a domestic dispute to be resolved by force.

>blacks don't count
please stop Cletus
the population of New Orleans is mostly black or descended from whites who moved there after the civil war...the New Orleans accent even sounds Northern:
youtube.com/watch?v=5eYqOKL58Mw

so yeah they should take down the stupid statues.

Longstreet was right. We should've freed the slaves and then declared war on the North.

did I say that? New Orleans was mostly southern white until the 1980s. Sorry that none of your previous statements are true.